Luke 5

CHAPTER V

Luke 5:1

1 The view that Luke 5:1–11 merely retells Matt. 4:18–22 and Mark 1:16–20 and only embellishes the story by an unhistorical miracle is answered by the simple observation that Luke relates one occurrence and Matthew and Mark another and plainly an earlier one. To say that Luke is describing in his own way what Matthew and Mark describe in theirs (R., W. P.) ignores the decisive differences. Where is the multitude pressing upon Jesus in Matthew and in Mark? It is absent, Jesus is walking alone. In Luke the men are out of the boats, washing their nets; in Matthew and in Mark they are in their boats, two men hard at it fishing with a throwing net and two sitting mending their nets.

In Luke’s account Jesus preaches from one of the boats, in Matthew’s and in Mark’s there is not even an audience to preach to. And so the accounts diverge in the widest way. The claim that the disciples could not twice forsake everything fails to state why this could not be done.

The events differ even in their content and their purpose. In Matthew and in Mark the four disciples receive a formal call to enter the preparation for being made fishers of men; in Luke, where Simon is the person dealt with, he is treated as one who has already been called and is assured that he will, indeed, catch men with the success shown to him in the great catch of fish when he obeyed Jesus’ word. This is the purpose of the miracle: an ocular demonstration of the unseen power and success of the Word. This miracle was therefore repeated after Jesus’ resurrection (John 21:1–14), and the repetition cannot be understood in its import without this miracle which is recorded in Luke’s Gospel. It was one thing to call the four apostles, it was quite another thing to demonstrate to them the power of the gospel they were to handle as fishers of men. And this demonstration was so necessary in view of the Jewish and the pagan world they were to conquer that Jesus repeated it for them before he ascended to heaven.

Now it came to pass in that the multitude was pressing upon him and listening to the Word of God, he, too, was standing beside the Lake of Gennesaret. And he saw two boats standing beside the lake; but the fishermen, having stepped away from them, were engaged in washing the nets. Now having stepped into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he requested him to put out a little from the land. And having sat down, he continued teaching the multitudes from the boat.

Luke’s description is so graphic that little comment is needed. On ἐγένετο plus a finite verb see 1:8; here, too, it marks an important event. On ἐντῷ with the infinitive see 1:8. This is a construction that is used often by Luke and is equal to “while.” The closely packed crowd was pressing on Jesus while he was speaking; they were all eager to hear. Καί means “also,” and the periphrastic imperfect means that Jesus had been standing for some time, like the multitude, beside the lake which is here called “Gennesaret” from an angle of land by that name that bordered on the lake. See the comment on Matt. 14:34 and Mark 6:53. Παρά with the accusative is used with static verbs in the Koine: “beside the lake” (also in v. 2), and the old explanation which calls it pregnant: “came and was thus standing beside the lake,” is out of date. The situation was not dignified at all, it was uncomfortable for Jesus and not conducive to good hearing.

Luke 5:2

2 A remedy was found. There were two vacant boats that had been hauled up on the shore and were thus “standing beside the lake.” The fishermen to whom they belonged had stepped out and were busy washing their nets, this being the force of the imperfect ἔπλυνον. As we learn presently, they had worked all night, vainly, and were now cleaning the nets, δίκτυα, the term for any kind of net (σαγήνη is a dragnet; ἀμφιβλήστηρον is a small net to be thrown on either side of the boat).

Luke 5:3

3 So Jesus stepped into the boat that belonged to Simon and requested him to put out a little from the land; ἐπανάγω is also used nautically. Using the boat as a pulpit, sitting as was the custom for preachers and teachers, Jesus proceeded with his teaching as the descriptive imperfect states.

Luke 5:4

4 But when he stopped speaking, he said to Simon, Put out into the deep and lower your nets for a catch! And answering, Simon said, Master, having labored through the whole night, we took not a thing; yet on thy utterance I will lower the nets.

A startling command indeed! What did Jesus know about fishing in contrast with an expert like Simon? It sounded like ignorance for this former carpenter to designate “the deep” as the place for making a catch of fish and like double ignorance to ask that this effort be made now, well on in the day, about noon. Jesus orders this while multitudes line the shore, many of whom were conversant with fishing, who certainly would give Peter the laugh for doing something that is so apparently irrational, really foolish, and contrary to all experience. All this must be fully appreciated in order to understand this order of Jesus. He intended it to be an order like that, and Peter’s face must have been a study when he heard it. Παύω has a complementary participle (R. 1121) as an essential part as predicate (R. 431), and the verbs “put out” and “lower” are the ones that are regularly used in connection with these acts when fishing.

Luke 5:5

5 Peter realizes what Jesus means. Not the deep but the places of moderate depth are the right ones for fishing; not the broad daylight but the nighttime is the best for fishing. And he is certainly susceptible to the opinion of the crowds on the shore. Luke never uses “Rabbi” but always the vocative ἐπιστάτα as the address to Jesus, “Master,” one standing over others. Peter has a word for the second of the indicated considerations: “having labored through the whole night, we took not a thing.” Jesus did not perhaps know that. Peter is not raising an objection as though he were refusing Jesus; he is uttering a misgiving, for he and his helpers worked in the best places of the lake at the best time and continued their labor many hours with absolute failure. Jesus was asking much of Peter, and by this word Peter shows how strongly he felt it.

Peter declares that he will obey. The emphasis is on the phrase, which is put forward for that reason: “on thy utterance” will I lower the nets, and ῥῆμα refers to the mere speaking of Jesus. He intends to say, “The fact that thou hast spoken commands my will.” That is exactly what Jesus wanted: Peter was to drop everything else and to throw himself absolutely on his Lord’s utterance alone. Yea, he was to go counter to all his own experience, science, wisdom, reason, or what not, including all that men might say and to hold to only one thing, his Lord’s word. It was a great test of genuine faith in whatever Jesus might say; on top of that it was to be an unforgettable experience for Peter to have absolute confidence in his Lord’s word in all his future apostolic work. And Peter’s experience is set down for us so that in us, too, layman and preacher, it may produce the same effect.

It is thus that faith overcomes the world, the faith that conquers by the Word and by nothing but the Word. The weakness of our believing and of our preaching lies in not taking Jesus altogether at his word.

Peter says “I will lower,” for the boat is his, and he is in command. Jesus uses the singular “put out” and then the plural “lower your nets.” So from the start Peter had his men with him in the boat, which was of good size, for it at times carried all the disciples and Jesus. We are not certain whether Andrew was there too, for he is not mentioned in the entire account. Note also the plural “nets.” These required several men to handle them.

Luke 5:6

6 And having done this, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes; moreover, their nets began to break. And they beckoned to their partners in the other boat in order that, having come, they lend a hand. And they came and filled both the boats so that they began to sink.

Here again the miracle is told in the simplest, most matter-of-fact way. They followed the word of Jesus and at once had their nets so full of fish that the nets started to tear (inchoative imperfect). How did all these fish come to that most unlikely place and at that altogether wrong time, and why were they so ready to enter Peter’s nets? Rationalism explains: Jesus, looking that way, saw the fish playing at a distance, and there was no miracle at all. The fact is that here and in the companion miracle recorded in John 21 Jesus exhibits his absolute power in the domain of ordinary nature.

In both miracles the ethical purpose is the supreme one. This was an ocular demonstration of the power of Jesus’ word. When Jesus sat in the boat teaching, the power of what he spoke was invisible. Who could see that the mountains of ignorance were removed, that the flinty hearts were made like butter by contrition, that the new, immortal spiritual life of faith was coming into existence, that the frightful, crushing guilt and sin were blown away as far as the east is from the west? Spiritual things are invisible, nobody’s eyes see that they are wrought. Therefore even preachers often think that their work is in vain.

And how could Peter and the apostles face Judaism and paganism with absolute assurance of victory when they had only the Word? Here was the visible answer: the nets full of fish caught at Jesus’ word, and at that word alone. So the net of the gospel would become filled to the top. These gospel fishermen would most assuredly succeed.

It is essential to note “on thy utterance” and “having done this.” Any deviation from the Lord’s utterance in word or in action is fatal to success. Improve on his Word, and you fail. Say that Jesus would today modify his utterance, and you are trying to justify your deviation from it. Nothing saves souls except the Word, and that Word unchanged in any way. The divine and saving power lies in that Word and in nothing else.

Luke 5:7

7 When the nets began to tear and there was danger of losing the fish, Peter and his men beckoned their partners in the other boat, who rushed to the rescue and filled both boats with fish so that they were near sinking because of the load. When the Lord gives he is never stingy. His generosity is overwhelming; think of Cana. But this load of fish symbolizes in advance the abounding success of the gospel, its all-sufficient power to catch men. Συλλαμβάνεσθαι = to take hold together with others, and the infinitive with τοῦ expresses purpose (see 1:74, 77). Result is expressed by ὥστε with the infinitive, and the present infinitive indicates something that is just beginning. The boats simply could not have held more fish. Thus, too, there is exemplified the fact that Peter cannot do the work alone, he must have many μέτοχοι and associates.

Luke 5:8

8 But when Simon Peter saw it he fell down at the knees of Jesus, saying, Go out from me because I am a sinful man, Lord! For astonishment enveloped him and all those with him at the catch of the fishes which they did take together, moreover likewise also James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were associates with Simon.

In the excitement of making and completing the tremendous catch Peter’s mind was taken up with the hurry and the work. Now that the fish are in the boats, and that Peter sees what the Lord’s word has done, a powerful reaction sets in. The fish filled the hold that was constructed for this purpose in every fishing boat, which left room for the men to work the boat and thus also a place for Jesus to sit. The fact that he was sitting is made plain by Peter’s falling down at his knees. This was an act of deepest humiliation and abasement coupled with worship. Peter realized the deity of Jesus in a way that wholly overcame him and made him feel his utter unworthiness and nothingness in Jesus’ presence.

Up to this point Luke has called him by his old name “Simon,” and he will do so in the remainder of the narrative; but when he is describing this act Luke calls him “Simon Peter” and adds the name that Jesus gave him to designate the rocklike faith that would mature in him. That faith was now showing its humble face in Peter.

It is trivial to say that Jesus could not go out from Peter while the boat was still well out on the lake. What Peter meant was that he was unworthy of the Lord’s presence in his boat, and that the Lord should leave him when the boat would presently land. Note the contrast which explains this action of Peter: Jesus the “Lord,” Peter an ἀνὴρἁμαρτωλός, an openly sinful man—how can the two remain together? The almighty and all-holy Lord must withdraw himself from the sinner. A moment ago Peter said ἐπιστάτα, “Master”; now that word is not enough by far, he now says Κύριε in the sense of divine Lord as the apostles and then the church regularly came to call Jesus. It is true, κύριος was used as a mere title of respect like our “mister” or “sir.” But that common use is shut out here by Peter’s action and by the contrast “sinful man.”

Other miracles had not impressed Peter so, not even the one that had been wrought on his mother-in-law in his own house (4:38, 39); but this was a miracle that was wrought for Peter directly in his own boat, in his own profession, of a kind so phenomenal that it brought home to Peter the realization that he had the heavenly Lord in his boat, he a wretched sinner who could not even fully trust his Lord’s command with the implied promise and Jesus, the omnipotent Lord. One reason why it is hard for us to understand the reaction of Peter is that we ourselves, in our own hearts and consciences, have perhaps never come to anything like Peter’s realization of our utter sinfulness. We are too liable to stand forth in the Temple like the Pharisee rather than far back, ashamed to look up, crushed in our bosom like the publican.

Luke 5:9

9 Peter’s action is explained (γάρ) by the θάμβος, “amazement” (4:36) that “held him around,” i.e., enveloped him. This does not mean that he spoke without knowing what he said like a man babbling, for that kind of speech would have been unworthy of preservation. His words showed how the miracle impressed Peter even as it did also the others.

Luke 5:10

10 This included James and John who, because they are now introduced for the first time, are called “Zebedee’s sons,” their father being still alive; and their relation to Peter is brought out, which shows how they came to be involved here: they were κοινωνοί, partners as in a firm with him, probably owning and operating the other boat. The μέτοχοι mentioned in v. 7 are the hired men.

And Jesus said to Simon, Stop being afraid! From now on men shalt thou be catching alive!

In the command to stop fearing this sinful man Peter receives his Lord’s absolution, for Jesus pronounces absolution in many ways. In negative commands the present imperative often means that an action already begun is to stop and not to continue, R. 851, etc. The periphrastic future is necessary to express linear and continuous future action; the tense is otherwise futuristic and prophetic, foretelling what Peter shall do, and not volitive, telling what he will will to do. A good deal is lost when ζωγρῶν is translated only “catch”; it means “to catch alive” in contrast to the catch of fish, all of which the catching killed. The figurative language thus interprets itself. The gospel never kills, yea, it saves from death, it makes and keeps truly alive.

What a blessed calling to catch men alive! And what a blessed condition to have been caught alive!

Luke 5:11

11 And having brought the boats down to the land, having left everything, they followed him.

Κατάγω is nautical, to bring down from the high sea. “Having left everything” (Matt. 19:17) means just what it says: the boats, the fish, their work, their families, their homes. The idea is not that Jesus, who gave them the fish, wanted these wasted. Did he not have the broken pieces taken up after feeding the 5, 000 and the 4, 000? The hired help and likely Zebedee himself were there to attend to the sale of the fish. Jesus left this gift for the families of the men who now followed him. Note that they followed of their own accord.

Jesus issues no call as he did in Matt. 4:21, etc., and in Mark 1:17. There the call drew them, here the promise. The account deals with Simon and yet ends with a plural which includes James and John though nothing is said about Andrew. The hired men were helpers and, like the multitude, were witnesses of the miracle and of what transpired. They were to believe, not to be apostles.

Luke 5:12

12 And it came to pass while he was in one of the cities, and lo, a man full of leprosy! Moreover, having seen Jesus, after falling on his face, he begged of him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst cleanse me! And having stretched out the hand, he touched him, saying, I will; be thou cleansed! And immediately the leprosy went away from him.

Peter felt his total unworthiness; the same humility is found in this leper. Luke follows this inner connection and is not concerned about the connection of time. But we can determine it nonetheless. In 7:1 Jesus goes down to Capernaum after having preached the Sermon on the Mount. In Matt. 8:2 this leper met Jesus while he was on his way from the mount. And Luke adds that it happened while Jesus was in one of the towns. So the incident occurred on the Sabbath after Jesus came from preaching the Sermon on the Mount and was passing through a town on his way to Capernaum. Luke omits mention of the crowds but shows his independent knowledge by adding the remark about the towns.

We have an instance of καὶἐγένετοκαί, the Hebraistic idiom which comes via the LXX, the second καί usually being left untranslated, and in the present case the verb that should follow is omitted. On ἐντῷ with the infinitive see 1:8. The exclamation “lo, a man full of leprosy” is dramatic—the idea that such a man should present himself to Jesus! It is Luke alone who remarks on the advanced stage of the disease. This indicates the physician’s mind which notes a point like that. Matthew and Mark tell of his coming to Jesus, Luke says only that he saw Jesus and fell on his face and then spoke his prayer; δέομαι is used to express any want. The remarkable thing is not only that he addresses Jesus as Κύριε as Peter did in v. 8 but that his request places his cleansing entirely into the will of Jesus.

As far as the prostration is concerned, this was rather common among Orientals, especially when they were asking a great boon; and “lord” was on the same plane and often meant only as much as our respectful “sir.” The leper’s petition, however, reveals that his falling on his face and his calling Jesus Κύριος means far more. It is less what he asks that reveals his attitude than the way in which he asks. He believes fully in the power of Jesus to heal even his advanced leprosy with a single statement: “thou canst cleanse me.” Leprosy is always spoken of as filth. Yet the man adds: “if thou dost will” (or “shalt will”). He is not voicing doubt in regard to the will of Jesus but his own humble submission to that will. He uses the condition of expectancy, ἐάν with the subjunctive, which shows his own hopefulness. Yet he leaves his healing to the will of Jesus, to determine whether in his superior counsel it be best to grant him healing.

The idea that in all his healings Jesus had touched the sufferers, and that he would, perhaps, not touch a leper whose touch defiled, is in no way indicated as being the explanation for the word “if thou wilt.” The man’s humble submission, his placing his own sad case completely into the hands of Jesus just as a true child of God must always place himself into God’s hands, mark his faith in Jesus as being of the highest type. And it is thus plain that a petition such as this can be addressed only to a divine helper, to one whose will is the very will of the all-loving and all-wise God.

This leper is willing, if Jesus so wills, to remain in his living death. Submissive faith can go no farther. This leper distinguishes divine temporal from divine spiritual and eternal gifts. He knows that he is asking only the former, which God’s wisdom and love may withhold from us and often does while gifts such as pardon, peace, spiritual consolation, and strength are always freely granted since it is without question God’s will that we have them. Who is able to say how this leper came to such a faith? But his case is one that shows clearly how the teaching of Jesus produced the most blessed effects.

See the Bible dictionaries on leprosy, also Trench, Miracles. The leper was accounted as one dead and was in that sense unclean. The more do we marvel at this leper’s boldness in making his way to the feet of Jesus publicly. Since leprosy was incurable in those days and in its advanced stages is still incurable in our day, we see why Luke chose this as one of the miracles to be placed in the forepart of his Gospel in keeping with the program of 4:18, 19.

Luke 5:13

13 Mark, who loves to note the emotions, notes the compassion with which Jesus acted. This feeling turns to action at once. Jesus does the very thing that was doubted without hesitation: he stretched out his hand and touched the leper; the middle of ἅπτω means “to take hold of” and hence “to touch,” it is followed by the genitive. Often, though by no means always, Jesus touched those whom he healed (4:40). This act and the omnipotent word accompanying it form a unit, both are expressions of Jesus’ will. The miracle is always wrought by the volition of his will.

The view that the touch was intended to strengthen the leper’s faith and the further view that his healing depended on his faith, are unwarranted. The miracles always depend on the will of Jesus alone. They all, of course, intend to help create and then to encourage faith as well in the witnesses as in the beneficiary. But in quite a number of cases no faith preceded the miracle. Did the centurion’s servant mentioned in Matt. 8:5, etc., believe? Did the possessed believe? Or Jairus’ daughter, or the widow’s son at Nain?

Two words, majestic and almighty, suffice for the leper: Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι, “I will, be thou cleansed!” This is the only case in which Jesus utters Θέλω, which reveals that his own will and power do the deed and not a power that has merely been delegated to him for a moment only. Others work miracles in the name and by the power of Jesus; Jesus, God’s Son, has this power in himself. His deity shines out through the veil of his flesh in all his miracles, John 1:14. Θέλω is properly the present tense, and καθαρίσθητι, the decisive aorist to express the one act of cleansing, is passive: “be cleansed,” because Jesus is the agent.

The leprosy disappeared instantly. One moment we see a prostrate form eaten up with leprosy, the next moment a form that is as healthy and sound as any man present. The brevity with which the astounding fact is recorded should be noted; throughout the Gospels the mighty miracles are recorded in this way. That is one of the plain evidences of inspiration. No ordinary writer of any age, if left to himself, would be satisfied to state just the fact and nothing more. God guided the minds and the hands of the Gospel writers.

The flesh that was eaten away, the finger and the toe joints that had dropped off, the raw sores that were spreading over the body were instantly restored and whole. All modern “healing” fades into nothing beside this omnipotent deed of Jesus. Luke, too, notes the immediateness of the healing and the completeness—the leprosy gone away.

Luke 5:14

14 And he charged him to tell no one; but, having gone, show thyself to the priest and bring the offering concerning thy cleansing as Moses directed, for witness for them.

Mark is again the one that brings out the sternness and the severity with which Jesus charged the healed leper. First tender compassion, then sharp demand. Why this charge? It cannot be for the reason that Jesus wanted the man to be silent in order that the miracle should not become known, which view overlooks Matthew who reports that crowds witnessed this miracle. It is unwarranted to say that Jesus did not want to be known as a worker of miracles—why did he then do so many? The moral condition of the man cannot be the reason why Jesus sealed his lips and even rushed him off (Mark).

This haste and this stern order have only one explanation: the news as to how this man got rid of his leprosy was not to reach the priests in Jerusalem until they had in all due legal form pronounced him clean of leprosy. The priest to whom the man presents himself is not to know this man’s story until afterward.

It is unwarranted to state that the leper might present himself for examination to a priest anywhere, in this case right at Nazareth where a number of priests are said to have resided at this time. The procedure as it is described in Lev. 14:1, etc., required that the examining priest receive the man’s offering, which required a week. What a priest at Nazareth might determine as to the man’s physical condition could not count with the priest who was officiating in the Temple at Jerusalem. Note the oratio variata which changes from the indirect, “to tell no one,” to the direct, “show thyself,” etc.

The priest referred to is the one who would be officiating at Jerusalem, and the first act on the part of the priest on the day the man presents himself consists of the physical examination plus the offering of two live birds, etc., and the ceremonies connected with them, Lev. 14:2–8. The second act follows on the seventh and the eighth days, the offering of two lambs, etc., or, in the case of poverty, one, plus the ceremonies mentioned in v. 9–32. The first act restored the leper to the people, the second to his religious prerogatives in the Temple worship. These were not, however, thankofferings; they were, first of all, symbolical of physical cleansing (the birds, etc.) and secondly, sacrificial for spiritual cleansing (the lambs, etc.) as a trespass and sin offering.

Jesus thus orders this man to carry out the ceremonial requirements in due form “just as Moses directed” and thus to have himself officially reinstated as being clean of leprosy. Jesus has not come to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17), and by his order to the leper whom he had healed he fulfills the law of Moses in the present case. This helps to explain the final phrase “for witness for them.” Αὐτοῖς is to be understood ad sensum, R. 683. It does not refer to the multitudes who witnessed the miracle, for Luke makes no mention of them. The antecedent cannot be drawn from μηδενί, for this means nobody at all. It is to be drawn from τῷἱερεῖ, “the priest,” who represents the class in the capital city that is hostile to Jesus.

To them Jesus sends this man as a living testimony. Jesus, who has been away from Jerusalem for a long time, sends them this man, who for eight days is to be a silent preacher to them, a living witness of his gracious will and power, and also of his reverence for the law of Moses while it is still in force. When they finally learn this man’s story after they themselves have officially pronounced him clean they will have a new testimony regarding the Messiah whom they reject, a testimony that is backed by their own finding.

Luke 5:15

15 But more the report concerning him kept spreading, and great crowds kept coming together to hear and to be healed from their ills. But he himself kept going quietly to lonely places and praying.

Luke says nothing about the man’s disobedience to Jesus, his making a great to-do everywhere about his healing. And, in fact, the man alone was not to blame for the λόγος or report about Jesus spreading more and more. In 4:43 Jesus still feels called to visit the various cities with the news of the kingdom, but he could now no longer openly enter a city (Mark) because, as Luke pictures it, great crowds kept gathering to hear his preaching as well as to have their sick healed. We thus see how great the excitement about Jesus had grown.

Luke 5:16

16 As far as Jesus himself (αὐτός) was concerned, two more imperfects (these periphrastic) describe what he kept doing (iterative). At every opportunity he would slip quietly and secretly (ὑπό in the participle) away from these crowds and would be praying. We catch a glimpse of the soul life of Jesus, his frequent communing with God in lonely places while men were clamoring for him. Nothing carried him away; popular favor and demand did not excite him; he prayed many a prayer for the souls of these crowds and for their entrance into the kingdom (4:43).

Luke 5:17

17 And it came to pass in one of the days that he was engaged in teaching; and there were sitting Pharisees and law teachers who had come out of every village of Galilee and of Judea and of Jerusalem; and the Lord’s power was there for him to be healing.

Here again Luke is indefinite. He mentions no place and specifies the time only as “in one of the days,” i.e., of Jesus’ labors and journeyings. Jesus is at Capernaum in his own home after returning by boat from Gadaritis where he was asked to leave (Matt. 9:1). Luke’s idea in placing this narrative here is to tell of another meek and humble person who received both bodily and spiritual help from Jesus. As he was sitting in his own house Jesus was engaged in teaching; the periphrastic imperfect at once describes and indicates that he was busy for some time. A second periphrastic imperfect carries the description forward and describes the peculiar audience that was sitting and listening to Jesus.

The Pharisees were the Jewish sect or party which laid utmost stress on the strictest outward observance of the law, which included the rabbinical traditions and regulations that professed to build a formidable protecting hedge about the law. They were utterly self-righteous and cultivated a hollow formalism that was ostentatious to a degree, especially in observing ceremonies, fastings, almsgiving, long prayers, tithes, etc. Jesus exposes them as being arrant hypocrites. The scribes, who are here called “law teachers,” were the professional students of the law (Old Testament) and were admitted to the fraternity after due examination. They were the experts and authorities in the exposition of the law, and the most prominent of their number were members of the Sanhedrin (Matt. 2:3). Most of the scribes were also Pharisees, but the bulk of the latter were not scribes; note how they are distinguished in v. 21.

The remarkable fact is that these were not local men but, as Luke states it in the popular way, “from every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem.” He names “Jerusalem” only as a city from which some of these men came and not as a territory that had villages. In 4:43 Jesus himself goes to the cities, in 5:15 the crowds pursue Jesus and he seeks to find time away from them, but we see here that even the authoritative population throughout all Palestine, including the central seat of the nation, was thoroughly aroused by the activity of Jesus; and as by a concerted movement many of these important men had travelled to Capernaum where they knew that Jesus had his home, and where they were sure to encounter him. Their hostile attitude is apparent from the start, and Luke presents his first narrative that exhibits this hostility. These men listen with only critical ears and watch with only critical eyes and are ready to take up anything they deem contrary to the law and to make a formal charge of it.

A third descriptive imperfect completes the picture: “and the Lord’s power was there for him to be healing.” The unarticulated Κύριος, as the first chapters in Luke show, denotes Yahweh, and this genitive is enough to make δύναμις decidedly definite as there is only one “Lord’s power” or omnipotence. In εἰςτό with the infinitive we have result (not purpose), which looks to the remarkable healing that is now to be described; for this meaning see R. 1090 and still better B.-D. 402, 2. The reading is αὐτόν, which is simply the subject of the infinitive (R. 490, etc., calls it the accusative of general reference) in what is commonly called the accusative with the infinitive construction. Αὐτόν refers to Jesus: “for him to be healing,” present tense, descriptive like all the imperfects in this verse and pertinent to the one healing that follows. Though the house was filled to such an extent by unbelievers, the power of Jehovah, in which Jesus wrought to heal and thus to help men, was ready to manifest itself miraculously to the confounding of these hostile men. A most notable occasion now presented itself.

Luke 5:18

18 And lo, men bearing on a bed a man who had been paralyzed, and they were seeking to bear him in and to place him before him. And not having found in what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, having gone upon the housetop, through the tiles they let down him with his little bed into the midst in front of Jesus.

Luke gives evidence of his independent information and tells the story in his own independent way. He exclaims because these men (Mænner) carry a man (Mensch) who had been paralyzed—the exclamation is justified in view of what follows. Some refer to Hippocrates, Galen, and other medical ancients to prove that when he writes “had been paralyzed” Luke uses the technical term for this ailment whereas Mark who writes “paralytic” is said to use the vernacular term; but we doubt the validity of this distinction—what noun would Galen, etc., have used? Mark’s, of course. The imperfect ἐζήτουν describes the fruitless effort and hints at the further outcome.

Luke 5:19

19 Mark tells us that there were four men, and that they found no way to bring the sick man into the house because of the multitude. Since he was paralyzed, one side of the man’s body was helpless so that he could not walk, and in order to get him to Jesus he had to be carried to him on his bed, which required sufficient room to do this. The fact that a crowd filled the place is mentioned to explain why the men could not get their burden into the house. Ποίας (feminine because of ὁδοῦ) is the genitive of place (B.-D. 186, 1) and is completely stereotyped; and εἰσενέγκωσιν is the deliberative subjunctive (R. 1044). Not discouraged, these men carry their awkward burden onto the δῶμα, the housetop, and let the man on his bed through the tiles into the very midst of the crowd and in front of Jesus. In v. 18 κλίνη means “bed” on which one reclines; but κλινίδιον is the diminutive, “little bed,” which explains its size as being one that made it possible to let it down. In Palestine the houses are built of stone with a flat roof, on which in many cases the so-called upper room was built; a stairway usually leads up to it from the outside. The men were able to find out just where Jesus was standing and so made their opening in the roof at the proper place.

Because we know so little about those old houses, the critics declare the whole thing impossible or, admitting its actuality, think of it in a strange way. Mark has received the account from Peter who was present, Matthew and Luke had received it from other eyewitnesses. The entire proceeding is so unique in every way that any invention of the facts and even any embellishment of lesser facts are certainly excluded. Philosophizings that the thing could not be done are unrewarding effort; and objections that something would fall down on the heads of those below are untenable because nothing did fall down. Luke speaks of “the tiles” that covered the roof, and Mark says that the men uncovered the roof and dug it up. If we could tell just how that roof was constructed, in particular how the tiles were supported and laid, we should have no difficulty whatever.

The impression is made that the roof received no damage, the tiles being easy to replace. But the use of a ladder on the outside, up which the paralytic was carried, is based on insufficient evidence. The idea of a lid that covered an opening in the roof is shut out by the fact that Luke refers to tiles.

Luke 5:20

20 Success has crowned persistence and inventiveness. And when Jesus saw their faith he said, Man, dismissed for thee have been thy sins!

The faith that Jesus saw was certainly visible enough. It was more than the ordinary faith which sought help of Jesus: it was faith strong, persistent, inventive enough to discover the most unusual way of placing the sick man before Jesus. Why “their” faith should exclude faith on the part of the paralytic, as some assert, is hard to see. Surely, his friends did not bring him against his will, and he must have consented to the risky business of being lowered through the roof. It is true, Jesus healed some who had no faith at the moment of their healing and waited for faith to follow the healing. But it is surprising to find the commentators denying this man faith and yet letting Jesus remit his sins.

Where in all the Scriptures is remission ever obtained without faith? Moreover, so many commentators have the view that faith must always precede healing. But in this instance they silently contradict themselves—this man they claim had no faith, only his four carriers had it—and yet we see that he was healed. Instead of ruling out the faith of the paralytic, we must place his faith ahead of that of his friends. They may have had faith only in the power of Jesus to heal miraculously because they had seen him do this. But this paralytic felt that he suffered from a greater ailment than paralysis; he came to Jesus with the burden of his sins.

Not a word is uttered by either the paralytic or his friends. All the hearers were certainly dumb with astonishment. But more eloquent than words is the prostrate form that is lowered to the feet of Jesus through the ceiling, which interrupts his teaching in the packed house. As a true καρδιογνώστης Jesus sees all that is involved in this sufferer’s case and also all that it will mean for the present assembly and for all future time. First the soul, then the body. Jesus first absolves this sufferer’s soul.

Men saw the bodily affliction, Jesus saw the guilt and the repentance in the man’s heart. According to Matthew, Jesus prefaced the absolution with the word “cheer up.” He took away gloom and placed high and happy expectation in its stead. The Aramaic form of address that Jesus used is variously translated by the synoptists: “child,” “son,” or just “man” (Mensch) by Luke. Luke apparently lays no special stress on the term, hence he translates it by so general a term.

And now the mighty word of release: “Dismissed for thee are thy sins!” This is the Doric yet very common passive perfect ἀφέωνται (R. 315) with its strong present connotation: “have been and now stand dismissed.” This is the ἄφεσις, “dismissal” or “remission” that is fully explained in 1:77, which see. Only God is able to send our sins away from us so that we are forever rid of them and even he cannot find them. The view that the agent back of this passive verb is God to the exclusion of Jesus is manifestly wrong. The entire narrative that follows rests on the fact that Jesus forgives the paralytic’s sins. The healing that follows furnishes the clearest evidence for the deity of Jesus: as God he forgives sins and proves it by this miracle.

The conclusion is rather hasty that this man’s ailment was the direct result of his sinful life. Great harm can be done to paralytics and others by drawing such a conclusion in so general a way. Paralysis is also very common among people who live the most careful Christian lives. In John 5:14 we have a case of sin and sickness interlocked, but we are told so; in John 9:3 the case is entirely different. As regards this paralytic we are to assume only that his paralysis brought all his ordinary sinfulness to mind just as every sickness and misfortune tell us that we are, indeed, nothing but miserable sinners. To assume more in this case would require a plain intimation in the text. The Christian rule of charity holds good also in exegesis, namely that we should not make any man out worse than we can help.

Luke 5:21

21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying: Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemies? Who can dismiss sins except God alone?

For the first time Luke shows us the strong opposition that had arisen against Jesus. In John’s Gospel it is traced from its beginning; we see it here when it is already fully developed. Luke names two classes by using two articles; these “scribes” objected as scribes (law teachers, v. 17), as expertly knowing what blasphemy was from their study of the law; and these Pharisees, some of whom were also scribes, men who were exceedingly scrupulous about the observance of the law and horrified at such a flagrant and rank transgression of it as being blasphemy. But they are cowards and keep silence instead of jumping up and rending their garments, tearing their tunics open a span down from the neck; and this failure to act also makes them hypocrites, a vice for which they were also otherwise widely known.

Οὗτος is derogatory, “this fellow,” and “blasphemies” is plural, a deduction that if Jesus spoke one he would speak more blasphemies. These men had learned well from their Old Testament that God alone is able to remit sins. Their mistake was that they considered Jesus a mere man in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. To be sure, for a mere man to pretend to remit sins would be one of the worst forms of blasphemy. The thought of these men is a syllogism: God alone can forgive sins; this man pretends to forgive sins; ergo, he blasphemes. They rejoiced inwardly, for they certainly had a clear case against Jesus.

Luke 5:22

22 But Jesus, having realized their reasonings, answering said to them: What are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is the easier? To say, Dismissed for thee have been thy sins? or to say, Arise and be walking? But in order that you may see that the Son of man has authority on the earth to dismiss sins (he said to the one having been paralyzed), To thee I say, arise, and, having taken up thy little bed, be going to thy home! And at once, having stood up before them, having taken up whereon he was lying, he went away to his house glorifying God.

Mark says that Jesus “realized in his spirit” what the Jews thought in their hearts; Luke only that he “realized”; but Matthew that “he saw,” which explains the matter. He did not merely read the expression on the faces but knew by supernatural insight what went on in these hostile hearts, see John 2:24, 25. As his office and work required Jesus used his divine attributes, but not beyond that. With stunning directness Jesus confronts these Jews with their own thoughts. He thus gave them evidence that he was not a mere man who was arrogating divine prerogatives to himself in a blasphemous manner. The first question is directed to the consciences of these Jews: “What are you reasoning in your hearts?” Matt. 9:4 is more precise: “For what purpose (ἱνατί) are you thinking wicked thoughts in your hearts?” The inner motives are the vicious factors, and they are the ones that make the intellect think certain things.

Luke 5:23

23 Jesus tells them how they ought to reason with honest motives and minds. “Which is the easier?” to pronounce effective absolution or to pronounce effective healing of this paralytic? The two εἰπεῖν are aorists to denote a single effective statement. The point is that both are an εἰπεῖν. Jesus even quotes what the two sayings are by repeating the one from v. 20 and adding the other: “Arise (one act, aorist) and be walking (present, durative).” Both words evidently require the identical authority of God. No other answer is possible. As God alone can remit sins, so he alone can restore a paralytic on the instant. This is how these scribes and Pharisees should reason in their hearts, they would then reason reasonably not only in form but in fact and would arrive at the correct answer to the question concerning the real nature of Jesus.

Luke 5:24

24 Jesus waits for no reply, for the correct reply is self-evident. He continues in the same breath: “But in order that you may see,” etc., and heals the paralytic before their very eyes. The ἵνα clause is construed ad sensum with what Jesus says to the paralytic. The parenthesis: “he said to the one having been paralyzed,” is inserted in order to show that Jesus turned from the Jews to the sick man. Because all three synoptists have this parenthesis, R. 1203 thinks that they must have drawn this entire narrative from a common older document; others have used this reasoning. But why make so much of one verbal agreement and omit others that are equally exact?

And how dispose of the verbal difference and of the special matter in the narrative? The story of the paralytic is reproduced by the three writers in independent ways from the oral account of it that was handed down by the original witnesses. As far as the parenthesis is concerned, it is almost necessary that it be retained as introducing the words addressed to the paralytic.

Jesus has done the one act, forgiven the paralytic’s sins. The effect of this act is invisible—no one saw the sins piled upon the man’s soul, and no man saw that mass of sin vanish into nothingness from his soul. Jesus now follows with a second act, he heals the paralytic with a word. The effect is this time instantly visible to all: they see the man rise up, take up his pallet, and walk away, not only free of paralysis, but restored to full health and strength, all in an instant, all by one word. The act which the eyes are able to see proves the reality of the other act which no eyes can see. As the one is wrought by the ἐξουσία, “the authority,” “the right and might” of him who is God, so is the other.

For both are not done in the name of another but by Jesus in his own person, by the exousia that resides in himself. “In order that you may see” in an ocular demonstration is thus fulfilled to the very letter—a second miracle of this kind (v. 1–11). Σοὶλέγω is emphatic; ἔγειραι is the aorist imperative, and ἄρας the aorist participle to express momentary actions whereas πορεύου is the present imperative to indicate the longer action of going home. Three short, sharp commands, and a terrible disease is blown away and the body made sound and whole.

We here meet in Luke’s Gospel the title which Jesus gave himself and used so constantly: “the Son of man.” Though monographs have been written on it, and every commentator has given it much space, no unanimity has been reached as to its meaning and as to its source. It is used only by Jesus himself save in John 12:34 and in Acts 7:56 which reflects Matt. 26:64. So much is beyond question: the title was coined by Jesus himself, was unknown before, and did not come to be used in the church until quite late, and is even now used only in a limited way. Jesus always used it as the subject or as the object, always in the third person, never as a predicate. He is fully conscious that he is the Son of man, yet he never says: “I am the Son of man.” The title reads ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου with two Greek articles, which is quite distinct from “a son of man,” i.e., a human being. There is a mystery in the title, which is still felt today as we read the record of its use by Jesus in the Gospels; it is clearly evident also in the questions of Jesus recorded in Matt. 16:13, etc.

“Of man,” never the plural “of men,” is generic; not descended from some man but having the nature of man, a son of mankind. The fact that the human nature of Christ is thus expressed is beyond question. But “the Son of man” lifts this one man out from among all men as being one who bears this human nature in a way in which no other man bears it, who is, indeed, true man and yet is more than man, who is also ὁυἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦτοῦζῶντος, “the Son of the living God.” This, too, is clear from the mighty acts that are attributed to “the Son of man,” acts that are infinitely greater than are possible to man. Two of them are recorded in this very narrative.

Hence “the Son of man” is not merely “the ideal man,” homo κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the flower of our race, toward whom all creation tended, and the like, but “the Word made flesh,” the Son ἄσαρκος become ἔνσαρκος, who joined our human nature to his divine nature, the Son of God who assumed our human flesh and blood. In the use that Jesus makes of this title two lines of thought converge: the one is lowliness, suffering, etc.; the other greatness, power, exaltation far above men. We at once see how eminently the title fits Jesus during his earthly sojourn (it is used first in connection with Nathanael, John 1:51). To give it an exclusively eschatological sense because it is also used in connection with the consummation is to generalize from a fraction of the facts instead of from all of them.

Whence does Jesus derive this title? The answer is, from Dan. 7:13, 14 (which read). Efforts are made by von Hofmann, C.-K., Zahn, etc., to reduce “one like the Son of man” in Daniel to a symbolical figure (like the “beasts” in the previous verses) which pictures Israel. But the very words of Daniel rebel against such an interpretation. The Hebrew ki, ὡς, “like,” is stressed to mean that this image only resembled a man but was not a man, which overlooks Rev. 1:13; 14:14, where this very “like” is carefully retained in using the Daniel passage, and where the reference is to Christ. Again in Matt. 24:30 and 26:64 the Son of man comes in the clouds—exactly as he does in Daniel’s description.

God alone uses the clouds as his vehicle, hence “one like the Son of man” is divine. Yet when Daniel sees him “like the Son of man,” this, without saying in so many words that “he is man,” clearly intimates that the grand person described is also man. See the thorough exegesis of Keil in Biblischer Commentar ueber den Propheten Daniel, 197, etc., 228, etc.

The explanation that Jesus drew the title from the general references of the Old Testament to the bene’adam or ben’adam, Aramaic bar enash, “children of men,” “child of man,” and that only in this general sense are Dan. 7:13 and Ps. 8:5 a source, does not go far enough. How from such ordinary terms, which denote only men as men, a title could be derived which denotes the one unique man who is the very Son of God is difficult to conceive. Some scientific efforts go back to Iran and to Persian sources, to the eschatological notion that the first man, deified, will return at the end and bring the divine kingdom. But Jesus surely did not derive his knowledge of himself from a pagan source.

Dan. 7:13, 14 pictures the Messiah. Yet the Jews had drawn no title for the Messiah from this passage. This Jesus himself did. When he kept using this title, it seemed strange, and he was asked: “Who is this Son of man?” John 12:34. Hence also no political ideas could attach themselves to this title. That was the trouble with the title “Messiah,” which Jesus avoided for this very reason and used only in John 4:26. The universality stands out in Daniel’s description; he who is like the Son of man rules all people, nations, etc., in an everlasting kingdom and judges all the world. By the use of this new title Jesus denationalized his Messiahship and his Kingship and lifted them above all narrow Jewish conceptions—he was the Redeemer of all men.

The term is eschatological in Daniel; Jesus uses it in the same way in Matt. 24:30 and 26:64, and this is done also in the Revelation passages. But this Judge at the great consummation cannot be the judge only then, his work must reach back through the entire process of redemption, the consummation of which is the final judgment. Jesus very properly thus expands the title and applies it to his person in the days of his humiliation. No man is able to determine what Aramaic expression Jesus used for “the Son of man,” and the search in Jewish literature is pedantic and hopeless. The references in the Book of Enoch, even if the sections concerned are genuine, are barren. The surmise that, since Jesus spoke also Greek, as for instance to Pilate, he may himself have employed the Greek ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου, may be correct although the Gospels, Revelation, and Acts are wholly sufficient as far as we are concerned.

The title “the Son of man” is especially in place in the present connection over against the Pharisees and scribes who refused to see anything but a mere man in Jesus. Authority (right and power) to remit sins “on the earth” during the era of grace is exactly what comports with “the Son of man.” To bring to us and to make our own this remission Jesus had come on his great mission as “the Son of man.”

Luke 5:25

25 The result of Jesus’ word follows instantly. The paralytic arises, picks up his pallet, and walks out and away to his house before the eyes of all. Four men had had to carry and bring him to Jesus as he was lying on his bed; he himself now walks off with that bed. Luke adds significantly “before them.” Jesus told them that they should see, and they saw indeed. The two subsidiary actions are stated by aorist participles, “having stood up” and “having picked up.” Instead of repeating “little bed” Luke uses the relative clause with the imperfect “was lying” when brought in. The aorist ἀπῆλθεν is constative by including in one the entire act of going away to his house; in Mark “he went out before them all” makes the aorist punctiliar to express the single act of going out in front of the people. “Glorifying God” puts into terse form the effect produced upon the man’s heart. The object of Jesus was attained by this man’s glorifying God.

Luke 5:26

26 And amazement seized all, and they went on glorifying God and were filled with fear, saying, We saw incredible things today.

Nothing is said about the effect produced on the Pharisees and scribes. This silence on the part of all the evangelists is significant. They had come to spy upon Jesus, to find something fatal against him, and thought that they had caught him in nothing less than blasphemy. Jesus gave them something to see and to hear, something that made the thought of blasphemy vanish completely, something that should have turned their hearts from hatred to faith in Jesus and to praise of God. But their obduracy continued in spite of all that Jesus did to break it. It even grew more pronounced because they had been frustrated in their evil intention.

Mark and Luke say only “all,” but Matthew says who these are, the ὄχλοι, the multitudes who saw and heard the man and got the story from others. Luke records the ecstasy and the fear, Mark only the former by means of a verb, and Matthew only the latter. Ἔκστασις means something out of place and is not literally “amazement” though it is so translated for want of a more exact term; Robertson translates “an ecstasy of wonder.” The aorist ἔλαβεν means that amazement came suddenly, “seized” them all.

The imperfect “they went on glorifying God” shows what the amazement started, viz., continuous praise of God. Men “glorify” God, not by increasing his glory—an impossible idea—but by recognizing some one or more of his glorious attributes and acknowledging them as belonging to God. The aorist “they were filled with fear” is like the seizure with amazement, it was something that came suddenly. We need not say that fear and amazement occurred simultaneously in the same persons. This fear was the reaction in their hearts that was due to the consciousness of sin and was in this instance aroused not only by the act of Jesus in forgiving the sins of the paralytic but even more by the realization that Jesus appeared as God by thus remitting sins. Something of the deity in him came over them.

The miracle of healing, by which the remission was sealed as being actual, only deepened the feeling of fear. They had something of the experience of Peter that is recorded in v. 8.

All three synoptists report different words of praise as spoken by the people. Matthew says that they glorified God who gave such authority to men, namely through Jesus; they borrow the term ἐξουσία from Jesus; Mark says that never at any time did they see the like (thus) and, like Luke, refers to “that you may see” occurring in v. 24. Luke writes: “We saw incredible things today,” παράδοξα, contrary to (παρά) received opinion (δόξα), hence such as no one would believe without absolute proof. The three expressions used by the three evangelists may be the utterances of three different persons, besides whom others in the crowds expressed themselves in a still different way. That is one of the many indications that the writers did not follow some document, for they would then have reported these expressions of praise in a similar form or at least in forms that have the same meaning. The solution is that the oral tradition transmitted various expressions of praise, and each writer made his own selection.

We may easily imagine how this praise and acknowledging of God in Jesus must have affected the Pharisees and scribes. The common people were coming to see the truth to which their prominent leaders were more than blind. It has often been so, and not merely in religious matters. It is an encouragement for ordinary people to follow their own honest impressions and not to yield to the perverse dictations of a false leadership.

Luke 5:27

27 And after these things he went out and observed a publican, by name Levi, sitting at his tax office, and said to him, Be following me! And having left behind everything after having arisen, he began to follow him.

Here Luke for the first time links one narrative to the other, namely by means of the words “after these things.” Mark 2:13, 14 gives us more light on this connection. After healing the paralytic Jesus left his home, went out to the shore of the lake, taught there, and on returning passed Levi’s tax office. On publicans see 3:12. According to the location of this tax office it is supposed that Levi was a collector of the port, a custom’s officer who took the tax on goods that moved in and out on the caravan and on the boat route. “Levi” was his Aramaic name, he was “the son of Alphæus” (Mark), according to his own statement “a man called Matthew,” which indicates that this Hebrew name was an added one. When he came to use the latter by which we know him best we cannot say. The view that Jesus changed his name from Levi to Matthew is without evidence.

Jesus “observed” this publican, ἐθεάσατο, viewed him as he was busy with his work, sitting in his tax office or, we may say, customhouse. All the synoptists have the expression ἐπὶτὸτελώνιον, literally “on the toll-buying place,” as though this were a fixed phrase. Jesus presently called to the man: “Be following me!”—just this and nothing more. The present imperative calls for constant, permanent following. There is a good deal back of this brief invitation. Levi must have had decisive personal contact with Jesus prior to this call, but nothing is said about it anywhere.

The call to attach himself permanently to Jesus involved no small financial loss, yet it made good that loss with infinite spiritual gain. If Levi had remained just a publican, who would have known about him today, who would have blessed his name? But Levi, the apostle, who wrote the first Gospel is known the world over, and his Gospel still makes many rich. It seems that Levi was the last of the Twelve to be called. The fact that one of them should come from the despised class of the publicans is highly significant. A hundred and fifty years later Celsus reviled the Christians because their Master made “infamous men, publicans and sailors most wicked,” his pupils.

Luke 5:28

28 We need not imagine that Levi was alone, that he at once got up and walked out of his office, leaving accounts, money, etc., behind without even closing the door. Jesus wanted no such following. This tax office was important because it handled a volume of business at the entry to Capernaum. Matthew either had a number of clerks in the office or was himself under a superior. As the others (v. 11) left their boats and the fish in good hands, so did Matthew. The point is that he gave up his position and income at once, and did it, of course, in an orderly way. The imperfect indicative corresponds with the durative imperative in its durative and here inchoative force: “Be following—he began following.”

Luke 5:29

29 And Levi made a great reception for him in his house; and there was a large crowd of publicans and of others who were reclining at table in company with them.

Levi is the host, and the reception and feast take place in Levi’s house. Luke’s account is so plain that all debate regarding Matthew and Mark on these points should cease. It was a δοχή that Levi arranged, and αὐτῷ conveys the thought that it was arranged in honor of Jesus. Instead of feeling sorry at leaving his well-paying business and acting as though he was making a sacrifice for Jesus, Levi feels the opposite way, like celebrating the event of his call by Jesus. He must have had wealth to own a house that was ample enough to accommodate such a crowd at a feast and to arrange such a δοχή (from δέχομαι, to receive).

Here was a great crowd of publicans, all of the same type as Levi, despised by the public, social outcasts who were classed with harlots and the like. Luke says only that “others” were also there and indicates the type of these in v. 30. They, too, were people who were disreputable in public opinion, were outside the Jewish pale (John 9:24, etc.), and who, like the publicans, were, indeed, living lives that were contrary to the divine law. At a reception such as this no women were, of course, present. The Jews followed the Oriental custom of reclining at meals. Broad couches were provided, each of which was large enough to accommodate several persons; each person lay on his left side, resting on the elbow and taking the food with his right hand.

Μετʼ αὐτῶν, “in company with them,” means with Levi and Jesus; Matthew and Mark mention the presence of the other disciples. What a picture: Jesus dining with all these disreputable sinners! Lest we draw the hasty conclusion that Christians in general and Christian pastors in particular are warranted in associating freely with men of the type here indicated, let us note well that these publicans and sinners knew exactly why they had been invited to this reception, namely that Jesus might free them from their sins and bring them to lead different lives. They had no illusions such as that Jesus was justifying them and making himself one with them. It was Jesus who had complete control of the situation and kept control while doing his necessary and blessed work upon them. This was no mere social gathering in which Jesus tried to win the favor of these men by associating with them.

This is something that is quite the opposite of being drawn into questionable company in which we stoop to the low level of those present and allow them to use us for their purpose. Levi’s dinner is sometimes called “a farewell feast to his associates,” but without good reason. Levi’s intention is rather the opposite. He does not want to bid farewell to these publicans and sinners but wants them to join him in the new life to which Jesus had brought him.

Luke 5:30

30 And there started to grumble the Pharisees and their scribes at his disciples, saying, For what reason are you eating and drinking in company with the publicans and sinners?

They started to grumble (inchoative imperfect) which intimates that they were presently hushed. Note the two articles as denoting two classes: “the Pharisees and the scribes of them” (some scribes belonged to the Sadducees), each group objecting in its particular way; the use of one article combines those mentioned into one group, “the publicans and sinners,” ἁμαρτωλοί, which is used with reference to open and gross sinners who were known to everybody as such. We meet these objectors in v. 17. They have gathered from all quarters to see with their own eyes the wicked things that Jesus was doing, to spy upon him, and to seek to fasten some fatal crime upon him. In v. 21 they thought that they had caught Jesus in blasphemy, but they were mistaken in their assumption. They saw the large company of disreputables gathering at Levi’s house.

They would, of course, not think of entering the place, for that would have contaminated them. They hovered outside until the guests came out and then assailed the disciples, for despite all their hostility to Jesus they never show any real courage to face him on the issues they feel constrained to raise.

Matthew and Mark report that the objection was raised against Jesus and his eating with these outcasts whereas Luke states that the objection was raised against the disciples and their eating and drinking with such men. Both forms of objection were no doubt raised: the disciples were assailed on account of Jesus and also on account of themselves, for they were certainly also guilty. The translation “why” is not specific enough for διατί, which asks for the ground on which the disciples’ action is based; ἱνατί would ask for the purpose and the aim of the action. On what ground could the disciples base their action and that of Jesus? Let us at once say that the Pharisees had apparent justification for their question. Superficially considered, here were birds of a feather flocking together.

Tell me with whom you associate, and I will tell you who you are. But in this case such superficial judgment did not apply, for it was known in the whole land what the work of Jesus was. Only by ignoring that could these Pharisees raise such an objection. And they therefore received their crushing answer with due promptness.

Luke 5:31

31 And answering Jesus said to them (on the combination see 1:19): No need have those who are in good health of a physician, but they that are ill. I have not come to call righteous men but sinners to repentance.

Jesus perhaps saw the Pharisees and scribes questioning his disciples and thus stepped up to give the answer. We do not know whether the disciples attempted a reply. Jesus himself promptly answers these men. His reply is axiomatic and as such unanswerable. It is an argumentum ad hominem in form and answers them on the basis of their own admitted premises. They imagined that they were οἱὑγιαίνοντες, “those sound, well, healthy”; and they certainly looked upon these publicans and sinners as οἱκακῶςἔχοντες, “those that are ill,” the verb ἔχω with an adverb is always used in the sense of “to be.” On this their own finding the course of Jesus is fully justified.

A physician is for the sick, not for the healthy. It would be ridiculous and wrong for a doctor to keep away from his patients. It is his very business to deal with the sick in order to cure them, though always without contaminating himself. So the great mission of Jesus was to seek and to save the lost. He is the divine ἰατρός or Physician: “I am the Lord that healeth thee,” Exod. 15:26. We know his power and his remedies.

These Pharisees and scribes, however, refuse his healing ministrations and delude themselves that all is well with them. In their heartlessness they would let those whom they themselves call sick, so sick that they have given up trying to heal them, perish utterly. Their guilt is double, their own disease twofold.

Luke 5:32

32 Mark and Luke omit the admonition: “But go and learn what this means, Mercy I want and not sacrifice.” But all three evangelists record: “I have not come to call righteous men but sinners,” and Luke adds “to repentance” (μετάνοια, explained at length in 3:3). For the figurative language about the sick and the physician (which is used that it might be retained in the memory) Jesus now substitutes the literal. He still continues the argumentum ad hominem. He takes these scribes at their own estimate of themselves that they are, indeed, “righteous men.” Then they do not, of course, need Jesus with his call to repentance. His business is only with “sinners,” the unrighteous, to give them the true righteousness, the means for which is the call that works repentance. But the very way in which the argument is put shatters the supposition that these Pharisees and scribes were really δίκαιοι, able to stand before God’s judgment bar (compare 1:6, 17). In 16:15 Jesus tells the Pharisees: “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men.”

Δίκαιος is always forensic. Those who are truly righteous have God’s verdict in their favor; they are acquitted from all guilt and pronounced just. These men are not righteous in this sense but only in the sense that they usurped the judge’s throne and pronounced themselves just even as criminals to this day call themselves quite innocent. Jesus makes these men feel that their claim to righteousness shuts their mouths when they complain about the help Jesus is offering to unrighteous sinners, whom they only despised. And it is thus that the hollowness of their own claim becomes apparent. Could they really be righteous, i. e., before God’s judgment bar, when they knew no mercy for sinners and railed at the merciful Physician who labored among those who, according to these Pharisees themselves, so sorely needed his help? We thus see how this reply of Jesus to these Pharisees and their scribes was a masterful effort to reach their conscience and heart, for they were even worse sinners than those whom they despised.

In the Gospels the verb καλεῖν has the sense of “to invite,” namely with the power of grace which kindles faith and attaches to Jesus. Thus used, many are called but few chosen. In the epistles καλεῖν and the cognate terms have a narrower sense: “to invite effectively” so that acceptance is included. In the statement of Jesus the aorist καλέσαι is the proper tense: Jesus makes his invitation to these sinners complete in every way and leaves nothing undone.

Luke 5:33

33 But they said to him, The disciples of John fast often and make petitions for themselves; likewise also those of the Pharisees; but thine keep eating and drinking.

Jesus and his disciples had just come from the feast in Levi’s house, and this seems to have occurred on a day when the disciples of John thought that they had to fast, and likewise “those of the Pharisees,” i.e., “their scribes” in v. 30, including, of course, the Pharisees themselves (Matthew and Mark). They were fasting and, as the present tenses show, making it a regular practice; John’s disciples, as Luke alone adds, combined the offering up of δεήσεις, petitions or requests for themselves, with their fasts; and “thine,” οἱσοί, merrily go on eating and drinking as if no obligation rested upon them. The question is raised only with regard to the disciples of Jesus, and nothing is said about Jesus himself. This is again (v. 30) that reluctance to attack Jesus in person although the matter involves him primarily. From Matthew we learn that only the disciples of John came to Jesus with this question, but the Pharisees were also present. Luke’s οἱδέ is not explicit, hence the parties are named in the question itself, and no pronoun is used for either.

The Baptist himself was in prison (3:19). Such of his disciples as remained faithful to him were left to themselves. We see some of them in touch with Jesus here.

Matthew and Mark have a question that asks for the reason whereas Luke has a simple statement of the apparently contradictory facts but with the force of a question that demands an explanation for this contrary practice with the assumption that the disciples of Jesus seem certainly to be wrong. Yet the statement is not prompted by hostility but rather by great perplexity. The only fasting that was demanded by the law was practiced on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27, etc.). Of their own accord the Pharisees fasted twice in the week in their pretense of holiness; Matt. 6:16; Luke 18:12. They are mentioned by the disciples of John only as also being present and as being given to regular fasting.

The Baptist’s stern call to repentance would naturally go together with fasting although none of the evangelists has preserved the exact teaching of the Baptist on this point. All that we can gather is that he had allowed his disciples to go on with the practice of fasting. By not asking his own disciples to fast Jesus, of course, in no way contradicts the law. We see from Matt. 6:17 that he was by no means opposed to fasting as such when it was done for the proper purpose and in the proper way. Note that in their perplexity John’s disciples come to Jesus himself in a frank way and do not do as the Pharisees, go to the disciples with their accusation (v. 30). They ask for enlightenment; the Pharisees and their scribes want to discredit Jesus.

Luke 5:34

34 But Jesus said to them: Certainly you cannot make the sons of the bridal-hall do fasting while the bridegroom is in their company? But the days shall come; and when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, then they shall fast in those days.

The interrogative particle μή assumes a negative answer as self-evident: “you certainly cannot,” etc. Ποιῆσαι is the aorist to denote the whole act, and νηστεύειν is the present to indicate the course of fasting. The ἐνᾧ is temporal, “while,” R. 978. In a very simple and even kindly way Jesus describes the present condition of his disciples to the followers of John. With his question, which is introduced with μή, he leaves the whole question to them. They would certainly not make the bridal party do a course of fasting (present infinite) right in the bridal-hall, while the wedding is still in full progress and the bridegroom still present? Surely, nobody would or even could (δύνασθε) do such an outrageous thing.

The disciples of Jesus are at present like men at a wedding, yea, like “the sons of the bridal-hall,” die Hochzeitsgesellen, the bridegroom’s close friends who are in charge of all the wedding arrangements, Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I, 354, etc.; 663, etc. We stop with the relation here sketched and do not bring in the bride or other essentials of a Jewish wedding. Jesus is pictured by this bridegroom. The imagery of a wedding in full progress, the groom still surrounded by his chosen friends, is so happy and joyful that no man would decree a course of fasting for them. No one fasts at a wedding, to say nothing of the main participants.

Jesus does not regard fasting as a mechanical arrangement that is merely set for fixed days. As such it is valueless. To fast or not to fast is determined by the conditions in which God’s children find themselves.

Luke 5:35

35 The application of this figurative language to the present condition of Jesus and his disciples becomes plainer by means of the prophecy concerning the future. This, apart from 2:34, etc., is Luke’s first reference to the violent death of Jesus; yet Jesus must have referred to his death already in previous statements. “But the days shall come” is elliptical and thus sinister in what these days suggest—days in which it will be just as impossible not to fast. We regard καί as explicative and almost equal to “namely.” Others would have it introduce the Nachsatz like the Hebrew ue; but the following statement only explains what is meant by the coming days. One explanation is that the clause: “But the days shall come” is broken, dramatically tragic, and thus allows καί to take up the calmer explanation.

The aorist passive ἀπαρθῇ (ἀφαιρέω) refers to the one act of taking away by means of the violent death of Jesus and in a sinister way hides the agent or the agents involved. “The bridegroom” still keeps the wedding figure, but tragedy now invades the bridal-hall: the bridegroom is murdered. “In those days” the disciples shall indeed fast, and no one will need to prescribe a fast for them. Luke alone has the plural “in those days,” but it is evidently to be understood in the same sense as Mark’s singular “in that day” (Matthew has no equivalent phrase). Whether the phrase refers only to the days of deep gloom between the crucifixion and the resurrection or extends also to other days of distress, persecutions, and even executions and thus to fasting days that still occur for us at intervals, is hard to decide. The latter cannot be based on Luke’s plural alone, for all three evangelists have the plural “days shall come.”

Luke 5:36

36 Moreover, he went on to speak also a parable to them, No one, having torn a patch from a new robe, fastens it on an old robe; otherwise he both tears the new, and the patch from the new will not match the old.

More than the figure of the bridegroom contains must be added regarding this question about fasting, for this question is only a small part of a far greater subject. Hence in order to understand fully why the disciples of Jesus are not fasting at present, also how they will come to fast in a way that is totally different from that of the Pharisees, Jesus explains that what he brings cannot, like a mere patch, be fastened to an old, outworn garment, nor be confined in old, dried-out wineskins, and that men who are used to old ways always incline to prefer them to the new. Ἔλεγεδέ is merely to introduce what is summed up in καὶπαραβολήν. And πρὸςαὐτούς makes it certain that these three figurative statements were spoken in front of Levi’s house after the feast, the disciples, some of John’s disciples, and Pharisees and scribes being gathered there.

Luke presents the first comparison in a slightly fuller form than Matthew and Mark do; he adds a bad effect on the new to the bad effect on the old garment. Jesus is not a foolish woman, who in order to save an old robe that has gotten a big hole, tears a patch off a new garment and sews that on it. After a negative sentence εἰδὲμήγε emphasizes the negation: wenn aber nicht also, “but if not indeed,” i.e., otherwise, it is an elliptical protasis. Whoever acts to the contrary gets two bad results: he improves neither the new nor the old (καί … καί). “He both tears the new, and the patch from the new will not match the old.” Luke has this additional point about tearing the new robe and having it in that condition; Matthew and Mark say nothing about the origin of the patch. The subject of συμφωνήσει is “the patch from the new,” for the verb is intransitive and cannot have the person here involved as its object. But “will not match” does not refer to color; it refers to the difference in the goods, one is strong and new, the other old and fragile, so that the two will not hold together, and, as Matthew and Mark say, the rent in the old robe will be only the worse.

Jesus is uttering a great principle in figurative language, the one on which he acts and is training his disciples to act. John’s disciples were perplexed when they saw Jesus and his disciples acting on this principle, for they did not understand what the principle was, or how true and genuine it was. The old robe is the Judaism of that period, namely what the scribes and Pharisees had made of it with their doctrine and their practice, all the old formalism, outward observance, and false righteousness (Matt. 5:20). It was useless to try to patch this with a bit of the teaching and the practice of Jesus. The two do not match the texture, the old hole will only become bigger because of that patch. It only damages the doctrine and the practice of the new covenant to tear any portion out of them for such a useless and hopeless purpose.

That is no way in which to use the new robe. Let it be, wear it, throw the old one away! The doctrine of grace and faith and the life that springs from them cannot combine, even in a small part, with Pharisaic Judaism, in either its ancient or its more modernistic form. Drop works, take the robe of Christ’s righteousness!

Luke 5:37

37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the wineskins and itself be spilled out, and the wineskins will be lost. But new wine is to be put into fresh wineskins.

This second illustration completes the thought. It will do damage to combine even a little of the new with the old; it will do even more damage to try to combine all the new with the old. And the damage will again ruin both the new and the old, only do so more completely. In this respect the thought of the two illustrations is parallel. But conserving the old robe is the main point in the first illustration and conserving the new wine in the second—neither of which results are attained, only double damage results in each case. The two form a pair, each is the complement of the other.

A wineskin was a goatskin that had been removed without slitting it; the openings at the feet and the tail were closed, leaving the neck as the mouth. In Palestine and in Damascus we saw these skins still being used by water-carriers, many filled them from the cisterns under the Temple area, and others sprinkled the walks. When it is fresh, the skin stretches to a degree, but when it is old it becomes stiff and bursts quickly under pressure. People therefore never put new wine, which still ferments and causes pressure, into old, dried-out skins. The result would be disastrous, for the skins would burst and thus be lost and henceforth be useless, and the wine would be spilled out and thus also be lost. Note νεός, “new” as not having existed before and hence fitting the wine; καινός is “new” over against “old” or παλαιός and is rendered “fresh” when it refers to wineskins.

Jesus is not a foolish person who tries to combine the old Pharisaic ways with the glorious new doctrine of grace and faith and by this folly completely ruins both with a result that is even worse than if he had combined the old ways with a scrap of the new doctrine. Nor does Jesus want others to attempt this folly.

Luke 5:38

38 The new wine “is to be put” into fresh wineskins. That is both good sense and good profit. Cast off the old Pharisaism with all its ways; take only the new ways of life that fit the new doctrine. The use of the verbal βλητέον—the only one ending in τεος in the New Testament—lends a literary touch. It is used impersonally and leaves the agent unexpressed and is transitive with οἶνοννεόν as its object (R. 1097, and W. P.); being impersonal, it is active.

These illustrations have often been misapplied. Because Christ’s teaching is now old, modernistic thinkers have compared it to the old, dried-out wineskins and state that it is no longer to be combined with the new religious concepts that they advance. So they call for new moral codes and standards, new “categories of thought,” new conceptions of sin and righteousness, new visions of God, etc. They are wrong in two respects: their new ideas are not new, and the teaching of Christ is still as new, true, and glorious as it was in the days when he walked on earth. The ancient Pharisaism has changed only its name; the verities which Jesus taught are still verities and will be nothing less until the end of time. And so the word of Jesus applies to modernism the other way around. Jesus’ teaching and morals are not old and worn-out, but modernism has for many a century been outworn.

Luke 5:39

39 Luke alone has this last illustration. And no one after drinking old wants new, for he says, The old is good enough.

We may take χρηστός in the sense of serving well or, after the analogy of the personal use, as mild, the sense is the same. A comparison with wine is used because of the previous illustration. It has been said that there is a touch of humor in this illustration. The point lies in the fact that people are wedded to the old because of habit, because the old is old. Of all places in the world this is especially true of the Orient. So Jesus expected this reluctance to change.

It is not Jesus who calls the old wine “good enough,” but he that drank it. A lot of old wine is decidedly bad because it has not been prepared properly; age is one thing, excellence with age quite another. So Jesus is not excusing the Pharisees and the disciples of John for clinging to their practices of fasting and other old observances. Jesus is pointing out to these men in what their difficulty consists: they just do not care to change. And he gently tells them that they ought to abandon the old and rejoice in the new. Sour old wine is an abomination, praise it as a man will; the sweet new wine of Jesus remains sweet forever, it is changeless in its purity and excellence, beyond the praise of even those who realize this.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

W. P Word Pictures in the New Testament by Archibald Thomas Robertson.