• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

The Grace Commentary

A Free Online Bible Commentary

Luke 5:33-39

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers 6 Comments

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


Luke 5:33-39 contains three short parables, the first in Luke’s Gospel. The parables of Jesus are some of the most difficult passages to understand in the New Testament. Much of this is due to our separation in time, language, and culture from Jesus. But even the disciples of Jesus, who did not face these contextual challenges, often had trouble understanding what Jesus meant by His parables. The confusion is natural, however, since according to what Jesus says in Luke 8:10, He intended these pointed little stories to be confusing. We will explain why in that passage, but for now, it is best to recognize that if a parable is initially confusing, we’re on the right track.

And the parables of Luke 5:33-39 are some of the most confusing. For the last eighteen hundred years, these three short parables have been almost universally interpreted in a particular way. Almost all resources, whether Bible commentary, book on the parables, or journal article, interprets this passage in a particular way (Fitzmyer 1981:597; Govett 1989:5; Jeremias 1972:118; Marshall 1978:227; Pentecost 1982:23). In the past, when I’ve taught this passage, I followed the traditional explanation.

The traditional explanation is that Jesus was starting something fresh and new, based on grace and truth. His new movement was incompatible with Judaism, especially the legalistic emphasis on the law. So in the parables, the old clothes and old wineskins are equated with Judaism, and the new clothes and new wineskins represent the new grace-filled teachings of Jesus. The teachings of the Pharisees are described as “worthless, useless, and outdated” according to the Law of Moses (Pentecost 1982:23), while those of Jesus are full of grace, truth, and love according to life in the Spirit.

One reason for the popularity of this traditional explanation is that it fits the passage (almost), and scratches an itch that we Christians have felt from almost the very beginning, namely, how to explain Christian departure from the Jewish roots of our faith. The traditional interpretation was first introduced by the heretic Marcion in the Second Century AD (cf. Eriksson nd:1). Gentiles had become the majority among Christians, and were facing persecution from both the Roman Empire and traditional Jews. The Jewish people had revolted against Rome in 67-70 AD, and as a result, Jerusalem was razed and the temple destroyed. Since Christianity had a Jewish nature and foundation, the Roman military included Christians in their attempts to quell the Jewish rebellion. So some of the early Christians tried to separate themselves from Judaism to avoid further persecution. The Jewish people, of course, saw the Christians as a heretical offshoot, and so were also trying to destroy the fledgling faith. Many Christians defended themselves by attacking Judaism, both with pen and sword.

Aside from these cultural reasons, Marcion was heavily influenced by Gnostic dualism. He believed that matter as evil and only what was spiritual was good. Therefore, the creator God in Genesis 1-2 was evil. Also, Jesus could not have come in the flesh, because flesh, being matter, was evil. As a result of this thinking, Marcion rejected the entire Old Testament as the false Scriptures of the evil creator god of Judaism. He also rejected much of the New Testament Scriptures which taught that Jesus was the Son of God come in the flesh.

These were radical changes and departures from the Jewish roots of Christianity. One of the passages which Marcion kept in his Bible, and which he heavily used to defend his ideas, was Luke 5:33-39. Based on this passage, he taught that Judaism was like old clothes and empty wineskins which needed to be discarded and ignored. Jesus had brought new clothes, new wine, and new wineskins which could not mix in any way with the old. Of course, it should be noted that verse 39 did not fit with Marcion’s interpretation, and so, as with other passages he couldn’t explain, he removed this verse from his Bible (Metzger 2002: 115).

And the church, though they eventually condemned Marcion as a heretic for many of his views, fully adopted and accepted this understanding of Luke 5:33-39, and for the most part, have not retreated from it for 1800 years. Furthermore, as the interpretation lived on, it was frequently used to justify the separation of any new group from the old, traditional group. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers used Luke 5:33-39 to separate from Catholicism. In the past 500 years, almost every splinter group within Christianity has similarly used the passage in such a way to defend and explain their departure (cf. Govett 1989:6-18). Such an interpretation of the passage also explains the church’s almost total neglect—and even denial—of the Jewishness of Jesus and the apostles.

In recent decades, as scholars and pastors have rediscovered the Jewish roots of Christianity, questions have been raised about Marcion’s explanation of these parables. This challenge has come, in part, because the traditional understanding never really had an adequate way of explaining verse 39 where Jesus says, “And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, ‘The old is better.’” If Jesus was really teaching that He was separating from Judaism, how could He apparently agree with the consensus that “The old is better”? Though tradition is nearly unanimous on 5:33-38, there are numerous explanations and interpretations of verse 39. There is even evidence of some early tampering of original Greek manuscripts to help make sense of the verse in light of the traditional explanation. Some of the possible explanations will be presented in verse 39.

So with all of this in mind, the explanation below will provide two things. First, the traditional explanation will be summarized. Then an attempt will be made to explain what Jesus was really teaching with these parables.

5:33. The parables of Jesus in 5:34-39 are in response to a question that He is asked in verse 33. The parallel text in Matthew 9:14 indicates that it is the disciples of John the Baptist who ask the question. They want to know why the disciples of John fast often and make prayers, and likewise those of the Pharisees, but the disciples of Jesus eat and drink.

The Jewish people had numerous laws and customs for fasting. Aside from the yearly fast days, many religious leaders would also fast every Monday and Thursday, and would whiten their faces with ash so everyone could see that they were fasting (Matt 6:16-18; cf. Wenham 1989:27; Radmacher 1999:1260). It is not impossible that this feast with Levi was on one of these fast days (Shepard 1939:148). Daily prayers were said promptly at noon, three, and six, no matter where they were or what they were doing. If they were in a marketplace or on a street corner, they would pray there (Matt 6:5).

Jesus fasted and prayed (cf. Luke 4:2), and taught His disciples to do the same (Matt 6:6-18). However, there is no written record of the disciples fasting (cf. Mark 2:18). Instead, they seem to spend more time eating and drinking with Jesus. At one point, Jesus is even accused of being a glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7:34). At issue here is not the annual fasts which follow the Jewish calendar, but the daily prayers and weekly fasts which were part of the traditional disciplemaking methods of John and the Pharisees (Culbertson 1995:261).

But the issue of fasting and praying is only the topical question for a deeper issue. The real issue is why Jesus trains them the way He does. Jesus has already been challenged about His choice of Levi as a disciple (Luke 5:27-31), and now He is being asked about His training methods. As with everything in Judaism, there were set forms and guidelines for who a Rabbi should choose as his disciples, and how he should train them. The Pharisees followed this pattern, as did John the Baptist. Jesus, however, did not.

So both the Pharisees and the disciples of John were a little confused at the discipleship methods of Jesus. When they ask Jesus the questions of 5:30, 33, there is no animosity toward Jesus or criticism of His methods; just confusion and curiosity as to why Jesus was operating outside normal Jewish customs.

5:34. Jesus answers the question by speaking of a wedding feast. He asks if the friends of the bridegroom will fast while the bridegroom is with them. Jesus is identifying Himself as the groom, and His disciples as the friends. The question is rhetorical, as everybody knows that a wedding celebration is a time for feasting, not fasting. One who fasts at a wedding feast insults the bride and groom, especially if they are friends.

Jesus is not opposed to fasting in general, but fasting for his disciples at the present time. Fasting is a sign that a person is dissatisfied with the way their life and world is headed. It is a way of signifying an eschatological hope that God will restore righteousness and justice on the earth, and from a Jewish perspective, send the Messiah to do so (Green 1997:249). But for the disciples of Jesus, that which is hoped for in fasting—the Messiah—is already there. So there is no need for them to fast.

5:35. Jesus indicates that a time will come when the bridegroom will be taken away. Since Jesus is referring to Himself as the groom, many believe this is the first reference by Jesus to His future death and departure. Jesus says that when that day comes, then His disciples will fast.

This verse has been used by some to argue that Christians should not fast, and by others, to say we should. Those who argue against fasting say that the days of fasting which Jesus referred to when the bridegroom is taken away refer only to the three days between the death of Jesus and His resurrection. Now that He has risen from the dead, Jesus, the groom, is with us always, and so fasting is not proper for the Christian (Matt 28:20; cf. Morgan 1943:31).

The other position holds that although Jesus is with us spiritually, He is not with us physically, and fasting should be practiced until Jesus returns. The main strength of this position is the fact that the disciples did fast after Jesus had risen from the dead (cf. Acts 13:2; 14:23; 1 Cor 7:5).

The best approach seems to be that the verse should not be used to defend either position. Jesus is not trying to give guidelines for Christian piety (Wenham 1989:30). He is describing the kingdom and defending His discipleship methods, and is simply saying that while there will be a time for His disciples to fast, but that time is not now. When they do fast in the future, it should not be to reveal how holy and obedient they are to God, but in order to perform acts of justice and mercy (cf. 3:7-9; Isa 58:3-9; Jer 14:12; Zech 7:5-6; Joel 2:12-13). This type of fasting reveals the understanding that we wait for the final and complete inauguration of the Kingdom of God on earth by living according to Kingdom principles of justice and mercy here and now.

5:36. Having answered the questions from the Pharisees and John’s disciples with the two images of a doctor healing the sick and friends not fasting a groom’s wedding, Jesus further explains His answers with three parables. It is crucial to recognize that the parables are told not just in relation to the question of how Jesus makes disciples (vv 33-35), but also the earlier questions of who Jesus chooses to be His disciples (vv 30-32), and how Jesus can offer forgiveness of sins (v 21).

Though verse 36 says He spoke a parable, the repeated phrase no one (vv 36, 37, 39) indicates that this parable contains three pictures with one common message or theme. In attempting to understand the pictures, one must remember that they are not just illustrations. Parables are stories that use shock, surprise, and humor to challenge the listener’s thinking, values, and point of view. Parables are the seeds of a paradigm shift in the minds of those who hear and understand. The pictures within this parable use humor to show why Jesus chooses sinners and societal rejects to be His disciples, and why He trains them through eating and drinking at parties. First Century hearers would have laughed when they heard the folly of the first two pictures (cf. Trueblood 1964:94-98; Eriksson nd:9).

The first humorous picture concerns patching an old garment. This fits with the image of a wedding feast. Handing out clothes is something that bridegrooms did during wedding celebrations (cf. Judg 14:12-19; Rev 3:5; Isa 61:10).

Jesus says that no one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one. The picture is humorous because no one would be so foolish as to destroy a new garment just to fortify, strengthen, or patch an old garment (cf. Bock 1994:519). The new garment is made of unshrunk cloth, and so when a piece of it is sewn onto an old garment, and then washed, it makes a tear in the old garment, so that both old and new are destroyed.

Aside from destroying both garments, the new does not match the old. It is nearly impossible to find a piece of new cloth that perfectly matches the old in color and appearance. Such a patch would be embarrassingly visible to all. For such reasons, old garments were generally not patched at all. It was better, they thought, to leave a small hole or rip in a garment, then to bring attention to it by trying to cover it over with a piece of cloth that did not match is color, texture, or style, thus bringing even more attention to the damaged clothing.

The way this parable is typically taught is that the Pharisees have an old garment with holes in it and Jesus is bringing a new garment. A Jesus is not going to destroy His new way of doing things just to patch up the old way. That would destroy both. Instead, He is going to discard the old, and teach and practice the new way.

However, in the cultural context, Jesus is not stating that the old ways should be discarded. He is not even saying the old ways should be patched. Today, when an article of clothing develops a hole, it is typically discarded. But this was not the case in biblical times. Old garments were much too valuable to be thrown out. They were hardly “worthless and useless” (Pentecost 1982:23). If a piece of clothing developed a hole, the person would first try to repair or patch the garment. If that was not possible, the garment would be saved for some other purpose, possibly to mend some future garment.

Therefore, Jesus is not saying anything negative about the old garment, that is, the ways of the Pharisees. Nor is He saying that His new way is superior. Rather, Jesus is saying is that He has a new way, which is similar to the old, but still different enough that the two will not mix well.

This first parabolic picture of Jesus is in answer to the question of verse 33, and explains why Jesus teaches and trains His disciples the way He does. Jesus has a new way of making disciples which is not focused on fasting, but feasting. He wants people to see that life with God is full of joy and celebration. While there will be times for somber fasting, a life lived with Jesus is a life lived to the full (John 10:10).

5:37. The second picture is that of wine and wineskins. As with the garments, wine is a picture of festivity and celebration, and is often equated with the joy of a wedding feast (cf. John 2:1-10). In this picture, Jesus humorously points out that no one puts new wine into old wineskins. There were numerous types of vessels that carried wine, but the most common were made from the skin of sheep or goats. After the animals were slaughtered, the hides were cleaned, and sewn closed where the legs had been. The spout of the wineskin was where the neck used to be (cf. Bock 1997:520).

Newly pressed wine, or grape juice and other ingredients needed to make wine, was poured into the fresh wineskin through the neck, and when it was full, the neck was tied shut to make the skin airtight. Over time, the juice would ferment. The fermentation process would produce gas. And this gas would cause the goatskin to expand. A wineskin could be used several times before it lost its elasticity (Pentecost 1982:23). Eventually, however, the skin would lose its ability to flex, and would no longer be suitable for making wine.

If someone tried to use a wineskin that had lost its elasticity for making more wine, the fermentation process would cause the old wineskin to stretch beyond its limit, and the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. Both would be destroyed. Jesus retains the touch of irony in this second parable as well (Bock 1997:520). Nobody would be foolish enough to put new wine into old wineskins.

5:38. The proper way to make wine is that new wine must be put into new wineskins. The new wineskins are supple, so when the new wine ferments in the skins, the skins expand, and both are preserved.

The traditional explanation of this second picture is like the first. Jesus was bringing new teaching and new ideas which could not be contained in the old ways of the Jewish Law. Therefore, the old ways should be abandoned for the way of Jesus. Typically, the way of Jesus is equated with grace, and the way of the Jews with law and legalism.

As a result of this traditional interpretation, numerous groups throughout church history have used this image to justify their own departure from other groups. Reformers used it to defend their departure from the traditions of Catholicism. Mostly newly formed denominations use the passage to explain their new forms of church. Charismatic groups use the passage to defend their view of the new work of the Holy Spirit.

All of these uses are based on an improper understanding of the imagery. First, the interpretation is based on bad theology. The idea that Jesus brought grace to replace the legalistic Jewish Law is false. Jesus was Jewish and intended to affirm the Law and fulfill it; not abolish and destroy it (Matt 5:17-18). The Law was good and gracious, and this parable must not be thought to say anything different.

A proper understanding of the imagery helps support the Jewish Laws and traditions. Like the old clothes of verse 36, old wineskins were quite valuable. Nobody would throw out old clothes, and nobody would dream of discarding old wineskins. To the contrary, old wineskins were often more valuable than new. They were often coated on the inside with pitch or tar, which made them watertight containers for storing almost anything. There is evidence of old wineskins being used to store and transport water, oil, grain, important documents, and even more old wine (Young 1995:157). Just because new wine does not get put into old wineskins, does not mean that the old wineskins are worthless and should be discarded. Rather, Jesus affirms the value of both old and new wineskins, and points out that each has its proper function. Using an old wineskin in a way it should not be used (to ferment new wine) will destroy the valuable wineskin and the ruin the wine.

Old garments were the finished products of a long process and old wineskins were prized for their ability to protect the wine from the air. For the original hearers…their cultural values were age, ancestry, and lineage and these values were directly tied to the material conditions of limited goods (Eriksson nd:11).

Used in this way, Jesus is once again affirming the traditional method of making disciples by the Pharisees and John, and the types of disciples they gather around them. He is not saying their way should be discarded. In fact, He is actually praising their ways and disciples by equating them to the valuable and useful old wineskins. Why does Jesus need new wineskins? Because He has new wine (discussed in v 39). The new wine is like the new clothes. Jesus has a new way of training disciples. Since this is so, Jesus cannot use the old type wineskin, that is, the old type of disciple that fits the traditional discipleship pattern. Jesus needs a new type of disciple to fill with His new discipleship methods.

If the first picture of this parable is in response to the question of verse 33 about why Jesus trains His disciples the way He does, this second picture of the parable is in response to the question in verse 30 about who Jesus has chosen as His disciples. Since Jesus has a new way of training disciples (v 36), Jesus needs new vessels to start with. He cannot use the traditional type of disciple, the educated, morally upright, respected individual—as valuable and as wonderful as such people are—they would not be able to wrap their minds around what Jesus was trying to do. The first picture showed that the way of Jesus is full of joy and celebration. This second picture includes that idea, but also shows that this way of Jesus is open and available to all people, even those other Rabbis would reject.

5:39. The third picture in this parable has proven the most difficult to fit into the traditional understanding of this passage. The first picture was about the new clothes, and the second about new wineskins. This third picture is about new wine. Jesus says that no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, “The old is better.” This verse is confusing at first because it is true that the old wine tastes better. Everybody knows that wine gets better with age, and this was true in Jesus’ day, as it is in ours. Ecclesiasticus 9:10b reads, “As new wine, so is a new friend; if it becomes old, thou shalt drink it with gladness.” Of course, at that time, wine was considered old after three years (Lightfoot 1989:78).

The reason for the confusion is because of the traditional understanding of verses 38-38. If Jesus is bringing superior clothes and superior wineskins, then shouldn’t He also have superior wine? But since old wine is better, does this mean that the new wine of Jesus in inferior?

Some commentators correctly note that wine is often a picture for the Jewish teaching about the Torah. The Torah itself is compared to water, the Mishnah to wine, and the Talmud to spiced wine (Culbertson 1995:276; Young 1995:158). So based on this image, it seems that Jesus is bringing new wine, or a new teaching about the Torah. This idea fits well with what Jesus said in verses 36-38, but does not seem to fit with verse 39, where He seems to agree with the universal consensus that when it comes to wine, the old is better.

There have been numerous ways of explaining how to understand this verse. Below are several possibilities that have been proposed over the years, ordered (in my opinion) by increasing probability. First, some, like Marcion, have simply removed the verse since it seemed to disagree with what they thought the passage was saying. Marcion also cut out of his Bible much of the Old Testament and many of the other difficult parables of Jesus (Metzger 2002:115; Mead 1988:234). So the first solution is simply to ignore or reject the verse. There are, however, other less drastic solutions.

The second solution focuses in on the word old (Gk. palaios) and retranslates it as “former,” then draws a parallel between this passage and the first miracle of Jesus in John 2:1-10 where He turns water in wine. There, when the steward tastes the wine that came from water, he exclaims that while most people serve the best wine first, Jesus has saved the best wine for last. Seeing a similar idea here, verse 39 is understood as saying that the wine Jesus brings is superior, even though it follows the older, or former, wine (cf. Wenham 1989:35).

Third, some focus in the word drunk (Gk. piōn) and understand the verse as saying that once a person has become drunk on old wine, they don’t really want more (“new”) wine, for they are already drunk. The old is good enough, and it accomplished its purpose. They’ll stick with what has worked. This imagery fits with the fact that Jesus is at a party where some of the participants may well have become drunk.

Fourth, in comparison to Acts 2:13 where the work of the Spirit at Pentecost makes others think that the disciples are drunk, some have taught that old wine, since it was more valuable, was drunk in moderation, and often even diluted with water. New wine, however, since it was cheaper, was drunk more liberally, and without dilution. Old wine was intended for refined, moderated drinking; new wine was used for drunken parties (cf. Hos 4:11; 7:14). Therefore, Jesus is thought to be saying that those who follow His teachings of the Kingdom should drink deeply of them. “We should give up the old, cautious ways, which are like sipping old wine, duly watered, with decorous moderation, and plunge into the kingdom, as though into a Bacchic revel” (Mead 1988:234; cf. also Kendall 2004:92). Other passages do seem to indicate that the Messianic age is compared to a party (Zech 9:17), and that early Christians may have taken Jesus’ words here too literally (1 Cor 11:21; Eph 5:18).

Fifth, one popular suggestion is to hear irony in the statement of Jesus. Everybody has encountered individuals who don’t want to try anything new, even though the new way may be better than the old way. Read in this way, the wine that Jesus brings, though “new” in time (Gk. neos), may be superior in taste and quality, and in fact, may even be “older” since it is what God originally intended (cf. Blomberg 1990:125; Schweizer 1984:112; Wenham 1989:33).

Finally, there are several textual variants in the verse, which may indicate that from very early on, scholars have tried to make sense of this verse. Depending on which Greek manuscript is used will determine how the text is understood. There are two main variants in verse 39 which affect the meaning The first is the word eutheōs, which is translated immediately (cf. NKJV). By including this word, the verse indicates that people stick with what they are used to. They have developed a taste for a particular type of wine, and when they taste something different, they don’t like it at first. They believe that the former, or familiar, wine is better. But later, if they continue to try the new, they may realize that the newer wine truly is better. “They can be brought round to new wine, given time” (Mead 1988:234).

The second textual variant is with the word better (MT Gk. chrēstoteros), which in other translations isbest (Gk. chrēstos). With this, the choice of wine becomes one of simple preference—“I like this wine better than that wine”—rather than an exclusive statement about which one is ultimately best. With both variants, the Majority Text is preferred (as translated in the NKJV), as it helps lead to the proper understanding of this verse, which is presented below. People who thought that Jesus was condemning the old ways of Judaism and were desiring to provide an explanation for why the Jewish people ultimately rejected Jesus as the Messiah, would be included to edit this verse.

The main difficulty with all of these options is in what they share: the assumption that Jesus was trying to do away with something bad in the discipleship methods of John the Baptist and the Pharisees. That assumption causes verse 39 to be difficult to understand. If, however, this assumption is abandoned, and it is recognized that Jesus is not criticizing the traditional pattern, but is simply introducing His own different way of choosing and making disciples, then the verse becomes clear. The differences between the methods of Jesus and those of the Pharisees and John “had nothing to do with patterns of religion. It was not that the two fasting groups were concerned with outside observances, while Jesus was concerned only with the inner attitude of the heart. Nor can the fasting groups be dismissed as legalistic ascetics in contrast to Jesus seen as a free-and-easy antinomian” (Wright 1996:433). Something else is going on.

Jesus is answering questions about what kind of teacher He is, and what kind of disciples He is making, and ultimately, why He is doing things the way He is. The picture of new clothes (v 36) answers the question about the way Jesus is choosing to make disciples (v 33). The picture of new wineskins (vv 37-38) answers the question about why Jesus calls sinners and tax-collectors like Levi to be His disciples (v 30). And finally, the picture of new wine (v 39) answers the question about why Jesus teaches what He does (v 21). These three questions and answers are brought out more clearly in Mark 2:1-22. And what is the ultimate answer to all these questions? The Kingdom has arrived. The exile is over. “The party is in full swing” (Wright 1996:433; cf. also Evans 2003:194).

In a way, therefore, the final statement of Jesus in verse 39 is a veiled invitation to the Pharisees and the followers of John to try the new wine. He is not denouncing them or their ways, but a full cup of His wine has been placed on the table, and they are invited to taste it. Though they may not like it at first, the invitation is there (Eriksson nd:12). Jesus has brought in the Kingdom of God, and the invitation to participate is open to all. “Jesus interprets his behaviors, which are questionable and innovative to some onlookers, as manifestations of God’s ancient purposes coming to fruition” (Green 1997:250).

Referring back to the textual variants helps support this view. It seems likely that an early scribe might have removed the word “immediately” (Gk. eutheōs), since no wine connoisseur prefers new wine to old, regardless of how often it is tasted, and since Jesus is not saying that one way of discipleship is best and all other ways are bad, but rather, that those who are used to one particular way, continue to prefer it, believing that it is better than others. The scribe may have also been inclined to explain why the Jewish people rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and so would have put “best” (Gk. chrēstos) in the place of “better” (Gk. chrēstoteros). These scribal corrections are to be rejected because Jesus is not saying that the methods of the John the Baptist and the Pharisees are bad or should be rejected, but that He simply has a new way, which they will not immediately (or ever) appreciate.

So Jesus invites all people, including the Pharisees, to join Him in this fresh way of following the Torah, but knows that people generally remain in their traditions and are uncomfortable trying something new. They prefer the old. Jesus knows that most will not change their ways, nor even try it. If there is a rebuke of the Pharisees and their teachings, it is only in this: that they are so entrenched in their traditional ways of following Torah that they will not even taste the fresh, new way of following the Torah that Jesus has brought (Bock 1997:522).

Jesus found that much resistance to accepting his message, on the part not of hostile but of well-intentioned and pious people, arose simply from this attachment to old ways and old ideas. They had stood the test of time; why should they be changed? This was a perfectly natural response, and one which was not totally regrettable: it could be a safeguard against the tendency to fall for anything new just because it was new—to embrace novelty for novelty’s sake. …Old wine has a goodness of its own and new wine has a goodness of its own. Personal preference there may be, but there is no room for dogmatism which says, ‘No wine is fit to be drunk till it is old’ (Kaiser 1996:457).

So Jesus uses new methods (new clothes) to provide new men (wineskins) with a new message (wine). Jesus is not saying that the message, men, and methods for making disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees are wrong. He is simply pointing out that their way is not for everyone, and leaves some people outside of the boundaries. Their way is good for those who fit the mold. But Jesus wants to reach those who have been abandoned, overlooked, bypassed, and rejected. Through His words, actions, and selection of disciples, Jesus is showing that the Kingdom of God has arrived. Though he doesn’t name it here, Jesus is beginning to introduce the New Covenant since the previous Covenant will eventually vanish (Heb 8:13; Luke 22:20; Wiersbe 1989:189).

Healing, forgiveness, renewal, the twelve, the new family and its new defining characteristics, open commensality, the promise of blessing for the Gentiles, feasts replacing fasts, the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple; all declared, in the powerful language of symbol, that Israel’s exile was over, that Jesus was himself in some way responsible for this new state of affairs, and that all that the Temple had stood for was now available through Jesus and his movement.

…We get Jesus feasting with his motley group of followers, as a sign of their healing and forgiveness; Jesus implying that those with him are the true Israel; Jesus enacting the real return from exile, the new exodus; Jesus marking his people out with a new praxis which did for them what the Torah did for the pre-eschatological Israel; Jesus forming a counter-Temple movement around himself (Wright 1996:436).

Chapter 6 provides numerous examples of the new methods and message of Jesus as He teaches and trains the men He has chosen for His disciples.

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 5:27-32

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers 1 Comment

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


Jesus continues to show His followers what it looks like to be fishers of men, and how He is fulfilling His mission statement from Luke 4:17-19. So far, Jesus has brought freedom to a demoniac, a leper, a paralytic, and in this section, an outcast tax collector (EBC 8:883). Sometimes Jesus shows love to the poor and sick who are outcast; other times He reaches out with love to the rich and famous who are also outcast in their own way. But Jesus is never constrained by cultural stigmas. In Luke 5:27-32, Jesus goes against cultural stigmas and invites a man a man to follow Him who, although he was rich, was viewed as a traitor. He had gained his riches by betraying his Jewish people, heritage, and religion.

5:27. The man was a tax collector.

At that time, there were two kinds of tax collectors, the Gabbai and the Mokhes (cf. Arnold 2002:355; Barclay 1965:64; Edersheim 1988:515; Ford 1984:65; Malina 2003:415; Pentecost 1981:154; Shepard 1939:142). The Gabbai were general tax collectors. They collected property, income, and poll taxes. Property taxes, or ground taxes, were based on whether you owned property and grew crops on it. It consisted of one-tenth of all grain grown, and one-fifth of all oil and wine. This could be paid with the actual grain, oil, and wine, or with an equivalent amount of money. The income tax was set at one percent, and was assessed on all other sorts of income. Finally, there was a poll tax. It was collected from everyone in the Roman Empire whether you owned land or not, had income or not, worked or not. These were the general taxes collected by the Gabbai. They were set by official assessments, and there was not much room for the Gabbai to take advantage of the system and cheat people out of more than what was due (see TNDT VIII:88-105).

The Mokhes, however, collected a duty on imports and exports. There were two kinds of Mokhes—theGreat Mokhes and the Little Mokhes. A Great Mokhes was an overseer, and hired others—the Little Mokhes—to collect the taxes for him. The rights to collect taxes in a particular location could be bought and sold (it was called “tax-farming”) and the Great Mokhes were individuals who had bought the tax rights to multiple regions, and then hired Little Mokhes to collect the taxes (cf. TDNT VIII:93f). Zaccheus was probably a Great Mokhes because Luke 19:2 calls him a chief tax collector.

To collect taxes on imports and exports, the Mokhes would set up toll booths on roads, harbor docks, and bridges, or almost anywhere that people were gathering for a festival or moving along the road. A farmer could be taking his produce to market on a road he has used for ten years, and one day, a tax collector sets up a booth on the road and starts charging people for using it. They would charge more for horses and donkeys, and even more for carts of produce and wares.

Of the various tax collectors, the Mokhes were despised the most—especially the Little Mokhes, since they were the ones who legally cheated and stole from the people. If a person became angry at how much he was being taxed, the Little Mokhes could confiscate everything and throw the man in prison.

The Roman government had a curious way of paying their tax collectors. They told the tax collectors how much money to send in to the government. Anything that the tax collector could get above and beyond that amount could be kept for himself (Ford 1984:66). It was not uncommon for tax collectors to burn villages or have someone murdered in order to exact taxes (Ford 1984:66). Due to this, tax collectors were universally hated, and were often killed. So many tax collectors hired personal body guards for protection. A proverb from the time period states that “Bears and lions might be the fiercest wilds beasts in the forests, but publicans (tax collectors) and informers were the worst in the cities” (Geikie 1888:367).

So tax collectors in the Roman Empire became rich, but at the expense of being hated and viewed as traitors by their own people. This hatred was amplified among the Jewish people, since the Roman government occupied the lands God had promised to Israel, and the Roman Emperor had proclaimed himself to be the son of God. Paying taxes was not only a reminder that the Jews were under foreign rule, but was viewed by some as a form of idolatry (cf. Luke 20:22). This was reinforced by the fact that Roman coins often had the image of the Caesar or some other Roman deity engraved on the face of the coin (Ford 1984:68). For a Jewish person to collect these taxes—sometimes with the help of Roman soldiers—was viewed as a betrayal not only of their fellow Jews, but of God Himself.

Among Jews, therefore, tax collectors were on par with harlots, gamblers, thieves, and robbers (Geikie 1888:367). Jews taught that if a tax collector entered a house, the house became unclean (Ford 1984:66; Malina 2003:416). As a result, tax collectors were excluded from the synagogue, could not tithe to the temple, and would not be called on as a witness in a trial (Shepard 1939:143). No help would be offered to such men, and they were often viewed as beyond the help of God as well.

The tax collector that Jesus encounters in Luke 5:27 is a man named Levi. With the name Levi, he is probably from the tribe of Levi, the tribe set apart for service in the temple. As a tax collector, Levi would not be allowed to serve in such a role. Following this account, he is never again called Levi, but instead, Matthew (cf. Matt 9:9). Levi means “joined” whereas Matthew means “gift of God.” Matthew eventually writes the Gospel of Matthew, which tells the story of Jesus for a Jewish audience. It is unknown when, how, or why he changed his name, but maybe he changed it to reflect his new identity as a result of what happens in this text.

When Jesus encounters Levi he is sitting in the tax office, which is not a constructed building, but rather a movable booth set up at various locations to tax the people traveling along a road or gathering in a particular location.

When Jesus saw Levi collecting taxes at his tax booth, He said to him, “Follow Me.” The request by Jesus for Levi to follow is a request for Levi to leave everything behind, and break all other ties. The fact that Jesus was making such a request to one who was outside the bounds of the worshipping community reveals that in Jesus, God has broken through the barriers which “had been considered insurmountable. It is precisely the unclean, the disobedient, the sinner who is called in this case” (Schweizer 1986:13).

Alfred Edersheim, a Biblical scholar and historian, believes that Levi followed Jesus about and taxed the crowds that came to hear Jesus teach (Edersheim 1988:519). Since Jesus gathered crowds wherever He went and tax collectors would set up their booth wherever people moved along a road or gathered, placing a tax booth wherever Jesus went would have been quite profitable for Levi. If Edersheim is right, Levi was already following Jesus around, and taxing the people who gathered to hear Him teach. Jesus Himself was probably taxed on various occasions as well.

Of course, as Levi taxed the people who gathered, he would have seen the miracles Jesus performed, and heard what Jesus taught. Tax collectors were not allowed to attend the synagogue for the teaching of Scripture, but if Levi had been following Jesus for some time, he would have heard on multiple occasions the truths Jesus taught about the love of God, forgiveness, and eternal life.

Jesus probably noticed that the presence of a tax collector bothered his disciples and many of the others who gathered to hear Him teach. And yet, rather than ask Levi to stop following Him around, Jesus does the opposite, and actually invites Levi to officially become one of His followers! Jesus doesn’t care that society hates Levi. Jesus doesn’t care that Levi is a wretched sinner. He just wants Levi to follow Him.

In Jewish culture, it was normal for Rabbis to gather followers around them. But as seen here, Jesus did it in an entirely unusual way. Stephen Jones explains:

John 1:36 describes how disciples typically sought out their teachers and presented themselves for the learning relationship. Only after careful examination did the rabbi extend an invitation. The caliber of the disciples reflected greatly upon the reputation of the rabbi. Only the brightest and best were accepted.

The more familiar pattern for Jesus was his recruiting disciples, seeking them out and calling them to follow him. This would no doubt seem a desperate approach for a rabbi, as if no deserving students would approach him. Unlike others, Jesus called his disciples to come and follow him (Jones 1997:24).

And even in selecting His disciples, Jesus did not choose the best and the brightest, but rather the outcast, despised, and rejected. Levi certainly fit the bill. The attitude of Jesus toward Levi was in complete contrast to the other religious people of His day. Those whom they rejected, He accepted. Those whom they despised, He loved. Those whom they avoided, Jesus sought. In the calling of Levi by Jesus, grace has become an event. The question of whether or not Levi’s sins have been forgiven is irrelevant. The calling of Levi proves that through Jesus, forgiveness of sins has been granted to all, even to the worst of sinners (cf. Schweizer 1986:14).

5:28. In response to the invitation of Jesus, Levi left all, rose up, and followed Him. This is nearly identical to the response of Peter, James, and John when Jesus called them to be fishers of men in Luke 5:11. They left their boats, nets, and record catch of fish to follow Jesus. Levi does the same thing. Levi recognized a good opportunity when he saw it. The cost of leaving everything behind to follow Jesus was well worth it.

Once Levi left his booth, it was like turning in his resignation. Very likely, the tax gathering booth did not stay empty for long. The position was probably filled within a day. Although being a tax gatherer cost you your friends and family and the respect of your neighbors, it gave you great wealth, and there are always people who will do almost anything for money. In that society, just like in ours, there were men who were willing to be seen as a traitor if they could just become rich. Though tax collectors were hated, there were always people ready and waiting to become a tax collector.

Luke says nothing here about the issue of Levi’s eternal destiny. The text does not indicate one way or the other that Levi has believed in Jesus for eternal life.

5:29. Though Levi had left his tax booth behind, he still was able to invite Jesus to a great feast in his own house. Though he had left his job, he had not given up his house or all his money. He had simply stopped working as a tax collector. And one of the first things he does is host a party for Jesus. This is the first of many parties in Luke’s gospel, and as with all parties, is a sign of the new era being initiated by Jesus (Wright 2004:64).

Also at this party were a great number of tax collectors and others. Being socially outcast, tax collectors and others like them were the only type of people Levi knew. He didn’t know any upright and socially acceptable people, as they would not want him for a friend. Levi and his companions are not the “moral upper crust of society” (Bock 1994:495).

In Jewish thinking, tax collectors were on the same level as prostitutes (Matt. 21:32). The religious people and the upright citizens didn’t want to have anything to do with either, but Jesus loves both and shows compassion toward both. Here we see Him sharing a meal with tax collectors. Being religious outcasts as they were, it is unlikely that the food was ceremonially pure according to the Pharisaical standards. Jesus, however, appears to not be overly concerned about the religious purity of the food He ate (Evans 2003:192; Green 1997:243).

5:30. As a result of Jesus eating a meal with tax collectors, the scribes and Pharisees complained.The word complained (Gk. gogguzein) could also be translated “grumbled.” While it is a rare word in the New Testament (only here and in Matt 20:11), it is used frequently in the Septuagint when the Israelites grumbled against God and Moses while wandering in the wilderness (Beale 2007:293; Evans 2003:193).

Here, they grumble about Jesus eating with tax collectors. Jewish religious leaders went to great pains to avoid sin or even the appearance of sin. They felt that sharing a meal with sinful people gave the impression that they were condoning the sin. But their separation went beyond just sharing meals. They did business as much as possible only with other Pharisees. When they traveled, they stayed with other Pharisees. Talking with a sinner or touching a sinner was bad enough. But sitting down and sharing a meal with them was off limits. Sitting and eating with a sinner was the same thing as endorsing the sin (Bock 1994:495 n13).

Furthermore, while even the most observant Jew could eat with a Gentile in the Jewish home, no observant Jewish person would eat in the home of a Gentile or a sinning Jewish person, since it was impossible to know if the home was ritually pure or if the food was prepared according to kosher standards (Ford 1984:70).

So when the Pharisees see Jesus eating at the house of Levi, they were concerned. He was not behaving as a Rabbi should. Furthermore, they had heard some of His teaching about the Kingdom of God, and were concerned that Jesus was including all the wrong people in it (Wright 1996:273). And so they complain to Jesus and His disciples. This indicates that the disciples had also gone with Jesus to this meal. The Pharisees may have approached the disciples rather than Jesus because they had recently been bested by Him in such dialogue before. Another possibility, suggested by Chrysostom, is that they were trying to instill doubt and disloyalty in the hearts of the disciples (cf. Shepard 1939:146).

The criticism of the religious leaders was that Jesus and the disciples ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners. Whoever the “others” (5:29) at the feast were, the scribes and Pharisees viewed them assinners. The term (Gk. hamartōlōn) refers anyone who recognizes their sin, and not just to the worst of sinners (Bock 1994:496). The term is not overly critical or harsh, but the Pharisees still went to great lengths to separate themselves and their disciples from such people. Jesus was going against all normal methods of training His followers. He not only attends parties with sinners but invites them to be His disciples. Isolation from sinners is not what Jesus expects from those who follow Him (Bock 1994:492).

5:31. Though the Pharisees complained to the disciples, Jesus must have heard their criticism, and so it is He who responds. His answer is a parabolic summary of His initial mission statement in 4:17-19. There, His stated mission was to liberate those who in bondage and set captives free (cf. Green 1997:247). Here, He states that people who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. He draws an analogy between the sick and sinners. When one is sick, they seek help from a doctor. The doctor diagnoses the problem, then prescribes medicine or diet and lifestyle changes to overcome the sickness and improve health. When a person is not sick, they don’t go to a doctor. Only the sick go to a doctor.

5:32. Similarly, Jesus states that He did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.Just as healthy people don’t need doctors, righteous people don’t need repentance. In speaking of therighteous does Jesus mean those who are truly righteous in God’s sight, or those who are self-righteous in their own eyes? Most believe He is referring to people who are self-righteous (cf. Pentecost 1981:156), but either way, the statement is still true (cf. EBC 8:884).

Repentance is a turning away from sin toward obedience. As with the call to follow Jesus, repentance is not the same as believing in Jesus for eternal life. During His life, some people followed Jesus who did not believe in Him for eternal life, and some who believed in Him, did not follow Him. So also with repentance. Repentance is for all men, and even non-believers can turn from their sin toward obedience to God, but this does not give them eternal life. And believers, even though they have eternal life, must continue to repent as the Spirit convicts them of patterns of sin in their lives. And it is people who have patterns and habits of sin in their lives who are the sick. Those who recognize their sickness seek out a doctor.

Finally, it must be noted that during His ministry, Jesus did not spend a lot of time trying to convince people of their sin. He does this occasionally, but it is not His main focus of his ministry or evangelistic efforts. Most of His time is spent helping those who already know they need His help, while showing love, mercy, and unconditional forgiveness to everyone else.

This is what He is teaching His disciples. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict people of their sin (John 16:8). Jesus, and those who follow Him, should spend time with those who have been convicted of their sin, teaching them from the Scriptures about the love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness of God. Fishers of men cast their nets where the fish are most hungry. Those who were considered to be outside the boundaries of God’s love and concern are the very ones to whom Jesus has been sent (Green 1997:248).

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 5:17-26

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers 2 Comments

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


This passage is often used to prove that Jesus claimed to be God. Though Luke makes this point later in his account, such a reading is not the best understanding of this text. Rather, in this passage Jesus reveals four other significant truths. First, He is teaching His disciples how to fish for men. As they will learn, they also can announce the forgiveness of sins to others. Though people face many burdens, the burden of guilt and the lack of certainty about the love and forgiveness of God are some of the hardest to bear. There is great power in the truth that a person’s sins are forgiven and God is not angry.

The second point that Jesus makes is that He has come to raise Israel from paralysis. The man is portrayed in this text as an illustration of Israel. Throughout Luke and the other Gospels, the Jewish people are described as being unwilling and unable to move toward Jesus in faith. In this very context, the religious leaders reveal an almost complete paralysis of faith. By announcing the forgiveness of sins to this man, based on the faith of his friends, Jesus is showing that He also forgives the sins of the religious leaders and will also raise them to new life if they respond to the forgiveness they have received.

Third, Jesus shows that physical and spiritual restoration are connected. The Rabbis taught that “A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him, as it is written, ‘Who forgives all your iniquities; who heals all your diseases’” (Evans 2003:187). Though many come to Jesus seeking only physical deliverance, He knows that many of the problems they face actually require a spiritual cure. The spiritual problem must be taken care of before the physical can be addressed. This was not necessarily the case with the paralyzed man, but it is definitely the case with the nation of Israel. They wanted physical deliverance from Rome and a restoration of their land and inheritance, but such blessings cannot be granted until the sin of the nation was removed.

This leads to the fourth truth. In announcing forgiveness, and then healing the man, Jesus was not proving Himself to be God, but was proving Himself to be the Messiah. More of this will be explained below, but ultimately, Jesus was showing that part of His ministry was to remove the religious barriers between God and man. Through His life and ministry, He would do away with the religious priesthood, temple, and sacrificial system. Jesus was revolting against the rules and regulations of religion as a means of approaching God for the forgiveness of sins. Through Jesus, people can approach God directly, having already received forgiveness without condition.

5:17. As Jesus continued to travel and teach, news about Him spread, and questions began to be asked. The religious leaders of the day, the Pharisees and teachers of the law, were the ones who decided whether a person was teaching correctly or not. So they came from all over, out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem, to listen to Jesus teach. The title Pharisee comes from the Hebrew word meaning “to divide, to separate” and the Pharisees were known for their strict separation from the world, and for their exactness in making decisions and laws about what was allowed and not allowed in Jewish law and teaching. They were here to make such a decision. They had heard reports of what Jesus was teaching, and desired to hear Him for themselves in order to determine whether they should accept and encourage Him, or accuse and condemn Him.

Luke writes that the religious leaders were sitting. In Jewish culture of the time, teachers sat and taught while students stood. Probably Jesus was sitting as well, but the Pharisees wanted to be seen as equals to Jesus, as ones who did not need to learn anything from Him, but as those who would listen to what He taught in order to judge its validity.

The parallel account in Mark 2 tells us that there were not just Pharisees and teachers of the law present, but also a large crowd of people who had gathered to hear Jesus teach the Word of God (Mark 2:2). And Luke records that the power of the Lord was present to heal them. Luke, because he is a physician, emphasizes the healing ministry of Jesus, whereas Mark emphasizes the teaching ministry of Jesus. Jesus often did both. He taught the Word, and then He proved that what He was saying was true by performing miracles. In that time, this was how prophets showed that what they were teaching was true. So from this alone, the Pharisees and teachers of the law, and the surrounding crowd should have recognized that Jesus was a prophet of God, as many of them did (John 7:40).

However, many others were skeptical, and were probably getting ready to question and challenge the teachings of Jesus when something strange happened.

5:18. There were some men present who had brought on a bed a man who was paralyzed. In Jewish culture, paralysis was viewed as the judgment of God due to serious sin. As such, people who were paralyzed were banned from the priesthood, and in some areas, excluded from full participation in the community (Green 1997:239). This man was outcast by men, and viewed as judged by God.

The friends of this man had heard of the healing power of Jesus, and wanted to bring in and lay the paralyzed man before Jesus. The house was crowded to overflowing, and in Mark 2, it says that there was no room at the door. Trying to get a makeshift bed through a standing-room only crowd would cause quite a disturbance. In the story, the crowd of people, which includes religious leaders, represents a barrier that is keeping the man from Jesus (Green 1997:240). This is what the man has experienced in life as a result of his paralysis. People, led by the religious leaders, kept him from experiencing God and receiving any blessing from God.

5:19. The men could not find how they might bring him in, because of the crowd. The men were persistent, however, and decided to go upon the [/b]housetop and let him down with his bed through the tiling into the midst before Jesus.[/b] Jewish homes generally had flat roofs which stairs going up the side of the house. On summer nights, families might go up there to sleep where they could catch the cool evening breeze. They were constructed with wood beams covered with thatching, which were then laid over with mud, clay, and stone tile (Barclay 1975:62; Bock 1994:480). To lower the man through the roof, they would have torn up the rock tile, dug a hole through the clay and mud, and ripped out the thatching. These roofs could have been as much as three feet thick, making it nearly impossible to dig through, and if done so, would essentially destroy the house (Pentecost 1981:152). So it is more likely that Jesus was in a covered gallery, or side room, of the main house. The roofs on such rooms had similar construction, but were much thinner (Edersheim 1988:503). All of this would have created quite a stir in the room below, both from the noise and with the falling pieces of mud and dirt. The owner of the house may have been alarmed as well.

Finally, when the gaping hole is large enough, the men lower the paralyzed man on the pallet down to the floor in front of Jesus.

5:20. Jesus saw their faith and was impressed. This is the first mention of faith (Gk. pistis) in Luke. The content of what they believed is not explained. But the fact that Jesus saw their faith probably refers to how they took every step possible to bring the paralyzed man before Jesus. In this case, their faith is not a metaphysical persuasion within the mind, but an outward, visible, act of faith. They were not believing in Jesus for eternal life, believing that He was God, or placing faith in Him as the Messiah. They believed the words which Jesus taught, which was probably that since Jesus had power to heal, the Kingdom of God was at hand (Evans 2003:186; cf. Luke 4:18). As a result of this belief, they acted on it, and did what was necessary.

When the main had been laid before Jesus, He said to him, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” Many get confused by this verse because they think that Jesus has just given eternal life to the paralyzed man based the faith of his friends. But this is not the case.

Jesus is not giving the man eternal life. He is simply announcing that his sins are forgiven. Through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is provided to the entire world without condition (1 John 2:2). This does not mean that all have eternal life, however, since faith in Jesus is required for that (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

These men certainly had faith, and they believed in Jesus for healing. But they did not believe in Jesus for eternal life, at least not according to anything written in the text. So this passage is not about receiving eternal life. It is about how Jesus offers forgiveness of sins, which in a Jewish context, is related to the Messianic actions of bringing physical deliverance from sickness, bondage, and judgment (cf. 1:77; 3:3; 24:47). “Jesus’ offer is not to be construed, as it has been so often, as an attempt to play at ‘being god’… Forgiveness was an eschatological blessing; if Israel went into exile because of her sins, then forgiveness consists in her returning: returning to YHWH, returning from exile” (Wright 2006:434).

The men, including the paralyzed man, were probably not expecting to hear that the man’s sins were forgiven. They just wanted the man to be healed. But Jesus is showing that sometimes spiritual deliverance is a prerequisite to physical restoration. Plus, Jesus wants to prove that He is destroying the religious walls that have been erected between God and man. The religious leaders question Jesus about this in the following verses.

5:21. As a result of Jesus declaring that the man’s sins are forgiven, the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason among themselves about what Jesus meant. They make the accusation that Jesusspeaks blasphemies for ”Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Due to what the Pharisees say, many believe that in telling the man that his sins are forgiven, Jesus is making a claim to being divine (cf. Edersheim 1988:505; Pentecost 1981:153; GNTC I:249). On the surface, it does seem this is what the Pharisees understand Jesus to be claiming. After all, what other form of blasphemy is there except someone claiming to be God when they are not? This understanding is supported by verses like Psalm 103:12 which says that only God can forgive sins.

But there at least three other reasons why Jesus could have been accused of blasphemy. This accusation could have leveled against Jesus for speaking against the Torah, engaging in idolatry, or bringing shame on Yahweh’s name (Bock 1994:483).

So Jesus is probably not making a claim about His deity. The religious leaders thought Jesus was speaking against the Torah, or at least, their understanding of it. This is especially true when the forgiveness of sins is understood within Roman culture and the Jewish religion. Culturally, the Roman emperor claimed to have the power to forgiven sins, not for “eternal life” but so that the rains would come and crops would grow (Evans 2003:187). Forgiveness of sins was related to physical restoration and healing.

It is the same in Judaism. Forgiveness of sins, as has already been pointed out (cf. 1:77; 3:3), is related to the release and restoration of persons and individuals from the temporal consequences of sin, such as physical sickness or death, temporal judgment, and bondage to other nations. It is not how to gain entrance into heaven or eternal life, but is a prerequisite to the arrival of the Kingdom of God. In Judaism, the primary means by which this forgiveness was obtained was through the sacrificial system at the temple as administered by the priests. When a guilty person when to the temple, and offered their sacrifice to the priests in the prescribed way, the priest would pronounce that their sins were forgiven (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, etc.). This was the method prescribed by God.

So it was not uncommon for a priest to announce to a person that their sins were forgiven. Sometimes even prophets did this (2 Sam 12:13). Yet nobody believed that when a priest said this, the priest was claiming to be God. They were simply following the regulations laid out by God for the forgiveness of sins. Everybody understood that when a priest said, “Your sins are forgiven,” they meant, “Your sins are forgiven by God.” That is how Jesus would have been understood. When Jesus announced that the man’s sins were forgiven, nobody thought He was making a claim to be God. If He had wanted to claim He was God, He would have said, “I forgive your sins.” But He doesn’t. He speaks in the passive voice (“Your sins are forgiven”), just as a priest would, implying that it was God who forgave the man his sins.

So the issue was not what Jesus said, but rather the context in which He said it. Only the priests could offer forgiveness of sins, and even then, only to people who were in the temple, and after they had made the proper sacrifices. By telling the man, “Your sins are forgiven” Jesus was bypassing the temple, the priests, and the sacrificial system. Though not claiming to be God, Jesus was claiming to speak for God as a prophet (Wright 2004:60).

A few quotes from N. T. Wright explain in more detail:

The point is that Jesus was offering the return from exile, the renewed covenant, the eschatological ‘forgiveness of sins’—in other words, the kingdom of god. And he was offering the final eschatological blessing outside the official structures, to all the wrong people, and on his own authority. That was his real offense (Wright 1996:272).

’My child, your sins are forgiven’: that sentence has the effect of a private individual approaching you on the street and offering to issue you with a passport or a driving license—or, perhaps more appropriately in this case, a private individual approaching a prisoner in jail and offering him a royal pardon, signed by himself. From the twentieth-century, late-deist, western-individual perception, it looks simply as if Jesus is behaving as ‘god’, dispensing forgiveness from a great metaphysical height. That gives a spurious perception of why such symbolic behavior was shocking. In first-century Jewish reality, the way YHWH forgave sins, as we saw, was ultimately through the officially established and authorized channels of Temple and priesthood (Wright 2006:435).

It was this that the religious leaders could not stand. Jesus was doing away with their religious system, and allowing humans to approach God without the temple, without the priests, and without a sacrifice. It was unthinkable! These were things God had ordained, so in the thinking of the religious leaders, Jesus was speaking blasphemy. “The objection of the Pharisees…was that Jesus was claiming to offer something he had no right to offer, on conditions he had no right to set, to people who had no right to receive it” (Wright 2006:436).

5:22. Though He did not hear what they said, Jesus perceived their thoughts, or understood what they accusing Him of, and told them so. Again, this would not prove His divinity, as if He had omniscience. At most, it proves that Jesus is a prophet (Green 1997:242). They have questioned Him in their hearts, and so now He sets out to question them.

5:23. Jesus sets out to prove that He has authority to forgive sins without the temple, the priesthood, or the sacrificial system. He asks, ”Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise up and walk’?” Clearly, the former is easier to say since there is no outward evidence that actual forgiveness has taken place. But if someone says “Rise up and walk” all would be able to see whether the paralyzed man actually walks or not. The first statement cannot be demonstrated, but the second can.

5:24. According to Jewish thinking, a Prophet’s words can only be trusted if he has the accompanying signs to back him up. Jesus is going to provide a sign to prove that He has the authority to forgiven sins without religious rituals or intermediaries. If the man is healed, this proves that Jesus is not a blasphemer, but that the power of God is with Him.

Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man. This is the first time this title is used of Jesus in Luke’s account, and the only time it is used in connection to a miraculous healing. In the Hebrew Scriptures, this title (Heb. ben Adam) is most often used of the Prophet Ezekiel. A major theme in Ezekiel is that God will take the dead nation of Israel and restore her to new life. This is especially seen in the famous vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37). Since Jesus is about to restore life to a paralyzed man as a picture of how He can restore life to a paralyzed nation, it is fitting that this is the first place where Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man.

The title has further significance, however. It does not indicate divinity, but rather, humanity, or anyone who is son of Adam (Heb. ben Adam). The usage in Daniel 7:13 (cf. 8:17) contrasts the Son of Man with the four beasts. They are spiritual; the Son of Man is human (Bock 1994:486). When Jesus uses this title of Himself, He is hinting that He is the new Adam, the new representative of humanity, the new model for all mankind (cf. Rom 5:12-21). As sons of Adam ourselves, we also are able to announce the forgiveness of sins that is freely given to all through Jesus Christ. We, however, do not need to seek the accompanying miraculous signs, since we do not have to prove that we have the authority to bypass religion. Jesus has already proven this. Nevertheless, we must still seek to bring healing and restoration in the lives of others, even if it is not through “miraculous” means.

After referring to Himself as the Son of Man, He sets out to prove that He has power on earth to forgive sins. He does this by saying to the man who was paralyzed, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

5:25. As a result of the words of Jesus, the paralyzed man rose up before them, took up what he had been lying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. The physical transformation would have been visible to the eye as atrophied muscles strengthened and rebuilt. The man did not remain, but picked up his mat, and went home, giving praise to God.

5:26. All the people who witnessed the miraculous healing were amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” Not only did they see the roof torn off a house and a bed drop down from the ceiling, but then a showdown between Jesus and the Pharisees followed in which Jesus healed a man of paralysis and proved that forgiveness of sins was available to all without the need of religious rituals.

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 5:12-16

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers 5 Comments

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


After calling some fishermen to follow Him, Jesus begins to show them what it means to be a fisher of men. The people that Jesus tried to catch were not the rich, the powerful, and the influential, but primarily the poor, the sick, and the neglected. Tax collectors, prostitutes, Gentiles, and thieves were drawn to Jesus. In Luke 5:12-16, Jesus reaches out to a person from one of the most rejected groups of all—a leper. This account is parallel in many ways to 4:31-37, and continues to show that Jesus is a prophet like Elisha, and maybe more than a prophet. The point, however, is to show the reader how the mission of Jesus was carried out. He did not focus on the rich and powerful. He had no desire to gather multitudes of followers. He wanted to do exactly what He said in 4:18-19, to heal, mend, restore, and set free.

5:12. The event takes place when Jesus was in a certain city. Luke does not specify which city this was, but it was probably a city of Galilee. However, in this city, Jesus encounters someone who should not be there: a man who was full of leprosy. To be full of leprosy means that he had an advanced case of leprosy. It covered his body (Evans 2003:165).

Leprosy is a dreadful disease. Many believe that leprosy causes the skin to rot and fall off the body, but this is not really the case. Leprosy primarily attacks the body’s nervous system so that the leper eventually loses the ability to feel. The infected parts of the body go numb and eventually lose all sensitivity. So technically, having leprosy never actually kills anyone. Instead, what kills a person with leprosy is the damage that is done to the body as a result of it not being able to feel pain. True leprosy, also known as “Hansen’s disease, occurred rarely, if at all, in first-century Palestine; hence the term here probably refers to skin diseases of other sorts (cf. Leviticus 13)” (Malina 203:246). However, medical science of the time had little ability to distinguish between skin diseases, and so all skin diseases were categorized under “leprosy” and treated the same. Other skin diseases that may have been broadly categorized as “leprosy” are psoriasis, lupus, ringworm, and favus (Bock 1994:472).

Lepers were expected to wear torn clothing, live outside the town, and cry “Unclean! Unclean!” if approached by people (Lev 13:45). They were not allowed to have contact with other people, including friends or family. If a leper refused to leave a town, the authorities could enforce it by threatening him with thirty-nine lashes, the most allowable by law (Edersheim 1988:493; cf. Pentecost 1981:149). If a leper touched an animal, the animal had to be killed. If a leper entered a house, the house and all its contents had to be burned. But leprosy wasn’t just a Rabbis viewed leprosy as a type of “living death” and commanded people to avoid lepers, not only for sanitary or health considerations, but also for moral reasons (Edersheim 1988:492). Leprosy was often associated with sin (Bock 1994:473). They truly were “untouchables” in every sense of the word. They were despised, forsaken, forgotten, ignored, judged, and condemned. Some of them felt such shame and rejection, they committed suicide (Barclay 1975:58). This unqualified love and acceptance of those whom society rejects sets the scene for the calling of Matthew in Luke 5:27-32.

If this man was full of leprosy, he probably had not had much human contact for many years (Wright 2004:57). But for some reason, this man had come into the city, which is quite shocking. The crowds would have parted before him like the Red Sea before Moses. Nobody wanted to be near a man with leprosy.

Why did he come into the city? Luke does not say. Maybe he came searching for Jesus. And when hesaw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” How did the leper recognize Jesus? Either he had seen Jesus before, or he had heard descriptions of Him. Or maybe, as the crowds gave way before the leper, Jesus did not move out of the way, but let the leprous man draw near. However it happened, the man prostrated himself before Jesus and begged for cleansing. This request was not conditional upon the ability of Jesus to heal, but rather upon His willingness. The leper knew Jesus could heal, if only He was willing (Bock 1994:474). This request is similar to 2 Kings 5;3 where Naaman is advised to seek a prophet if he would be cleansed of his leprosy.

5:13. Before Jesus answered the man, He put out His hand and touched him. Such an action would have shocked both the leper and the disciples (Malina 2003:246). People were supposed to stay well away from lepers, but Rabbis and Priests in particular would avoid lepers, for touching one would make them ceremonially unclean. One Rabbi would not eat an egg purchased from a street that had a leper. Another Rabbi boasted that he threw stones at lepers in order to keep them well away (Edersheim 1988:495). The actions of Jesus were far different. Though touching the leper made Jesus ceremonially unclean, such an action was necessary for Jesus to show tenderness, acceptance, and compassion to a man who had not received such love in a long time. Jesus shows what is necessary to be a fisher of men.

Beyond just touching him, Jesus said, “I am willing; be cleansed.” He rewarded the man’s request of faith, announced His willingness to cleanse the man, and immediately the leprosy left him. Being healed of the leprosy may have meant more than just the disease leaving the man’s body. It may have been that the man was fully healed, receiving back his fingers, toes, or any limbs that may have been lost. If the people following Jesus had been shocked when Jesus touched the man, they would be more shocked at seeing the man become instantaneously whole again.

5:14. The man’s first instinct was probably to go home to his wife and family. However, Jesus instructed the man to make sure he follows the Mosaic Law, and tell no one but instead, first ”go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering.” Jesus knew that the man would go home to his family, and also tell his neighbors what had happened. How could he not? But before he did that, Jesus wanted the man to first do what the Law required, and get pronounced clean by the priest, and then also make an offering, just as Moses commanded Such actions would enable the man to go home without fear of infecting his family (I agree with Bock 1994:475 who presents this as the most likely explanation).

In this way, the man would also be a testimony to the priests. Prior to this event, the Bible only records three people who had been cleansed of leprosy, and one of them wasn’t even Jewish (Moses, Miriam, and Naaman). Cleansing from this form of leprosy was always miraculous. When this man presented himself, the priest would have known that something amazing had just taken place. Possibly this was the very priest who had pronounced the man unclean years earlier. Getting declared clean was a week-long process (Lev 14:1-32; cf. Bock 1994:476).

The religious leaders of the day had developed a list of signs which would accompany the coming of the Messiah. One of them was the healing of those with leprosy. When this man appears before the priest claiming to be cleansed from what only two people had ever been cleansed from before, the priest should have recognized that the Messiah had come. When Jesus tells the man to go make the offering, it was to be a testimony to the priests that the Messiah had come.

Earlier, in Luke 4:27, Jesus has said that though there were many lepers in Israel at the time of Elisha, only Naaman was cleansed. So here, Jesus has done something that one of Israel’s greatest prophets had not done—heal a Jewish man of leprosy. This would have been a great testimony to the priests and people of that day, and the natural response should be to accept Him, not only as a prophet, but as the promised Messiah, for the only known cure of leprosy was by miracle (Lightfoot 1989:78).

5:15. After the man did what Jesus asked, the report went around concerning Him all the more (cf. 4:37; cf. Mark 1:4-54). It was not only the man who spread the news, but the people who saw Jesus heal the man. As a result, great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by Him.Hearing and healing is a constant theme throughout Luke, but especially in these opening chapters (Hearing, 4:16-30; Healing, 4:31-41; Hearing, 4:42-5:11; Healing, 5:12-26; Hearing, 5:27-6:5; Healing, 6:6-19; Hearing, 6:20-49; Healing, 7:1-17; etc.). If Jesus was trying to keep the report about Him from spreading, teaching and healing the multitudes was not the best way to accomplish that.

5:16. Some have understood verse 16 to say that rather than teach and heal the multitudes when they came to Him, Jesus retreated and went to the wilderness to pray. But this is not the best way to understand this text. Instead, after Jesus had taught and healed the multitudes, he withdrew into the wilderness and prayed. The wilderness was not only the place of Jesus greatest test and temptation, but also the place for being refueled spiritually. It was there, in the wilderness, alone with God and His thoughts, that he prayed to continue in the will of God. Of all the gospel writers, Luke emphasizes the prayer life of Jesus more than any other.

He often withdrew in such a manner, which means that this was not a onetime event. The multitudes often came to hear him teach and be healed. He often met their needs, and afterwards, withdrew to spend time in prayer. For Luke’s purposes, Jesus is shown to be focusing on His relationship with God, rather than fanning the flames of a people’s movement (Bock 1994:478).

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 5:1-11

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers 2 Comments

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


One of the primary functions of Jesus during His ministry was preaching and teaching the Word of God. This focus on explaining Scripture allowed Him to reveal what living in light of the Kingdom of God looked like. Such instruction was essential for the disciples of Jesus if they were going to carry on the mission of Jesus, as they begin to do in Acts (cf. Green 1997:228).

The events in this section are near the beginning of the second year of ministry, and due to His teaching and miracles, Jesus has gathered quite a large number of followers. However, at the beginning of this second year, Jesus began to focus on teaching several of these followers. Luke 5:1-11 records the selection of three of these.

It is unclear if this event is parallel to or follows after the similar events in Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20. Many believe the events are parallel, but there are enough differences between those accounts and this passage in Luke to lead one to believe the events are different (cf. Bock 1994:450). For example, in Matthew 4 and Mark 1, Jesus is walking along the shore and invites Simon and Andrew to follow Him, and then walking along some more, also invites James and John. But in Luke 5, Jesus is teaching from a boat, and from within the boat, after a great catch of fish, He invites Simon to catch men. If they are all talking about the same account, it seems incredible that neither Matthew nor Mark include the miraculous catch of fish. But then, even if they are different events, this miraculous catch of fish is not recorded at all in Matthew or Luke. It seems best to conclude that they are different events, with the accounts of Matthew and Mark preceding the account of Luke by a few weeks or months. This view is supported by the fact that Simon is already following Jesus (4:38-39).

5:1. The end of chapter four indicated that Jesus intended to teach the Scriptures all over the region of Galilee. On one such day, the multitudes had gathered to hear Jesus teach the word of God. Jesus not only taught the Scriptures in the synagogue on the Sabbath, but whenever and wherever the opportunity presented itself. On this occasion, He taught on the shore of the Lake of Gennesaret, also known as the Sea of Galilee. The lake is about eight miles wide and fourteen miles long and was a popular place for fishing (on fishing, see Edersheim, 1988:473ff).

5:2. As the crowd grew and pressed in on Jesus to hear what He was saying, He found himself backed up against the water, and so, not wanting to stand in the water and teach, He decided to get into a boat and teach a little way out from shore. There were two boats standing by the lake; but the fishermen had gone from them and were washing their nets. Most likely, they were able to listen to Jesus teach while they went about their work. The detail about the fishermen washing their nets is crucial for the development of the tension in this text.

Fishing on the Sea of Galilee was mostly done at night as this is when fish were more active, out of hiding, and had more difficulty seeing the linen nets (Green 1997:232; Bailey 2008:140-141). There were two ways of fishing using nets. The first used a circular net with weights around the circumference of the net, with a long cord coming out of the center. During the night, the fishermen would stand on the boat or shore with the night slung over their shoulder. While holding on to the cord, they would flip the net out over the water so that it twirled and spread out wide. When it hit the water, the weights cause the net to drop to the bottom like a cone, trapping any fish within. Using the cord, the fisherman begins to slowly draw the net back up while the weights on the net draw together along the bottom, keeping the fish inside. Once the net is pulled up, and the fish removed, the whole process is repeated. This type of fishing is probably what is done later in the ministry of Jesus when He tells them to cast their nets on the other side of the boat (John 21:6).

The second type of fishing required two boats, and used a dragnet (cf. Matt 13:47). It was for deep water fishing, generally done at night, and allowed for a larger number of fish to be caught. It was the kind of fishing being done here, since two boats are mentioned. The boats would go a certain way out into the water, and then, with the spread the net between them, drop the lower end of the net to the bottom while the top was secured to the boats. Then the boats would slowly move in toward shore, dragging the net along the bottom as they want. The net acted like a sieve, trapping fish inside until the net was pulled up near shore.

Both methods required long hours of hard, physical labor during the night. But once morning came, the work was not done. The fish not only had to be cleaned and sold, but the nets had to be cleaned and sewn. Dragging the nets along the bottom caused them to pick up sticks, stones, and other debris that had to removed, and small tears had to be mended so they did not become large, gaping holes which allowed the fish to escape. Cleaning the nets was a long, arduous process, and took several hours. After this was complete, the fisherman could go home and sleep, before rising at dusk to repeat the whole process.

5:3. The fisherman had no need of their boats while they cleaned the nets, and so Jesus got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little from the land. Maybe Simon was finished with cleaning his nets, or maybe the other fisherman agreed to finish so that Jesus could finish teaching. Listening to Him most certainly made the time go faster. So Simon took Jesus a little way out from shore, and from there, Jesus sat down and taught the multitudes from the boat. As Jesus taught, Simon rowed to keep the boat from drifting down the shore and away from the crowd.

This is the not the first time Jesus and Simon had met. About a year earlier, Jesus had invited Simon’s brother, Andrew, to follow Him, and Andrew brought Simon along as well (John 1:35-42). But they hadn’t left their fishing, and it seems that Jesus spent time where Simon and Andrew were so they and the other fisherman could learn from Jesus while He taught without having to leave their jobs. But this is all about to change.

5:4. After Jesus finished speaking He asked Simon to take the boat out into the deep and let downthe nets for a catch. This was a strange request on multiple levels. First, Simon was the professional fisherman; Jesus was not. Jesus was a carpenter, and while He probably knew the basics of fishing, He was not as skilled or as knowledgeable as Simon. From Simon’s perspective, the request of Jesus reveals His ignorance. It was probably nearing the middle of the day, which is the worst time of the day to fish, as every fisherman knows. The nets were made for night fishing, and during the day, the nets were visible to the fish, and could be avoided.

Second, Simon and his friends had just finished cleaning their nets and should be going home to bed so they can be well rested for the next night of fishing. If they let down the nets now, they would have be cleaned again, which would take most of the afternoon, leaving little time left for sleep. This, in turn, would make it more difficult for them to fish that night.

5:5. Simon’s answer reflects some of his frustration. Though he refers to Jesus as Master, the title is more equivalent to Rabbi, with the implication that Jesus is a teacher, while Simon is the fisherman (Bock 1994:456; Bailey 2008:142). He and the other fisherman have already toiled all night and caught nothing. The word toiled (Gk. kopiasantes) refers to wearisome work, and indicates that Simon and his partners are tired from a long night of fruitless labor (Bock 1994:456). This is a tactful way of saying that if they didn’t catch anything during the night, they wouldn’t catch anything during the day either. And fishing during the day would only make them more tired for fishing during the following night, which may lead to another night of no fish. From a fisherman’s perspective, Jesus was making a foolish request.

Nevertheless, at the word of Jesus, Simon Peter agrees to let down the net. Maybe he does this to humor Jesus, but the text seems to imply he did it out of faithful obedience. Simon Peter did not know what was going to happen, or even if something would happen. Jesus promised nothing for obedience.

5:6. When they had let down the net and started to pull it back in, they discovered that they had caught a great number of fish. So many, in fact, that their net was breaking. Unlike in John 21:11, where they caught 153 fish, it is not recorded how many fish were caught.

5:7. So as not to break the net and lose all the fish, they signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. Even then, there were so many fish, that they filled both the boatsand they began to sink.

5:8. The response of Simon Peter to this miracle reveals some of what he may have been thinking when Jesus asked him to let down his nets after he had just finished cleaning them. He is called Simon Peter here, rather than just Simon, because his new apostolic nature starting to emerge. Occasionally in the Gospels, Simon the man is set in contrast to Peter the Apostle. He is more commonly referred to asPeter once Jesus gives him this nickname in Luke 6:14.

The response of Peter to this miracle is surprising. The general response to such a miracle would be amazement, wonder, awe, and a desire for Jesus to stay and perform more miracles (cf. 4:42). But Peter asks Jesus to depart. Peter states that he is a sinful man, implying that he has no right to be in the company of Jesus. But what sin had Peter committed? It was probably not something Peter said or did, but something he thought about Jesus. He may have felt anger, bitterness, or resentment at Jesus for asking Peter to fish in the middle of the day. Peter had just finished cleaning his nets, and to let them down again would require Peter to clean them all over again. This would keep him from going home to his family, and from getting adequate rest to prepare for the next night of fishing. Though it is not recorded, it is quite likely that such thoughts went through Peter’s mind, and now he is confessing them to Jesus, saying that he is not worthy to be in the company of Jesus.

Also, if it is granted that the events here in Luke follow Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20 by a period of a few weeks or months, then Simon has previously been called to follow Jesus and become a fisher of men, but has now gone back to fishing. If so, he may be confessing the sin of turning back from following Jesus. He is confessing his doubt in the ability of Jesus to provide for him.

But now, far from doubting Jesus, Peter declares Jesus is his Lord. This is in contrast to the earlier usage of “Master” (5:5). Simon is not stating that Jesus is God (Green 1997:233), and it is not even certain that Peter believed Jesus was the Messiah (cf. Matt 16:16; contra. Pentecost 1981:143). Instead, Peter now recognizes the authority of Jesus, and submits himself to Jesus as One who is worthy of trust.

5:9. The reason for Peter’s confession of sin is that he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken. The miracle caused amazement, which led to the recognition that Jesus had not asked them to do something ridiculous after all.

5:10. Among these others were James and John, the sons of Zebedee. John may have been one of the first followers of Jesus (John would be the unnamed second disciple in John 1:45-52). As fishing partners with Simon, they would have shared in the task of cleaning the nets and hauling in the fish, as well as the potential rewards from such a great catch (See Bailey 2008:142-143 for some of the thoughts that may have gone through Simon’s head).

Simon has confessed his sin to Jesus, and might be afraid that Jesus will not allow Simon to follow Him any longer. When Jesus speaks to Simon directly, He is not talking only Simon, but speaking to him as the spokesperson and leader for the group. Jesus to him, “Do not be afraid. From now on you will catch men.” Jesus is not here to judge or condemn Simon, but to challenge and encourage him in discipleship directions. Again, if this event follows the previous earlier calling (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20), then Jesus is reiterating that Simon can trust Jesus to provide for him as he follows Jesus in catching men.

The idea of catching men does not refer primarily to saving souls from hell so they can go to heaven when they die. “The figure is one of rescue from danger, as the OT and Jewish usage of the concepts ‘to let live’ and ‘to save alive’ show” (Bock 1994:461). Though fish are caught to die, people are rescued to live. This call to discipleship, though frequently observed among Jewish Rabbis, was different in many regards. Jesus was not calling them to learn doctrine or to continue more fully in a way of life they were already practicing, but to learn and follow a completely new way of life, a life of mission, ministry, and service among people who, like Simon, saw themselves as sinners (cf. 5:32). Just as Simon had been “caught” by Jesus, so Jesus was calling Simon to catch others.

5:11. Simon had learned to trust Jesus, even when the request seemed foolish. So now, having just made the largest catch of his entire career as a fisherman, and when they had brought their boats to land, they forsook all and followed Him. They left the boats, the nets, and the record number of fish, and followed Jesus, which becomes a common imagery for being a disciple of Jesus. These men recognized that He had called them to a greater and higher purpose than fishing, and has proven that He has the “knowledge and ability to guide” (Bock 1994:454). The night before, Simon had come home empty handed. Now, as a result of doing what Jesus had said, he and his partners had made the biggest catch of their lives. Now Jesus was asking Simon to do something that seemed even more foolish. He was asking Simon to leave it all behind and follow Jesus in pursuit of something even more valuable; to follow Jesus in catching men.

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 4:38-44

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers Leave a Comment

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


In fulfillment of Luke 4:18-19, Jesus continues to carry out His ministry through preaching the gospel and performing miracles.

4:38. After preaching in the synagogue and casting out the demon (4:33-35), Jesus entered Simon’s house. This is the first time Simon—who later becomes known as Peter— is mentioned in the book of Luke, and he has not yet officially become a disciple of Jesus (cf. Luke 5:1-11). Simon is probably one of those who regularly attended the Capernaum synagogue, and they went there for the Sabbath afternoon meal. But when they arrived, they learned that Simon’s wife’s mother was sick with a high fever. Simon was married and had a wife (cf. 1 Cor 9:5), and his mother-in-law lived there as well, and she was sick. The fact that she is living with her son may indicate that she was a widow (Malina 2003:244; Green 1997:225).

The term Luke uses here for high fever is an actual diagnoses for a well-known fever at that time, also called Eshatha Tsemirta, or the “burning fever” (Gk. puretō megalō; Bock 1994:436). The Jewish Talmud prescribes the following remedy: one must take a knife made of iron and tie it to a thornbush with a braid of hair and then for four days, recite one verse a day from Exodus 3:2-5. On the fourth day, the bush is to be cut down, and a formula should be pronounced (Edersheim 1988:486).

But Jesus did none of this. Instead, they—probably Simon and his wife—made a request to Jesus to see if He would heal her. They did not demand something of Jesus, or expect magical rites and ceremonies, but made a simple request to Him.

4:39. In response to their request, Jesus stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. No ceremony or rite was required. Jesus simply told the fever to depart, and it did. The terminology here is nearly identical to the immediately preceding event when Jesus rebuked the demon (4:35). Some have argued that this indicates that this fever was caused by a demon (cf. Bock 1994:436). Later, Jesus rebukes the wind and waves (8:24), and so some see similar demonic influence there. But such understandings read too much into the text, and give too much credit and power to the devil. It is better to understand these texts as ways of revealing that Jesus has come to reverse all that is wrong with the world, whether it is demonic oppression, disease and sickness, or destructive storms. Furthermore, Luke is a physician and knew the difference between sickness and a demon. He says Simon’s mother-in-law is sick, and we must not read more into it than that. Also, if this sickness was caused by a demon, then the healing that Jesus performs here would only continue to show His power and authority over demons; not His power and authority over regular physical ailments. But Luke is intent on showing that Jesus has power over all areas of life which cause problems to humans.

So after Jesus healed the woman, she arose and served them. She was serving them food on the Sabbath, which was not a violation of the Sabbath. Luke records this to show that not only was she healed of the fever, but she also received all her strength. She did not have to recuperate (Pentecost 1981:146). And once she is healed, she served. Being healed by Jesus resulted in service to Him.

4:40. Near the end of the Sabbath day, as the sun was setting, Jesus went out from Simon’s house to heal all who were sick with various diseases. There are no complaints about Jesus healing on the Sabbath, though this will become an issue later as the religious leaders look to find some fault with Jesus. On this Sabbath, He didn’t heal just a select few, but laid His hands on every one of them and healed them. Jesus was not just a good teacher of spiritual truths, but also sought to alleviate pain and suffering in the people around Him. And He wasn’t concerned only with those who were closest to Him, but for all people who came with their needs.

4:41. Jesus not only healed the sick, but demons also came out of many. As they were case out by Jesus, many tried to proclaim who He was, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” This is very similar to what the demon in 4:34 said. The demons were intent on proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah. They were not necessarily proclaiming Him to be God, but simply the Anointed One of God.

Why would the demons want to announce Jesus as the Messiah? Some have taught that the demons were trying to make it appear that the power of Jesus was demonic. If they were seen to be His heralds, than it was possible that the people would begin to believe that Jesus was in league with the demons. And in fact, this was an accusation that was later leveled against Jesus (Luke 11:15). However, this view is highly unlikely since the demons were known to be evil, and yet they were proclaiming Jesus to be the Holy One of God. If anything, the demons were trying to make themselves appear to be like God by proclaiming the Messiah, rather than the Messiah more like the demons. This is possible, since the original rebellion of the devil involved him wanting to be like God. But demons and fallen angels are probably two different types of beings, and so this view is unlikely.

Instead, in proclaiming Jesus as “the Son of God” the demons were trying to reinforce the popular opinion that the Jewish Messiah would be a ruling and reigning King who would go to war against Caesar and the Roman Empire, liberating the Jewish people once and for all. As seen in Luke 4:1-13, the devil wanted Jesus to become a kingly, ruling Messiah, and do so through short cuts that circumvented the plan and purposes of God. The testimony of demons would certainly spread this false conception of the Messiah and make the task and purposes of Jesus even more difficult. Proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God when Caesar had claimed this title for himself would be seen to be an act of war and treason against Caesar (cf. Barclay 1975:54; Bock 1994:438).

Jesus knew that a false testimony from demons would only enhance and spread this false impression about what He was going to do. He had come, not to wage war against Caesar, but against the devil. And so Jesus rebuked the demons, and did not allow them to speak.

4:42 It appears that Jesus spent most of the night healing the sick and casting out demons, for the text says that when it was day, He departed and went into a deserted place. The deserted placeis similar to the wilderness of 4:1 where Jesus was led by the Spirit to face the temptations of the devil. The wilderness is seen to be a place of both testing and ministry preparation. In this case, the temptation may have been to rest after a long day of ministry filled with teaching, healing, and casting out demons. Instead, Jesus retreated from the crowds to pray (Mark 1:35).

Nevertheless, the crowd sought Him and came to Him, and tried to keep Him from leaving them.Someone who taught as He did, and healed all their sick and cast out demons was someone they wanted to keep around. Though they accepted the teaching of Jesus, “the people at Capernaum also make the mistake of their counterparts in Nazareth: Failing to understand who Jesus is and, therefore, the scale of his mission, they hope to limit his ministry to their own boundaries” (Green 1997:220).

4:43. Jesus understood that He did not come for a select group of people in a select geographical area. So He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent.” This is a direct reference back to 4:18 since similar terminology and ideas are used. As the Messiah, the “Anointed One” He has been sent (Gk. apestalēn) to preach the gospel (Gk. euangelisasthai) of the kingdom.

This is the first time Jesus has mentioned the kingdom of God. It refers not to some future reign of God, but to the inbreaking of God’s rule and dominion over all the earth in the present time. It begins to bring light to the promise of the angel about the kingdom without end that the Messiah would bring (1:33), and also show the true form of the false kingdom which had been offered to Jesus by the devil (4:5-6). Jesus had come to declare that the Kingdom of God was being set up in and through His life and ministry, and this Kingdom was clashing with the kingdom of the devil.

What will this Kingdom look like? He has already described it in His preaching (cf. Luke 4:18-19) and in His actions of healing the sick and casting out demons (cf. Luke 11:20). Much of the rest of the ministry of Jesus is spent explaining what this Kingdom looks like, how it is arriving, how it will expand, and what His followers can do to continue the growth of the Kingdom. It is for this reason that Jesus was sent (Gk. apestalēn. Jesus is the first “sent one” or “apostle” and He will soon select others who will join Him in being sent to proclaim the arrival of God’s Kingdom (cf Bock 1994:440).

4:44. So Jesus went out from Capernaum and continued to teach about the Kingdom of God in the synagogues of Galilee. Jesus continued to go to the Jewish people when they gathered in the synagogues to proclaim from the Scriptures what the Kingdom truly was, how it would look, and how He had come to inaugurate the Kingdom of God.

Luke 4:43-44 has pointed the reader back to Luke 4:14-15 as a way of summarizing the entire ministry of Jesus. He was preaching and healing. What was He preaching, and why? He was preaching the good news that He, as the Messiah, had come to usher in the Kingdom of God (Luke 4:18-19; 4:43). Having shown this point, Luke begins to show how Jesus selected disciples who would carry on this mission to the world. The mission of Jesus and His followers “is a ministry to the marginalized of society—to the demonized, to the diseased, to women as well as men. Moreover, as expected, Jesus’ ministry carefully balances word and deed, teaching and healing/exorcism” (Green 1997:220).

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 4:31-37

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers 2 Comments

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


Luke wastes no time showing how Jesus fulfilled Luke 4:18-19 (Isa 61:1-2a). While the entire Gospel focuses on how Jesus preached the gospel to the poor, brought healing to the brokenhearted, proclaimed liberty to captives, gave sight to the blind, set free those who were oppressed, and proclaimed the acceptable year of the Lord, Luke 4:31¬–6:11 shows how Jesus fulfilled these things Himself. However, in 6:12 Jesus begins to teach and train disciples to carry on the work He began.

As followers of Jesus ourselves, we can benefit from seeing what Jesus did to carry out His mission, and how He taught and trained His immediate followers to continue this same mission in their own lives. In this first episode, Jesus proclaims the gospel and then sets free a man who was enslaved to a demon. By leading with this event, Luke shows that while the Kingdom of God is for the benefit of this world, it is not primarily against or opposed to the human rulers of this world, but rather the spiritual forces that have this world in bondage (cf. John 18:36; Eph 6:12). This would have been a relief to Luke’s original reader, Theophilus. Though Jesus is the rightful ruler and heir of the world, He did not come to start a revolution against Caesar. While the teachings and miracles of Jesus are a challenge to the claims and aspirations of Caesar, they are not intended to overthrow Caesar or raise a rebellion. Instead, Jesus was here to challenge and overthrow Satan, the temporary ruler of the world (John 12:31; 16:11). The first miracle recorded in Luke’s gospel reveals the fundamental reason Jesus for His ministry: He came to provide freedom from the power of evil (Bock 1994:426).

4:31. After His time in Nazareth, Jesus went northeast to Capernaum, a city on the shore of the sea of Galilee. From what is recorded in the Gospels, Capernaum served as a base of operations for much of the rest of the ministry of Jesus. While Jesus was in Capernaum, He was teaching them on the Sabbaths. Unlike in His hometown of Nazareth, His teaching appears to have been accepted here, since He is not chased out of town, but remains and teaches for multiple Sabbaths.

4:32. And here, unlike in Nazareth, rather than get criticism for speaking graciously about Gentiles and for being the son of a carpenter, they were astonished at His teaching, for His word was with authority. Jesus taught the Bible in ways that the average teacher of that day did not. Rather than simply quote the various Jewish teachers and commentaries as most of the teachers did (Pentecost 1981:144), Jesus taught the actual Word of God. He read the Scriptures, and then translated and explained them so that the people could understand. While there is nothing wrong with reading commentaries and listening to other teachers—and as a Rabbi, Jesus certainly did lots of this—when Jesus taught, He didn’t quote lots of Rabbis as proof that what He was saying was true (Barclay 1975:51; Pentecost 1981:145). Nor did He simply state the numerous views on any one passage and leave it at that. Rather, He clearly stated what the Scriptures said, and based His interpretation on His own authority rather than on tradition (Bock 1994:429).

But the authority of Jesus’ word was not just in proclamation, but also in powerful signs that accompanied His teaching (cf. 4:36). It was these signs that the people of Nazareth wanted Him to perform, but He refused. Miracles are not parlor tricks to be performed on demand as a show. Rather, the Spirit moves as He wills, in accordance with the clear teaching of the Word of God.

4:33. On this particular Sabbath, in the synagogue where Jesus was teaching, there was a man who had a spirit of an unclean demon.[/b] There are many theories about demon possession, especially since it does not seem to occur today, or at least, not as openly or frequently as in the days of Jesus (Edersheim 1988:483). Some believe demon possession was simply a pre-scientific way of describing various physical and psychological disorders (cf. Evans 2003:96). Others believe that demon possession was something that only took place around the time of Jesus, as a way to help Jesus reveal His authority over the devil. Some believe it happens just as frequently today, but the “symptoms” are different because our culture and worldview are different. The best approach is one of cautious humility:

If we are asked to explain the rationale of the phenomenon, or of its cessation—if indeed, it has wholly and everywhere ceased—we might simply decline to attempt that for which we have not sufficient data, and this, without implying that such did not exist, or that, if known, they would not wholly vindicate the facts of the case (Edersheim 1988:482).

It should be noted as well that “demon possession” is not really a biblical term. A better translation or understanding of what is occurring in Scripture might be “demonized” or “demonization.” The state of demonization does not seem to be permanent, but comes and goes; is not a result of immorality on the part of the demonized, yet at the same time does not leave the demonized person without fault in their actions, and finally, the removal of the demonic influence is not dependant on the faith of the one who is demonized (cf. Edersheim 1988:481-484, 770-776).

Also, from a thematic perspective, the unclean spirit here should be read in contrast to the Holy Spirit which Jesus received at His baptism (cf. 3:22). Also, this unclean spirit is understood to be in league with the devil, who tempted Jesus in the wilderness (4:1-13). Though the devil departed from Jesus until an opportune time (4:13), Jesus will still have numerous encounters with various minions of the devil.

Whatever the case may be, this man, according to Luke, had an unclean demon, and as a result, issued a challenge to Jesus.

4:34. The man (under the influence of the demon) said, ”Let us alone!” Up to this point in the Synagogue meeting, Jesus hadn’t done anything but preach, and yet this demon wants to be left alone. He is afraid of what Jesus might do to him (Bock 1994:431). He speaks of himself using the plural us.The man is not possessed by multiple demons (as in the case of Legion in Luke 8:30). While it is possible that the demon is referring to himself and all other demons who will be destroyed by Jesus, it seems more likely that the demon is referring to himself and to the man he possesses. He is issuing a challenge to Jesus, saying in effect that the only way Jesus can get to the demon is by destroying the man as well (Bock 1994:432; Green 1997:223). Jesus has come to help humanity, not harm it, and so the demon advises Jesus to Let us alone. The implication is that if Jesus does not leave them alone, the demon will hurt, harm, and even destroy the man.

The man with the unclean demon goes on to ask, ”What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth?” The demon clearly understands that the goals of Jesus and of Satan are at odds. Light has nothing to do with darkness. The two are so at adds, the demon asks Jesus, ”Did You come to destroy us?” It may be that Jesus had been teaching how He came to destroy the devil’s work (cf. 1 John 3:8). Certainly, in light of what Jesus taught in Luke 4:18-19, part of the task of Jesus was to deliver those who were in bondage to Satan. This demon knows that its destruction will come through Jesus, and seems to think that now is the time (cf. Matt 8:29).

The demon then says, ”I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” There was a belief in that day among street magicians and those who tried to practice sorcery that you could gain power over a person by naming them. So this demon, by naming Jesus as the Holy One of God, is trying to gain power over Jesus. The term Holy One most often refers to God, but here, the term (Gk. hagios) might be better translated as Holy Man and therefore refers not to Jesus as divinity, but Jesus as a prophet (Malina 2003:244). Either way, whatever the demon understood about Jesus, it is unlikely that the Jewish audience would have understood the title as a reference to the deity of Jesus. Most of the audience probably understood the title as a way of referring to Jesus as an anointed king (cf. Psa 16:10), a holy messenger from God (Dan 4:13, 23; 8:13), or the promised Messiah (Wright 2004:52).

4:35. Jesus refused to allow the demon to speak, and rebuked the demon, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” The phrase be quiet comes from the Greek word phimōthēti, and is used of muzzling an animal. Jesus effectively muzzles this demon, forcing it to be silent against his will. There are various theories as to why Jesus wanted the demon to cease speaking, but the general consensus seems to be that Jesus did not want to be declared as the Holy One, the Messiah, by a demon (cf. Bock 1994:434).

There were no theatrics or magical incantations and rites which were familiar among other exorcists. Jesus simply commands the demon to be quiet and come out. And the demon, after he threw the man in the midst of the crowd, came out of him and did not hurt him. The implication seems to be that in coming out of the man, the demon tries to hurt him, but failed even in this. Though the demon had threatened to hurt the man, it was unable to do anything other than throw him down in the midst of the crowd. Jesus is in complete control—even over the disruptive and destructive intentions of demons.

4:36. The crowd was amazed at what they say, and said, “What a word this is! For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits, and they come out.” Similar statements are made here as were said about the authority of Jesus’ teaching (cf. 4:32). His authoritative word was accompanied by powerful miracles.

4:37. As a result of this event, the report about Him went out into every place in the surrounding region. News about Jesus continued to spread, and questions about Him would continue to be raised. They seem not to understand who He is or why He has come, but they love what He is doing. This disconnect becomes more clear in 4:38-44.

 

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 4:20-30

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers 12 Comments

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


Luke 4:20-30 reveals the reaction of the people to Jesus after He taught from Isaiah 61:1-2a. They respond by trying to kill Him. Such a response is initially surprising since there does not seem to be anything offensive or controversial in the text that Jesus expounded. The verses He read seem to promise only blessings and restoration to the Jewish people, and through them, to all the earth.

Of course, Luke does not record the actual teaching Jesus provided, and so maybe His explanation was more controversial than we assume. Whatever Jesus said, there are hints in the passage which explain why the Jewish audience would have taken exception with Jesus when He taught this text in the Nazareth synagogue. These will be seen as the text unfolds.

4:20. After Jesus had read from Isaiah 61:1-2a, He closed the book, which was probably a scroll. It is unclear if Luke has recorded the entire Scripture portion that Jesus taught from that day, or only the crucial text for his narrative. Some argue that this could not be the entire text because Jewish tradition required that Sabbath-day teachings come from at least three verses of text, whereas Jesus had only read one-and-a-half. But this is a later tradition which was most likely not universally followed at the time of Jesus. Even if it was, Jesus was known for breaking with certain traditions if it would prove a point and did not break any of the Mosaic Law.

And if that is what Jesus did here, it would have made His point quite clear. After mentioning the Year of Jubilee (the Year of the Lord’s Favor), Isaiah 61:2 then speaks about the day of vengeance of God. The Jewish expectation was that when the Messiah arrived, He would not only restore the fortunes of Israel, but would do so by destroying her enemies. He would be a Militaristic Messiah (Evans 2003:290). But Jesus does not read that part. Luke, it seems, knows the point that Jesus is making, and so emphasizes the fact that it was here that Jesus stopped and closed the book. With His actions, Jesus emphatically shows that He is not going to talk about the vengeance of God upon the enemies of Israel, not even upon the Roman Empire, Israel’s current captor (cf. Wright 2004:48). Such an exclusion was unthinkable for most Jews. Deliverance from captivity was not complete without some sort of destructive judgment upon the enemies of God who enslaved them. Think of their deliverance from Egypt! Think of the entrance into the Promised Land. Think of the times of the Judges! Think of the deliverance from the Babylonian Empire, and the Medo-Persian Empire. In all these cases, deliverance came through the destruction of their enemies. It should be no different with the Roman Empire.

And after He closed the book, He gave it back to the attendant—who may have been the Synagogue Ruler or some other person in charge of caring for the scrolls—and then sat down. The teacher would generally stand to read the Scripture portion for the teaching, and then sit to explain it (Barclay 1975:48; Bock 1994:411).

Since Jesus stopped reading mid-way through Isaiah 61:2, and had stopped right before “the good part,” He certainly had the attention of all who were there: The eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. They were eager to know what He would say about the text and read, and more importantly, why He had stopped where He did (cf. Evans 2003:288).

4:21. The words of Jesus recorded here are not the entire sermon. Luke only records what Jesusbegan to say. After reading the text, Jesus started His teaching by saying, ”Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” In homiletic terminology, this would be “the hook” or the attention grabber. It is the introductory statement which gets the audience interested in what will be said. It is certain that following this statement, Jesus goes on to explain the text of Isaiah 61:1-2a, explaining what the statements mean and how they were fulfilled in their hearing (see Lightfoot 1989:68-71). It seems unlikely that Jesus is saying that the statements were literally fulfilled right at that moment—either spiritually or physically—for He still had most of His earthly ministry ahead of Him, including His death and resurrection. Rather, He is explaining how they would be fulfilled in His ministry as the Messiah and in the life of those who followed Him (cf. Bock 1994:412).

4:22. The custom was that the audience would let the teacher finish his lesson before any questions were asked or additional comments were made. But after Jesus finished His teaching, the people all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. It seems that their initial response was quite positive. However, in the following verses, their response quickly turns negative. How did this happen? There are three possibilities. First, it could be that some received and accepted what Jesus while others did not. Those who received it are mentioned here, and those who are critical are described later. This option seems unlikely in the context.

A second option is that they were all initially impressed by what Jesus said, but when He clarifies in verses 23-27 that He is referring not just to the Jewish people but also to the Gentiles, and specifically their Roman captors, the mood of the audience turns sour (cf. Evans 2003:289; Bock 1994:414). The primary problem with this option is that verses 23-27 seem to be to a defense against an accusation. Does Jesus manufacture this accusation Himself in verse 23 just so He can refute it in verses 24-27? That seems unlikely. He either knew their critical thoughts (cf. 6:8), or they actually said something which showed their disdain and disagreement with His exposition.

The third option is that the audience disagreed with Jesus all along, and make a statement of disagreement here in verse 22: “Is this not Joseph’s son?” In this case, they would be saying, “This is the son of Joseph, a carpenter! Didn’t he grow up here? Doesn’t he know how we feel and how we understand this text?” With this understanding, the opening words of verse 22 are better translated, “And all witnessed against Him, and were amazed at the words of mercy that came out of His mouth” (Bailey 2008:151, 162). An even more forceful translation would be, “They were stricken with annoyance and horror and witnessed against him because he spoke with words of grace toward the Gentiles” (cf. Ford 1984:61; Malina 2003:243). They are not amazed at His great teaching, but instead, shocked at His claim that God desires to show mercy to the enemies of Israel. They were looking for a ruling Messiah who would throw off Roman occupation and lead Israel to world domination.

Jesus, however, left all that out of His sermon and indicated instead that He had come to be a light and blessing to the Gentiles. This definitely would have offended the Jewish audience of that day. They were offended that He took a passage of vengeance and judgment upon the Gentiles and turned it into a passage of mercy and blessing. Indeed, His message was the most unJewish discourse imaginable (Edersheim 1988:454). At that time, many Jews viewed Gentiles as scum of the earth, as dogs only fit to be kicked around. Some Jews thought that the only reason God created Gentiles was to be fuel for the fires of hell (Barclay 1975:48). So for Jesus to have taught that God’s blessings were also intended for Gentiles would have shocked many in the Jewish audience. He sees their shock and outrage, and so continues to defend His explanation in the following verses.

4:23. One of the ways Jewish prophets proved the validity of their message was with the use of signs and predictions (cf. Deut 18:21-22; John 2:18; 1 Cor 1:22; Bock 1994:416). The other method Jewish people used to decide if a prophet spoke the truth or not was by comparing his teaching with what was already recorded and commanded in Scripture. If the prophet had signs and miracles but contradicted the Word of God, they should still not heed his teaching (cf. Deut 13:1-3).

The proverb which Jesus refers to, ”Physician, heal yourself” has this background in mind. It was a well-known proverb in that day (Bock 1994:416; Green 1997:216), which is essentially similar to our modern-day saying, “Never trust a skinny cook.” If a physician says he can cure colds but he always has a cold, his “cure” should not be trusted. The sign that a doctor is unreliable is his inability to cure himself.

In the case of a prophet, the Jewish people expected to see signs as proof that what the prophet taught was true. Specifically, the signs that were done in Capernaum they wanted Jesus to do here also in Nazareth. This is especially true if what Jesus saying about the inauguration of the year of Jubilee was true (Evans 2003:289). The people wanted the blessings to begin to flow just as they apparently have in Capernaum. Luke has not recorded any signs that were done in Capernaum, but as this passage is already one year into Jesus’ ministry, He has already taught and performed signs in other locations (cf. John 2:1-11; 4:43-54). The Jews want Jesus to perform some of those same signs here. They do not want to accept the eye-witness reports that came from Capernaum and Galilee, but want Jesus to perform signs for themselves also.

This isn’t necessarily an unreasonable request, since Jews were instructed by God to test the prophets in such a manner. However, they themselves (as quoted by Jesus) admit that Jesus has already performed signs. This report they have received—and apparently believed—should be enough for them to accept and believe the message of Jesus. But they want to see the signs for themselves. They wanted to see what they could get from Jesus. Jesus, however, wanted to be a blessing to the entire world, and He invited the Jewish people to join with Him in proclaiming the gospel, fighting for justice, and being agents of compassion.

Jesus supports His position in two ways. First, in verses 24-27, He takes them back to Scripture to provide proof of the validity of His message. In so doing, Jesus shows that signs—as important as they were for the Jewish people—still take second place to being consistent with the Scriptural truth that the people of God are to bless others—including their enemies.

4:24. The reason, Jesus says, that they won’t accept His teaching is not because He hasn’t done any signs, but because no prophet is accepted in his own country (cf. John 4:44). The irony here is that the word accepted (Gk. dektos) is the same word used in 4:19 for the “acceptable Year of the Lord.” The One who brings in the acceptable Year of the Lord is Himself not acceptable to his own people (Bock 1994:417; Evans 2003:289). This follows the tradition of many of the Prophets who were rejected—and even killed—by their own people (2 Chr 36:15-16; Pss 78; 105; 106; Lam 4:13; Acts 7:51-53).

The word country does not refer literally to “the country of Israel” but could also be translated “hometown” and so refers to the region or area that Jesus grew up, which was Nazareth. It is often argued that the reason Jesus was not accepted in Nazareth is that the people there were so familiar with Him as a young boy, and watched Him grow up and become a carpenter, they had trouble recognizing Him as a teacher and a prophet, let alone the promised Messiah. While this may be part of the reason, the account that Jesus relates in the following verses hints at a deeper reason that prophets do not minister in their own country.

4:25. Jesus points the audience to the Prophet Elijah. When Elijah lived and ministered, many widows where in Israel. And certainly, these widows had great need, especially since the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land. For three and one-half years it did not rain, which resulted in famine. It is likely that many died as a result.

4:26. During this family, God did not send Elijah to minister to any of the needy people of Israel, not even the widows who had no one else to provide for them. Instead, Elijah was [/b]sent[/b] elsewhere by God. This is one reason why some prophets are not accepted in their home country. While sometimes it is due to a lack of faith (Matt 13:38), most often it is because God simply sends the prophet elsewhere. The rule is not universally applied, since some prophets do minister in their home region.

In this case, God sent Elijah to Zarephath, in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.Though there were many widows in Israel who were in dire need of aid, God gave an unending supply of food to this widow of Zarephath. God sent Elijah to help someone that the Jewish people would have despised and looked down upon. Not only was this person a woman, but she was a Gentile woman. In the account of 1 Kings 17, the woman exhibits great faith by giving her last loaf of bread to Elijah when she asks for it (cf. Bailey 2008:164). In return, she is rewarded with a bottomless jar of oil. With this example, Jesus shows that God is concerned about the needs of Gentiles—not just those of Israelites—and that Gentiles can have great faith.

4:27. Jesus provides a second example from another great prophet to prove the identical point. In this example, many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings 5). If a Gentile woman was bad, a Gentile leper was worse. Not only that, but Naaman was the general of the enemy army, which had killed and enslaved many of the Israelite people. At the time of Elisha, Naaman was one of the most hated men in all of Israel. When it was discovered he had leprosy, those Jews who heard of it must have rejoiced that God had judged him for his sins against Israel. And yet Naaman, even though he was insulted by Elisha, showed great humility and faith by doing what was asked of him (cf. Bailey 2008:165). As a result, many in Israel may have viewed Elisha as a traitor because he helped Naaman.

The point, once again, is that God wanted to show His compassion and love for all people, not just the Israelites, and that once again, a Gentile exhibits great faith. God was so intent on showing the Israelites His love for all people, and that all people can have faith in God, He chose the most hated man in Israel to prove it.

So Jesus is not telling His Jewish audience that He can’t or won’t do miracles in Nazareth. He can and He does. Instead, Jesus is trying to address their deep-seated sense of superiority, their hatred toward Gentiles, and especially their neglect of God’s plan for them to be a blessing to the nations. Though they expected the Messiah to overthrow the enemies of Israel and rule and reign over the world from Jerusalem, Jesus is showing them that He, as the Messiah, has come to be a blessing to the entire world, as God has always intended. He is saying:

If you want to receive the benefits of the new golden age of the Messiah, you must imitate the faith of these Gentiles. I am not asking you merely to tolerate or to accept them. You must see such Gentiles as your spiritual superiors and acknowledge that they can instruct you in the nature of authentic faith. The benefits of the “acceptable year of the Lord,” which I have come to inaugurate, are available to such people (Bailey 2008:165).

The mission of Jesus is thus shown to include benefits for all people, not just the Jews, and especially for those outcast and rejected by society: the widow, the unclean, the hated, and those of the lowest status (Green 1997:218). Jesus is saying that people like Phoenician widows and Syrian lepers had more preference in the plan of God than the people of Nazareth (Bock 1994:419).

4:28. When the people in the synagogue heard what Jesus said about God’s concern for Gentiles and the Messianic mission to all people, they were filled with wrath. They were angry that Jesus would suggest that God’s plans included not just the Gentiles, but their Gentile enemies. And these plans were not for their destruction, but for their blessing (Evans 2003:290). Furthermore, in the examples of Elijah and Elisha, Jesus implied that the Israelites of their day were unfit to have these great prophets perform miracles among them. Similarly, the implication is that the people of Nazareth were unfit for Him to perform miracles among them. Nothing could be more grating to the Jews, that God would pass over Israelites to bring blessing to the Gentiles (Lightfoot 1989:75).

4:29. The people were so angry with Jesus, that they rose up and took Him out of the city…to the brow of the hill where they intended to throw Him down over the cliff. The people of Nazareth disagreed so strongly with what Jesus taught, that they tried to kill him by stoning Him. There were two different kinds of stoning. The more familiar kind is when a crowd of people throw stones at a person until he or she dies. The second kind involved taking the person to a cliff, and throwing him off of it so that the legs broke. Then they would drop stones down on top of the person until they were crushed. This people from the synagogue were trying to stone Jesus using this second method (Evans 2003:291). He had taught something different than what they believed the Bible taught, and since He had refused to “produce a sign” they felt justified in stoning Him. In their minds, Jesus was a false prophet, and so subject to the punishment of death as laid out in Deuteronomy 13:1-3. Jesus had taught something contrary to their traditional beliefs, and had failed to produce a sign to back up His words, and so they felt justified in putting Jesus to death (cf John 8:59; 10:31; Acts 7:54-58; 21:31-32; Bock 1994:419).

4:30. But the people were unsuccessful in stoning Jesus. Instead, passing through the midst of them, He went His way. Jesus miraculously escapes the mob and gets away safely. Ironically, they asked for a sign, and when they refused to accept His teaching, He gave them a sign to prove that what He had taught was true.

There is a parallel here between this event and the third temptation of Jesus in Luke 4:9-12. There, the devil led Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, and challenged Jesus to throw Himself off the temple in the sight of all the people below. The devil quoted Scripture to say that God would send angels to protect Jesus from hitting the stone courtyard below. Jesus stood against that temptation since it was not God’s will or God’s timing. But here, as Jesus is following God’s will in God’s way, God does protect Jesus from “striking his foot against a stone” and being put to death. This miracle was performed in the sight of the Jewish people, and Jesus escapes from them unharmed. The sign they asked for was granted, but only after they revealed their heart of unbelief and hatred for God’s desire to show mercy and compassion to the Gentiles.

This event proves to be a pattern for the future ministry of Jesus. Whenever He teaches that God loves and accepts all people—especially outsiders—the religious leaders respond by trying to put Jesus to death, but He escapes their grasp and goes on to further expand His ministry with those who accept and welcome Him. So while Luke 4:16-30 foreshadows the ministry of Jesus, it also reveals the rejection He will experience (Ford 1984:63).

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 4:16-19

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers 2 Comments

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


From a thematic perspective, Luke 4:16-30 may be the central passage of the Gospel (Ford 1984:63). Surprisingly, some Bible commentators pass over the central verses in this section, verses 18-19 without a single word of explanation! (See Barclay 1975:47-48; Lightfoot 1989:68-72; Pentecost 1981:140). This passage contains a mission statement from Jesus about His ministry and also provides foreshadowing for how His ministry will be received (cf. Wright 2006:301). The rest of the Gospel of Luke unfolds how Jesus fulfilled this mission, and yet was continually misunderstood and rejected by the people He worked among.

Above even this, it could be argued that Luke 4:16-30 is the foundation passage for the Book of Acts. If the Gospel of Luke shows how Jesus fulfilled the mission mandate of Jesus as recorded in Luke 4:18-19, then the Book of Acts shows how the church, guided and empowered by the same Spirit, worked to carry on the ministry of Jesus. As such, some argue that Luke 4:16-21 is “the key text not only for understanding Christ’s own mission but also that of the church” (Bosch 1991:84, 89, 109).

As discussed in Luke 4:14-15, this event occurs after one year of ministry, and Jesus is now beginning to transition from gaining disciples to training them.

4:16. To initiate these two years of training His disciples, Jesus traveled to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. It was in Nazareth where Jesus Himself received His training, and where He grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). So it is natural for Him to choose Nazareth as the place where He will begin focusing on training His disciples. Nazareth was not a small town, but may have had as many as 20,000 inhabitants (Barclay 1975:47).

Luke writes that it was the custom of Jesus to go into the synagogue on the Sabbath day.Attending the synagogue was part of the normal, weekly routine of Jesus. The synagogue setting is probably the background foundation for many of the practices of the early church. It is uncertain from history when exactly the Hebrew people started meeting in synagogues, but most believe it was around the time period of Ezra and Nehemiah. The primary purpose and function of the synagogue was to provide a place for Jewish people to pray and study the Scriptures in community (the meaning ofsynagogue is literally “assembly”). It was required that at least ten men commit to faithfully attending and supporting a synagogue before one could begin. Ten such men could be found in most Jewish communities, and so nearly every town had at least one synagogue, while some of the larger cities had several. It is reported that at the time of Jesus, Jerusalem had over 400 synagogues.

Luke records that Jesus went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, which is Saturday. The Sabbath was the primary day that the Jewish people attended the synagogue, but it was not the only day. Other common days of attendance were Monday and Thursday, while some attended every day.

No matter what day a person attended the synagogue, the primary synagogue activities were prayer and the teaching of the Scriptures (Bock 1994:403). Though we cannot be certain about the order of events in the average synagogue at the time of Jesus, later Jewish tradition codified set prayers and passages for each day of the week and year. Depending on which tradition is followed, the Torah (the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible) are taught through either once per year, or once every three years. If Jesus used a cycle, it was probably the Triennial cycle, as it is known to have been in use in Palestine during the First Century AD. It also contained additional passages from the Prophets which the One-Year cycle did not contain, and the passage Jesus reads from is not found in the One-Year cycle. (See the article on the Triennial Cycle.)

Whichever cycle was used, the synagogue gatherings were used to read, interpret, and explain the weekly Torah readings (Bock 1994:403). Also, depending on the Torah reading for the day, related passages from the historical books and prophets would also be taught (these were called Haftarah, meaning “parting” or “taking leave”). At the time of Jesus, the Haftarah passages were probably not codified, and so the man asked to teach the concluding Sabbath lesson (he was called the maftir) was allowed to choose his own text. (See the article on Haftarah; Bock 1994:411; Edersheim 1988:452; Pentecost 1981:139).

On this Sabbath, Jesus was probably this concluding teacher, because when he stood up to read, He read not from the Torah, but from one of the Prophets.

4:17. Jesus was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. As the Hebrew Scriptures were written on scrolls, the entire Bible could not be contained on one scroll. Sometimes, longer books (like Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), would fill multiple scrolls. The scroll that was handed to Jesus probably contained the second portion of the book of Isaiah (Chapters 40–66). Heopened the book and found the text He was going to read from that day. The text He reads is primarily from Isaiah 61:1-2. This specific text is not contained in the modern one-year cycle of Haftarah readings, though the first weekly portion (Bereshit, Genesis 1–6) does contain a reading from Isaiah 42:6-7 which has similar content, while the fifty-first portion (Nitzavim, Deuteronomy 29–30) contains Isaiah 61:10-11. It is possible that if these were the chosen texts for the day, Jesus used the Jewish “string of pearls” method to connect to this passage. Or possibly, was handed the scroll of Isaiah, and He simply chose this text. Regardless of how Isaiah 61:1-2 was chosen, it became the basis for the sermon of Jesus which followed the reading and interpretation.

4:18. From Isaiah 61:1-2, Jesus explained to the people of Nazareth what He came to do. The six statements in this passage very aptly summarize His earthly ministry. While we don’t have the full text of His explanation of this passage (all we have is the opening statement in verse 21), we can guess at what Jesus said by how He fulfilled these verses throughout the rest of His ministry.

The text appears to be originally spoken by Isaiah about himself. He didn’t see himself to be the Messiah, but He did correctly believe that God had chosen and prophetically anointed him to help lead the people of Israel back into righteous obedience to God (cf. Isa 6:7-13). Here, however, Jesus applies the passage to Himself, and by inference, to all who would follow Him.

The passage states that The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me. This is a reference to the Holy Spirit, and alludes back to the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus at His baptism (Bock 1994:407). He is the source of empowerment for godly ministry, and even the Messiah had to depend on the Spirit for guidance and power. “The ancient synagogue regarded Isaiah 61:1-2 as one of the three passages in which mention of the Holy Spirit was connected with the promised redemption” (Edersheim 1988:454).

Prior to Pentecost in Acts 2, the Spirit only came upon certain individuals (like prophets, priests, kings, and artisans) for a period of time to help them accomplish specific tasks. After Pentecost, the Spirit permanently dwells within all who believe in Jesus for everlasting life. The purpose of this indwelling stays the same: to guide and empower people to accomplish specific tasks. Jesus, of course, lived prior to Pentecost, and so it can be assumed that He, as the Messiah, permanently had the Spirit upon Him to guide and empower Him for ministry. The Book of Acts records how the Spirit that was upon Jesus came also to indwell believers, so that the church could carry on the mission and ministry of Jesus to the entire world.

The Spirit anointed Jesus to accomplish specific tasks. In the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61:1, which Jesus was reading from, the text refers to “the anointed one,” which could also be translated “Messiah.” And so the play on words is that when Jesus read that the Spirit has anointed Him, He is implying that the Spirit has anointed Him to be the Messiah. The rest of verses 18-19 reveal six mission tasks that the Messiah would focus on.

There is much disagreement over how to understand these six statements of Jesus, primarily about whether they should be understood spiritually or physically. Did Jesus come for those who were materially poor, or for all who are spiritually poor? Did He set out to deliver those who were captive to Rome, or those who are captive to the devil? Did He want to heal those who were physically blind, or those who couldn’t see what God was doing in their midst? We must make sure that our understanding of “the poor and the blind” in this passage do not exclude the poor and the blind (Bock 1994:401).

The best way to solve this debate is to look at what Jesus actually did during His ministry, and assume that most of His actions were in fulfillment of these six statements. When this is done, it immediately becomes clear that we do not have to choose between the two. The ministry of Jesus focused on bothphysical and spiritual needs. Meeting a physical need often led to meeting a spiritual need, even if these needs were not always for the same person. Also, readers must be careful to not break up the various statements in verses 18-19, so as to focus on only one part of Jesus’ mission. “All the images have to do with the comprehensiveness of Jesus’ message and the hope that he offers people.” (Bock 1994:400).

The first mission task of Jesus was To preach the gospel to the poor. The term preach the gospel is really one word in Greek (euangelizō; cf. Luke 1:19; 4:43), which is where English gets the word “evangelize.” It might be best translated “to proclaim the good news.” This proclamation involves both words and actions, as evidenced by the life of Jesus (cf. Luke 9:6). Both sermons and service are used to reveal the gospel to other people.

So while preaching the gospel is often thought to be only a spiritual issue, such a view is a distortion of the biblical gospel. The gospel is concerned with much than simply how people can receive eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. While that truth is central to the gospel, it is not the entire gospel. Instead, when the background of the term gospel is understood, and it’s usage in the New Testament is carefully studied, the biblical gospel is best defined as

good news for everybody, whether Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, regarding the benefits and blessings which come to us from the person and work of Jesus Christ. …[The] gospel contains everything related to the person and work of Jesus Christ, including all of the events leading up to His birth, and all the ramifications from Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for unbelievers and believers. (See the article here.)

This means that the gospel is not just about spiritual issues and needs, but also the various forms of physical deliverance that came in and through Jesus Christ. The gospel is not just about Jesus providing grace and forgiveness to sinners through His death and resurrection, but also about healing sicknesses, helping the poor, delivering those in captivity, and everything else done by Jesus and His apostles in the Gospels and Acts. In fact, though this statement in 4:18 is the first of six mission statements, it could also be the title statement (with 4:19 being the summary), which is explained in more detail by those that follow. In this way, “preaching the gospel” includes things like healing the brokenhearted, proclaiming liberty to the captives, and giving sight to the blind.

This understanding is further supported by the fact that the gospel will be preached to the poor. There are two terms for the poor in the New Testament, penes and ptōchos. The penes were the poor who worked in the fields, and are contrasted to rich landowners who did not work. The ptōchos, however, are those who don’t even have jobs. They are reduced to begging, and are destitute of all resources, including other family members. It is this “begging poor” that have the focus of attention in the gospels (cf. Matt 26:11; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 7:22; 14:21-23; 16:19-31; Acts 3:1-10. See Neyrey for an article on “the poor”).

So if the physically destitute are the primary focus of this first mission statement of Jesus, then the preaching the gospel is more than just telling poor people how they can receive eternal life. Proclaiming the gospel also requires us to feed, clothe, and train the poor so their physical needs are met. This does not mean that the rich are excluded. Instead, the poor are emphasized because it is they who often feel abandoned by God and who also “sense their need in the greatest way and, as a result, respond most directly and honestly to Jesus. …Their material deprivation often translates into spiritual sensitivity, humility, and responsiveness to God’s message of hope” (Bock 1994:408).

However, some believe the term is best understood as being “spiritually poor.” Bailey argues that in Isaiah 61:1, that while the Hebrew term anawim can refer to people who do not have enough to eat, it most often refers to the humble and pious who seek God (2008:158). In the New Testament, a few places do talk about being spiritually poor (Matt 5:3; Rev 3:17). All of these, however, seem to refer to believers who have not recognized or taken advantage of the riches that are theirs in the family of God. Unregenerate people are not referred to in Scripture as being spiritually “poor.” Instead, it refers to those who “tremble at the Word of God” (Bailey 2008:159). In this case, this first mission statement of Jesus refers not as much to telling unbelievers how to receive eternal life, as to believers to take advantage of their spiritual riches in Christ. From a spiritual perspective then, the “preaching of the gospel” in this context should be understood not as “discipleship.”

So is the text referring to the physically destitute, or simply to the poor in spirit? While it is true that all who experience misery are in some way “poor,” the actual usage of the term in Scripture seems not to warrant such a spiritualization of the term (Bosch 1991:99). Joel Green may provide a solution. He writes that the trouble in understanding the identity of “the poor” results from our economically-driven culture. He argues that being “poor” has little to do with the amount of possessions one has, and instead refers to the Mediterranean concept of honor. Someone who did not have much by way of possessions could still hold a lot of honor, and therefore, not be “ptōchos.” Similarly, someone who was wealthy could be “ptōchos” if they lacked honor. “By directing his good news to [people without honor], Jesus indicates his refusal to recognize those socially determined boundaries, asserting instead that even those ‘outsiders’ are the objects of divine grace. Others may regard such people as beyond the pale of salvation, but God has opened a way for them to belong to God’s family” (Green 1997:211).

However we understand the text, the primary emphasis in this context, and in the Gospel of Luke as a whole, is that the first mission intention of Jesus was to provide for the needs of those who were “outside.” In His ministry He showed them through words and actions that they mattered to God, and that God was concerned to meet the needs of those who were rejected by society.

Second, Jesus reads that He was sent…to heal the brokenhearted. This phrase is not in all Greek manuscripts, and so some translations omit it. However, since this phrase is included in Isaiah 61 that Jesus is reading, we can be fairly certain that Jesus read it on this day. It would be uncommon for a Jewish Rabbi to skip a phrase from the text he was teaching.

This mission purpose, unlike the other five, is very difficult to read in a strictly spiritual sense. Whereas the other five statements are often taught only for their spiritual application (e.g., Jesus is freeing people from sin, death, and devil), this one cannot be so easily spiritualized. Maybe that is why some prefer to omit it.

However, if Jesus came to deliver people not only from sin, death, and the devil, but also from enemies, injustice, addictions, and heartache, then this second mission statement of Jesus fits in quite well. Jesus came to heal, or restore, the brokenhearted, that is, people with deep emotional pain and distress. In the Gospels, Jesus is constantly portrayed as a man of sorrows (cf. Isa 53:3) who is intimately associated with our pain and grief, so that He can turn the tears into the laughter, and the grief into joy.

All of this, of course, was good news to Jewish people at the time of Jesus. Many of them had lost loved ones, land, and jobs due to the policies of the Roman government and the practices of the Roman military. Even more, due to sicknesses and poor living conditions, it is estimated that a child had only a fifty percent chance to live until the age of ten (Carter 2006:116). This means that most families probably experienced the death of one or more children. There was much to be brokenhearted about, and Jesus states that one of His purposes is to mend their hearts and restore their joy.

Third, Jesus has come to proclaim liberty to the captives. Again, while this can refer to both spiritual and physical deliverance, the original context and meaning heavily favors physical deliverance. The termliberty (Gk. aphesis) could also be translated “release” or “forgiveness” (cf. Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47) and primarily “denotes eschatological liberation” (TDNT I:650; cf. Green 1997:212). A primary element in Jewish history and theology was that national sin and rebellion against God led to conquest and captivity by foreign powers. The reverse was also true. If Israel was in captivity, repentance from sin led to forgiveness (aphesis) by God, which resulted in the deliverance from captivity, and the restoration of the land and the temple. With this understanding, aphesis, or “forgiveness” is not just the removal of guilt from past offenses against God, but in response to repentance, leads to the future deliverance from one’s enemies.

This understanding is how Jesus’ audience would have understood Him. He lived and ministered at a time when the Hebrew people were captives of Rome. The hope and expectation was that if the Jewish people repented and returned to God as a nation, then God would throw off their captors, and restore Israel to her rightful place among the nations. This is what John the Baptist declared would happen when the Messiah came (cf. Luke 3:3). Jesus seems to affirm this view here.

The objection, of course, is that Jesus didn’t accomplish anything like this. To the contrary, at the end of the Gospels, it appears that rather than overthrowing the Roman rule in Israel, it is the Roman rulers who have defeated Jesus by crucifying Him (Mark 15:24-27; Luke 23:33; John 19:18). And His resurrection doesn’t result in the overthrow of the Roman Empire either.

For this reason, many argue that Jesus is applying this text to Himself in a spiritual sense only. It is then taught that Jesus came to deliver people from spiritual bondage. In this way, the term captives is understood as those who are possessed by demons, enslaved to sin, or captive to addictions. This application of the text cannot be denied since Jesus certainly did these things during His ministry.

However, it must be emphasized that this is not the way Jesus’ audience would have understood His words, and not the way Isaiah meant them when they were written. This “spiritualized application” is not the primary intended meaning of the original author or audience. Among those who accept a literal, physical fulfillment of this third phrase, there are three perspectives on how Jesus accomplished it.

The first view is that Jesus meant to accomplish this task of overthrowing the Roman Empire, but failed because Israel did not fully repent, nor did they accept Him as their Messiah. Those who hold this view argue that if the Jewish people had repented and accepted Him as their promised Messiah, then the long-awaited kingdom would have been inaugurated immediately. Jesus would have declared Himself as King, and would have led a militaristic revolt against Rome. This, of course, did not occur, and so in this view, the overthrow of various wicked human governments is now a future event, to be fulfilled at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

The second view is a combination of this first view and the spiritualized understanding of this text. This view argues that Jesus did seek to overthrow the Roman Empire (not just set people free from sin and Satan), but that the overthrow was not through violence and military might, but through the gentler and slower methods of love, mercy, and compassion. In this view, Jesus never intended to use violent force against the Roman Empire, for that would be using the same methods they used. So in this way, Jesus defeated the Empire and inaugurated His Kingdom in a different way; He showed people how to live through love, mercy, and compassion, rather than by the Empire’s methods of force, power, and coercion. Those who followed Jesus’ example in this found they had no fear of Rome, and were able to accomplish God’s will and purposes despite Roman interference. Effectively, though the Roman Empire still existed, for those who followed the way of Jesus, the Roman Empire was defeated.

The third view is a combination of the first two. In alignment with the first view, Jesus truly did intend to physically overthrow the Roman Empire, as well as any human government that was based on greed, corruption, and an improper use of might. Also, it didn’t fully happen during the earthly ministry of Jesus. In alignment with the second view, the means by which Jesus wanted to accomplish this overthrow was not through violence and force, but through acts of mercy and forgiveness. The unique element of this view is in regard to the timing. The first view says that Jesus failed in His first coming, while the second view says He finished what He set out to do, but in a spiritual sense. This view argues that Jesus neither failed nor finished, but only began to accomplish this third mission element. What He began, He wanted His followers to finish, not just in Israel with the Roman Empire, but in the entire world, with all who take others captive. And ultimately, these methods of “overthrow” would not result in more violence and death, but would result in blessing and peace to the occupying nations and rulers (cf. Wright 2004:48). This idea of defeating the enemy by blessing them is emphasized by Jesus in verses 20-30. Such an idea was not popular among the Jews, which helps explain their reaction to Jesus.

This third view also seems to be supported in Luke’s second volume, the Book of Acts. It shows how the followers of Jesus continued to live and practice the kingdom principles that Jesus initiated, and reveals how these peaceful methods worked to overthrow and defeat powers and authorities, not with violence and might, but with love and compassion. Sometimes, those who are captive are set free (Acts 12), while others are given the opportunity to preach the gospel to kings and governors (Acts 24:24). Much of the rest of the New Testament supports this view. There is even one particular way of reading the Book of Revelation which reveals the methods for this nonviolent overthrow (cf. Carter 2006:124-128).

When Jesus read out of Isaiah 61 that He would bring liberty to captives, while this did include the spiritual captivity to sin and Satan, it also referred to the physical and temporal captivity to wicked rulers and abusive empires. Followers of Jesus are to continue the work that Jesus began and seek justice and righteousness on the earth through the methods of love, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, generosity, and grace.

The fourth mission statement of Jesus is that He would bring recovery of sight to the blind. Bailey notes that the original Hebrew of this phrase is ambiguous, and could be translated “the opening to those who are bound” (2008:161). Is this referring to those who are bound in prison, or to those whose eyes are bound? The Hebrew context could go either way (see below). However, the Greek translation here in Luke 4 seems to favor the latter. But does this refer to physical blindness or spiritual (Green 1997:211)? Physical blindness may be preferred since during His healed numerous people who were blind (Matt 9:27-31; 12:22; 15:30-31; 20:30-34; Luke 14:13, 21; 18:35; John 9:1-32; etc.). It could be argued that all these healings were symbolic for the spiritual blindness of the Israelites (Matt 15:14; John 9:39-41). As Paul writes later in the New Testament, the devil has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they will not believe in Jesus (2 Cor 4:4). Part of the mission of Jesus was to remove this spiritual blindness. It must also be noted that it is occasionally believers who are called “blind” and so spiritual blindness does not refer only to unbelievers (cf. Rev 3:17).

However, even though Jesus did seek to remove the spiritual blindness of other people—especially that of the Jewish religious leaders (cf. Matt 23:14-26)—the emphasis in this passage seems to be on physical healing. The reason is that healing the blind was not just a nice thing for Jesus to do, but was a clear sign to the Jewish people that the Kingdom of God had arrived, and that He was the promised Messiah (cf. Matt 11:5; Isa 35:5).

Fifth, Jesus came to set at liberty those who are oppressed. The origins of this phrase are debatable. Some argue Jesus is pulling directly from Isaiah 58:6 and inserting a line here. This is possible (and allowed, using a “string of pearls” approach to biblical exposition). In that passage God is rebuking Israel for not doing what they should have done. But where they failed, Jesus has come to fulfill God’s plan among the nations: He will lovingly meet the needs of other people, and reverse the injustice of the past (Bock 1994:410).

However, it seems more likely to me that Jesus is interpreting the final phrase of Isaiah 61:1 in two different ways. As noted above, the final phrase in Isaiah 61:1 is literally translated “the opening to those who are bound.” In Hebrew imagery, this can refer either to giving sight to the blind (removing the doors from their eyes), or setting free those who are bound and oppressed. It seems that Jesus may be taking one Hebrew phrase and translating it two different ways to provide the full Scriptural meaning. So the final two phrases of Luke 4:18 have their origin in the final phrase of Isaiah 61:1. Both phrases, of course, have parallells in numerous other passages in Scripture (like Isa 58:6) and so are allowable interpretations.

The term liberty is the same word used earlier (Gk. aphesis) and can be translated as “release, deliverance, set free, or forgiveness.” See above for a further discussion on this term. In this case, rather than the captives being set free, it is the oppressed (Gk. thrauō). This is the only time this word is used in the New Testament. The only other place where the exact form is used is Isaiah 58:6, where God declares that He wants His people to loosen the chains of injustice and let the oppressed go free. Most other forms of the term in the Septuagint refer to the oppression of Israel by her enemies as a result of their sin (cf. Exod 15:6; Deut 20:3; 28:33; 2 Chr 6:24). One significant passage is Numbers 24:17 which is a prophecy of how the Messiah will overthrow the enemies of Israel, but with these nations, the Messiah will oppress (or crush) them. So the idea refers to justice being restored; to refugees being sent home (Bailey 2008:160).

As with all the other terms, there is a spiritual element to this mission statement. Certainly, people are emotionally and spiritually oppressed by the circumstances of life and evil, demonic forces. Acts 10:38 is often used to support this point, but the word used there is not the same as used here (cf. Green 1997:212). Nevertheless, the Bible frequently speaks of the evil forces arrayed against us, and how God, through the Spirit, empowers us to stand against them (cf. Eph 6:10-20). Jesus came to destroy the devil’s work (Heb 2:14; 1 John 3:8).

4:19. The final statement describing the mission of Jesus is a summary of the first five. Jesus has cometo proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. This is primarily a statement about the Year of Jubilee when slaves were set free, the land reverted to the original owner and was not plowed, planted, or harvested, and all debts were cancelled (cf. Leviticus 25; Malina 2003:243). This was supposed to happen every 50 years, but there is some question as to whether it ever happened in Israelite history. In declaring the Year of Jubilee, Jesus was declaring the dawn of God’s new age. It was to be a time of total forgiveness and restoration (Bock 1994:410; cf. Bailey 2008:159).

Evans states that the year 26/27 AD was a Jubilee Year, and so it “is possible that Luke understood this as the year that Jesus began His messianic ministry” (Evans 2003:291). But whatever the date, since the Year of Jubilee primarily affected people who were in slavery, hardship, or debt, Jesus is showing with this concluding summary statement that He was concerned not only with mankind’s spiritual needs, but also with their physical wellbeing. Along with the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, Jesus wanted to bring relief from suffering, sickness, slavery, injustice, crushing debt, generational poverty, and governmental oppression. “Jesus’ ministry was to break the power of the economic, social, and political chains that kept people in bondage” (Bailey 2008:157; cf. Bosch 1991:101).

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

Luke 4:14-15

November 7, 2012 by Jeremy Myers Leave a Comment

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]


The ministry of Jesus finally begins in Luke 4:14-15. And yet, these verses are not really the beginning of ministry for Jesus. Chronologically, they do not immediately follow the events of 4:1-13. There is actually about a one year gap in between verses 13 and 14. When the Gospel of Luke is compared with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is discovered that only John says anything at all about the first year of Jesus’ ministry. All three of the others, Matthew, Mark and Luke, when they begin to talk about the ministry of Jesus, begin with the second year (Bock 1994:386). A quick survey of almost any Harmony of the Gospels reveals the following:

First Year
John 1:19-34 John introduces Jesus
John 1:35-51 Points disciples to Jesus
John 2:1-12 Water turned to wine at Cana
John 2:13-22 Temple cleansed
John 3:1-21 Jesus & Nicodemus
John 3:22–4:3 Jesus in Judea, baptizing
John 4:4-42 Jesus & Samaritans

Second Year
Matt 4:12 Jesus returns to Galilee
Mark 1:14
Luke 4:14-15
John 4:43-45
John 4:46-54 Nobleman’s son healed (Cana/Capernaum)
Luke 4:16-30 Jesus rejected at Nazareth

So according to John, sometime after the period of temptation in the wilderness, Jesus gained a few followers from John the Baptist and went with them into Galilee (John 1:43). While there, Jesus attended a wedding feast where He performs His first miracle of turning water into wine (John 2:1-12). After this, Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Passover (John 2:13). But in Jerusalem, He found the temple full of merchants and corrupt moneychangers, and so He made a whip out of cords and cleansed the temple (John 2:13-22). His actions and his teachings sparked controversy among the Pharisees, and one of them named Nicodemus came to Jesus by night to question Him about eternal life (John 3:1-21).

Jesus and some of His disciples went out into the Judean wilderness and started to baptize Jewish people who came to them (3:22–4:3). This started further controversy, and so Jesus left that region and headed north for Galilee again. On the way there, they traveled through Samaria where Jesus met and talked with a Samaritan woman about how to worship God (John 4:1-42). As a result, many Samaritans believed in Him for eternal life (John 4:39-42).

After this, He went again to Galilee, and it is at this point that Luke picks up the story. One year has passed. Jesus has been to Jerusalem and back. Many have believed in Him for eternal life, and many more have become His followers. He has taught, performed some miracles, and initiated a few controversies.

Why does Luke (and Matthew and Mark) neglect to write about this first year of ministry? First of all, it is impossible for Luke to record everything (cf. John 21:25). All writers, including biographers, must be selective in what they record. When writing about a person’s life, the biographer records events that seem important and definitive. Or they write about events which fit a particular theme or perspective. From reading the opening chapters of the Gospel of John, it appears that in His first year of ministry, Jesus focused on inviting people to believe in Him for eternal life. As Jesus went about from place to place, John writes that Jesus constantly told people that in order to receive eternal life, all they had to do was believe in Him for it. The word “believe” is found 22 times in the first four chapters of John. Over and over and over again, Jesus does something or teaches something to get people to believe in Him. The overriding purpose of this first year of ministry was to make believers. And in this first year, Jesus gains hundreds, if not thousands, of believers.

In the second year of ministry, Jesus transitions from gaining believers, and focuses on turning those believers into disciples. He not only focuses on making disciples, but specifically on pouring His life into twelve disciples, so they can be the apostles who continue His work after He is gone.

So why does John record these first-year events while Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not? The reason is due to purpose and theme. The Gospel of John is often called the Gospel of Belief. The word “believe” is found almost 100 times in John. One of the primary purposes of John is to tell people how they can receive eternal life (John 20:30-31). John records in numerous ways that eternal life is given to anyone who simply believes in Jesus for it (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47, etc.).

But the purposes of the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke are different. If John was written to help people believe in Jesus for eternal life, Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written to help people who had already believed become fully-committed followers of Jesus. The Gospel of John helps with this too, but while discipleship is a twin purpose to John, it is the only purpose for Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

This helps explain why Luke did not record anything of Jesus’ first year of ministry. Jesus was mainly concerned about gaining believers His first year of ministry, but Luke is mainly concerned with making disciples. So Luke skips the first year and jumps straight to the disciple-making years. Luke is writing to Theophilus, and wants to impress upon him that the path of discipleship has no end. After coming to faith in Jesus, there is always more to learn (Bock 1994:387). With this in mind, verses 14-15 contain two of the things Christ focused on in His ministry and in His disciplemaking: the Spirit and Truth (cf. John 4:23). In this way, Luke continues to portray Jesus as a new Moses. Just as Moses was guided by God in leading and teaching the Israelites, so also is Jesus.

4:14. Verse 14 focuses on how the ministry of Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit. Luke writes that Jesus returned…to Galilee. Since Jesus returned to Galilee at least twice in his first year of ministry (John 1:43; 4:43-45), Luke probably intends this as a summary statement of Jesus’ movement. See 4:44; 5:15; 7:17; 8:1-3 for other similar summary statements which provide structure and movement for Luke’s narrative.

There is a special emphasis in Luke 4:14–9:50 regarding the region of Galilee, and this section of Luke is often referred to as “The Galilean Ministry.” This is not simply a title, for it also describes a mode or method of ministry that Jesus undertook. Galilee was a fertile, agrarian region composed of both rich and poor, cities and rural villages, highly educated and relatively uneducated (cf. Green 1997:200-203; Barclay 1975:45). That Luke places such an emphasis on Galilee reveals Luke’s conviction that Jesus is a Messiah for all people. While Jesus caters to the political, religious, and cultural expectations of all people He encounters, He also challenges, redeems, and transforms these expectations in order to call people to a new way of thinking and living (Green 1997:203).

The ministry in Galilee was by in the power of the Spirit, indicating that Jesus was led and guided by the Holy Spirit on where to go and what to do. It was in this first year that Jesus called His first disciples (John 1:35-51), performed His first recorded miracle (John 2:1-10), cleansed the temple (John 2:13-25), and reached out to both religious elite (John 3:1-21) and religious rejects (John 4:1-42). While the birth narratives of Jesus provided a constellation of Jewish expectations for the Messiah (Luke 1:1-3:38), the early ministry actions of Jesus show how He is actually going to perform His ministry (Green 1997:297). In the context here, Luke mentions nothing about miracles, but focuses primarily on the teaching of Jesus. This reveals that for Luke, the primary ministry of the Spirit is to guide Jesus and equip Him for teaching the Scriptures (Bock 1994:391).

As a result of what Jesus did and taught during His first year of ministry, news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. The word for news is pheme which is the origin for the English word “fame.” (Bock 1994:391). People were talking about Him, wondering about Him, and trying to figure out if He was just another teacher, or maybe a prophet, or perhaps the long-awaited Messiah. It was the miracles of Jesus, the signs that followed His teaching, which authenticated His claims to be the Messiah. Miraculous signs have always been the means by which God proved to the Israelites that He had chosen a particular person for a special prophetic task (cf Exodus 4; Pentecost 1981:136).

4:15. If verse 14 focuses on the Spiritual ministry of Jesus, verse 15 emphasizes the teaching ministry, which, of course, is empowered by the Spirit. The text says He taught in their synagogues. The termsynagogue means “gathering” and it was the central place of religious life for Jewish people in a particular community. There was only one temple, and it was in Jerusalem. Every community that had a least ten Jewish men would have a synagogue where they gathered for prayer and teaching. They gathered at least weekly on the Sabbath (Saturday), but many would gather much more frequently (cf. Edersheim 1988:432). The primary activity when they gathered in the Synagogue was teaching and instruction in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. They went weekly, if not daily, to the synagogue to learn the Bible. In fact, sometimes, rather than call them Synagogues, they were referred to as a “school” or “House of Instruction.” The synagogue was the local religious school where Jews went as often as they could pray and learn the Word of God (Edersheim 1988:439-450).

So when Luke records that Jesus taught in their synagogues, it means that every week, at least on the Sabbath, but maybe more frequently, Jesus was in a local synagogue, teaching the Scriptures to the others who had gathered to learn. It can also be shown from other sources that the typical method of synagogue teaching was book by book, verse by verse. Typically, when Jewish Rabbis taught the Torah, they taught it straight through (cf. Neh 8:8), and this is probably how Jesus taught (cf. Luke 4:16-21; 4:31; 6:6; 13:10). Jesus “took the Old Testament Scriptures, read them, explained them, and caused the people to understand them” (Pentecost 1981:137). This practice was also used by the early church (Acts 2:16-36; 2:42; 13:14-41; 14:1-3; 15:21; 18:4; 19:8-10; etc.). Lightfoot records that the one who taught this way was often referred to as “an interpreter,” and the teaching as an “interpretation” (Lightfoot 1989:68; Edersheim 444; Evans 2003:286). This is partly because the readings were in Hebrew, while some of those in the synagogue may have only understood Greek or Aramaic (cf. Edersheim 1988:432). So the text was read in Hebrew, then if an interpreter was present, it would be interpreted into a language everyone could understand, and then explained and taught so it could be understood and applied. This is what Jesus did in the synagogues He visited.

Parallel to the end of verse 14, Luke reiterates that the Spirit-empowered teaching of Jesus resulted in Him being glorified by all. However, Luke will go on to show in 4:16-30 that not everyone appreciated His teaching and His claims. Nevertheless, the ministry of Jesus was marked by a perfect balance between the Spirit and the truth, and as a result, many believed in Him, became His disciples, and praised His name among their friends and family.

Jesus has begun His ministry with the power of the Spirit and the teaching of Scripture. These themes are mentioned again in 4:42-44, forming an inclusio around 4:16-41, which contain specific examples of Jesus’ Spirit-empowered teaching and ministry. These two primary themes dominate the narrative of Luke 4:16–9:50 (cf. Green 1997:199), as seen especially in Luke 4:16-30.

Filed Under: Bible Commentary

  • « Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • …
  • Page 8
  • Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search the Scriptures

Select a Book

Select from the available commentaries below. To get electronic copies for free subscribe to the Till He Comes Newsletter.

Old Testament

  • Jonah

New Testament

  • Luke

Copyright © 2022 · Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in