Читать книгу Luke - Diane G. Chen - Страница 13

Calling of Simon Peter (5:1–11)

Luke’s account of how Jesus calls his first disciples is quite different from Mark’s, but the two are by no means contradictory. Reading Mark, one may wonder why four seasoned fishermen would drop everything to follow a stranger simply on the basis of the words, “Follow me” (Mark 1:16–20). Luke’s decision to relocate the call story in his narrative, from before the exorcism at the synagogue to after the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law, implies that Simon has already witnessed Jesus’ power up close by the time Jesus calls him. Luke’s redaction makes better sense and improves the flow of the narrative.

Jesus’ popularity continues to grow as we now find him teaching by the Lake of Gennesaret, also known as the Sea of Galilee (5:1). The crowds are pressing in on him so that he is getting closer and closer to the water. The part of the lake near Capernaum is shaped like a bowl, giving rise to a natural amphitheater of sorts. Jesus borrows Simon’s boat to use as a floating pulpit, from which he can take advantage of the topography’s acoustics and teach from a short distance offshore (5:3–4).121 Luke’s main interest is in what transpires afterwards. He drops a hint in verse 2, noting that Jesus notices some fishermen washing their nets next to their boats.

Simon and his business partners, James and John, are not the poorest class of fishermen who cast nets by the shore, as they own boats (5:7, 10). A set of trammel nets could be stretched out between two boats to round up large amounts of fish as the boats were repositioned. This method was used at night when the fish could not see the net. The night before, however, Simon and his crew were unsuccessful; they caught nothing even though they worked long and hard (5:5a). When Jesus saw them that morning, they were probably tired and dejected. They had nothing to bring to the market and still had to clean the debris off the nets (5:2).

Imagine Simon’s response when Jesus asks him to take the boat out again to deep water and let down the nets (5:4): “You, a carpenter and itinerant teacher, want me, an experienced fisherman, to take my crew out again to where we know there is no fish? Besides, the timing is bad. It’s broad daylight. The fish will see the net and swim away. What if we return empty-handed again? I will become a laughingstock!” It is not difficult to feel skeptical. Yet Simon replies, “If you say so, I will let down the nets” (5:5b). His tone does not appear disrespectful, having seen Jesus heal his mother-in-law (4:38–39). With his nascent faith edging out his personal misgivings, Simon summons his crew to take the boats out and cast the net into the deep again.

What a yield from that half-hearted act of obedience! The size of the catch is beyond anyone’s imagination, so much so that the nets are about to break. Even with the help of James and John, the two boats are so full of fish that they can barely stay afloat (5:6–7). Not only does the miracle demonstrate Jesus’ abundant provision, it reveals a profound truth about Jesus’ identity, which Simon recognizes immediately.

Instead of exuberant joy, Simon Peter122 falls down before Jesus and says, “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!” (5:8). Instead of “Master” (5:5) he now calls Jesus “Lord.”123 Simon recognizes a theophany in the holy encounter and becomes keenly aware of the distance between him and Jesus. His response reminds us of Isaiah’s confession when the prophet saw the vision of the throne of God: “Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips” (Isa 6:5). When human sinfulness meets divine holiness, it is not repulsion but a sense of unworthiness that prompts Simon to ask Jesus to leave. Unlike the people of Capernaum and Nazareth who want to claim Jesus for themselves (4:23, 28–29, 42–43), Simon draws back in reverent fear.

Jesus gives the same words of assurance to Simon as did the angels to Zechariah, Mary, and the shepherds: “Do not be afraid” (5:10a; cf. 1:13, 30; 2:10). In addition, he pronounces Simon’s future mission that “[he] will be catching people” (5:10b). Catching people is an apt image for these fishermen who have just caught two boatloads of fish. The metaphor, however, comes not from fishing but from hunting and warring. People are captured alive as prisoners of war and subsequently tortured or killed.124 But people-catching for Jesus leads not to death but to life. Simon’s catch of people will be as fruitful as the large catch of fish before his eyes (Acts 2:41; 4:4). A self-identified sinner who repents and follows Jesus, Simon paves the way for all other sinners who receive God’s gift of salvation. The story closes with Simon, James, and John leaving everything to follow Jesus (5:11; 18:28). Yet there are others who do not think they are sinners. By their own volition they bar themselves from the kingdom of God. We meet them in the next section.

Fusing the Horizons: Human Effort versus Divine Help

Simon Peter and his partners worked all night long and returned emptyhanded. Imagine the tone of this seasoned fisherman when he told Jesus that they caught nothing. Was there a note of resentment, disappointment, or embarrassment? After all, effort should yield proportionate result; so says my Chinese upbringing. According to my cultural work ethic, diligence can compensate to a large degree for the lack of genius. Even Albert Einstein concurred that genius is one percent inspiration but ninety-nine percent perspiration.

When things do not go the way we expect, we look for a logical explanation. Did I miss something in the planning? Did I lack know-how? What should I have done instead? Peter did not appear to be guilty of any of these. His perceived failure was not because of sloth or ineptitude. Returning empty-handed after a night of fishing was more than an inconvenience. Not only was there no income from selling fish that day, Peter also may have taken additional loss from owing his crew their wages. Given Peter’s frame of mind, Jesus’ suggestion to drop the net again in deep water was like rubbing salt into a wound. Thankfully, Jesus was not asking for wholehearted enthusiasm on Peter’s part but simply a crack of openness. Although Jesus’ suggestion seemed to go against wise fishing practice and recent objective data, and Peter had to risk seeing a repeat of the previous night’s failure, his consent—reservations notwithstanding—led to a theophany and a catch that covered his economic loss and some!

The availability of divine help is not a license for idleness, as though we should simply sit back, fold our arms, and watch God do all the work. More often, however, it is not our inaction but impatience that gets in the way. We forge ahead with our ideas and plans, and when things do not go our way we frantically try one thing after another in the hope of turning failure into success. When we fail to wait for the green light from the Holy Spirit and take the lead from our own hunches or ambitions, we miss out on the unexpected blessing to witness God at work.

The miraculous catch of fish went beyond bounty provisions to a changed life. It all began with an ambivalent consent, “If you say so, Master.” At that time, Peter had barely met Jesus. There was no deep faith of which to speak as yet. He was an ordinary fisherman with just enough willingness to override his resistance, and that was enough for Jesus to begin his good work in this disciple. Likewise, God will take our tentative and hesitant “Yes” and turn it into a surprising adventure. Is that too difficult a step to take—a small step of obedience in the right direction?

Controversy over Purity Laws (5:12–39)

After expounding on the account of the calling of Peter, James, and John (5:1–11), Luke resumes Mark’s ordering of events until the Sermon on the Plain in 6:17–49. The spotlight now focuses on the religious elites who find fault with Jesus despite the high praises he receives from the people.

Simply labeling the scribes and the Pharisees as legalistic hypocrites does not adequately explain their disagreements with Jesus. Why do learned and well-respected religious leaders fail to see God’s truth and saving actions through Jesus? If they love the law and revere God, how is it that their appropriation of the commandments differs so drastically from that of Jesus? If both sides claim fidelity to God, who holds the correct interpretation of God’s will? In order to address these questions, we need to first consider the understanding of the law, as well as larger issues of Jewish identity and praxis under the socio-political conditions of first-century Palestine.

For centuries leading up to the time of Jesus, Israel repeatedly fell into the hands of foreign rulers—the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Ptolemies, the Syrians, and now the Romans. The Jews were determined to preserve their unique identity as God’s chosen people even though their pagan overlords attempted to wipe out their national self-understanding through exile, introduction of foreign gods, culture, education, and prohibition of Jewish practices. At times God’s people were scattered from their homeland. At other times their temple lay in ruins. Even after the Jews had rebuilt the temple, the second one was desecrated by the pagans. Yet throughout the precariousness of Israel’s national existence, the Jews always had Moses’s law. The law was God’s gift and instruction to his elect. In the post-exilic period, the study and interpretation of the law became increasingly crucial for maintaining Jewish identity. The teachers and experts of the law were committed to “[making] a fence around the law” (m. ’Abot 1:1). Their deliberations on the application of the law in every aspect of life were passed down as a set of oral traditions deemed equally binding as the law itself.

Commandments surrounding circumcision, purity, food, and the Sabbath were of particular importance as key identity markers that distinguished the Jews from the gentiles. After all, God said to Israel, “You shall be holy, for I the lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2). Holiness demanded separation from everything profane—clean from unclean, pure from impure, moral from immoral. Piety and fidelity were measured by adherence to the law and the oral traditions of the rabbis. Not only would disobedience call down divine judgment upon the individual, it would jeopardize the fate of the entire nation.

The opponents of Jesus often appear in groups. The Pharisees are paired with either lawyers (nomikoi, 7:30; 14:3), scribes (grammateis, 5:21; 6:7; 15:2), or teachers of the law (nomodidaskaloi, 5:17). Lawyers, scribes, and teachers are the legal experts of the temple establishment, not to be confused with Pharisees, who are members of the laity. All of them share the same concern over the proper and meticulous adherence to the law. They form a united front in their disapproval of Jesus’ observance of purity, food, and Sabbath laws.

The sect of the Pharisees was known for its separatist attitude toward all that was ritually and morally unclean. The Pharisees held themselves to strict standards of purity and operated within a very tight circle of hospitality to avoid contamination from outsiders. They were held in high esteem for their meticulous practiced the law. Even though they were not temple personnel, they garnered the respect of the people and enjoyed high social status among the Jews.125

Were the Pharisees “legalists” then? They were, in the sense that they followed the letter of the law to the utmost detail. So did the scribes and the teachers of the law. This should not necessarily imply a negative motive on their part. To live out one’s fidelity to God by subsuming all of life under God’s law was a commitment to be admired. Most people were not as knowledgeable about the law or as diligent about its observance. In their zealousness to abide by the law, however, the Pharisees and the scribes had the tendency to overlook the compassion of God. Hence they must be brought back to the true intentions of the law, given by God to engender life and not to stifle it. The tension between Jesus and the religious elite revolved around this sort of corrective.

Of particular relevance to the Lukan narrative are the purity laws and the Sabbath laws. More will be said about the Sabbath laws in chapter 6. Purity laws contain a moral as well as a ritual dimension. While ritual impurity in and of itself is not sinful, it renders the unclean person ineligible for communion with God and God’s people. Impurity can be reversed by ritual cleansing, but the list of things that can render a person unclean is long—coming into contact with gentiles, having a physical handicap (paralysis, blindness, etc.), displaying open sores and skin lesions, being possessed by a demon (“an unclean spirit”), exhibiting a flow of blood, touching a dead body, just to name a few. Food laws constitute a type of purity law that have to do with eating clean foods with clean vessels in the company of clean people.

Because impurity can be transmitted through contact, it becomes all the more important for the scribes and the Pharisees to censure those with whom they keep company and share a table. Much to the chagrin of the religious leaders, Jesus is found among many who are unclean ritually, morally, and in some cases, even perpetually. Imagine the tension that arises when, on the one hand, Jesus’ teaching and healing are attributed to divine empowerment, yet on the other hand, respected religious leaders disapprove of his words and actions. Who speaks for God and models the salvific will of God for Israel?

Cleansing a Leper (5:12–16)

This story features a leper in an unspecified town somewhere in Galilee (5:12). Leprosy in the Bible was not the same as what we moderns understand to be Hansen’s disease. It covered a spectrum of skin diseases from mild to severe, as identified by sores, lesions, discoloration, disfiguration, and other abnormalities of the skin. Some forms were more curable than others. More damaging than the physical impact of biblical leprosy were its social and spiritual implications. The leprous condition was thought to be a smiting from God for serious sin.126 Lepers had to announce their approach by crying out, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev 13:45–46). “Put out of the camp” of Israel (Num 5:2–3), they were shunned, ostracized, and forbidden to stay within the city boundaries, lest they spread their uncleanness to those whom they came into contact.

Given the stigma surrounding leprosy, the leper who approaches Jesus exhibits great faith. His condition is serious; he is “covered with leprosy” (5:12a). Yet knowingly crossing permissible social boundaries, he enters the city, seeks out Jesus, and pleads with him, “Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean” (5:12b). The use of cleansing language, as opposed to healing or restoring, signifies the connection between leprosy and impurity. Like Peter, the leper falls down before Jesus and calls him “Lord” (5:8). Like Peter, he recognizes the numinous in Jesus, yet dares not presume upon his generosity. In response, Jesus stretches out his hand, touches the leper, and speaks to both parts of his petition with the affirmative, “I do choose. Be made clean” (5:13). In the OT, God redeemed Israel “with an outstretched arm” (Exod 6:6). Now Jesus reaches out to touch a leper nobody dares to touch, and in doing so violates the law of purity and contracts the man’s uncleanness. While Jesus’ words immediately effect the physical healing, his touch communicates an invitation back into the community of God’s people. Even the untouchable has dignity in the sight of God.

Jesus instructs the leper not to tell anyone of his cleansing but to first show himself to the priest as required by the law of Moses (5:14). The priest would pronounce the ritual uncleanness of a person stricken with leprosy, as well as monitor the disease as it progressed. If the disease receded, the priest would examine the invalid and verify the completeness of the physical cleansing. He would then oversee the sacrificial offerings to render the person—clothes, house and all—ritually cleansed before an official clean bill of health could be issued (Lev 13:1—14:57).

The summative statement of this story echoes prior statements affirming much of the same, that Jesus’ fame continues to spread as people flock to him for his teaching and healing (5:15; cf. 4:37, 40). But Jesus is not taken by the attention. Instead, he withdraws to lonely places to pray to draw strength for his messianic mission (5:16; cf. 4:42).

Healing a Paralytic (5:17–26)

This episode takes place in an unnamed town.127 There is no mention of the Sabbath. Instead of the synagogue, Jesus is teaching at someone’s house, and the place is filled to capacity. The phrase, “the power of the Lord was with him to heal” (5:17; cf. 4:18–19), reminds the readers that Jesus’ teaching and healing ministries are inextricably related. Every healing is an object lesson; and every teaching has its restorative effect on his listeners.

Sitting in the audience are some Pharisees and teachers of the law who have come from all over, even as far as Jerusalem, to hear Jesus (5:17). Nothing is said of their motive. They may be drawn by curiosity or genuine interest in what Jesus has to say. But their attitudes will soon be revealed from their response to Jesus’ handling of an unexpected situation.

Jesus is interrupted by the arrival of a paralytic, carried by four men, coming not through the door of the house but from above, through the roof (5:19). The paralytic’s four friends refuse to let a crowd hinder his access to Jesus. Like the leper who had the audacity to enter the town to find Jesus (5:12), these four friends barge in, not only uninvited but also by creating their own “door.” It is unlikely that they have asked for permission. Luke’s description of a tiled roof may strike some as odd, for houses in Galilean villages were much more modest, with roofs made of reeds, branches, and dried mud.128 That aside, the focus is on the faith of the four friends, which does not escape Jesus’ notice (5:20a). Imagine the people in the house, hearing the sound from above, realizing what is going on, stepping back to avoid being hit by falling debris, and making way for the mat to be lowered right in front of Jesus.

Instead of asking what the five want or curing the paralytic right away, Jesus addresses the man on the mat, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you” (5:20b). This is not a strange thing to say, for in the ancient world sickness and disease were often thought to result from divine punishment.129 What is unacceptable to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law is Jesus’ perceived infringement on God’s unique right to forgive sins, and in doing so committing blasphemy (5:21).

The Pharisees and the legal experts are not incorrect. Only God can forgive sins, and there are proper channels in the cultic practices of Israel by which one can ask God for forgiveness. In their view, Jesus is usurping divine prerogative and is deserving of death by stoning (Lev 24:14–16). They refuse to believe that the Son of Man has been given the power from God to forgive sins (5:24). Even when Jesus has the authority, he does not flaunt it. Instead of telling the paralytic, “I forgive you,” Jesus says, “Your sins are forgiven you.” The passive voice insists that God is still the subject of the action as the one who forgives sinners.

The bottom line is that the man needs both physical and spiritual healing. The connection between the two forms of restoration is drawn in Jesus’ challenge to his opponents (5:22). At first glance, Jesus’ question is unanswerable: “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk?’” (5:23). Being forgiven by God is more important than being healed, yet it seems easier to pronounce forgiveness than to make a lame man walk. Whether the man is truly forgiven or not cannot be proven, but the effectiveness of a miracle is immediately apparent. Ultimately, forgiveness and physical healing are two sides of the same coin. If the paralytic walks, it confirms that God has empowered Jesus’ healing and has also forgiven the man. If the man remains paralyzed, his sins remain and Jesus is exposed as a blasphemous charlatan. One does not happen without the other.