Luke 5:27-39 Bible Teaching

Welcome
Prayer
Song
Silence

Okay, we left off last week where Jesus had healed a man who was let down into Peter and Andrews home through the roof.

Luke now takes us to another segment in his chronology of Jesus life picking it up at verse 27:

Luke 5.27-end
Meat
July 21st 2019
LIVE
Luke 5:27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
28 And he left all, rose up, and followed him.
29 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.
30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
33 And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?
34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?
35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Okay, back to verse 27 –

27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.

So we know that Jesus has called Peter at least at this point – a man who calls himself a man of sin. And now, at least according to Luke’s record, he calls a publican.

This publican has three identifiers in scripture – first he is called, Levi, secondly he is called Matthew, and third he is known also as the Son of Alphaeus.

This publican, according to all three gospels, has him at “the place of toll” which appears to be a tax-office or custom-house of Capernaum placed there to collect taxes from the boats going across the lake outside of Herod’s territory.

The publicans got their name in English from the Latin, “publicanus” which means a man who did public duty but this is not really an accurate title because publicans were known for doing more than their duty – they were known for being exclusive and they had the tendency as a group to practice graft.

Even Jesus, in Matthew 5:46 speaks of them in a backhanded manner saying:

“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?”

So even by reputation alone, Levi, even if he was an honest publican, he was certainly associated with publicans and therefore bore the reputation of them – at least in they eyes of some. (Verse 28)

28 And he left all, rose up, and followed him.

Like we read about Peter here in Luke, that he too left all and followed him, we see these words applied to Matthew. Only Luke uses this phrase toward Levi.

It appears from the Greek Imperfect active the meaning of this phrase is that he began to follow Him and kept it up.

29 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.

The term translated “great feast is doche and because it means a reception, it is strongly believed that Matthew-Levi held this great reception in honor of the Lord.

Matthew, interestingly enough, does not include a mention of doing this in his own gospel showing that at least by the time he wrote he embraced the humility other New Testament writers had in trying to avoid boasting.

Luke describes the group that attended the reception as “a great company of publicans and of others,” and avoids calling the others sinners (as Mark and Matthew do) but at verse 30 and 31 where there is an exchange between the religious critics observing this reception and Jesus, Luke does mention that they were seen as sinners by the Pharisees.

What is interesting is that in this very event we can see that Jesus assessment of the publicans rings true – they did stick together and respected each other.

We can suggest all sort of reasons for Matthew holding the party but we are never really told.

Some commentators suggest that it was to bring the presence of the Lord into the lives of his fellow publicans.

Some say that he was just wanting to say farewell to that lifestyle in a public manner.

All we know is the party was a reception and therefore it was in all probability held in honor of Jesus and what Matthew was about to go do in His name.

So, imagine the scene – a giant party full of publican and sinners, all brought together under one roof as a means to introduce Jesus to that segment of society by one who was going to become a full time disciple.

Notice that Jesus did not refuse to attend. His critics were out to get him on anything he said or did and so why worry?

In Matthew 11 we read at verse 19 we read Jesus saying to the critical religionists of his day:

“For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
And the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.”

But Jesus motives were pure and he knew that in the thing itself (gathering and eating with sinners) there was no harm. The fact of the matter ways it offiered an opportunity to do good.

In reality, all the feasts and festivals and meetings and gatherings that we hold today could be receptions for Jesus and to serve as a means of introducing attendees to Him and the Good News He brings!

Sinners, saints – whomever – all gathering together in a reception of the Lord.

30 But . . . their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?

Okay, first of all the Greek does NOT read their scribes and Pharisees . . . but the Pharisees and the scribes of them. Some manuscripts do not include THEIR but Mark does and since therefore it is believed that this is correct.

The whole point – some of the scribes were Sadducees and some of the scribes were scribes of the Pharisees, and so this passage is telling us that those who were there criticizing the Lord were the Pharisees and THEIR scribes (or the scribes who were of a Pharisaical nature).

And they asked the disciples of Jesus:

Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners?

Luke presents this question as coming out of them after they had murmured among themselves, which is an onomatope in Greek literature which sounds like the buzzing of bees (tonthoruzzzzo).

Since it is doubtful that they were invited to this reception it is likely that they were lingering about the house or doors and observing from a distance.

What do we have hear? A party. Food and drink. The Lord and Savior, the Son of Man, coming to bring Good News to that world, and the religious right criticizing the whole affair on the basis of them hanging out and eating with a certain people type.

Note something important – Jesus did NOT reject that idea that those at the party were sinful in his response. Instead he said:

31. They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

We know that Jesus came to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. Those are His own words from Matthew 15:24 when a Gentile woman asked the Lord to heal her demon possessed daughter and he said:

“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

But its important to note that Jesus was citing a passage from Jeremiah 50:6 which says:

“My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their resting place.”

When the Messiah came he came to reach those who were truly lost sheep from the House of Israel, NOT those who were of the House of Israel that were Sons of the Devil.

Its an important distinction because if we were to just look at the worst elements of the Pharisees and Sadducees who was more lost than them?

These words have always perplexed me as I have never been able to understand why Jesus says to these sick critics that the whole need not a physician but the sick.

And again it seems to all come down to who was truly Israel from the heart. Jesus came to save the lost sheep who were in need of repentance but saying that does not mean that the religious leaders should or could be included in that group. I’m not sure they ever could or would and that is my point.

So on being asked why they ate and drank with sinners and publicans Jesus assigns himself as the Messiah to them as a hospital administrator would assign a doctor to an ill person.

The reason my disciples eat and drink with sinners is they need help – and will receive help as the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel for they will recognize their need to repent, where you pharisees and scribes will not.

The next line is also cumbersome as Jesus adds:

32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

This phrase is not found in Mark or Matthew and again, in the face of it, we have to really try to see what Jesus is saying and why because the direct implication here is that he is saying that the Pharisees and scribes are the righteous and that those he eats with are the sinners and therefore the Pharisees and scribes are A-OKAY in his book.

This is NOT the case – not in all of scripture. All we can say here is Jesus is speaking a truth in the face of the question:

Why do you eat with sinners?

It has nothing to do with those asking the question. He is merely stating a fact – which remains – he came to call sinners to repentance as they are the only ones who would need to change their minds about God, how they have lived, etc.

I think if Jesus added to this line:

“And you are the biggest sinners of all – but you will not listen – those in this crowd will – we could have a clearer meaning of this interaction.

But he doesn’t do this because they were never going to hear them – therefore He was never going to call them.

Only the truly lost sinful people of True Israel were being called. At this point the Pharisees do what all Pharisees do – they continued to harp because the first answer – though satisfactory in terms of truth – was never enough. Verse 33

33 And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?

So, here’s the setting. It’s a party thrown by a publican who is hated. In all probability this day was seen as a special day of fasting for the religious right and here Jesus and the others are having a great time.

Nothing gets under the skin of the religious like a party when they are taking the moral high ground. And this could have been the case here.

But now they approach Jesus with a new challenge – one used in an attempt to divide Him and His followers apart from John the Baptist.

In this scenario, John the Baptist and his disciples were most likely in great harmony with the Pharisees way of living. John was the last of the law and the prophets and came to make the paths straight in preparation for the coming Messiah.

His call was austere and direct and in no way would John have been criticized by the Pharisees for failing in his religiosity.

So, they ostensibly linked themselves together with John and His disciples against the ways of Christ and his. And they ask Jesus:

“Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but yours eat and drink?

Again, this specific exchange is found only in Luke. The word translated to “often” here is a term that relates “to being made thick or thickness.”

Take this term and its heavy meaning and associate it with loose and free, and you get the meaning – Jesus, your followers are free and living liberally while ours (and John’s) are bound up in thick strictures.

WHY is this so, Jesus of Nazarath?
(verse 34)

34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

In other words, when there is a wedding party and the groom is with the guests, what would be the purpose of fasting then? The bridegroom is the reason for the feast or party in the first place!

See, the Pharisees were waiting on the arrival of the Messiah, under the Law, so they were still fasting and praying.

Jesus is telling them/then that His disciples were WITH the Messiah – and that that was the time to rejoice and celebrate. (verse 35)

35 But (he says) the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Those days, and “the day will come,” are phrases that are given in Mark as, “in that day” and in Matthew as “only then” – all of which speak to the time when Jesus will have been put to death and after he ascended from them – in that day boy will His disciples pray and fast because that would be the time they will really need it.

Here we have Jesus introducing a new way to see everything relative to Man and God.

The former way, still embraced by the Pharisees, was dead and dying and Jesus here is explaining to these men of religious order why his disciples and followers walk a different road that what has been walked in the past.

His first response to this is in the analogy of the bridegroom – they were waiting on the bridegroom and He was the bridegroom – that is why they don’t fast and pray.

In the second example, Jesus gives a parable verse 36 related to fixing old clothing and he says:

36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.

Luke is the only Gospel writer that calls these three illustrations parables but I think he is correct.

In this one, Jesus explains, as a means to show why his disciples are doing things differently than John’s and the Pharisees, says:

You can’t take a piece of vibrant, newly woven fabric and insert it as a patch in a old item of clothing. He says that if you try the new (by the way STRONGER AND BETTER CLOTH) will rent (the term for schizo) the old as the new and old cloth will not agree one with another (or will not mesh).

Matthews account says that the rent will be made worse.

Of course the relation to Jesus ways and the Pharisees ways are clear – there was no possible way that Jesus could come and introduce the freedom and liberty that he afforded all while trying to mesh it in with the Pharisees ways and standards.

The new would tear right through the Old, causing and even greater tear. Therefore there was the need to just create a brand new item or article of clothing and forget trying to mesh it with what was.

Jesus provides a final response to their question and says:

37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

This teaching is similar to the garment illustration except his instrument is wine and containers not cloth.

But he gets to the real point of all of this now, saying to these supporters of the old way:

39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

First of all you might discover that this verse is not in your version but it IS found in a number of older documents thought the Westcott and Hort guys removed it from theirs.

Bottom line, the passage shows the prejudice in the hearts of people – and how this prejudice will cause many to not embrace anything new.

“We have always drank this “old” wine – it satisfies us, we have no need to try the new. The Old is better.

I would gently suggest that this attitude is resisted in seekers of God in Spirit and Truth. Which Jesus said God seeks.

It’s not an attitude that is easy to avoid. As I get older my tired body wants to ease up and just grab what has been and stand upon it.

Somethings are worth such a stance – but when it comes to God and Christ there is a temptation to grasp the first thing that comes along and never ever let it go.

Jesus here is describing the hearts and attitude of those who embrace such attitudes – and in so doing we do not find a direct condemnation but more of a matter of fact.

We have some time so lets read on deeper into the Gospel starting at chapter six verse 1!

Luke 6:1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

This tale is one of many where Jesus is going to be confronted on the Sabbath Day and what is lawful and what is not.

Next week we will walk directly into another one where Jesus actually heals a man in the synagogue on the Sabbath – which ironically, does not go over well.

So back to verse 1:

Luke 6:1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

Okay – the Greek for this first line is really difficult to understand because what it really says is

“on the sabbath called second first,”

In fact, the word occurs nowhere else in scripture! It is therefore exceedingly difficult to interprete and scholars have had a field day trying.

Here seems to be the best approach from a scholar names, Scaliger:

“Based on Leviticus 23:11, the second day of the Passover was a great festival, on which the wave-sheaf was offered. From that day they reckoned seven weeks, or seven Sabbaths, to the day of Pentecost.

The first Sabbath after that second day was called the second first, or the first from the second day of the feast.

The second Sabbath was called the second second, or the second Sabbath from the second day of the feast; the third the third second, &c.

This day, therefore, on which the Savior went through the fields, was the first Sabbath that occurred after the second day of the feast.

Got all that? Aren’t you praising God to not be part of such a system of religion?

Anyway, back to the text:

“And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.”

Of course, this is not Native American so we are not talking about corn or maize. In all probability they were rubbing another form of grain like wheat or barley in their hands which served to separate the kernal from the stems as a means to eat it. This activity was permissible in that age what the Pharisees were questioning was the timing of the activity.

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, “Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.”

This statement is key – the PHARISEES said that Jesus disciples were doing what was not lawful to do on the Sabbath day.

This was based on their tradition that Man was made for the Sabbath and not the Sabbath for man.

In other words, the Sabbath was to be served rather than the Sabbath serving Man.

Again, to rub the kernals was permitted but according to interpretation not on the Sabbath. This interpretation was derived from Exodus 20:10, 35:2-3, and Numbers 15:32-36 which say:

Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The Lord takes it further in Exodus 35:2 saying

“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”

Our first question here then might be: Were Jesus disciples “working” on the Sabbath? I would have to say that they were – even if the work was light and not taxing.

And so relative to the Old Testament command, I believe that these men WERE breaking the Sabbath.

I say this because what is more taxing – to separate the kernals from the chaff in ones hands or to pick up sticks for firewood?

Let’s jump to Numbers 15:32-36 where we read

“And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

I think we have to come to an understanding here – the Pharisees were correct in their assessment of the ACTIVITIES of Jesus disciples. In the actual activities – which is what they were MOST concerned with.

So seeking to find fault with Christ, they tapped into what they believed was an observable crime in light of the law and their history.

I don’t like it where people try to justify the ACTIONS of the disciples here in the face of the Law because they cannot be justified – these people were in violation of working on the Sabbath – a violation punishable by death.

But we must remember that Jesus was introducing new wine, and new fabric, and as the actual LORD of the Sabbath day, he had the right to interpret it as He saw fit. Which is what he is about to do. So, we read (at verse 3)

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

And before we get into the story and meaning, the point is this: God is NOT about laws for the laws sake. He is about human beings. There are laws that bless and benefit human beings, like the Sabbath day UNDER the LAW – they were good.

But God understands exceptions, and mercy, and love. So as a means to vindicate his disciples actions, he referred them to a similar situation which is recorded in the Old Testament and had to do with King David, someone they revered and a “man after God’s own heart.”

The law commanded that twelve loaves of bread (called shewbread) was to be laid on the table in the holy place in the tabernacle and they were to remain there for a week and then they were to be eaten ONLY by the priests.

When David was fleeing from an angry Saul, he arrived at Ahimelech the Priest weary and hungry and the only food Ahimelech had was loaves of this shewbread and he asked if he could eat it which was contrary to (HERE WE GO) the Letter of the Law.

And in this case, this act passed uncondemned proving that laws did not bind a man but principles bind the man.

And the principle in David’s case was the men were starving and needed food. And the principle in Jesus disciples case was the same.

We will wrap this story up next week but I want to try and end with a thought. God knows the heart, the circumstances, and the desires of the human heart.

He knows what motivates all of us, and why some of us would choose to break a Law which seems to be unbreakable.

A good rule of thumb is love – agape love, the unconditional love – when others are in need, and suffering, and hungry and destitute – for it IS the new commandment.

We could walk about seeking for ways to condemn others based on their actions relative to the Law – or we could allow all people to live their lives and to trust that God will work and care and deal with them – and we don’t or won’t have to.

And we will stop here.

Questions/Comments
PRAYER

Nancy and Dave Bontempo