Luke 5:27 - 39
27 After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth. And he said to him, “Follow me.” 28 And leaving everything, he rose and followed him.
29 And Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them. 30 And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
33 And they said to him, “The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink.” 34 And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? 35 The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.” 36 He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’”
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. v28 - Was this the first time Jesus met Matthew?
2. v30 - Was a tax collector necessarily a sinner?
3. v36 - What does the parable mean?
4. v39 - What is the meaning of the part of the parable that says, 'The old is good'?
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2017/04/mark-213-17-13-once-again-jesus-went.html says:
ReplyDeleteHosea 6:6 reads, “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” Why does God desire love and knowledge of Him instead of burnt offerings?
Hosea’s message was a response to Israel’s hypocrisy. God desired their love over external practices of piety. He longed for His people to long for Him rather than simply continue a religious tradition.
Scripture often notes that sacrifices to God are incomplete and even offensive without a changed heart that loves and knows the Lord.
Third, Jesus declared His mission: "For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." This statement was surprising to the Pharisees. Presently, they expected the Messiah, I suppose, to come and pick out the righteous, beginning with themselves, and lead them into the throne room to rule the earth with Him. Jesus had a more important work to do, however. The problem with the Pharisees was that they did not know that they were not righteous. They were self-righteous, but not righteous in God’s eyes. Their self-righteousness was keeping them from the kingdom of heaven.
One of the great dangers to long-time church attenders is that we tend to forget in their hearts that we are sinners. The more we forget how much we desperately need Jesus, the less He has to do with us - the less He calls us.
-----
As we look back on Jesus’ ministry mission statement and how he dealt with sinners we can end up with a lot of questions too. Who should I eat and hang out with? Where should I hang out with them? What should I tell them about sin? What expectations should be placed on the sinners for there to be a continued close relationship? How long should I hang out with them if they keep sinning? How should we handle sinners in the church? These are all good questions.
- Jesus had compassion on sinners and invited them to the meal.
- Jesus invited them to the meal with the goal of healing them.
- Jesus spent time with sinners without participating in their sin.
- Jesus did not change the meal to suit the sinners.
- We should be thankful that Jesus ate with sinners.
As precious as this truth is—that Jesus is a friend of sinners—it, like every other precious truth in the Bible, needs to be safeguarded against doctrinal and ethical error. It is all too easy, and amazingly common, for Christians (or non-Christians) to take the general truth that Jesus was a friend of sinners and twist it all out of biblical recognition. So “Jesus ate with sinners” becomes “Jesus loved a good party,” which becomes “Jesus was more interested in showing love than taking sides,” which becomes “Jesus always sided with religious outsiders,” which becomes “Jesus would blow bubbles for violations of the Torah.”
I made an offhanded comment about how Jesus “hung out with drunks.” I was gently and wisely corrected by an older Christian who had himself overcome alcohol addiction. He challenged me to find anywhere in Scripture where Jesus was just “hanging out” with people in a state of drunkenness.
Jesus was a friend of sinners not because he winked at sin, ignored sin, or enjoyed light-hearted revelry with those engaged in immorality. Jesus was a friend of sinners in that he came to save sinners and was very pleased to welcome sinners who were open to the gospel, sorry for their sins, and on their way to putting their faith in Him.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2017/04/mark-213-17-13-once-again-jesus-went.html says:
ReplyDeleteJesus said that He didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners. In looking up articles, I think almost everyone is still missing the point. The articles keep telling us that we need to reach out to sinners too, or talk about how Jesus had compassion on "outsiders".
That's not the point! The point is that unless we realize the depth of our sin and the depth of how much we need Jesus to sustain us, He cannot use us. If we view ourselves as any different than the "sinners" out there that need Jesus, Jesus cannot use us and will not call us.
I don't think that we realize the depth of our Pharisaical thinking. Even how we view evangelism reeks of it. We think that we need to bring in the sinners so that through hard work, they can become not sinners like us.
Jesus calls and uses sinners period. Not sinners are not welcome. They have become pharisees.
We need to have the attitude the alcoholic who just enters AA - desperate and knowing that they are at rock bottom. Those are the only people Jesus can use.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2017/05/mark-218-22-18-now-johns-disciples-and.html says:
ReplyDeleteThe implication is "we keep the rules and are therefore righteous, so why don’t You and Your disciples keep the rules?" If you follow the text in Matthew 5 Jesus continues His sermon pointing out in detail how the Pharisees had perverted the Law with their own rules that, in effect, had nullified the spiritual principles God had established. And since they had their own ideas of what righteousness looked like, they couldn’t recognize true righteousness in Jesus.
Then, with the parables that follow He tells them that in His presence, things had changed; their old rules didn’t apply, and in His Gospel of the Kingdom, there was something new. The new, unfinished cloth is His message of the Kingdom; The Old Covenant (the Law and the Prophets) has been damaged, torn and rendered useless by the religious whims of men, determined to follow their flesh, rejecting God’s righteousness and devising means to produce their own self-righteousness.
They could never repair the old, damaged garment by simply adding the new, unfinished cloth to it, the result would be something even more damaged than the original.
---
This passage is about how you will break God's New Testament intention for us by applying Old Testament rules to it. But, more generally, it is about our desire to reduce the goodness that God has for us down to religious ritual.
Yes, of course a person who loves God will be "doing" spiritual disciplines a lot. But the reason they are doing them must not be to fulfill a "duty", like the pharisees.
And that is the reason I never liked the words "spiritual disciplines". I propose that we rename it "spiritual responses".
---
Although such fasting was not part of the Law of Moses, by Jesus’ day it had become an important expression of the Pharisees’ meticulous devotion to the ceremonial law. To the Pharisees, if Jesus’ disciples were not fasting, then it called into question their piety, sincerity and devotion toward the ceremonial law.
After Jesus was gone, fasting would have a place in the Christian community. It would remind believers of their dependence on God, of their need for God’s mercy, and of the power of God for the salvation of those who believe the gospel. Until then, Jesus’ disciples had no reason to fast. In the Bible, fasting is a sign of disaster, or a voluntary abasement during times of great stress or trial. But the presence of the Son of God on earth with his disciples was a time of joy, not of sorrow. The time for sorrow would come later, when Jesus was murdered and taken away.
In any case, fasting in the manner of the Pharisees, as a sign of their devotion to the ceremonial law, was incompatible with the new covenant Jesus was inaugurating. For Jesus’ disciples, fasting while Jesus was with them would have been like sewing a new piece of cloth on an old garment — it would have been incompatible. Jesus’ point was that the old has gone, the new has come. The two are not compatible. To put new wine in old skins ruins both the skins and the wine. New wine requires new skins.
---
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2017/05/mark-218-22-18-now-johns-disciples-and.html continued:
ReplyDeleteThese two parables illustrate the fact that you can’t mix old religious rituals with new faith in Jesus. Jesus’ disciples were not fasting along with the Pharisees and John’s disciples because they were now under the new covenant of grace and faith in Christ. As mentioned earlier, Jesus fulfilled the law; therefore, there is no longer any need to continue with the old rituals. Jesus cannot be added to a works-based religion. In the case of the Pharisees, they were consumed with their own self-righteousness, and faith in Jesus cannot be combined with self-righteous rituals.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary says:
ReplyDeletetax-collector, one who pays to the government a certain sum for the privilege of collecting the taxes and customs of a district. The public revenues of the Greeks and Romans were usually farmed out. Among the latter, the purchasers were chiefly of the equestrian order and were distinguished as being of a higher class because they rode horses, or they were at least persons of wealth and rank like Zacchaeus who is called the chief tax collector (architelones [754] in Lu 19:2). These farmers also had subcontractors or employed agents who collected the taxes and customs at the gates of cities, in seaports, on public ways and bridges. These, too, were called telomnai (pl.), publicans, or eklégontes (n.f.), (ek [1537], out of, + légo [3004], in its original sense meaning to collect), those who collected out of the people. Such publicans in countries subject to the Roman Empire were the objects of hatred and detestation so that none but persons of worthless character were likely to be found in this employment.
While tax collectors were hated by the Jews, it was not a crime to be a tax collector. The crime was to in defrauding and extorting the people which usually "went with the territory!" When the tax collectors came to John the Baptist to be baptized, it is notable that he did not tell them to quit their jobs but he told them to “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.”
Antipas sold tax franchises to the highest bidder, and such franchises were a lucrative business. Tax collectors had a certain amount that they were required to collect, and whatever they collected beyond that they were permitted to keep (cf. Luke 3:12-13). In addition to the poll tax (on everyone, including slaves), income tax (about one percent), and land tax (one tenth of all grain, and one fifth of all wine and fruit), there were taxes on the transport of goods, letters, produce, using roads, crossing bridges, and almost anything else the rapacious, greedy minds of the tax collectors could think of. All of that left plenty of room for larceny, extortion, exploitation, and even loan sharking, as tax collectors loaned money at exorbitant interest to those who were unable to pay their taxes. Tax collectors also employed thugs to physically intimidate people into paying, and to beat up those who refused.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteJon Courson - There were three places Jesus consistently frequented: open places, where He preached to the masses; quiet places, where He prayed to His Father; and festive places, where He would celebrate with the people. When you read the Gospels, you cannot help but see that Jesus loved to go to parties. Whether it was in the home of a religious leader like Simon the Pharisee or in that of Matthew, a tax collector with the riffraff of society, Jesus was often in attendance at feasts or festivals.
Reclining at the table suggests this was a lengthy celebration with time for extended conversation. No self-respecting Jew would be caught dead dining with such derelicts!
ESV Study Bible on reclining - In formal dining, guests reclined on a couch that stretched around three sides of a room. The host took the center seat at a U-shaped series of low tables, surrounded by the most honored guests on either side, with the guests’ heads reclining toward the tables and their feet toward the wall.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteThe official response to the meal occurs some time after the event when the Pharisees and their scribes approach the disciples with a question. That this encounter comes after the party is clear, because the Pharisees would not have come to such a party, as their question shows, even in the unlikely event that they had been invited. The appearance that the leaders are near or at the party is a result of literary compression.
The Pharisees undoubtedly were familiar with the (non-Biblical) rule set down by the rabbis:
“The disciples of the learned shall not recline at table in the company of the ‘am hā—’āreç” (translated = “the people of the soil,” aka “the rabble that does not know the law.”)
The phrase the Pharisees and their scribes describes those men within the sect of the Pharisees who were scribes or “lawyers” (cf. Lk 10:25+), men who were professional theologians and OT scholars who traced their history back to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. While not all Pharisees were scribes, most of the scribes were Pharisees with lesser numbers found among the sects of the Sadducees and Essenes. The meaning of Pharisees is separated ones while the meaning of saints is set apart ones. Do you see the difference? Sadly some saints can fall into subtle forms of legalism and end up acting like "Pharisees!"
THOUGHT - You never grumble like the Pharisees and scribes do you? If so, recall Paul's command in Phil 2:14+ to "Do (present imperative = continually, habitually, as your lifestyle) ALL (HOW MANY? NO EXCEPTION CLAUSES!) things without grumbling or disputing." Then Paul gives us the reason/purpose it is so critically important for disciples of Jesus not to grumble, writing "SO THAT (term of purpose) you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world (BELIEVERS ARE LIKE WALKING "BILLBOARDS" "ADVERTISING", SO TO SPEAK, THE GOSPEL!)." (Php 2:15+). And remember that you may the only light in some lost sinner's life! If we grumble we cannot fulfill Jesus' command in Mt 5:16+ "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is in heaven." In short, if we grumble, we fail to bring glory to our Father in Heaven! People (lost and saved) fail to get a proper opinion of the invisible God because of our visible ungodly grumbling!
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteLuke 5:31 And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.
Jesus (2424)(Iesous) is transliterated from the Hebrew Yeshua which means Jehovah is help or Jehovah is Salvation. Jesus corresponds to the OT name Jehoshua is contracted to Joshua. Jesus =Savior (Mt 1:1, 16, 21). In the gospels, our Savior is designated by the name of Christ alone in nearly 300 passages; by the name of Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus less than 100 times, and by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ less than 50 times. Prior to His resurrection, He was designated as Jesus Christ; after His resurrection, He is often referred to as Christ Jesus.
When (Jesus) associates on intimate terms with people of low reputation He does not do this as a hobnobber, a comrade in evil, “birds of a feather flocking together,” but as a Physician, One Who, without in any way becoming contaminated with the diseases of His patients, must get very close to them in order that He may heal them!
HAVE YOU EVER WITNESSED TO SOMEONE WHO IS FILLED WITH RELIGION WITHOUT RELATIONSHIP? THEY ARE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO SPEAK TO ABOUT JESUS AND THE GOSPEL, BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY ARE "WELL" AND DO NOT NEED THE GREAT PHYSICIAN! THIS DESCRIBES SO MANY IN AMERICA WHERE SOME SURVEYS RECORD THAT 75% OF INDIVIDUALS SURVEYED CLAIM TO BE A "CHRISTIAN!" SO DECEIVED!
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteLuke 5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."
Not only “repentance” or sorrow for sin is needed, but nothing less than complete transformation: change of mind, heart, will, conduct....The rendering favored by almost all English translations, namely, “repentance,” is too weak and one-sided. The concept has two elements: (a) a definite sorrow for and turning from evil; (b) a resolute turning to God in faith and obedience. Only in such instances in which the emphasis is placed exclusively on sorrow for sin is the rendering “repentance” or (for the verb) “repent” justified.
Repentance literally means "afterthought" or "to think after" and implies a change of mind. From the NT uses, it is clear that metanoia means however much more than merely a change of one's mind but also includes a complete change of heart, attitude, interest, and direction. Metanoia is a conversion in every sense of the word.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteLuke 5:33 And they said to Him, "The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink."
In this passage we see two distinct and different groups, who join forces to criticize the disciples of Jesus. It might seem surprising to see the disciples of John on the same side as the Pharisees in criticizing Jesus. Clearly John was no favorite of the Pharisees, for he had sternly castigated the Pharisees calling them a "brood of vipers".
Craig Blomberg explains the difference between their ministries noting that "Preparation for the Messiah’s coming required repentance and a certain austerity, but now the time for joy has arrived. Neither the Pharisees nor John’s disciples were wrong in fasting as a prelude to the reception of spiritual blessings, but now those blessings are present. Jesus’ inauguration of the kingdom stimulates celebration and rejoicing, as at wedding festivities."
As we have seen, the Pharisees were practicing a religion of ritual, a religion of externals, a religion based on law, a religion of works aimed at fostering self-righteousness, all of this diametrically in contrast to the "religion" which Jesus brought, which was one of relationship (with God), of internals (heart change) , of grace (not law), and of faith in Jesus with imputation of His righteousness. The Pharisees practice was "bad news," while Jesus introduced a "religion" of "good news." As we see in the Gospels, sadly the Jewish religious leaders even refused to "sample" the Jesus' way because they believed their their old way was better (Lk 5:39).
William Barclay on fast and prayers - They had systematized their religious observances. They fasted on Mondays and Thursdays (ED: And prayed for Israel's deliverance from oppressors); and often they whitened their faces so that no one could fail to see that they were fasting. True, fasting was not so very serious because it lasted only from sunrise to sunset and after that ordinary food could be taken....Even prayer was systematized. Prayer was to be offered at 12 midday, 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
Bruce Barton - In response to their questions about fasting, Jesus turned the discussion from outward behavior to the reasons for fasting. Jesus made it clear that fasting was not a self-justifying action. It was right in its proper place, but there was also a proper place for feasting and joy.
The image of the wineskins teaches that He gives spiritual fullness. Jewish religion was a worn-out wineskin that would burst if filled with the new wine of the Gospel. Jesus did not come to renovate Moses or even mix Law and grace. He came with new life!
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteLuke 5:34 And Jesus said to them, "You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?
Guzik emphasizes that "A wedding feast was the most vivid picture of joy and happiness in that culture. During the weeklong wedding feast it was understood that joy was more important than conformity to religious rituals. If any ceremonial observance would detract from the joy of a wedding feast, it was not required. Jesus said that His followers should have this kind of happiness. According to Pate, there was a popular rabbinic text called the Scroll of Fasting, and in it was a custom that said that fasting was forbidden on certain specified days devoted to joyous celebration of Israel’s blessings from God. Jesus appealed to this kind of thinking."
Jesus’ response to their question is that the NEW way (His way) and the OLD way (the way of John and the Pharisees) simply do not mix. And so in Luke 5:34-39 Jesus gives four illustrations which depict the contrast between the NEW and the OLD, the NEW represented by the coming of God’s kingdom inaugurated by Jesus (Lk 16:16) and the OLD represented by the religion of Judaism practiced by the Pharisees. (1) First Illustration -- Feasting and Fasting (Lk 5:34-35) (2) Second Illustration -- New patch on Old garment (Luke 5:36) (3) Third Illustration -- New/old Wine in new/old wineskins (Luke 5:37-38) and (4) Fourth Illustration -- New wine and Old wine (Lk 5:39).
Luke 5:35 "But the days will come; and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days."
Who is them? Jesus is speaking directly of the "attendants of the Bridegroom" in context an allusion to the disciples of Jesus. When would He be taken away? His crucifixion, burial and ascension would be the most reasonable answer.
The contrast is not between the time of Jesus’ ministry and the time of the church after the resurrection, as in 22:35–36, but between the period of Jesus’ ministry and the time between his arrest and resurrection (Lk 24:17–20; cf. also John 16:20; 20:11–13). The period after the resurrection was not characterized by sorrowful fasting but rather by joy.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary continued:
ReplyDelete"Then Jesus gave them this illustration" (NLT) What is He illustrating? He is showing them the futility of their desire to hold on to ways of Judaism with all their rituals (Lk 5:33). And He is doing this with three analogies to the attendants of the bridegroom, the old patch on a new garment and the new wine in an old wineskin. This should have been patently clear to his critics, but for the most part it just increased their desire to do away with Him. One would have thought that they would have grasped at least one of His analogies but self-righteousness is blind to spiritual truth. Jesus is saying, "I didn't come to patch up the old religious system. I came to do something entirely new." (Courson)
The new cloth speaks of the New Covenant of grace and the old garment speaks of Judaism and its ceremonial rituals and legalistic practices. One might say Judaism was "worn out" (palaios) and in need of something brand new (kainos), the Gospel. In fact the old garment of the legalistic system of rabbinic tradition had actually obscured the law of God (cf. Mt. 15:3-6). Jesus was not interested in mending the religion of the Pharisees. The good news of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus could not be intermingled with the works-righteousness system of Judaism.
John MacArthur summarizes the significance of Jesus' teaching on old and new garments - The Lord’s point is that the Gospel cannot be patched into Judaism (or any other system of salvation by work). His teaching was completely at odds with that of the Jewish leaders. They viewed themselves as righteous (Luke 16:15+); He preached the necessity of repentance (Luke 5:32; cf. Matt. 4:17+). They were proud of their supposedly exalted religious status (Luke 20:46–47+); He proclaimed the need for humility (Matt. 5:3). They focused on external ceremony, ritual, and outward observance of the law; He focused on the heart (Mt. 15:7–9; Luke 11:39–52+). They loved the approval of men; He offered the approval of God (Mt. 23:5–7; Jn 12:43).The old garment in the Lord’s illustration is not the Old Testament (ED: OR "OLD COVENANT"). It is not God’s eternal law, for "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." (Ro 7:12+), and (THE LAW WAS WHAT) Jesus came to fulfill, not to replace (Mt 5:17-19+). Rather, it is the ritualistic, legalistic religion based on rabbinic tradition, with its man-made regulations (Mt 15:3–6) that obscured the Law of God.
Luke 5:37 "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined.
No one is best understood as an ironical condemnation of the Pharisees, who favored the past and rejected the arrival of the kingdom and the “new covenant” (Lk 22:20) it brought. The point of these two metaphors is that one cannot mix the old and the new covenant, and that the new covenant era inaugurated by Jesus’ coming will require repentance (Mt. 4:17), regeneration (cf. John 3:3), and new forms of worship (cf. John 4:24).
Are you adding anything to the Gospel in your walk of faith? Do you think that you can merit God's favor tomorrow by performing some "good work" today? That is a "syncretistic Gospel" and will produce futility and frustration in your sanctification process because it will grieve/quench the Spirit Who is our Sanctifier.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-5-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteLuke 5:38 "But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
John Courson applies this section to the modern church - When people try to put something of a new moving of the Lord into an old structure, they end up not only quenching the wine of the Spirit, but blowing apart the structure in the process. This applies to people individually as well as to churches corporately. Does this mean we are doomed to become hardened old wineskins that cannot contain the new work of the Lord at any given time? I don't think so. You see, the Greek word translated "new" in relation to wine is neos. But the word translated "new" in relation to wineskins is kainos and literally means "renewed." In Bible days, wineskins were relatively expensive, so when they began to get hard, he who didn't have money for a new one would soak the old one in water until the elasticity and the flexibility returned. How do we stay flexible, usable, and contemporary in whatever the Lord might be doing both corporately and personally? We soak ourselves not in traditionalism or denominationalism, but in the Word.
Luke 5:39 "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good enough.'"
One might subtitle this passage is old habits and ways of thinking die hard!
Indeed, the book of Hebrews repeatedly deals with Jews who while attracted to the new wine of the Gospel of Jesus, where continually being drawn back to the old wine of Judaism.
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. v28 - Was this the first time Jesus met Matthew?
We don't know. It appears that it was. However, it also appeared that when Jesus called Peter and the others when they were fishing, it was the first time He met them - but it wasn't (the other gospels give more information on the backstory). There could be a backstory here too, but it's not mentioned anywhere else. In any case, Jesus had been working in Capernaum and Galilee for a time, so we can assume that Matthew had a chance to hear Jesus preach and see Him minister. Still, it was pretty impressive that Matthew was able to leave his rich life, and give it all up to follow Jesus.
2. v30 - Was a tax collector necessarily a sinner?
There's a couple of things going on here: 1. A tax collector had to pay a fee to become a tax collector. The only way for the tax collector to make the money to live (and pay back the fee) was to over-collect. Once you over-collect, human nature does not allow us to stop over-collecting. 2. It was general opinion that a tax collector was the lowest form of person. For someone to be willing to become a tax collector, there had to be incentive. Probably, the only incentive was to become wealthy.
Presumably, the only way anyone would become a tax collector was if they were greedy enough to do so. If this is the case, they were almost certainly sinners.
3. v36 - What does the parable mean?
Jesus is comparing the old Law to His New Covenant. He's saying that He cannot retrofit the Law to fit into His Covenant, nor can He make His covenant fit into the framework of the Law. His New Covenant must abolish the Law and the Prophets and replace them.
4. v39 - What is the meaning of the part of the parable that says, 'The old is good'?
This is a little more difficult. I wasn't able to find the answer to this. I think Jesus is referring to how unlikely the Jewish leaders, who were drinking the old wine of the Law, preferring the new wine of Jesus' New Covenant. However, Jesus expected them to see that the New Covenant was far superior - even essential. With that in mind, I think I am missing something here.
(Correction to Question #4 above - I am able to find answers)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/%E2%80%9Cout-with-the-new-the-old-better%E2%80%9D-luke-5-39 says:
Jesus' teaching is the new wine, and the purveyors of the old will almost always fight it, asserting their old forms of thinking are good enough or actually better. Why is it so hard to evaluate the new and decide whether or not it should replace our old? Let's think through Luke 5:39.
And then in typical fashion Jesus tacks on a final comment. “No one drinking the old desires the new; for he says, ‘The old is good (χρηστός)’” (Luke 5:39).
The general meaning of the parable is clear. Jesus’s message is the new wine, and the old forms of Jewish religion can’t hold it. Things have to change, but what does v 39 mean?
“The old is good” (ESV, NRSV).
The NIV’s translation “The old is better” views χρηστός as a comparative (also CSB, KJV).
The NASB says “good enough, the italics indicating that they are adding the word to convey the meaning of the verse. The NET says the same but without italics.
Depending on voice inflection, using “good” can mean the same thing. This would be almost impossible to convey in writing . . . You can say, “It’s good,” perhaps with a shrug of your shoulders, and mean “good enough.” Or you could say “It’s good” with a sternness in your voice, which means it is better.
I suspect “good enough” said with a militant tone of voice is what Jesus means, which becomes a prophetic statement predicting Judaism’s overall rejection of the Messiah.
I have been impressed as of late with how resilient the old, established forms of anything are. Churches that stick to old forms, preferring to shut their doors rather than ask how to reach the people in their area. Seminaries that can’t conceive of any other way of educating their people despite the fact that educational cost have risen exponentially more than the cost of living over the past twenty years, and despite the fact that it is generally acknowledged that seminary graduates are not adequately prepared for ministry (just ask your pastor). People who keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. The old can have a fierce grip on people.
But at the same time, there can be wisdom in tried and true ways of thinking, and just because something is new doesn’t mean it is better.
But Jesus’s ways are new, and they are better, and they will always be meet with opposition from the old. A word to the wise: never under-estimate the power of someone saying, “but we’ve never done it that way,” and watch them dig in their heels until the doors of their church or school are permanently shut.
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/12/what-does-old-is-better-mean-in-luke-539.html says:
ReplyDeleteWhat does "the old is better" mean in Luke 5:39?
The standard interpretation is that the new thing (patch, wine) refers to Jesus’ teaching and to his disciples who would be joined to the old practices of the religious Jews of their day with the result of schism and conflict. The new wine of Jesus’ teaching and way of life would require a new wineskin of the church, apart from the synagogue. This would include the end of the civil and ceremonial aspects the law, the end of the dietary rules, the end of the sacrificial system, the transformation of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, etc. The final quote then in v. 39 is meant to be taken ironically, indicating the hard heartedness of those who reject the new teachings of Jesus. This line of interpretation seems to be the one followed by conservative men both past and present.
Another possibility, however, would be to turn things on their head and say that Jesus was in fact saying that it was the scribes and Pharisees who had introduced something new; whereas, it was he who was the guardian of something that was ancient and proved. Let’s take fasting as an example (the point of conflict in this context; see vv. 30-35). Though there were many times and occasions when Israel fasted in mourning or grieving over her sin, the OT only prescribed fasting once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29 speak of “afflicting yours souls” which is usually taken to be a reference to fasting). The tradition which had developed among the Pharisees, however, was that of twice weekly fasting (see the prayer of the Pharisee in Luke 18:12). This was a novelty that, in fact, went beyond what was written in Scripture. One might say that it was Jesus himself and his disciples who were upholding the old practices, and the Pharisees who were offering something new that resulted in division and destruction. In that case, when Jesus cites the hypothetical man who prefers the old wine to the new by saing “The old is better” (v. 39), he does not do so ironically but in a straightforward manner. It is Jesus not the Pharisees who is preserving the old paths.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229750848.pdf says:
ReplyDeleteMany interpreters interpret Luke 5:33-29 as parables to declare the newness and superiority of Jesus’ good news, and hence the newness and superiority of Christianity over against the Judaism, which is old and legalistic and therefore to be superseded by Christianity.
However, Luke’s Gospel１） stresses that Jesus fulfills God’s promise in the Old Testament, and there is no comment by Jesus himself in this Gospel that implies he is against Judaism. By looking at Luke’s idea of Jesus’ ministry as fulfillment of the Old Testament on one hand and reassessing what must have been new teaching in the first century, Flusser and Young suggest that we should interpret the old wine as the traditional Jewish faith, in which Jesus put himself, and the new wine as the radical teaching at that time advocated and practiced by only a part of Jewish people, such as represented by the Pharisees in Luke’s Gospel. This interpretation looks more natural than the first one. However, it is not satisfactory because it fails to pay adequate attention to the newness of Jesus’ ministry.
The third possible interpretation, which we make in light of Mark 7:1₋9 is to interpret the new patch of cloth and wine as Jesus’ ministry, the old cloth and old wineskin as the tradition of the elders, which, the Pharisees held as the “old” tradition. Jesus was criticising too much adherence to this. Yet then, the “old wine” which is to be valued as “better” in verse 39, when first read, seems perplexing. Readers are forced to rethink what in fact is the old wine. The majority of people in the first century still held the older traditional way of observing Judaism better than the innovative Pharisaic ways. Luke shows Jesus to be in this “old wine” tradition, suggesting his ministry is the fulfillment and perfection of that Old Testament tradition and promises.
While the meaning of the parable of the wedding and bridegroom in vv. 33-35 seems quite clear, that is, it is to show how it should be impossible for his disciples to fast while Jesus is present among the them, the meaning of vv 36-39 is not so, and mainly two interpretations
have been offered.
Thus, by interpreting Luke 5:36-29 in light of Mark 7:1-9, we can understand the new wine and new garment as Jesus’ new movement, and the old garment and old wineskins as what the Pharisees in the first century called the tradition of the elders. The “old wine” which looks perplexing when taken to refer to the same thing as the old garment/wineskins would make readers contemplate what is the real old wine, making them reinterpret and identify “the old wine” with the Jewish religious tradition and belief in the Old Testament itself, whose promise Luke believes Jesus is fulfilling. Jesus’ kingdom of God is in a sense new, but at the same time, rooted in the real Old Testament belief, which is “better” than the tradition of elders. Luke’s Jesus is suggesting here that while his kingdom is like new wine, which cannot be contained or regulated by the tradition of the elders, it is in accord with the real old wine, which is in continuation of the real Biblical tradition, shared with majority of ordinary people in the first century, and which fulfills the God’s promise in the Old Testament, that is THE Bible for the people Israel. Jesus’ kingdom is new, and at the same time, as the perfection of the old wine, which will be really “good.”