§11 Healing Controversies (Luke 5:12–26)
Both of the healing stories of Luke 5:12–26 have religious implications. The healing of the leper (vv. 12–16) involves the issue of religious purity and impurity (or “clean” vs. “unclean”). The healing of the paralyzed man (vv. 17–26) involves faith and the forgiveness of sins. This healing story is the first of a series of episodes where Jesus encounters religious criticism and opposition. In 6:1–5 Jesus is accused of working on the Sabbath when he and his disciples picked grain to eat, while similar charges are brought for healing the man with the withered hand (6:6–11). At this point the plot begins to thicken as the religious authorities begin considering what to do with Jesus. Thus, Luke is able to make a transition from celebrated healings in chap. 4 to healings in chap. 5 that raise religious questions, and finally to healings in chap. 6 that lead to serious opposition and eventually to a plot to have Jesus killed. Implicit in all of this is Luke’s desire to explain how one who could and did amaze so many with his benevolent power could end up being rejected and put to death.
5:12–16 / Although Jesus heals sufferers of every kind, few deserve as much pity as those who were afflicted with leprosy (see note below). Those who contracted leprosy, thought of as a contagious and incurable disease, were quarantined from society as directed by the law of Moses (see Leviticus 13–14). For these poor unfortunates life was lived in hopelessness and despair. Not only were lepers socially ostracized, but they were forced to bear the awful religious stigma of being “unclean.” Many would have reasoned the condition was because of some particular sin or moral deficiency. Indeed, according to some rabbis, lepers were regarded as dead (Lachs, p. 153). It is no wonder then that when this person hears of the arrival of Jesus, the one of whom so many things were being reported (as implied by Luke 4:37), he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean” (v. 12). Note that the leper does not ask Jesus to beseech God in his behalf; rather, his question implies that it is within Jesus’ power to heal him. One cannot help but be moved by pity in imagining the leper’s mixed feelings of hope and desperation as he threw himself down and begged Jesus. Even to appear among healthy persons would have required special courage. Jesus’ response is immediate and effective: “Be clean!” (v. 13). And immediately, Luke tells us, the leprosy left him. But the healed man could not simply move back in with society, for in a case where a person’s skin disorder did clear up he was required by the law of Moses to show himself to the priest (the phrase derives from Lev. 13:49) for formal approval and readmission into society. In presenting himself to the priest, of course, the healed man will be a testimony to them (v. 14). There is some debate about what exactly is meant here. The leper’s healing is not a testimony to the priest, but the priest’s approval of the leper’s recovery is testimony or “proof” to society that the man is truly whole. In other words, Jesus has performed no trick, one that might be easily swallowed by gullible and excited crowds. What Jesus has done is to be examined by the authorities and so be confirmed.
Despite (or because of) all the popularity and the crowds of people that came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses (v. 15), Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed (v. 16; see also 4:42). Luke often likes to make this point. We have already seen that the Spirit descended upon Jesus (3:21–22) during prayer. Luke also seems to be emphasizing that Jesus did not seek publicity or fame, but wished to avoid those things. Jesus wanted to do the Father’s will.
5:17–26 / In the episode in which the paralyzed man is cured, Jesus encounters criticism from the religious leaders of his day for the first time. Criticism comes not because of the miracle per se, but because Jesus declared that the man’s sins are forgiven (v. 20). This episode is strategic since it shows the beginning of the opposition that will eventually lead to Jesus’ arrest, trial, and execution.
Luke derives this scene from Mark 2:1–12, but his minor modifications bring out his key emphases. First, Luke describes Mark’s “crowd” (2:1–2) as Pharisees and teachers of the law (v. 17; see notes below). In doing this Luke demonstrates that Jesus’ ministry quickly encounters opposition from the religious establishment. Second, Luke broadens the scope of Jesus’ audience by telling us that these religious authorities came from every village of Galilee (here he is thinking of Mark’s reference to Capernaum in 2:1) and from Judea and Jerusalem. This notification only strengthens the first point that was made. The religious authorities who dispute Jesus’ teachings and claims are from Judea and even from Jerusalem, where the controversies would reach their climax in the crucifixion (see the commentary on 4:1–13).
When Luke tells us that the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick (v. 17), the stage is set for the appearance of the paralytic (v. 18). This power will be seen, not only in the physical healing of the paralytic, but in the pronouncement of forgiveness. Apparently what has impressed Jesus is all of the effort and trouble to which this sufferer and his friends have gone in order to see him. Such effort could only indicate faith. Jesus does not, however, immediately heal him, but tells him that his sins are forgiven (v. 20; see note below). This pronouncement provokes the questions and murmurings among the Pharisees and the teachers of the law (see note below). In their view, God alone forgives sins; Jesus, in assuming this authority, has spoken blasphemy (v. 21). Aware of this sentiment, Jesus challenges them with the question found in vv. 22–23. The question suggests that if he can cure the outward manifestation of sin, i.e., the paralysis (see note below), then he can cure, or forgive, the sin itself. By asking his critics which is easier, he backs them into a corner. Anyone can “say” that someone’s sins are forgiven, but to do something, such as curing a physical ailment possibly brought on by sin, is an altogether different question. Jesus then heals the paralyzed man as proof that he has authority on earth to forgive sins (v. 24). Here we find the real reason for the telling of this story. But Jesus does not merely pronounce the man well, he commands him to get up, take his mat, and go home. The instantaneous healing dramatically proves his authority to forgive sins. Luke notes that the people respond to this demonstration of the power of God by giving praise. Luke often notes that people respond with praise after such manifestations (see 13:13; 17:15; 18:43).
Although it becomes explicit later in 6:11, already the rift between those who respond to Jesus in faith and praise and those who respond in unbelief and anger has begun to appear. Even at the very moment when God’s power was so dramatically evident, the seeds of violent opposition are sown.
5:12 / covered with leprosy: Lit. “full of leprosy.” The biblical reference to “leprosy” is general, including the actual disease itself (i.e., Hansen’s bacillus), as well as a number of other skin disorders, such as psoriasis. Since the ancients could not be certain whether the disorder was minor and curable or dangerous and incurable, strict precautions were imposed, including exile (see Lev. 13:13; Num. 5:2–3; 12:10–12; Deut. 24:8; 2 Kings 5:27; 7:3–9; 15:5). See HBD, pp. 555–56.
Lord: Lit. “lord,” but probably meant no more than “sir” on the lips of the leper, although it is possible that in Luke’s time a divine connotation may have been sensed.
5:13 / touched the man: On touching and healing see Luke 7:14; 8:46; 13:13; 18:15; 22:51; Acts 5:15. Ellis (p. 103) suggests that touching for purposes of healing “seems to have its origin in the Elijah/Elisha healings”; however, see note on 4:40 above. That Jesus touched the leper is remarkable in view of popular beliefs and practices. By doing so Jesus demonstrates power and compassion.
5:14 / Don’t tell anyone: This phrase, taken from Mark 1:44, in the Marcan context has to do with a special theme in Mark usually referred to as the “Messianic Secret.” This theme manifests itself in Mark in terms of Jesus’ commands of silence given to demons and healed persons, and in terms of the disciples’ inability to understand Jesus and his teaching. Luke, in contrast, has no interest in this theme, but he does preserve a few pieces of it as he incorporates Marcan material into his Gospel. For Luke the prohibition not to tell anyone was probably understood in terms of Jesus’ lack of interest in publicity and his desire for solitude and prayer (see 4:42; 5:16).
go, show yourself to the priest: By requiring this of the healed man Jesus is thinking of the regulations of Leviticus 13–14, with part of his statement actually derived from Lev. 13:49. Similar instructions are given to the ten lepers in 17:14. The priest refers to the priest on duty when the leper arrives for examination and the offering of his sacrifice (Fitzmyer, p. 575).
as a testimony to them: Because of its association with supernatural occurrences (see Exod. 4:6; Num. 12:10–12) leprosy often was believed to be the result of divine judgment. In this connection O. C. Edwards (Luke’s Story of Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981], p. 39) aptly remarks: “[Jesus’] implied argument is that it takes a supernatural person to cure a supernatural disease.”
5:16 / But Jesus often … prayed: This is one of seven unique Lucan reports of Jesus praying; see Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:18, 28, 29; 11:1; 23:46.
5:17 / Pharisees and teachers of the law were the guardians of the “oral law” (or “oral traditions”). The word “Pharisee” means “separated one.” The Pharisees were laymen, but men very interested in the interpretation of and obedience to Scripture. The Pharisaic tradition would be taken over by the “rabbis” and be expanded, edited, and codified as Mishnah and Talmud (and other rabbinic writings). Unlike the Sadducees, who were wealthy, aristocratic, and very conservative theologically and politically, the Pharisees were more numerous and much more popular with the people. The Pharisees traced their origins back to the glorious days of the Maccabean struggle for freedom (167–146 B.C.). They were zealous for the Jewish faith and were champions of the messianic hope. They believed that if all Jews would dedicate themselves to a faithful observance of all of the laws of the law of Moses (which included the observance of their oral traditions, designed as a “fence” to protect the law; see Pirqe Aboth 1.1) God would raise up his Messiah and deliver Israel. Remarkably, the appearance of Jesus aroused interest, some of it positive, among the Pharisees. Indeed, Jesus and the Pharisees held many things in common (such as belief in resurrection and angels) and not all Pharisees opposed him. Their main problem with Jesus was that they viewed Jesus’ attitude toward the law as too liberal, too permissive. Jesus associated with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other “sinners” too freely; moreover, he did not enjoin his disciples to observe those oral traditions so cherished by the Pharisees. Of course, to the extent that Jesus assumed divine prerogatives (such as forgiving sin) he aroused their indignation. Finally, although Jesus frequently quarrels with the Pharisees, and at times calls them names (see esp. Matt. 23:13–36), these men were not any more sinful, blind, or hypocritical than anyone else. What the twentieth-century reader may not realize is that because Christianity in Luke’s time was criticized and opposed primarily by Pharisees, the Pharisees are portrayed in the Gospels as Jesus’ chief enemies.
the power of the Lord is probably equivalent to the Holy Spirit (see 3:22; 4:1).
5:18 / Paralysis was another physical condition often associated with sin and divine judgment. In all likelihood such a connection was assumed by Jesus’ audience, though not necessarily by Jesus himself.
5:19 / In Mark’s account (see 2:4) the men “dug through the roof,” i.e., they dug a hole through the clay and straw that made up the roof. Luke, however, says that the men made an opening in the tiles. Luke puts it this way probably for the sake of his Greco-Roman readers who would have been more familiar with tile roofs. It is, of course, not impossible that the house in this episode may have actually had a tile roof, for Roman architecture and building materials were present in first-century Palestine.
5:20 / The faith that Jesus saw in the men probably was no more than a faith in Jesus’ ability to cure the sick man, although a vague sense of Jesus’ messiahship may have been present. Luke (and his readers), however, may have understood this faith more in terms of later Christian belief concerning Jesus.
5:21 / teachers of the law: Lit. “scribes,” not the same word as in v. 17 above. The scribes were professional transcribers of Scripture. By virtue of their literacy and expertise they were also regarded as authorities in matters pertaining to the interpretation of Scripture. See note on v. 17.
Blasphemy meant anything uttered about God that was demeaning or insulting (see Lev. 24:10–11, 14–16, 23). In this case Jesus’ claim to forgive sins provoked the charge of blasphemy, since it was thought to be something that only God could do. Since all human sin is against God, only God, it was reasoned, could forgive sin.
5:23 / Lachs (p. 166), noting that the rabbis made the connection between sin and sickness, cites this interesting parallel: “R. Hiyya stated: ‘The patient is not healed of his sickness until his sins are forgiven’ ” (b. Nedarim 41a).
5:24 / This verse contains the first Lucan reference to Jesus as the Son of Man, a recurring title (6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44, 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69; 24:7). There has been much debate about the meaning of this title. The most common use of “son of man” in the OT means simply “human being” (see Num. 23:19; Job 25:6; 35:8; Pss. 80:17; 144:3 and many more). But in the apocalyptic vision of Daniel, “son of man” seems to mean something more. Daniel 7:13–14 reads: “… with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man” to whom the “Ancient of Days” (i.e., God) gave “dominion and glory and kingdom” (RSV). That Jesus alludes to this passage at his trial when asked if he was the Messiah (see Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 21:27; cf. Rev. 1:13) suggests that “son of man” carried with it a messianic connotation. Moreover, scholars have pointed to passages in the pseudepigraphal work 1 Enoch (see 46:2–4; 48:2; 62:5–7, 13–14; 69:27–29) as examples of how the “son of man” of Daniel 7 came to designate the Messiah. See further Fitzmyer, pp. 208–10.
An interesting question concerning v. 24 is whether Jesus is actually the speaker in the first part of the verse (as it is understood in most versions) or whether Luke is making his own editorial comment (as in Mark 13:14b). The primary reason for suspecting that the latter may indeed be the case is the abrupt grammatical break between to forgive sins and he said to the paralyzed man. The way it reads in the NIV, Jesus’ statement in the first half of v. 24 is left incomplete. However, I think that there is no abrupt grammatical break in the middle of the verse because Jesus is not the speaker in the first part of the verse. I would suggest that it would be better to translate vv. 23–24 as follows: “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’?” But in order that you [i.e., the readers] may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, he said to the paralyzed, “I say to you, ‘Arise, take up your bed and go home.’ ”