§12 Jesus’ Fellowship with Tax Collectors (Luke 5:27–39)
The unifying theme that runs throughout the story of Levi’s call (vv. 27–31) and the discussion about eating and fasting (vv. 32–39) concerns fellowship and lifestyle. In the minds of the Pharisees, Jesus’ chief critics thus far in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus has chosen to have fellowship with the wrong kind of people. Since they were the party of “separatists” (see note on 5:17 above) who believed that redemption would come about by separating themselves from every impurity and impure person (inspired by the admonition of Lev. 10:10), they were offended by Jesus’ frequent association with persons considered religiously impure and sinful. From their perspective Jesus could hardly make religious claims while keeping such questionable company. Another aspect of Jesus’ ministry that offended the Pharisees and others (such as the Essenes) who fasted often (see 18:12) and strictly monitored what food and drink they consumed was that Jesus apparently did not fast often, nor was he overly concerned about the religious purity of the food that he ate. Thus, in the eyes of his critics, not only did Jesus fellowship with the wrong kind of people, he also had adopted wrong habits.
The major difference between the outlook of the Pharisees and the approach taken by Jesus was that whereas the former were separatistic and exclusivistic, Jesus called people of every sort to himself. Jesus was not interested in isolating himself from sinners, but was interested in bringing change to the lives of sinners. Thus, the difference in religious philosophy between Jesus and the Pharisees was fundamental, making conflict inevitable.
5:27–32 / Like the miraculous catch of fish (5:1–11), the story of the calling of Levi serves a double purpose. First, it narrates the call itself and, second, it provides a context for the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees that follows (cf. Matt. 9:9–13; Mark 2:13–17).
Having called three Galilean fishermen to discipleship (certainly dubious selections in the eyes of the Pharisees), Jesus nows calls a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth (see note below) with his customary summons: “Follow me” (v. 27). To include a tax collector among his intimate associates would be, in the minds of the Pharisees, beyond belief. Tax collectors were among the most detestable of all the outcasts of proper religious society. By adding the phrase, left everything, Luke emphasizes Levi’s total commitment to Jesus. Indeed, the great banquet that follows underscores further that in Levi’s mind a complete break with the past has been made. He invites many of his friends; among them, of course, would be a large crowd of tax collectors and others. It is likely that he wishes to introduce Jesus to his guests and to make known to all his decision to follow the man from Nazareth.
The call of Levi and the giving of the banquet furnish the occasion for the critical question of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law (see note below). They want to know why Jesus eats with tax collectors and “sinners” (v. 30). To eat with someone, usually referred to as table-fellowship, was a sign of friendship and compatibility. By eating with these people Jesus was identifying with them. But, since Jesus’ table companions were religiously impure people, the Pharisees believed that Jesus was compromising his position as a teacher (let alone as the Messiah). Surely God could not work through someone who enjoyed fellowship with the dregs of Jewish society!
Perhaps because of the popular association between physical sickness/unrighteousness and health/moral righteousness (see note on 5:12 above) Jesus likens himself to a doctor. A doctor, of course, is needed not by those who are healthy (i.e., the righteous), but only by those who are sick (i.e., the unrighteous; v. 31). In the next verse Jesus drops the metaphorical language and declares that he has not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (v. 32). Luke adds “to repentance” (or “reform”), emphasizing Jesus’ summons to a change of life. By associating with the unrighteous, Jesus is not advocating a lowering of proper biblical standards of righteousness. On the contrary, the purpose of his ministry is to make it possible for the fallen to be lifted up to God’s standards of righteousness.
5:33–35 / Jesus’ eating habits and the controversy that they raised provide the link to the next section concerned with the question about fasting. Fasting was required of all only on the Day of Atonement (see Lev. 16:29) and in commemoration of the destruction of Jerusalem (see Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19). Fasting was done frequently by John’s disciples (see Luke 7:33) and the disciples of the Pharisees (Mondays and Thursdays; see Luke 18:12). Although Jesus had fasted during his time of testing in the desert (see Luke 4:2), he apparently did not himself fast frequently (or at least so that it could be noticed; see Matt. 6:16–18). Since fasting was viewed as a sign of serious religious commitment and was regarded as essential in preparing for Israel’s long-awaited deliverance, it seemed strange and inappropriate that Jesus’ disciples ate and drank regularly, especially in light of Jesus’ preaching that the “year of the Lord’s favor” had dawned (Luke 4:18–19). Jesus’ response proves that he has a completely different idea about the coming of Israel’s deliverance and his own relationship to it. Jesus likens himself to a bridegroom and his disciples as the guests of a wedding party. As long as he is present there is celebration (i.e., eating, drinking, and fellowship), but when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast (v. 35). The saying anticipates Jesus’ departure from the scene, leaving the church to carry out the task of evangelism (as seen in the Book of Acts). During Jesus’ absence, while the church is preparing for the Lord’s return, fasting will be appropriate (see Acts 13:2–3).
5:36–39 / Jesus illustrates this with two similitudes, both teaching the incompatibility of the new and the old. Just as a patch of new (i.e., not shrunk) cloth does not patch an old garment well nor can new (i.e., unfermented) wine be accommodated in old wineskins, so the new ideas of the gospel will not be accommodated by old patterns of thought. Jesus’ instruction about the poor, the sinners, and the unacceptable will not fit into old assumptions about how God judges and evaluates people. That this will be difficult to accept is seen in Jesus’ final comment: “And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better’ ” (v. 39). Jesus recognizes that old habits and ways of thinking are not easily changed.
5:27 / Although there is some uncertainty as to the identity of Levi the tax collector, comparison with the parallel passage in Matt. 9:9, where the man sitting in the tax office is called “Matthew,” and with the passage in Matt. 10:3, where this Matthew is identified as the “tax collector,” would suggest that the Levi of Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 is the one called “Matthew” in the Gospel named after him. Mark’s reference to “Levi, the son of Alphaeus” (2:14) has led to some confusion since Alphaeus is the name of the father of the other James, mentioned in Mark 3:18. (In fact, some early Christian scribes either out of confusion or out of a desire to harmonize Mark 2:14 with 3:18 replaced “Levi” with “James.”) Since it was not at all unusual for first-century Jews to have two names, often one Semitic and the other Greco-Roman (e.g., Simon Peter, Saul/Paul), it is quite possible that Levi’s full name was Levi Matthew, or the like (see Fitzmyer, pp. 589–90).
5:30 / the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect: Luke wishes to identify these teachers of the law (lit. “scribes”) more closely with the Pharisees (see note on 5:17 above) and so adds their to his Marcan source. The implication is that for now at least it is the Pharisees who are Jesus’ real enemies. Tiede (p. 127) makes the valid point that the Pharisees were not motivated out of mean-spirited legalism in their quarrel with Jesus. They were critical of Jesus’ style of ministry because to them it did not seem to square with Scripture’s call to holiness (Lev. 10:10; 19:2) and separation (Neh. 10:28).
his disciples: The hostile questioning addressed to Jesus’ disciples (instead of being addressed to Jesus himself) mirrors the situation of the early church when Christians had to face hostile questions and accusations concerning their practices and beliefs.
5:30, 32 / sinners: This epithet refers to those who could not or would not observe the law of Moses, particularly the oral laws and traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. The Pharisees regarded these people as having no hope for participation in the kingdom of God or the resurrection of the righteous. Lachs (p. 168) cites several rabbinic sources that discuss the undesirability of mingling, especially eating, with those who did not observe the laws of purity.
5:34 / The metaphor of Jesus as bridegroom occurs elsewhere in the NT (see Matt. 25:1–10; John 3:29) and underlies the idea of the church as the “bride of Christ” (see Eph. 5:23; Rev. 18:23; 21:2, 9; 22:17). The bride/bridegroom imagery may have been derived from the OT (see Isa. 49:18; 61:10; 62:5).
5:36–38 / A patch from a new garment, since it has not yet shrunk through washing, does not make a suitable patch for an old garment that has shrunk. Similarly, since new wine expands while it is fermenting, it needs to be put into new wineskins that are still capable of stretching. For further discussion see A. Kee, “The Old Coat and the New Wine: A Parable of Repentance,” NovT 12 (1970), pp. 13–21. Leaney (p. 128) thinks that Luke has misunderstood the Marcan form of this parable (Mark 2:21). On the contrary, Luke has not only understood it, but in revising it, the evangelist has brought home its point more clearly (see Fitzmyer, pp. 600–601).
5:36 / parable: The word parable(s) occurs several times in Luke (6:39; 8:4, 9, 10, 11; 12:16, 41; 13:6; 14:7; 15:3; 18:1, 9; 19:11; 20:9, 19; 21:29). The Greek NT word “parable” (as well as its Hebrew equivalent) has a variety of meanings and usages. It may refer to a simple illustration, a proverbial saying, or an enigmatic saying. The idea of parabolic obscurity can be seen in Luke 8:9–11 (cf. Mark 4:10–13). The basic meaning of “parable” is comparison. A parable usually illustrates an abstract idea (faithfulness, duty, fruitfulness, forgiveness, prayer, judgment) with common, everyday experiences and observations. Like many fables, the parable usually contains a lesson or moral. Normally a parable is intended to make one basic point (the lesson) and is not to be allegorized (where every detail of the parable is assigned a value; see note on 10:29–35 below). However, a few of the parables are allegorized in the Gospels themselves (see Mark 4:1–20; Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43). Oftentimes a parable appears to have had only one basic point (or lesson), but the interpreter may well suspect that the tradition and/or the evangelist may have understood the parable, or parts of the parable, allegorically. As the parables are encountered, the question of what the parable originally meant and what later interpretations may have been assigned to it will be taken into account. See also the note on 8:9–10 below.