This week we
will continue to study the Gospel of Luke.
You may want to take a look at Matthew 11:20-24 to get a sense of what kind of a city Capernaum was. (Also see note below.)
(1) Luke 4:32 says that the people were amazed at Jesus’ teaching because His message had authority:
a. What does that mean?
b. Is authority the same as preaching with confidence, with a sure voice or with words of severity? Why or why not?
(2) Where did Jesus meet the man possessed by an evil spirit? What does it say about the spiritual condition of the time?
(3) As this section still marks the early period of Jesus’ ministry, why would Jesus stop the evil spirit who appeared to be testifying for Him, calling Him “the Holy One of God”? (The people would understand its meaning from Isaiah 49:7 as referring to the Redeemer.)
(4) Read a similar account in Acts 16:16-18 where Paul also refused to be associated with the demon and would not accept their testimony. What can you learn from both accounts? (Refer to 2 Cor. 6:14-18.)
(5) Mark 1:27 clarifies that the people hearing His preaching and witnessing the driving out of the demon remarked that it was “a new teaching”.
a. In what sense was it a “new” teaching?
b. Why did they call it a new “teaching”?
c. Is it “new” also to today’s generation?
(6) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
Note:
Capernaum, together with Bethsaida and Korazin, were kind of like a “tri-city” to the west and northwest of the Sea of Galilee in which most of the miracles of Jesus were performed.
“ 'Be quiet', Jesus said sternly, 'Come out of him!' .” (Lk. 4:35)
The incident about Jesus stopping the “testimony” of the evil spirit in Luke 4:31-37 and which is also recorded in Mark 1:21-28 reminds me of a similar incident in Acts 16:16-18. Allow me to simply repeat an article that I wrote earlier:
I have come across incidents where Buddhist monks or nuns attempted to reach out to Christian churches, with the notion that we are really the same and all religions somehow lead to the same God. Some Christian leaders appeared to welcome them with open arms.
Paul’s treatment of the slave girl in Acts 16 should help us guard against such misguided enthusiasm.
When you think about it, the slave girl was actually doing Paul and Silas a great favor on the surface (just as the evil spirit in Matthew and Mark was doing for Jesus). The two were foreigners introducing a brand new faith to this pagan city (and Jesus was just beginning His public ministry). The slave girl was not only known locally, but quite sought after too. Therefore, it would not seem to hurt Paul’s cause when the slave girl (or rather the demon or evil spirit within her) testified to who Paul and Silas were. She told the people, “The men are servants of the Most High God.” Not only that, she appeared to give credence to their message: “(they) are telling you the way to be saved.” (Acts16:17)
The hearers who revered the slave girl and her spirit would have no problem welcoming Paul and Silas and their message because of her testimony. But Paul would have none of that. In the name of Jesus, he drove out the evil spirit from the slave girl. One might wonder why Paul would choose to do this. The reason, in fact, is not hard to understand.
In 2 Corinthians 6:15, Paul strongly preached against the unequal yoke between believers and the world, and in so doing he said, “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial (i.e. demon)?”.
In testifying about who Paul and Silas were and what their message was, the evil spirit was hoping that the people would not only believe the gospel message, but would also remain loyal to him. In other words, the evil spirit was trying to elevate himself to the level of God, and was hoping that the people would not take Christ as the only way to salvation.
But God would have none of that. There is no room for coexistence between God and demons or idols. By driving the evil spirit out of the slave girl in the name of Jesus, Paul proved to the people that there is only one true God, and there is also only one true way to salvation, which is through Jesus Christ.
I do understand that even Buddhist monks need to hear the gospel, but we should guard against being manipulated into sending a wrong message to the people that Christ and Belial could be in harmony!
(1) If you compare this miracle of the healing Peter’s mother-in-law with the driving out of the demon in vv. 33-35, which is the more spectacular? Which is a greater miracle? Why?
(2) Of all the disciples, we know at least that Peter was married; and when he was first called by Jesus in Mark 1:18, he “at once” left his nets and followed Jesus. What really has Peter left behind? What might his family think of his decision?
(3) Peter’s mother-in-law’s fever appeared to be quite severe.What did this “small” miracle mean to his family? What did she do after being healed?
(4) The gospel writer paints a very human picture of a small working-class town where people all had to work in the daytime, and they all flocked to Jesus that evening in Peter’s house, probably with their lanterns or lamps. Read Isaiah 9:1-2 and soak in what was happening that night.
(4) V. 4:42 gives us a picture of Jesus’ “devotional life”. How does Luke, in a few words, give us Jesus’ example of what a prayer-life should be?
(5) When everyone was trying to keep Him from leaving, Jesus decided to go somewhere else. Why? And what can we learn about the priority of Jesus’ ministry?
(6) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“At daybreak, Jesus went out to a solitary place.” (Lk. 4:42)
I am greatly bothered by some of the devotional books that promote a few minutes of devotional time a day. Such shallowness is alarming. Some even use Brother Lawrence’s famous term of “practicing the presence of God” to imply that it is sufficient to “sense” God’s presence in everything we do, without cutting out an extended period of time of solitude in prayers and scriptural reflection.
They have obviously overlooked that Brother Lawrence grounded his practice of the presence of God in his own extended time of fellowship with God on a daily basis.
Even worse is that such teaching simply “uses” God to give us a sense of peace to carry us through the day. But our relationship with God is not based on utility, but one that is based on love — the cultivation of intimacy between two people in love.
As a result, we see in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ that in the midst of the demand of ministry, He intentionally cuts off an extended period of time to be alone with Father God. So we read in Luke 4:42 “At daybreak, Jesus went out to a solitary place.” The same incident is expanded in Mark 1:35 which says, “Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went to a solitary place where He prayed.”
Jesus, indeed, leaves us the best example of how to spend time with God:
- When: To be able to get up early in the morning takes preparation the night before, without which we will not be able to wake up to meet with God.
- Where: If there is anyone who can genuinely practice the presence of God anywhere, it has to be the Son of God. Yet He finds it absolutely necessary to be away from the crowd and His usual environment to meet with His Father, without any distraction.
- What: And in solitude, He talks to His Father.
- How often: The Four Gospels undoubtedly give us the impression that this is Jesus' habit throughout His life on earth, and often He would pray the entire night.
If the Son of God “needs” to cut out so much time, often to meet with His Father God, how much more do we need to do so in order that we may grow in our knowledge of Him and of His will for us, to receive strength to do His will, to be able to recognize our sins and repent, and to grow in our love for Him and men?
(1) This was not the first time Jesus called Peter. Take a look at John 1:35-42 and get a sense of what preceded this calling by Jesus.
(2) While many people were crowding around Jesus, was it an accident that Jesus chose to the use Peter’s boat for His preaching?
(3) What was Peter’s profession even after being called by Jesus earlier? What might have happened to Peter and Andrew after their first encounter with Jesus in John 1?
(4) Peter had already seen Jesus perform many miracles and of course he heard His preaching as well. Why did he seem to object to Jesus’ suggestion when He said “put out into deep water and let down the nets for a catch”?
(5) What was the result of his reluctant obedience?
(6) What lesson(s) can we learn from Peter’s experience?
(7) At the sight of the catch, what possible reactions could Peter have?
(8) Why did he react with asking Jesus to go away, instead of wanting to follow Him as he had resolved to do once?
(9) Instead of leaving Peter alone as requested, what did Jesus do?
(10) How much did Peter understand about “catching men”?
(11) Is the phrase, “fishers of men”, an appropriate analogy of the calling that Jesus gave them? How so?
(12) What had the four given up in following Christ? What might be the toughest thing to give up?
(13) What about you?
(14) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“Go away from me Lord, I am a sinful man.” (Lk. 5:8b)
It is very meaningful to read of Peter’s final decision to really commit and give up everything to follow Christ. As we read in the first chapter of John, it was not the first time that Peter “followed” Jesus; and it is obvious that Peter had witnessed many of Jesus’ miracles and heard many of His powerful sermons. Therefore, for whatever reason(s) that he had returned to his old profession, the sermon that he heard from his boat and the demonstration of Jesus’ power while fishing brought Peter on his knees. He saw not only the futility of pursuing a life for himself, but also his sin of retreating from his initial resolve to find the Messiah and to follow Him.
In fact, in the decision to believe in Jesus and to follow Him, the need to see our sins to the point of contrition, is vital to genuine repentance. Even in our continuous life in Christ, the continuous sense of unworthiness and sinfulness is vital to a life of genuine humility. Allow me to share with you the following poem by Christina Rossetti (1830-1894), in which she draws from the experience of the Apostle John as he encounters the One who is “the First and the Last”:
Trembling before Thee we fall down to adore Thee;
Shamefaced and trembling we lift our eyes to Thee:
O First and with the Last! annul our ruined past,
Rebuild us to Thy glory, set us free
From sin and from sorrow to fall down and worship Thee.
Full of pity view us, stretch Thy scepter to us,
Bid us live that we may give ourselves to Thee:
O faithful Lord and True! Stand up for us and do,
Make us lovely, make us new, set us free —
Heart and soul and spirit — to bring all and worship Thee.
(Epiphanytide)
(1) What did the leper’s falling with his face to the ground signify?
(2) What did he ask for?
(3) What might it say about him as a person with leprosy, physically (health, possession, work etc.), emotionally (relationally - family, friends, dignity, companionship etc.) and spiritually (attitude toward God)?
(4) Did the leper have faith when he said, “If you are willing"? What should faith in God entail?
(5) How did Jesus heal him? Was there any other ways with which He could have healed him? Why did He choose this particular method?
(6) While Jesus told him not to tell anyone, would not the presentation of his healed body be a form of telling others?
a. Why did Jesus ask him not to give a verbal testimony at this point?
b. What might be the significance of asking the healed leper to follow the practice of the law “as a testimony to them”?
(7) Compare 4:37 and 5:15. What is the point that Luke is trying to make?
(8) How does v. 16 speak to you and how may you emulate Him?
(9) What is the main message to you today and how can you apply it to your life?
“Jesus reached out His hand and touched the man, ‘I am willing,’ He said, ‘Be clean!’.” (Lk. 5:13)
Luke simply tells us that there is a leper, without much information beyond that of who he is. But the fact that he kneels before Jesus, someone he only heard of, fully shows his desperation and the plight of his situation — the loneliness, the hopelessness and pain, both physical and emotional.
Luke also records a very simple plea, “If you are willing". This is such a vivid depiction of the struggle among believers. We have no doubt about God’s mighty power to heal, but we often struggle with whether He cares enough to heal!
I sense that God is not so much disappointed with our lack of faith in His power than our lack of trust in His love that He cares! And so, He wishes to demonstrate to this leper that He does care, not by simply commanding the disease to go away (which He certainly can do), but by touching him with His bare hand. No one has touched this leper, at least since he contracted the disease, for who knows how long. No one even wanted to come close to him. This touch has to be so unexpected, and yet so powerful. It must have touched the leper to the core of his inner being!
Frankly, even if he had not been healed, he would have worshipped Him as God, because only God would care enough to touch a leper like him. But the fact is he was healed! We know from the gospel of Mark 1:45 that he did not obey Jesus’ command to keep quiet. But how can one keep silent?! Even if he did, as Jesus said in another occasion, the stones will cry out! This is the kind of God we have in Jesus Christ. A God who cares!
(1) Why did the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law have to come all the way from Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem to sit before Jesus?
(2) How did “they”, meaning the friends and the paralytic, demonstrate their faith to the point that Jesus could see their faith (5:20)? Apart from faith, what else did the friends demonstrate?
(3) Instead of saying “Be clean” as He did to the leper, why did He say, “Your sins are forgiven”?
(4) What is the basis for forgiveness of sin according to 1 John 1:9?
(5) Compare the two acts — The healing of the paralytic and the forgiving of his sin:
a. Which is easier to “say”?
b. Which is easier to actually “perform”? (Can God forgive just anyone?)
(6) The Pharisees thought to themselves, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
a. In what sense they were absolutely right?
b. In what sense they were absolutely wrong?
(7) What does Luke aim to tell us about Jesus in this incident?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“When Jesus saw their faith, He said, ‘Friend, your sins are forgiven’.” (Lk. 5:20)
One of the common heresies in Christianity is the notion that since God is so loving, He will not really condemn anyone to hell, but all will somehow be saved.
But this is certainly not the message of the gospel.
It is true that “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.” (Jn. 3:17). But this is not the whole truth. John continues to say that “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (Jn. 3:18).
The truth is there is really one thing that God cannot do, and that is to forgive us irrespective of whether we repent of our sins or not. This is simply contrary to His character. It is with this thought that Jesus challenges the scribes by asking, “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?” (Lk. 5:23).
For one, Jesus wants to tell them who He really is — God, the only One who can forgive sins. The evil spirits, as we know, may be able to perform miracles, but they can never forgive sins, because they themselves are sinful. Only God can and that is Who Jesus is.
But if the paralytic does not have the faith of repentance, there is nothing God can do. This is what happened to the rich young ruler in Luke 18, as he left in sadness without the faith of repentance, though Jesus clearly loved him. (Mk. 10:21)
(1) Can you describe the kind of life a tax collector might have?
(2) Take time to think of someone that you know who might live a life quite similar to that of Levi (who is Matthew)? How hard might it be for that person to become a Christian? Why?
(3) Why then would Matthew follow Jesus immediately upon being called?
(4) What did Matthew do right after he became Jesus’ disciple? Why did he not cut off all ties with friends of his former circle? (Many commentators tell us that the term, sinners, refers to prostitutes.)
(5) Ask yourself, if you were one of the Pharisees, would you feel comfortable about Matthew and his circle of friends and their lifestyle? Would you also wonder why Jesus would willingly be part of such a dinner?
(6) As a Christian, what might be the kind of people that you would not feel comfortable associating with?
(7) Mull over the reply Jesus gave in vv. 31-32. How should it affect your attitude toward reaching people who might make Christians uncomfortable?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them.” (Lk. 5:29)
It is not uncommon for Christians who wear their faith on their sleeves to come across friends or acquaintances who are of a rather worldly type and who feel uncomfortable in their presence. You might have even heard them say, “I guess I should not swear now that he (or she) is here.” You might take it as a compliment and rightly so, as long as it does not also steer them away from you.All three synoptic Gospels put this parable right behind the banquet thrown by Levi, and thus, it is logical to assume that it is tied to a dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees over His befriending sinners and the lack of fasting by His disciples:
(1) Would you tear a patch from a new garment and set it on an old one?
(2) In v. 36, Jesus gave two reasons for why one will never tear a patch from a new garment. What are they?
(3) Under normal circumstances, what would a person do when an old garment is worn or damaged, especially beyond repair?
(4) In other words, what is the purpose of securing a new garment?
(5) What is the reason that one will never pour new wine into old wineskins?
(6) What conclusion does Jesus draw in v.38?
(7) What then do an old garment and old wine represent?
(8) What then do a new garment and new wine represent?
(9) What then do old wineskins and new wineskins represent respectively?
(10) Based on the opposition of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law over Levi’s banquet, can you understand Jesus’ lament, “And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better’ ”?
(11) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“The Old is better.” (Lk. 5:39)
In all the three Synoptic Gospel, the parable of the old garment and old wineskins are all given right after the Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees and the teachers of the law about His dining with the tax collectors and sinners, so this parable is logically tied to that event.
We know that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law took exception with Jesus and His disciples for eating with whom they perceived as sinners — the tax collectors and sinners. The reason was that such a behavior was against the piety of the orthodox Jews. Since Jesus was seen at least as a rabbi, such behavior was considered unbecoming, if not an outright disrespect of the Law of Moses.
So, in order to maintain one’s piety, the least one could do was to avoid association with these tax collectors and sinners, especially in sharing meals with them. The Law of Moses on which they based their piety was therefore the old garment and the old wine in this parable. The strict avoidance of association with non-pious Jews, let alone Gentiles, was the old wineskin which they sought to express their piety and faith.
By the way, the wineskins at the time were made of goatskins which became brittle or stretched overtime and would not be able to hold new wine, the fermentation of which would burst the old wineskins because of gaseous expansion.
Jesus is obviously the new wine who fulfills the Law with His gospel of His death and resurrection. The way to piety and to God (i.e. the wineskin) is therefore not through any observance of law, especially not through disassociation with any sinner, whether Jewish or Gentile, but through being healed by repentance and trust in the Great Physician who is Jesus Christ Himself.
The complete abandonment of their way of piety was totally unacceptable to the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, because it totally deprived them of their pride and their reliance on the Law. And thus, Jesus laments that no one after drinking of the old wine (which the Jews had done so for thousands of years) wants the new, for he says, “The old is better” (Lk. 5:39).
I find that at times, when the church wished to reach out creatively to people with whom the congregation felt uncomfortable, the “old is better” mentality is still quite prevalent.