LUKE 5:17 – 6:11: JESUS AND THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS

© Rosemary Bardsley 2025

Luke now reports how the pressure took on a different form.

In Luke 5:27 to 6:11 Luke relates a number of incidents in which the Pharisees and the teachers of the law find fault with Jesus. Up to this point such conflict had been absent. But here Luke tells us that these ‘Pharisees and teachers of the law ...had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem’ (5:17). It appears to be a deliberate and aggressive plan that they would be present wherever Jesus was. Their non-acceptance of both Jesus and his words and works was blatant.

A. WHEN JESUS HEALED THE PARALYTIC

The incident reported in Luke 5:17 – 26 seems to have occurred in a rather large building, possibly the synagogue in Capernaum, which was considered his home town (Matthew 9:1; Mark 2:1). It was a large enough building to accommodate all of those Pharisees and teachers of the law who had come from all the villages and towns, as well as numbers of ordinary people, some of whom overflowed blocking the entrances to the building.

Read Luke 5:17 – 26. Answer these questions:
Whose faith motivated Jesus to help the man?

What did Jesus say to the man?

Why did this upset the Pharisees and teachers of the law?

What did the Pharisees and teachers not know?

How did Jesus prove that he had the authority and ability to do what he said to the man?

How did the crowd respond to Jesus’ demonstration of his authority?

There were some things that Jesus knew that were not obvious to others, things that he knew because he is God:

He knew why the Pharisees and teachers of the law were there – to find fault with him, not to affirm him.

He knew what they were thinking in their own hearts and minds.

He also knew something that only the paralysed man knew – that the man’s most pressing problem, the man’s deepest concern and need, was not his physical paralysis but the sins that held him in a bondage of guilt and fear, the sins that paralysed his soul.

And so, disregarding the simmering opposition of the religious leaders who sat watching, and addressing the man’s deep, unseen need, he said ‘Friend, your sins are forgiven.’

It was an easy enough thing to say, for there is no way to test whether or not the spoken forgiveness actually occurred. No one could say – ‘Oh look! It happened! or ‘It didn’t happen!’ for you cannot actually see forgiveness. So to prove that he actually did have the authority to forgive sins, Jesus said something else – a thing that is harder to say because its validity is immediately obvious or negated. Either the announced healing works, or it doesn’t. If this lesser, but obvious, declaration is effective, it means that the greater, but not obvious, declaration also worked. The immediate effectiveness of the second word, testified to the similarly immediate effectiveness of the first word. Jesus, who here for the first time in Luke calls himself ‘the Son of Man’, has the authority to forgive sins.

Luke does not tell us how the Pharisees and teachers of the law responded to that; but he does report the amazement and awe and praise that it evoked in the people – ‘We have seen remarkable things today’.

If, as the Pharisees knew, only God can forgive sins, then the logical conclusion is that Jesus, having demonstrated his authority to forgive sins, is indeed God. Whether or not anyone made that logical conclusion Luke does not tell us. The Pharisees and teachers of the law certainly did not, as they persisted in their opposition to Jesus.

B. AT LEVI’S BANQUET

Their next point of contention with Jesus (and his disciples) is that he ate and drank ‘with tax collectors and sinners’ – 5:30. This accusation arose when, having called Levi (Matthew) to follow him, he attended a great banquet in Levi’s house where ‘a large crowd of tax collectors and others’ were also at the party. Why the Pharisees and teachers of the law were also at the banquet is a mystery. Perhaps they were not inside, but spoke through an open window. Whatever the case, their question was addressed to the disciples, but it was Jesus who replied.

His response, which seems simple enough on the surface, is filled with potential meaning:

On the surface, Jesus is saying that these people, the ones with whom he is eating and drinking, are ‘the sick’, ‘sinners’, whom he came to call to repentance. And that is why he associated with them.

But Jesus also knew that there is no one who actually is righteous (Psalm 14:2, 3; Romans 3:10 – 12), not even these Pharisees and teachers of the law. They also are the ‘sick’ who need to be healed, the ‘sinners’ who need to repent in response to Jesus’ teaching. It was them also whom he came to save.

But they do not see it. As long as they believe they are ‘the healthy’ and ‘the righteous’, it is not possible for them to hear and believe Jesus.

As we study the gospels we find that Jesus persists in interacting with them, debating with them, poking and prodding them with the truth, endeavouring to provoke them so that they might see both the wrongness of their own perceptions and statements, and the rightness of Jesus’ teaching and actions. He knew that unless they acknowledged him as the divine Son they were forever lost.

C. THE ISSUE OF FASTING

It seems that the issue of fasting puzzled many. Luke’s report indicates that the Pharisees and teachers of the law raised the question (5:33). Matthew that it was the disciples of John the Baptist (Matthew 9:14). Mark that it was both the Pharisees and teachers, and John’s disciples (Mark 2:18), where the NIV reads ‘some people’ instead of ‘they’.

What is clear is that both the Pharisees’ disciples and John’s disciples practised regular fasting, most likely twice weekly (see Luke 18:12), but Jesus’ disciples were not fasting, and that had been noticed.

Read Luke 5:34 – 39. Answer these questions:
Who is ‘the bridegroom’?

Who are ‘the guests of the bridegroom’?

What was Jesus referring to in verse 35?

What is the ‘new’ spiritual reality that the new garment and new wine/new wineskins represent?

What is the ‘old’ reality represented by the old garment and old wine/old wineskins?

Suggest why Jesus told this parable.

What does the parable infer about engaging in fasting as a religious ritual or duty?

Regular fasting was part of the Jewish religious culture. Religious Jews fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. At some point the early church embraced the twice weekly fasts, but changed the days to Wednesdays and Fridays.

Morris’ comment about Jesus’ reply is instructive:

‘...Jesus is not simply patching up Judaism” he is teaching something radically new. If the attempt is made to constrict this within the old wineskins of Judaism (e.g. by imposing fasting), the result will be disastrous. He sees that this teaching will not be palatable to some. A man drinking old wine does not want even to try the new. The old is good, he says ... He is not even comparing them. He is so content with the old that he does not consider the new for a moment. ‘It’s the old that’s good!’ (ibid p134).

C.1 In the big picture
In the context of Jesus’ parables about the new patch/old garment and new wine/old wineskins his point is that his teaching is new, and to try to fit it into the old religious perceptions would be counterproductive. Indeed, it would destroy the truth that he brought to the world.

But here we need to be careful that we don’t misunderstand Jesus’ parables here. He is not casting aside the Old Testament. As we will see later he strongly affirmed the Old Testament – he came to fulfill it, not to destroy it. His presence, his teaching, and his sin-bearing death were the deep meaning of the Old Testament. What he is casting aside as the ‘old’ is the way in which the Judaism of his day interpreted and applied the old. Those perceptions included quite a twisted concept of God, and a legalistic approach to God. The message that Jesus both preached and embodied could not be attached to those perceptions and practices. And for that reason, Jesus found himself in frequent conflict with the religious leaders. From their perspective he was a threat, undermining what they held sacred, overturning their long-held traditions which they assumed were the right worship of God.

C.2 Christians and fasting
For comment on fasting go to this study, and section F in this study. These studies will show you in what kinds of circumstances fasting was practised. None of them suggest regular fasting as a religious ritual. Some national fasts in times of national sin or danger were commanded by the religious or secular leader of the time, for that specific time of need. As Isaiah 58 teaches, God is more interested in us denying ourselves by helping those in need, than denying ourselves by ritual fasting.

There does not appear to be anywhere in the New Testament where fasting is commanded. We know that it was practised as regular (twice weekly) ritual by the Pharisees and John the Baptist’s disciples. We know that Jesus fasted (Luke 4), but not if he fasted regularly. We know that Jesus gave instructions about how to fast (Matthew 6:16 – 18). We know that Jesus here in Luke 5:35 taught that there was an appropriate time for fasting, specifically the days of his arrest, crucifixion and burial. We know that the God-fearing Gentile, Cornelius, fasted and prayed (Acts 10:30). We know that the church in Antioch fasted before commissioning Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1 – 3). We know that Paul and Barnabas fasted and prayed regarding the appointment of elders in each church (Acts 14:23).

In most of the non-ritual references to fasting, fasting is associated with prayer. It is a form of praying. It is not something that is subject to rules. For this reason, Paul in Colossians 2:16 says ‘do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.’

D. THE ISSUE OF THE SABBATH

Another of the rituals held sacred by the Pharisees and teachers of the law was the Sabbath. The concept of a sabbath rest is first mentioned in Genesis 2:2, where God, having completed the creation of the universe in six days ‘rested’ on the seventh day. The seventh day ‘rest’ of God is the foundation of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8 – 11), where the instructions simply forbid any kind of ‘work’. These simple instructions had, at the time when Jesus was on earth, become very complex by the attempted definition of what is actually ‘work’, breaking the simple prohibition of ‘work’ into multiple micro prohibitions and restrictions of what was allowed on the Sabbath. The Pharisees’ recurring conflict with Jesus arose from these micro, man-made definitions of ‘work’.

D.1 When the disciples picked and ate grain – 6:1 – 5
They were not engaged in the work of harvesting the grain; they were simply walking through a field of grain, and, probably because they were hungry, helping themselves to some of the grain (which was culturally permissible). The Pharisees did not accuse them of theft, but of breaking the Sabbath because their micro definitions identified the disciples’ action as ‘work’.

All that the Pharisees could see was this breaking of the Sabbath.

But what Jesus saw was his hungry followers easing their hunger. His response to the Pharisees was: Haven’t you read what David did when he and his men were hungry? They ate the consecrated bread, which only priests were permitted to eat [1Samuel 21:1 – 6; Leviticus 24:5 – 9; Exodus 25:23 – 30]. Jesus’ point is that human need over-rides ritual law.

From Jesus’ perspective, he, being Lord, knows what the Sabbath law is all about; he knows what it is there for – ‘the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’. He is the Creator God who rested on that first seventh day. He himself is the real Sabbath rest, of which every Sabbath day is a mere shadow (Colossians 2:16, 17; Hebrews 3 & 4).

D.2 The man with the shrivelled hand – 6:6 – 11
Again the question is – what is more important? The well-being of a human, or the maintenance of ritual law? And, in this case, not a ritual law as defined by God, but a human redefinition of that law?

It seems that the Pharisees and teachers of the law actually both expect and want Jesus to heal the man, not because they are compassionate, but because they want yet another accusation to hold against him. But Jesus is not swayed by their thoughts. Knowing what they were thinking he makes the issue the centre of attention, deliberately getting the man to stand up in front of everyone in the synagogue.

Addressing the whole gathering, but clearly challenging the attitude and beliefs of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, he asked his loaded question about what is better to do on the Sabbath: good or evil? Saving human life, or destroying it?

Deliberately disobeying the Sabbath rules of the Pharisees and teachers, Jesus simply spoke, and by his word the man was healed completely. The Pharisees and teachers of the law were ‘furious’ and started plotting what to do to Jesus.

Reflection: What impact do Jesus words in these verses have on you and your attitude to ritual law?
6:5

6:9