By Kathryn Wright
I. INTRODUCTION
In the Gospel of Luke, a consistent theme is found in the Lord’s encounters with various groups of people. Luke presents Him as sitting at a table and eating with them.
While the other Gospel writers speak of the Lord’s participating in certain meals (e.g., Matt 26:6-7; Mark 14:3ff.), Luke emphasizes it to a much greater degree. It is noteworthy that the Gospel of John is markedly silent on the topic of table fellowship until the anointing at Bethany and the Passover (John 12:1-7; 13:1-3). If, as will be argued, eating at these meals deals with having fellowship with the Lord, that is to be expected. There is a difference between having fellowship with the Lord and receiving eternal life. The Gospel of John is a book about the offer of eternal life to unbelievers. Though all believers have eternal life, not all believers are in fellowship with the Savior.
The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, is a book written to believers, so one would expect an emphasis on the fellowship with the Lord that is available to the one who already has eternal life. This is the key to understanding the many examples in Luke of the Lord’s feasting with others at a table. It seems that it is with only a bit of hyperbole that Karris comments that throughout the Gospel of Luke the Lord has either just left a feast, is on His way to a feast, or is currently at a feast.1
In these settings, Jesus is depicted as teaching those around Him. Bock notices this theme, stating that Luke likes to mention events surrounding a meal (7:36-50; 9:10-17; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 14:1-24; 19:1-10; 22:7-38; 24:29-32, 41-43). The tables where these meals take place provide opportunities for the Lord to teach spiritual truths. Perhaps even more critical to the purpose of this article, Bock says it is at these tables that fellowship with the Lord occurs.2 Once again, this would be expected in a book written to believers. The Lord desires intimacy with those who are His children. His teaching at these meals is part of that intimacy.3
In the narratives of these feasts, there is often an element of contrast among those involved. On the one hand, there are Jewish religious leaders or other observant Jews present. On the other hand, there are tax collectors and sinners (5:30; 15:1; 19:7). The mention of these notorious sinners has led many to conclude that these meals are evangelistic in nature. Jesus is teaching those present the good news that will save them from the lake of fire.
The account of Zacchaeus in Luke 19 is an example. Even though it is not explicitly stated that the Lord ate with Zacchaeus, it is clear that He did.4 As will be argued below, there are parallels between the accounts of Zacchaeus and Levi, and the Lord ate with Levi.5 When the Lord says He will “stay” at Zacchaeus’ home, the word strongly suggests more than just a short stay.6
Many maintain that the Lord eats at the home of Zacchaeus, a well-known sinner, so that He can tell him how to become a child of God. This is the kind of “salvation” he needs (Luke 19:9).7 Often, this interpretation of the purpose of these meals results in a gospel of eternal salvation that involves works. Stein, for example, states that Zacchaeus was eternally saved because he repented from his many sins as a tax collector.8 He suggests that when, in the Gospel of Luke, the Lord eats with sinners, He requires them both to believe in Him and to turn from their sins in order to be eternally saved. Both things are necessary.
In light of the purpose of Luke’s Gospel, this is a serious misinterpretation of these meals. In this article, I will argue that these meals were not evangelistic in nature. They gave the Lord an opportunity to teach discipleship truths to believers. Those at the meals were new and unhealthy children of God who needed to grow in their new life.
An article of this length cannot address all the feasts in Luke. Therefore, I will discuss the first meal the Lord has with sinners, with the suggestion that it is a model for those that follow.
II. LUKE 5:27-32: THE FIRST FEAST
The primary person involved in the Lord’s first feast with sinners is a man by the name of Levi. In the account, the reader is told that he is a tax collector. It will become clear that he has accumulated a great deal of wealth through this profession.
Luke has already hinted at the kind of man Levi is. In Luke 3:10-14, John the Baptist addresses what the people needed to do to prepare for the coming of Christ. Three times he tells the people that they need to turn from their sins. He specifically uses the example of the tax collectors (3:13).
The tax collectors in first-century Israel were known as particularly evil men. In Matt 5:46, the Lord Himself indicates how the public viewed them. Rome, which held Israel under subjection, appointed certain Jews to collect taxes from their countrymen. These men had to collect a certain amount of money for Rome, and whatever they collected above that amount was theirs to keep. They had a well-deserved reputation for overcharging their fellow Jews and making themselves rich because of the authority given them by Rome. They were seen as thieves and traitors and the worst kind of sinner, on par with prostitutes.9
Levi was an agent of Rome who worked at a toll post in Capernaum (Matt 9:1). This would have been a highly desirable post due to the taxes he could collect from the fishing businesses on the Sea of Galilee and because Capernaum was a major city on a popular trade route that ran from the north.
In Luke’s account, it appears that Levi has been in this business for some time. He has accumulated enough wealth to own a sizeable home and to throw a large feast. There would have been a great deal of resentment towards him from religious Jews in Capernaum. In the eyes of such people, the Lord’s actions towards this man are stunning.
A. Jesus Calls Levi (v 27)
Luke records that Jesus saw Levi sitting at the tax booth. The Lord gives a direct command to him: “Follow Me.”
Some take this as a command to become a believer; Levi is being offered eternal life. Childress calls it the “good news of eternal salvation.”10 Richards takes the same view, saying that Levi is a sinner who can become a new person with a new life.11 Others maintain that there is more than one level to the command, but that it includes the summons to spiritual conversion, and that the Lord’s calling Levi to be eternally saved shows that anybody can become a child of God.12 Stein is the most direct. He boldly claims that Jesus’ encounter with Levi is not a call to “a deeper Christian commitment to Jesus…but rather the commitment to become a Christian.”13
There can be no doubt, however, that this is not correct. It fails to make a distinction between discipleship and eternal salvation. There is no call for Levi to believe in the Lord for eternal life here (John 3:16; 5:24; 11:25-26). Instead, Jesus is commanding Levi to do something very costly. In fact, Levi will pay a large price to obey what Christ is commanding him to do.
Even some staunch Calvinists admit that this is what is happening here. Levi is being called to be a disciple who studies under Christ, submits to His teaching, and serves others.14 However, none of these things is a requirement for receiving eternal life, which is a free gift (Eph 2:8-9).
The words follow Me are used throughout Luke to describe becoming a disciple, or a student, of the Lord (Luke 9:23, 49, 57, 59, 61; 18:22, 28).15 This is not a call to become a believer; rather it is a call to be a follower. Of particular interest is Luke 5:11, where the same verb is used when Jesus calls Peter, James, and John to be His disciples after they have believed in Him.
We see, then, that when Jesus calls Levi to follow Him, Levi is already a believer. It is not credible to believe that Levi would leave his job and follow a Man he did not know. Peter, James, and John had fished the waters around Capernaum and would have paid taxes at Levi’s booth. The Lord often preached in that area and had performed many miracles in various nearby places. Levi would certainly have heard and seen Him.16 In fact, Levi’s response to this short, direct command indicates that he had been a very attentive listener to what the Lord taught.17
Even though Levi already had eternal life, the possibility of his being a follower of the Lord would not have crossed his mind up until the time Jesus calls him to become a disciple. He would have felt that his profession excluded him from any kind of intimacy with the King or the possibility of greatness in His kingdom. Now, however, the Lord is telling this despised tax collector that he can be one of the Messiah’s inner circle. He will jump at the chance and pay the price to do so. The Jews who heard Jesus’ summons would have been surprised that it had been given to a man like Levi.
B. Levi’s Response (v 28)
Luke records how, at the Lord’s invitation, Levi “left all, rose up, and followed Him.” Once again, the reader sees the connection with Peter, James, and John. In this same chapter, they, too, left all and followed Jesus after they had believed in Him.18 Since most agree that Peter, James, and John were already believers when Jesus called them to follow Him, we should see Levi in the same light. Like these three men, Levi left his lucrative job behind at the words of Christ. The other three had left their productive fishing business. Luke is the only Synoptic Gospel which adds that Levi left everything behind.
In the case of each of these men, Luke wants us to see that this is a call to follow the Lord in discipleship. If one wants to be a disciple, he must be willing to leave all he has in order to do so (Luke 14:33). Although this should not need to be said, in today’s theological climate it must be. Leaving everything is not a requirement for receiving the free gift of eternal life.
Luke 9:23 supports this conclusion. To follow Christ, one must deny oneself and engage in self-sacrificial acts. This must be on an ongoing or “daily” basis. Eternal life, on the other hand, is received in a moment of time (John 4:14; 5:24).
Constable agrees that this is not a description of one’s coming to initial faith in Christ for eternal life. The terms used here stress “Levi’s decisive break with his former vocation and his continuing life of discipleship.” What Levi does would have involved great financial and career sacrifices.19 It also involved repentance, or a turning from sin. He was leaving whatever corruption was part of his job in order to walk with the Christ (3:12-13).
An often-overlooked detail is that Levi “rose up.” The exact same verb is used a few verses earlier. When the paralytic is healed by Jesus, he “rose up,” picked up his bed and went to his own house (5:25). Luke seems to make a connection between this man and Levi. Both respond to the Lord’s command by a three-step process, which begins with rising up. Both men also go to their homes.
Both men also experience joy over their encounter with Christ. The paralytic goes home glorifying God. As will be seen, Levi shows his joy by hosting a great feast.
In verse 31, Jesus will refer to Himself as a physician. Clearly, He healed the paralytic of a physical ailment. But in a very real sense, Levi was just as sick as the paralytic. He was certainly morally ill when the Lord called him to follow Him. This was true even though he had already believed in Him and had eternal life. Jesus healed both the paralytic and Levi by forgiving their sins (v 24). Even though he is a tax collector, this forgiveness would allow Levi to have intimacy with Christ.20 Another similarity between the paralytic and Levi is that both men were isolated from their fellow Jews—the paralytic by his disease and Levi by his profession. The Great Physician heals them in this regard also.21
C. The Feast (v 29)
After leaving everything to follow the Lord, the first thing Levi does as a disciple is to hold a great feast in his home for many of his friends, with the Lord as the honored Guest.22 In doing so, he is being a servant of those in attendance. Before, as a tax collector, he had served himself. Now, he will serve others. The banquet is a clear picture of discipleship.
The feast is another example of Levi’s paying a price for following the Lord in discipleship. Luke comments that this was a “great” feast, and that there were a “great number” of people who were invited. Most homes in first-century Galilee were small. The description of this event shows that Levi was a man of wealth, since he had a large home. The cost of hosting such a feast would have been high.
Those who are invited to this feast also show that Levi is a disciple of Christ. They are identified as “tax collectors” and “sinners” (v 30). In the eyes of devout Jews, they are outcasts, just like Levi. Later, the Lord will say that when you have a feast, those are the kind of people to invite (Luke 14:12-24). Just as the Lord had invited Levi to follow Him, Levi invites those like him to be with the Lord in his home. He wants them to hear the teachings of the Christ. Levi’s attitude towards them is a reflection of the attitude of Christ Himself. The picture is one of joy in the company of others who want to know Christ better.23
This scene was scandalous to the religious Jew. As mentioned above, Levi was a morally sick individual. Now, a large group of such people are in the presence of this One who claims to be the Christ. Even worse, they have all “sat down” with Him in the intimate setting of a meal together. Levi, no doubt, is surprised that the Lord would come to his home and sit and eat with him. Religious Jews would never do such a thing, but the One whom he believes to be the Christ does.
Since Levi already has eternal life, his actions here speak of more than the reception of that gift. Like the paralytic man in 5:17-25, Levi is seeking the fellowship with the Lord that forgiveness of sins brings. Levi is willing to turn from his sins and pay whatever the price to enjoy that fellowship. Sitting with the Lord in his house over a meal is a beautiful picture of such realities. Levi wants others to have the same joy.
We are not told exactly what was discussed around the tables at that feast. But the Lord’s main message concerned the coming kingdom of God. It is a certainty that He addressed such issues. Part of the Lord’s teaching about this coming kingdom regarded believers’ being rewarded when He sets it up. Those believers who do what Levi does here will be rewarded on that day (Luke 14:14). Levi had been wealthy in the things of this life. As a disciple, the teachings and example of the Lord are showing him how to be wealthy in the world to come. That is why he left his high-paying job in order to be close to the Christ. He was exchanging the wealth of this world for wealth in Christ’s kingdom.
In Luke 12:42-43, the Lord teaches these principles on another occasion. Those who will be great in His kingdom are said to be believers who give others food. This is not a statement about feeding the poor, but about serving others. That is exactly what Levi is doing here. Service to others can take many forms, but in this case, Levi is literally giving them food. He is also allowing them to eat of the spiritual food of Christ’s words. Levi is serving those present by placing them in the presence of the King.
Whenever Levi believed in Jesus for eternal life, he became a child of God. Now he is experiencing the fellowship with the Lord that forgiveness of sins brings. This fellowship, which would be maintained by following the Lord’s example and teaching, will result in eternal rewards. This feast is a picture of that fellowship. Eternal salvation is absolutely free. Levi is going beyond that. He is paying the price in order to be a disciple.
D. The Reaction of the Religious Jews (v 30)
Since the religious leaders despised no group of people more than tax collectors, it is no surprise that the scribes and Pharisees “complained” about what they saw going on in Levi’s home. First, Christ had chosen one of these notorious sinners to be in His inner circle. Then He sat at a meal of intimate fellowship with a large number of such sinners.
The scribes were a very powerful group of men in first-century Israel. They obtained this title after years of study. They held many positions of power in government, including judgeships. Most of them were also Pharisees.24 The Pharisees followed a long list of oral traditions passed down by leading rabbis. These traditions dictated with whom a righteous Jew could associate. The scribes were the leading experts in such matters. In their opinion, one did not need to be a religious scholar in order to recognize the Lord’s sinful actions on this occasion. It was clear that Jesus was spending time with the wrong people.
There would have been differences of opinion among these religious Jews about the future of common Jewish “sinners” in the coming kingdom. But they would have all agreed that the Christ would not dare to eat a meal with them. It was not possible that the Christ would want to be close to such individuals. These people were all ceremonially unclean because of their lives, their contact with Gentiles, and their unwillingness to adhere to the traditions passed down by the rabbis.
The complaint of these religious leaders revolved around fellowship. How could the Messiah eat and drink with these people? That would defile Him. No doubt, for most of these men, this would be clear proof that Jesus was not the Christ.
Luke recounts the religious leaders’ attitude. At another meal, one of them is scandalized that a person claiming to be the Christ would allow Himself to be touched by a well-known sinner. Even a prophet would not allow that (Luke 7:39). Later, these men will once again complain that Jesus continues to eat with morally sick individuals (Luke 15:2).
The presence of tax collectors and sinners at a meal with the Christ was saying more than simply that such Jews could be in the kingdom. By eating with them, the Lord was showing that they could be great in that kingdom. As discussed above, the Lord specifically taught this doctrine and was teaching it on this occasion. The scribes and Pharisees could not accept such teachings, and the tax collectors and sinners in attendance at the feast probably had a hard time believing them as well. It would be like a common person being invited to a party of rich and powerful people and wondering if there had been a mistake.
Levi and all the “sinners” present at the feast, including the other disciples in the Lord’s inner circle, would have heard such sentiments before. When it came to religious matters, the scribes and Pharisees were generally held in high regard by the people.25 Perhaps in the mind of Levi, and certainly in the minds of some of those at the feast, Jesus should not be eating with them. They were certainly aware of their numerous sins. They knew that the title given to them—sinners—by the religious leaders was well-deserved. Perhaps the religious leaders had a point. These tax collectors knew they could believe in Him as the Christ. Levi had already done so, and no doubt many others at the feast had as well. But should they be allowed to eat with Him? Could they actually be close to Him? Wasn’t that privilege reserved for more deserving Jews, that is, those who lived righteously? The Lord would need to address these questions and allow those in attendance at the feast to understand what kind of relationship they could have with Him.
E. The Response of the Lord (vv 31-32)
The Lord’s words here explain why He eats with the tax collectors and sinners. They are also often misunderstood. He states:
Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.
Once again, many see this as a statement concerning eternal salvation. When Jesus eats with people, it is not a picture of fellowship with Him, but an opportunity for those present to come to faith. The Lord’s words are interpreted to conform to this understanding. The “sick” would be the person who is not saved. The same would be the case with “sinners.” The unbeliever needs to repent in order to have eternal life. What the unbeliever needs is to become “righteous.” One becomes righteous when he believes (Rom 3:21-26).
This view of these verses means that Jesus is speaking in an ironic or even sarcastic sense. People like the scribes and Pharisees thought they were righteous. The tax collectors and sinners knew they were not. They understood that they were sinners. Jesus goes to such people and “calls” them to repent in order to be saved because they are willing to listen. They understand their spiritually lost condition.
According to this understanding of the passage, all people are sinners and need to be saved. If a person were righteous, they would not need to repent. If such a person existed, Jesus would not need to come for that person. There would be no need to call such a person. In reality, of course, such a person does not exist. But these religious leaders were blind to such things.26 This Lord’s sarcastic remark is an attack on the scribes and Pharisees. They thought they were righteous, but were, in reality, just like the tax collectors and sinners whom they despised.
There are numerous problems with this view. The first is that repentance is not the same thing as belief (Acts 20:21). Repentance is a turning from sin (Luke 3:8). That certainly fits the context here. The people at the feast were being told that they needed to turn from their sins.
But if repentance is a turning from sin, it cannot be a requirement for eternal life. That would make the reception of that life a work, and the Scriptures are clear that it is by God’s grace, apart from works of any kind (Eph 2:8-9; John 4:10-14).
Stein recognizes that repentance is a work. However, he maintains that it is required for eternal salvation and that Levi did this work when he left everything behind to follow Christ.27 Levi had to do that if he were to be eternally saved. Stein does not seem to see the contradiction in saying that something is simultaneously free and costly.
It is better, however, to take these words of the Lord at face value. The righteous refers to those who live righteously. Sinners refers to those who do not. Believers in Christ can fall into either category. Levi is a believer who is a sinner. He needs to leave his old way of life behind. Those at the feast who have already received eternal life by believing in Jesus need to do the same.
This view is seen in the Lord’s parable found in Luke 15:4-7. There are 100 sheep, which represent believers. When one strays, he needs to repent and return to the flock. The other 99 do not need to repent because they are in fellowship with the Lord.28 The 99 are living righteously.
There are examples of righteous believers in the book of Luke. These would include John the Baptist, Elizabeth and Zacharias (1:6), Mary (1:28), Simeon (2:25), and Anna (2:37). These people are not called “righteous” because of their position as believers, but because of the way they live. “Sinners” can describe a believer who does not live righteously.
Like the paralyzed believer who needed healing, Levi and the other sinners/believers at the feast needed healing as well. They needed to repent from their sins and become healthy spiritually in order to be in fellowship with the King. Even though they were believers, they were “sick.” They needed the advice of the Physician who was already their Savior.
Dillow also argues against taking the Lord’s statement as a call to eternal salvation and making “sinners” equivalent to unbelievers. He says that if Jesus is referring to the “righteous” in an ironic or sarcastic way, meaning that they only think they are righteous, we must assume that He is doing the same regarding “sinners.” He would be referring to people who only think they are sinners, but are not. Instead, the righteous in Luke 5:32 and 15:7 are healthy believers who do not need to turn from a sinful lifestyle.29 The Lord is saying that not only do people like Levi have eternal life, but that He also desires that they repent of their sins and eat with Him. He wants to be close to them, which is the picture of spiritual health. If they do, they can even be great in His coming kingdom.
III. PARALLELS WITH ZACCHAEUS
The views expressed in this article about the feast in Levi’s home find support in the account of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10. There are many connections between the two stories. Both men were tax collectors. As a result, both were despised by many of the Jews. As happened in the case of Levi and his friends, the righteous Jews point out that by going to the home of Zacchaeus, the Lord is fellowshipping with a “sinner” (19:7) The Lord goes to each man’s home, which invites criticism from the Jews. Just as a feast is a time of joy, Zacchaeus receives the Lord into his home “joyfully” (19:6).
There are also parallels between Levi and Zacchaeus in the way they respond to the Lord. It is clear that Jesus teaches Zacchaeus while He is in the man’s home. There can be no doubt that He spoke about His coming kingdom. After listening to what the Lord says, Zacchaeus commits to giving half of what he owns to the poor and, with the rest of his wealth, to correcting any wrongs he has done to others (19:8). As was the case with Levi, this would have been a great amount of wealth to give up in order to obey the Lord.
As in the account of Levi, here is an example of repentance. Levi had repented of his sins by following the Lord and serving others. Zacchaeus does the same. In order to do what the Lord says, he is turning from the corruption of his trade and the wealth it earned him. Zacchaeus now serves the poor, whom he previously abused.
Luke shows the extent of Zacchaeus’ repentance, and he serves as a model for others. The OT said that if a person wronged someone, they were to make restitution by returning the amount stolen and adding 20 percent. Zacchaeus goes far above that requirement by restoring 400 percent above what he had cheated others out of.30 He also goes beyond the works required for repentance proclaimed by John the Baptist (3:12-13).
It would be a mistake to conclude that Zacchaeus does such things in order to earn eternal life or show the sincerity of his faith. He already believes that Jesus is the Christ; he has eternal life. Like Levi, he wants to leave his corrupt lifestyle behind and be a disciple of the Lord.
But, as discussed above, he also does so because of what the Lord teaches him in his home. While speaking to Zacchaeus, the Lord gives the parable of the minas (19:11-24). In that parable, Jesus says that those who serve Him with their possessions will be great in the kingdom. Like Levi, Zacchaeus is willing to part with his earthly wealth in order to gain riches in the world to come.
Such actions and words by the Lord did not sit well with the righteous Jews. The reader can only imagine the joy that Zacchaeus experienced upon hearing such words from the Lord. The King was in his home, eating with and teaching him. As with Levi and the tax collectors in Luke 5, He told Zacchaeus that He wanted an intimate relationship with him and that he could be wealthy in His kingdom. No price was too much for him to pay to make those things a reality.
Another parallel between the accounts of Levi and Zacchaeus is the Lord’s response to Zacchaeus’ repentance. He tells him that “salvation” has come to his house and that He “has come to seek and save that which was lost” (19:10). This is to be understood in light of the Lord’s statement to Levi and his guests in 5:32, that He has come to call sinners to repentance. The Lord gives His mission statement—using different words—on both occasions. They form an inclusio with these two accounts of rich tax collectors.31
Once again, as in the case of 5:32, this statement is not a declaration that Jesus came to save unbelievers from the lake of fire, even though He certainly did. It is given after Zacchaeus commits to following the Lord by giving up his wealth and after He has spent time with Zacchaeus in his home. Zacchaeus already has eternal life. The salvation here is a salvation from the corrupt lifestyle Zacchaeus has been living. Like Levi, he needs to be saved from the destruction that sin brings in the life of the believer. The unrighteous believer will also lose wealth in the world to come if he continues in this lifestyle.32 The Lord wanted Zacchaeus to experience spiritual health.33
The one who is “lost” here is not the unbeliever. It is the believer who is out of fellowship with the Lord. This, too, is seen in the Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4-7). The lost sheep is still a sheep, but it represents the believer who is not living righteously. Jesus is saying that He did not simply come to give eternal life. He came to call unrighteous believers, who are out of fellowship with Him, to come back to the fold and to intimacy with Him.34 Jesus calls such people to repent of their sins and eat with Him.
IV. CONCLUSION
In every culture, going to a person’s home and eating with them is a sign of friendship or intimacy. It is a time of sharing one’s life with the host. On such occasions there are always discussions among those in attendance.
The NT has taken that imagery and applied it to the Christian life. In Rev 3:20 the Lord is speaking to a group of unrighteous, carnal believers at Laodicea. He asks if they would allow Him to come to them and eat with them. He wants to have a closer relationship with them. This can only happen, however, if they repent (Rev 3:19-20). It is a gross misunderstanding of NT theology to conclude that the carnal people in the church at Laodicea were unbelievers.
Luke does the same thing in his Gospel. The Lord is often seen eating in the home of sinners. Levi is a case in point. His willingness to immediately leave his wealth-producing vocation at the simple word of the Lord shows that he had already believed that Jesus was the Christ. The great feast he provided Him in his home was given out of the desire to know more about Him and what He would have him do. The parallels with Zacchaeus and the Lord’s teachings in his home support such conclusions.
Jesus’ eating with these kinds of men show that He did not come just to give eternal life. He wants those who have that life to be spiritually healthy and to be rich in the kingdom that He will one day bring. The good news of Christ is that this is available for even the worst kind of sinner who believes.
It is unfortunate that many have interpreted these dinners as a call to eternal salvation. They take words like sinners, righteous, lost, saved, and repentance as belonging to the realm of the offer of eternal life. By doing so in accounts such as the Lord’s dealings with Levi, they distort that offer by making it dependent upon works. In the process, they lose the distinction between being a believer and being a disciple. Being a believer is free. Being a disciple is costly.
In the homes of Levi and Zacchaeus, the Lord is calling those who are believers to become disciples. The price Levi and Zacchaeus pay monetarily is high. They will have to turn, or repent, from their previous corrupt lifestyles. But they believe what the Lord says when He talks to them around the table. They want this kind of fellowship with Him to continue both in this world and the one that is coming. There could be many more joyous occasions where He would dine with them as friends. They are overjoyed that the Lord would offer them these blessings in addition to the eternal life they already have. In their minds, the money they spend, and whatever is involved in repenting from past wrongs, are wise investments indeed.
____________________
1 Robert J. Karris, Eating Your Way Through Luke’s Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2006), 14.
2 Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 495.
3 Examples of such teaching are found in Luke 5:31-32; 7:41-42; 14:7-11, 12-14, 16-24; 15:3-7, 8-10, 11-32; and 19:11-27.
4 Trent C. Butler, Luke, vol. 3 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 315; Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 409; Grant R. Osborne, Luke: Verse by Verse (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), 444.
5 Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 252.
6 Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 234.
7 John A. Martin, “Luke” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John. F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 252; Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 469. Bock also lists the account of Zacchaeus as an example of the Lord’s eating with sinners.
8 Stein, Luke, 469.
9 R. C. Sproul, A Walk with God: An Exposition of Luke (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1999), 52-53; Sanh 25b also discusses how they were seen as being dishonest by the Jews.
10 Gavin Childress, Opening up Luke’s Gospel (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2006), 49.
11 Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher’s Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987), 659.
12 Osborne, Luke, 145: H. D. M. Spence-Jones, St. Luke, vol. 1, (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 117.
13 Stein, Luke, 181.
14 Sproul, A Walk, 93.
15 Not all of these verses have the command, but they use different forms of the verb to “follow.”
16 Wiersbe, Bible, 188.
17 John Peter Lange and J. J. van Oosterzee, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Luke, trans. Philip Schaff and Charles C. Starbuck (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 88.
18 Ibid.
19 Thomas Constable, “Luke 5:28,” Constable Notes, www.biblenet.org.
20 To be noted here is the fact that the forgiveness of sins is not to be equated with the reception of eternal life. The paralytic was already a believer when Jesus forgave his sins. He had already believed (v 20). Forgiveness of sins results in fellowship with Christ.
21 Ibid.
22 Stein, Luke, 181.
23 Alberto S. Valdés, “The Gospel According to Luke,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 249.
24 Joaquin Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1969), 233-36.
25 Ibid.
26 For two examples of such views, see Martin, “Luke,” 218; Stein, Luke, 182.
27 Stein, Luke, 182.
28 Once again, the issue is fellowship and not eternal life. The sheep that has strayed does not lose eternal life, but loses intimacy with the Shepherd.
29 Joseph C. Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings (Monument, CO: Paniym Group, 2012), 703.
30 Valdés, “Luke,” 161.
31 Constable, “Luke 5:32,” Constable Notes.
32 Dillow, Reign, 704.
33 Even some Free Grace writers take a different view. Being a “son of Abraham” and “salvation” would both be equivalent to being a believer. This view would agree with the view of this article that Zacchaeus was a believer. He could have believed before Jesus came to town, on the way to his home, or after the Lord spoke to him in his home. This position would also maintain that Zacchaeus’ reaction of parting with his wealth would be an expression of discipleship. With this alternate view, Zacchaeus’ decision to follow Christ in discipleship happened very quickly after he had believed in him for eternal life.
34 Robert N. Wilkin, The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2012), 84.
