18 April 2024
The next three chapters cover dramatic acts of Jesus; some of the chapters are quite long. This next is the Call of Peter (Luke 5:1-11) and is relatively short.
Bailey almost misses the point right off the bat with a Strawman argument. He talks about how Greeks thought the spirit realm was good and the material realm evil. Greeks did not believe in a spirit realm at all; this is why Paul had a tough time at Athens. They believed in an ideal realm of logic (good) versus the real world (bad); that was hardly the same as spirit versus flesh.* It was the Ancient Near East that believed in a separation between this and the spirit realm. But he got right that Hebrews believed spiritual things could be good and bad, as well as the material. However, they never forgot that the material realm was inherently flawed. His Greek Strawman results in a Hebrew Strawman.
His view of the Fall is inadequate. There are a lot of distinctions missing. He keeps saying that matter is inherently good, and then writes as if Jesus in human form is the ultimate revelation of God. It was final, but not ultimate. Those two words carry very different connotations. He says something that borders on heresy (even by mainstream orthodoxy standards), saying that material and spirit were welded together in Christ, which almost negates the Fall.
Somehow, after walking down that false path, he still ends up saying correctly that we will leave this life behind when we die. And in the Resurrection, we will have a spiritual body. I wonder how he defines "spiritual body". This may be a matter of semantics, but Bailey keeps coming back to this Strawman error.
Bailey points out this passage in Luke follows a seven-point up and down lyrical pattern -- ABCDCBA -- which he refers to as the "prophetic rhetorical template", something rather common throughout the Bible. Having a miracle at the climax is typical.
A. The boat goes out (Jesus teaches)
B. Jesus speaks to Peter (catch fish!)
C. Peter speak to Jesus (almost arrogant reply)
D. Dramatic catch of fish (a miracle)
C. Peter speaks to Jesus (in repentance)
B. Jesus speaks to Peter (catch people!)
A. The boat comes back (they follow Jesus)
He points out a shorter form (ABCCBA) for Isaiah 41:16-20. That Luke would have received testimonies in this format from Hebrew witnesses should surprise no one. However, Luke carefully adds an explanatory note in front of the lyrical climax template: The crowds were pressing Jesus, apparently seeking the hear the Word.
Having just healed Peter's mother-in-law in the previous chapter, Bailey notes that Peter is socially obliged to humor Jesus at this scene where the fishermen are trying to wind down a night's work. To push out from the shore is one thing; Peter would have to keep oars in the water to maintain the boat's position. Bailey rightly notes that Jesus demonstrates fishing for souls of people from that boat.
Jesus takes a position of authority; rabbis always sat down to teach. Instead of thanking Peter at the conclusion of the session, Jesus tells Peter they should go back for another pass with the net. While he offers a very detailed explanation, the main point is that they had thick night-fishing nets that only work in darkness because fish can see them in daylight. Day fishing nets are much thinner strands. Peter's answer can be read as reluctant, to say the least. The crew will have to humor this miracle-worker.
Bailey dramatizes the material value of this massive catch. But he doesn't trace the kind of thinking Peter must have been going through leading up to this moment, as one of those souls feeling the messianic fervor of his times and having already heard John the Baptist's message about repentance. He had sort of latched onto Jesus by this time, having called Him "boss", but now he calls Him "lord". This was way more Messiah than he was seeking. He was quite unworthy of being this man's disciple. Luke inserts a note about how the whole crew was shocked by how this miracle broke all the rules.
Jesus assured Peter he was fit for a new mission in life. We should read between the lines of Luke's account here. The crew would have passed the fish and the equipment over to servants or employees before rearranging their lives to become full-time disciples of this rabbi. This kind of discipleship was hardly new; it was the kind of men Jesus chose that was a complete change from the customs of their time.
------------
*Depending on how you approach it, examining Gnostic heresies will indicate this same serious error of referring to something as "spiritual" when it is just a bad label for Platonic ideals. If you look at Gnostic writings enough, you will discern how their use of "spiritual" and how they explain it makes it nothing like the Unseen Realm of the Ancient Near East.
I've sat in class with college professors (PhDs) who didn't seem to be aware of this distinction, so I'm not surprised that Bailey seems to make the same mistake.
Comments
Jay DiNitto
"*Depending on how you approach it, examining Gnostic heresies will indicate this same serious error of referring to something as 'spiritual' when it is just a bad label for Platonic ideals."
The waters are muddied even more because we in the west call gnosticism a "mystical" belief, when really it's just a belief that a "higher," attainable realm of the physical is all there is beyond the world we can sense. What's also confusing is that we equate all those early Greek academics and colleges with modern education. While there is some overlap with those gnostics and modern academic thought, the gnostics were nowhere near what we might call modern scientific thought.
This document is public domain; spread the message.