What is the meaning of miraculous catch of fish in Luke 5?


The Sunday gospel lectionary reading for the fourth Sunday before Lent in Year C is Luke 5.1–11, the story of the miraculous catch of fish, as we jump forward into Jesus’ ministry before returning to the temptations in the desert at the start of Lent. It is a captivating story in its own right, but it also raises questions about the connections with the account in Mark 1 of the call of the disciples and the story in John 21 of a similar miraculous catch after Jesus’ resurrection.

The narrative is both full of what looks like eye-witness detail, but told in Luke’s distinctive style. The opening sentence runs through verses 1 and 2, and is structured with several subordinate clauses (‘hypotaxis’) in contrast with Mark’s typical paratactical style in narratives (‘and…and…’). There is a vivid sense of the crowd pressing in on Jesus; I cannot think of another place in the gospels where this physical sense of crowding in is expressed in quite the same way. They have come to hear ‘the word of God’, which is Luke’s distinctive term for Jesus’ message of the kingdom (in Matt 15.6 = Mark 7.13 and John 10.35 the phrase refers to the Scriptures). Luke uses the phrase in the gospel where it is not present in the parallel accounts (as in Luke 8.11 and Luke 8.21) and in Acts it becomes a term for the message of the gospel (Acts 4.31, 6.2, 8.14, 12.24 and so on) as it often does in Paul (1 Cor 14.36, 1 Thess 2.13 and elsewhere) thus expressing the continuity between the Old Testament, Jesus’ teaching, and the apostolic proclamation.


Luke (alone in the NT) calls the Sea of Galilee the ‘Lake of Gennesaret’, using the Greek expression derived from the OT name Kinneret (Num 34.11, Josh 13.27) meaning ‘harp’ (-shaped), another detail confirming that Luke is writing for a non-Jewish patron or audience. In Mark 1.16 Simon and Andrew are ‘net-casting’ and Matt 4.18 expands this into ‘were throwing casting-nets’, the amphiblestron being a round net with small weights on the end which would be thrown from the shore over a small shoal of fish. In this account, Luke uses a more general term diktuon, which must refer to ‘seine’ nets that hang in the water and are drawn in from the boat to catch a larger shoal. They were made of linen, so visible to the fish during the day and therefore only used at night, and needed to be washed each morning. Luke’s description of Simon and Andrew’s practice thus fits historical detail precisely.

I love the detail that Jesus sees ‘two boats’ and that he gets into one of them; the other boat then comes into play in the second half of the story when Simon and his companions call on those with the other boat to help with the catch—depicted accurately in the picture above by Raphael. (Luke also has an interest in numbers, for example in noting the 276 people in the shipwreck in Acts 27.37, a ‘triangular’ number, as well as in numerical composition, so it might be that the ‘two’ boats suggest the reliability of testimony as per Deut 17.6—but that is speculative, and I haven’t found this mentioned in commentaries.) It has been tempting for preachers to talk of Simon as a ‘poor’ fisherman, but this involves imposing a post-industrial configuration of wealth and poverty on an agrarian society. Fishing would fit with other artisan skills and be above subsistence or tenant farming, in turn above hired casual labour, and would not be especially ‘poor’. We see both here and in Mark 1.20’s mention  of the ‘hired men’ that these fishermen own their own boats and their business.

This region of the shore of Galilee is characterised by a series of small, curved bays, and one of them is now known as ‘Sower’s Bay’ from the depiction in Mark 4.1 of Jesus telling that parable from the boat (Luke 8.4 doesn’t give the situation). The curved bank of the shore functions like the seating in an amphitheatre, making it easy to hear someone speaking from the edge of the water or sitting in a boat—I know because I have done it!


There are several striking things about the second half of the narrative. The first is that the crowd quickly disappears from view, and we have an almost Johannine sense of personal encounter between Jesus and one individual, Simon. Although Simon’s business partners (referred to in v 7 with the almost technical term metochos, softened to the later ‘partner’, koinonos in v 10) are mentioned, the narrative keeps returning to Simon—his reaction and his commissioning.

Secondly, his practical questioning of Jesus’ instruction (after all, it is Simon who is the expert at fishing!) and yet obedience to the command of the ‘master’ parallels the response of Mary to the angel Gabriel ‘How can this be…?’ in Luke 1.34. But the shape of the encounter overall has a stronger parallel with OT encounters with the holiness of God; Joel Green notes the structural parallel with Isaiah’s epiphany, despite the contrasts in setting:

Luke 5.1–11

Isa 6.1–10

vv 4–7 (9–10a)

epiphany

vv 1–4

v 8

reaction

v 5

v 10b

reassurance

v 7

v 10b

commission

vv 8–10

It is notable that Luke recounts this story in a different position from Mark, where in Mark 1.18 the response of the disciples to Jesus’ call seems strangely abrupt. We have been told little about Jesus’ teaching and ministry, his miracles being postponed to Mark’s account of a ‘typical day’ in the ministry of Jesus later in the chapter, including the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law. But Luke locates this commission within Jesus’ ministry, so Simon’s mother-in-law has already been healed (Luke 4.38–39) and others have been delivered from demons, which lends this account a ‘narrative plausibility’ which was highly valued by Graeco-Roman rhetoricians.

Thirdly, Peter’s reaction and cry that he is a ‘sinner’ is quite startling. There is no suggestion here that Peter is a particular bad or unworthy person for any specific reason, but he recognises the vast difference between himself and Jesus. The term Luke uses to express the ‘astonishment’ of Simon and his companions in v 9, thambos, is regularly used of the dread that comes over those who encounter the awesome holiness of God. In other words, they are not just astonished at the inexplicable miracle; they realise that they are in the presence of someone who is (w)hol(l)y other. This is Luke’s first use of the word ‘sinner’, and it introduces a theme complementary to the emphasis we have seen previously on God’s honouring the piously devout: Jesus came to ‘call sinners to repentance’ (Luke 5.32), a summary statement that gathers this sequence of stories together. This focus emphasises both the difference between Jesus and those he has come to and his boundary-crossing initiative as well as the content of his message, that of the transformation that comes with repentance, a theme we see all through the gospel which reaches a climax in the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19.


Fourthly, the catch of fish, and the whole activity of fishing, becomes a metaphor for the ministry of the gospel to which Simon and his companions are called—though it is worth noting that, in the gospel itself, the disciples are almost invisible, in contrast with Matthew and Mark, since the focus on their ministry will come in Luke’s second volume. (And, sadly, the Greek text does not offer the nice pun we have in English, changing fisher-men to fishers-of-men, as the Greek term is simply halieis who become halieis anthropon in Mark and Matthew—and Luke stays even further away by simply saying ‘You will catch alive [zogreo] people’ in v 10.) We will see the metaphorical boat of the early church filled almost to sinking throughout Acts, as on several occasions thousands come to faith in Jesus at a time, and the structural nets of leadership need expanding and reconsidering, not least when the ‘gentile mission’ takes off under Paul’s ministry.

In the Old Testament, the image of catch and landing fish was mostly negative, sometimes being an image for warfare, but often associated with God’s eschatological judgement:

The Sovereign LORD has sworn by his holiness: “The time will surely come when you will be taken away with hooks, the last of you with fishhooks.” (Amos 4.2)

You have made people like the fish in the sea…The wicked foe pulls all of them up with hooks, he catches them in his net… (Hab 1.14–15)

“But now I will send for many fishermen,” declares the LORD, “and they will catch them. After that I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them down on every mountain and hill and from the crevices of the rocks.” (Jer 16.16)

Although judgement is not absent from Luke’s description of Jesus’ ministry, here the strong association is between the crowd pressing in to hear the word of God, and the extraordinary catch of fish. Jesus’ commission to Simon (and the others) to ‘catch people alive’ is clearly offered as a parallel to his own ministry of teaching and calling people to repentance. Whereas a fisherman catches fish to kill and sell them, Simon will ‘catch’ people from death to set them free into the life of the kingdom. And this moment of grace in the message of the gospel delays the day of judgement and invites response. 

Fifthly and finally, there is an unmistakable emphasis on a decisive break with the past. ‘From now on’ they will be doing something quite different, and this means that, pulling their boats up on the shore (another nice ‘eye-witness’ detail) they leave everything—their business, their boats, their livelihood, and even this actual catch which could be sold. Where Mark emphasises the break with family loyalties (‘they left their father…’ Mark 1.20), Luke emphasises the economic consequences of the decision.

Leaving all that has been of value, they will now find their fundamental sense of belonging and being in relationship to Jesus, the community being built around him, and the redemptive purpose he serves. (Joel Green, NIC commentary on Luke, p 235).


As a postscript, I note that commentators from a previous generation who were wedded to form-critical approaches to the text and postulated a long time period between the events of Jesus’ life and the writing of the gospels, in which the oral tradition allowed stories to develop in quite independent directions, saw John 21 and Luke 5 as two re-workings originating from one story. A summary of this is found in the footnotes to the New American Bible (NAB) on John 21:

There are many non-Johannine peculiarities in this chapter, some suggesting Lucan Greek style; yet this passage is closer to John than John 7:53-8:11. There are many Johannine features as well. Its closest parallels in the synoptic gospels are found in Luke 5:1-11 and Matthew 14:28-31. Perhaps the tradition was ultimately derived from John but preserved by some disciple other than the writer of the rest of the gospel. The appearances narrated seem to be independent of those in John 20. Even if a later addition, the chapter was added before publication of the gospel, for it appears in all manuscripts.

And yet even the most cursory of assessments of the setting of the story, the people involved, the location of Jesus, and theological issues communicated, the reaction of those involved, and the narrative consequences, make this a completely unpersuasive argument.

(The picture at the top is the depiction of the story by Raphael from 1515.)


Come and join me for a Zoom teaching afternoonon Thursday 3rd February to explore all the issues around the ‘end times’ and end of the world.

We will look at: the background to this language in Jewish thinking; Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24 and Mark 13; the Rapture—what is it, and does the Bible really teach it; what the New Testament says about ‘tribulation’; the beast, the antichrist, and the Millennium in Rev 20; the significance of the state of Israel.

The cost is £10 per person, and you can book your tickets at the Eventbrite link here.


DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.

29 thoughts on “What is the meaning of miraculous catch of fish in Luke 5?”

  1. Thanks Ian. Why do paintings and depictions of Jesus generally give him long hair while his disciples have short hair. I’m thinking too of the background of 1 Cor 11. There is no reason either to understand the wine drinking Jesus as formally under a Nazarite vow?

    Reply
  2. Thank you Ian.

    I love how this passage reveals the effect of our living repentant lives. The power of them isn’t only in people seeing us do particular acts and speak particular words but also in the way in which our giving God unqualified access enables him to work beyond what others see us do or hear us say.

    I attended a conference in the US years ago. As I walked into the venue for the conference and took my seat I began to weep. It wasn’t an emotional event – I wasn’t feeling any particular emotion – it was spiritual.

    As another example we should also expect that the Holy Spirit will be wanting to teach us scripture when we are away from scripture.

    I conclude that the church shouldn’t be too preoccupied with being SEEN to be living repentantly as much as it is focused on ACTUALLY being repentant. God is the only one who must be pleased for him to be given access to work through his people. No work we do can make the Holy Spirit manifest in greater power (Galatians 3:2) – but repentance is not a work – it is a decision (a person who decides to go to the gym twice a week has not in making the decision done a work until the first occasion when they go).

    Reply
    • Reading the Bible and praying don’t have any power to be made God any more welcome – they are works like any other works. Except in as much as they are repentance. What do I mean by that? When Zacchaeus gives back money to those he treated unfairly the act of giving the money back is itself repentance. Only if our reading and praying is the best way for us to say “I repent” do they give God greater access. This is the Christian life – continually offering God our lives instead of our acts – instant invisible ongoing repentance.

      Reply
  3. Ah ” the awsome holiness of God.”
    An encounter Isaiah knew well.
    Holiness that is hugely missing and delberately avoided in much of contemporary Christianity, (and previous discussions) frequently derided as piety.
    That, along with *fear of the Lord” and all that includes and excludes.

    Reply
  4. Hi Philip

    I think I may be in agreement with you though you may be putting things differently from the way I would or the way I think the Bible does. Firstly a comment on anthropology. When we come to Christ the old life/nature is put to death. From our perspective this is accomplished by author and repentance – the putting off of the old man. We become in Christ a new creation. We are born of the Spirit and receive a new life/nature (nature is the character of the life). This life is called elsewhere God’s seed within. Our task thereafter, in the power of the Spirit is to live the new life which is created in the image of God in true righteousness and holiness. We are to put off the old man (humanity, nature, life) and put on the new man. We are not to sow to the flesh (the old man) but sow to the Spirit.

    I would say rather than focussing on being actually repentant (which seems to be psychologically traumatic) we are to live each day with the verdict… I am dead and my life is hid with Christ in God. It is not that I am dying with Christ but I have died and I’m called to live in the light of that death. I also alive, raised to walk in newness of life and the good works that God has prepared beforehand for me to walk in… from another point of view these activities of the new life are works of repentance (Acts 26:20; Matt 3:8).

    What, I think I want to underline is that not all ‘works’ are ‘law works’ that is works aimed at getting right with God. They are works that flow from the new life by the Holy Spirit. A great part of their motivation is a holiness that pleases God. Like Jesus (having his moral nature) we do always the things that please the Father or should (Jn 8:29).

    All this flows off course from a gospel encounter when like Peter we have been confronted with the holiness of God and have discovered the depths of our sin. The result is a new life.

    This radical renewal

    Reply
    • Hi John,

      My impression from your reply is that you feel uncomfortable about referring to the ongoing Christian life as repentance – or if not your concern is thinking about it as only repentance. Instead you prefer New Testament language like putting off the old nature and putting on the new nature. But what are these things? They are nothing more or less than ensuring that we rely only on our true identity (putting on the new nature) and not on any other identity (putting off the old nature). That is what repentance is – trusting what God says about himself and us.

      I therefore believe that it’s always acceptable to describe the Christian life using the language of conversion. And the reverse – it is perfectly fine to think about conversion as putting off the old nature and putting on the new nature.

      In case at this point any Calvinist may be concerned – uncomfortable about thinking of conversion as putting on the new nature let me pre-empt that concern by pointing out that it is clear in the verse below that repentance comes before salvation – not the other way around:
      Acts 3:19 ESV
      Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,

      And Romans 5:2 shows that the fullness of grace follows faith instead of faith following the fullness of grace:
      ESV
      Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoiced in hope of the glory of God.

      But even if the Calvinist still holds to their view despite these verses – that salvation is the fullness of grace followed by faith and repentance – it’s still true that like the non-Calvinist they believe that conversion and sanctification operate the same way – the Calvinist believing that each is the result of an irresistible prior work of grace leading to faith.

      So whether it’s the Calvinist or the non-Calvinist the way in is the way on is the way in is the way on. And since that’s so I believe it’s fine to use language typically used for either for the other.

      Reply
        • Hi Jock,
          Yes, I am on a mission to raise the standard of analysis in respect of Calvinism/non-Calvinism. In this case however it was killing two birds with one stone – I was also anticipating anyone’s saying that putting on the new nature is in some way contradicting God’s role in salvation.

          Reply
      • Hi Philip

        I am reluctant to frame the Christian life as continuous repentance although I believe sin in our lives will call for repentance. I’m not sure I’d equate recognising that I have died to Christ and put of the old man/nature/self as an act of ongoing repentance. It is reckoning that what I once was I no longer am; this seems to me more positive.

        Repentance is not simply trusting what God says that is better described as faith. Repentance does accept God’s verdict but involves sorrow over sin. What I’m guarding against is any idea that we are to live with perpetual sorrow over sin. Reckoning ourselves dead to sin and alive to God is I think emotionally healthier and better expresses the biblical perspective.

        As for faith and repentance they are both the means of life and the product of life. If I look at justification from a conversion perspective… or from a human experience perspective then repentance and faith precede being justified . If I look at justification from a regeneration perspective… from the divine perspective then repentance and faith are gifts that result in justification. There can be nothing about my salvation which gives me grounds for boasting before God. Everything must flow from him. And so we discover in Philippians any good we are inclined towards and any good we do is a result of God working in us both to will and do for his good pleasure. Faith and repentance are ultimately gifts granted.

        Reply
        • Thanks for your reply John.

          We each believe that repentance should not become its own destination – that instead we should remain focused on what God is calling us to do – but for different reasons.

          I am saying that faith is ongoing repentance (choosing the right path at every T intersection of life and whenever the spirit reveals to us we are on the wrong path) and you are saying that the best way to ensure that repentance not interfere with our normal course is that we do it less but when we do it must involve being sorry for sin.

          I don’t believe that repentance must involve conscious sorrow for sin. If it did that would raise the question of how much sorrow was enough. Once we go down that road the period of time in which we express sorrow becomes its own life with its own need for repentance – it’s a black hole.

          I believe that Jesus says repentance is right living (preceded by no other essential) when he asks in Matthew 21:31 – in the parable of the two sons:
          ESV
          Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.”

          Repentance is turning around – but since turning around is no different to turning to at every decision point – all of the Christian life can be thought of as consistent with what we do when we repent.

          Reply
    • Let me add that I hope that’s the case because that’s how I live my Christian life! I don’t put on the new nature by reading the bible – I put it on by relying only my new identity before God. I then I read the Bible as an outworking of that choice – not as if doing so is what Christians do having repented.

      Reply
    • I should have also expressly linked your comment that the Christian life is not us continuing to die with Christ but our simply living with him with my point that repentance is simply COUNTING oneself dead – instead of our dying over and over again.

      Reply
      • Could it be suggested Philip, that you delve into teaching on union with Christ and as far as order of salvation is concerned digest *The Whole Christ* by Sinclair Ferguson. His book, Devoted to God, includes union with Christ and the points John draws out.
        As for Calvin, it seems that you are getting into distraction of category. I know next to nothing about Calvin’s writings, but I ‘ve read some secondary sources, for and against, and sometimes see what I term cartoon Calvinism, which is not much more than buying into a straw man fallacy.
        Having said that, I’m deeply persuaded by the teaching on union with Christ, as expounded by Ferguson, and others, and the teaching in The Whole Christ. None of it, that I recall mentions Calvin.

        Reply
        • Hi Geoff,

          If there is nothing about my comments concerning the order of salvation that you have any objection to would it be better for you to instead suggest that I write a book? 🙂

          Forgive my cheek – but along with not making any clear comment about my reasoning you also didn’t actually say anything specific which you believe I will learn from the book.

          Reply
          • Hello Philip,
            1 I thought your every comment was a book!
            2 In your scheme of salvation, does repentance precede faith?
            3 Union with Christ, goes beyond being “counted”. It relates both to justification and sanctification.
            4 Of course you don’t have to read any of the suggested books. They cover, in different ways and in scriptural depth the points John Thompson brings out. They may challenge and edify in turns.
            5 And to say more here
            hyjacks and may be seen as diminishing rather than enhancing Ian’s article, (which he is well used to by now.)
            6 Indeed, one point, which may be almost seen as an insignificant, *throw away* point is the one Ian makes about form criticism, I see as substantially at odds with the reading and interpretation of scripture by many in the CoE and elsewhere who may be described as revisionists and of the anti-superatural, higher, historical and liberal persuasions, from whom comment on Ian’s scripture exegesis is as rare as hen’s teeth yet is vociferous in matters of sexuality, and, sometimes, about what scripture is. But this is indeed a diversion.

          • Hello Philip,
            If you are even remotely interested, after a quick search, here is a hosted (by Ligonier, I think) series of short lectures by Ferguson based on his book “The Whole Christ”.

            https://www.christian.org.uk/resources/series/the-whole-christ/

            While the book is based on an historical controversy in Scotland, it remains highly relevant today.
            Enjoy the meals! I consider them to be far more wholesome than *curates eggs.*

            Diversion ends.

          • Hi Geoff,

            I respond to some of your numbered items below:

            1. I believe that the idea that everyone must confine their comments to a certain length is based on the presumption that since people usually say things that are only so worthwhile we should ensure that everyone is told to keep their posts to a particular length. Would anyone deny a person space to explain even here how to ensure a nuclear bomb which is about to destroy a city be prevented from doing so? It’s a question of using space to say only things that matter. And to address Ian’s article which I did at the start of this thread. To think ONLY in terms of space (note that I say only) is in my view the wrong path. Aren’t we not also hoping people won’t make even small comments which are self indulgent? When a parent is deciding how much time their kid should spend on an iPad the first factor to consider is not how much time they should be allowed on the device. It is whether there is anything worthwhile on the device (keeping in mind that even games can be works of art)? If not the child should not spend ANY time on the device. I choose to ensure that what I write is opinion accompanied by clear reasoning – ensuring that everything I write is consequential (proof of my being way off track or that I have something to say that will significantly change things). While doing this I weigh the context to decide if it is an appropriate place to say what I believe must be said.

            2. Yes I do believe that repentance comes before faith – however I believe this makes sense because I believe that repentance is itself faith (read on for an explanation of what way). I believe that the mechanics of conversion and sanctification are:

            HOLINESS > SIN > JUSTICE > REPENTANCE > MERCY > GRACE > FAITH

            But as I just said and said in prevous post repentance is also faith. It is (looking to its left in the order above) choosing to trust that God is holy and just (this made possible by prevenient grace). Whereas FAITH at the end of the order is irresistible – a gift – it is becoming irresistibly subject to mercy and grace – it is faith that God is merciful and gracious. So at the result of being saved is that the believer has faith that God is holy, just, merciful and gracious. No-one who doesn’t repent immediately after revelation of God’s holiness and justice ever gets to see/experience God’s mercy and grace. Every conversion is therefore bridge burning – it is us – immediately after revelation of God’s holiness and justice – saying to God – like the prodigal intends to say to his father – “whatever you choose to do – I choose this”. It is loving God’s holiness and justice at the cost of one’s very life.

            3. Yes union with Christ relates to sanctification and justification – the former is the very point I have been arguing here – that conversion and sanctification are theologically and mechanically the same. And justification is being declared right. If I inserted it in my order of salvation above it would come after repentance and before mercy and grace.

            4. Thank you for a link to the book.

    • Repentance then is not our changing from being the organiser of our lives to the organiser of our faith. It isn’t changing from one set of actions to a different set of actions. It’s faith – placing our reliance in the truth about God and what he says about us – instead of having faith in anything else that contradicts what God says.

      Reply
      • I find that a rather odd view of repentance. John the Baptist, whose clarion call was for repentance, illustrated what such repentance meant by giving his hearers specific examples of what to ‘do’. It was all about changing one’s actions and behaviours.

        I see no evidence that Jesus viewed repentance any differently.

        Peter

        Reply
        • PC1 – yes – that is basically how I understood repentance – if the change of heart and mind isn’t accompanied by change in what we do then there is no repentance.

          Reply
        • The question then – if John the Baptist tells people to do specific acts – is – are those acts that he lists by their very nature repentance? For example is my helping an old lady across the road a righteous act no matter what my motive is for doing it? And the answer is no. I could do it to show God that I am righteous – to prove to myself, the world and perhaps God that there is no need for Jesus’ righteousness to be imputed to me.

          I have spent time thinking about it and there are very few definitionally righteous or unrighteous acts. An example of a definitionally unrighteous act is rape. However killing somebody (noting that the Bible doesn’t say not to kill people – but not to murder them) is not an example. We may kill as part of doing right – as for example when a terrorist takes people hostage and they are taken out.

          Reply
          • I just realised there cannot be ANY definitionally righteous acts – since in the case of any act it’s possible to do it with the wrong motive.

          • Whoops – there is one! It’s repentance – our offering God our lives is declared righteous even if our motives are not right as long as we aren’t aware of our having wrong motivations – as long we are not knowingly withholding anything from God. Which leads me to say – thank goodness the Christian life is ONLY ongoing repentance! Otherwise we could never act without first having to examine our motives.

  5. Hello Philip,
    I’d submit that Prevenient grace is not based on scripture; it is rather based on an Arminian argument, ie a pre determined category or lens through which to arrange systems of theology.
    If you want pointers agains have a browse around Dr Sam Storms site.
    As for justification I ‘d suggest that a Christian’s union with Christ in his death and resurrection spiritually, metaphysically, in supernaturally reality, sublimely, surpasses a legal declaration, which has been critiqued as amounting to a legal fiction.
    Yours in Christ,
    Geoff

    Reply
    • Again Geoff you say only what you believe without saying why you believe it. Why is my view being an Arminian argument wrong? (Saying that isn’t saying anything except within the context of explaining why Arminianism is wrong). What is justification if it is more than being declared right – and where in scripture do you find proof of it being more than that?

      Reply
    • Likewise, Philip, Christians in union with Christ have his righteousness. As astonishingly put by Donald MaCleod in his book, *Christ Crucified: Understanding the Atonement*,we are in that union, as righteous as Christ! Outrageous in its free but infinitely costly of Jesus the Christ’s saving grace.
      Hence the putting off and putting on that John, above sets out. Hence renewing the mind with the washing of the word. Hence, dwelling, remaining, in Him, and He in us. John 5 + 15 +17, Ephesians 1+2. Eternal life start now, in Him.

      Reply
  6. A late question … in this passage Simon is simply called Simon, except in v8 where he is Simon Peter. Is this just English translation or does it tell us something about what is happening as he fell to his knees ?

    Reply

Leave a comment