# Luke 5:4/5 Net and Nets



## John Weathersby (Aug 18, 2009)

All,

Hello, I am interested to hear some discussion regarding Luke 5 verses 4 and 5 specificaly with regards to Jesus' command to let down the 'nets' and Peters response in letting down the Net or Nets depending upon which version you read.

I ask because I am curious to know if this text is hinting or speaking to Peters full obedience to the command to 'let down your nets' in action by letting down only the net. The NKJV state Jesus commanded let down the nets and Peter let down the net, while others such as ESV state Jesus command was nets and Peter’s response was in letting down nets.

When I review the ‘Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament’ and specifically the Luke 5:3/4 translation and the Morphology according to Robinson reads in Luke 5:4, Jesus’ command to Peter ‘Your Nets’ is Noun, Accusative, Plural, Neuter. However, in 5:5, Peters response is translated ‘net’ and Morphology is Noun, Accusative, Singular, Neuter. Looking to the ESV interlinear and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 27th, each call both instances of nets Noun Accusative Plural Neuter. Thus, removing the potential that Peter was not fully obedient to the Lords command.

Can anyone help me understand the disagreement over the plurality in the use of net/nets?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 18, 2009)

I think the issue is "straining at a gnat" (or gnats). It seems clear that someone, sometime, tried a hand (or hands) at harmonizing, or else a letter(s) was/were dropped by some copyists. But the conflict is more apparent than real.

There were two boats on the shore (v2), Peter can only be in one of them at a time. The other boat came over to help them (v7), so it would seem there was more than one net in the water before the end of the matter.

"Let down your nets" is idiomatic for "go fishing". The command, given to Peter as captain, would seem to be for all the fishers.

Peter replies (in effect) "OK, here's my line," and tosses it out.

Peter's foolish reluctance/unbelief to obey the Lord, and yet the Lord's grace to him--and Peter's believing response--these are the teachings of the passage. Not whether or not Peter was "fully" or "partially" obedient.


----------



## John Weathersby (Aug 18, 2009)

Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you for your response. My question comes in response to a sermon I heard taught on Luke 5:4/5. The person speaking stated that Jesus commanded Peter let out the nets, and that Peter responded by letting out the net. The general conclusion to this point (not the message) was that though Peter was only partially obedient and stepped out or acted only upon weak faith. 

I am curious to know if this is a fair exegetical treatment of the passage or if the conclusion is pressed into the text based upon on translations rendering. A conclusion, which was drawn and supported heavily by this particular instance, was that though we are reluctant and may not act out in full obedience and faith to the commands God extends his grace.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 18, 2009)

I understand; your explanation sounds like what I supposed from your OP.

And my final comments were meant to address that failure (as I see it) to treat the passage according to the purpose of the text. Peter's faith was weak, however I do not think that is revealed by his "net" as opposed to "netS;" his commentary presents a far more powerful indictment.

I do not think the difference between "netS" and "net" (assuming the validity of a textual difference) is germane to either the larger or lesser point. How many netS did Peter INTEND to put in the water? How many netS can one fisherman put in the water in a single instant?

The fact is that Peter could have been getting ready to put down MORE than one net, but as soon as he put a single one in, it was jam-full--requiring MORE fishers/boats/nets just to bring in that catch.

The thrust of the story does not highlight that detail/discrepancy. And reading "net" is not, actually, any indication to me that what is in view is him offering "partial" obedience. *He was obeying, rather than not*. His heart wasn't in it (unbelief revealed in what he said), but I tend to the interpretation that the Bible generally portrays "partial obedience" as basically *not* obeying, thus mitigating the blessing.


----------

