Luke 14
BolesLuke 14:1-24
- HEALING ON THE SABBATH;
A GUEST ON THE SABBATH
1 And it came to pass, when he went into the house—Jesus was probably still in Perea at this time. He had been invited into the house of “one of the rulers of the Pharisees.” Some think that this was a chief man among the Pharisees and some have even said that he was a member of the Sanhedrin; we cannot determine whether he was a man of such prominence; his house seems to have been in Perea, and Jesus was his invited guest. He was a man of distinction and probably wanted to satisfy himself concerning Jesus and what he taught. It was on the Sabbath. The Jews were accustomed to meet as families in social converse on the Sabbath and other holy days; they thought it proper and lawful to spend part of the Sabbath in quiet conversation. (See Nehemiah 8:10.) Jesus did not hesitate to accept the invitation. Others were watching Jesus to see what he would so; they were seeking an occasion to accuse him of violating the Sabbath. They observed him closely as spies, bent on finding fault, if he violated any of the customs or rules governing conduct on the Sabbath.
2, 3 And behold, there was before him a certain man—These words seem to inply that this man was there by design of those who watched Jesus; he was put there to meet Jesus; perhaps the man himself knew of their evil designs and lent himself to the occasion. He was afflicted with “dropsy.” Luke, being a physician, singles out this case and records the ealing of this man. This seems to be the only case on record where Jesus healed one with the “dropsy.” This disease seems to have been produced by an accumulation of water under the skin, in various parts of the body, often the result of a previous disease, and generally incurable.
And Jesus answering spake—Jesus spoke to the “lawyers and Pharisees.” It seems that these were the ones who had arranged this affair. If Jesus healed the man at once, they were ready to accuse him of laboring on the Sabbath; if he did not heal him, they were ready to report abroad a failure to extend mercy, or a sign of fear. It is interesting to note how Jesus spoiled their dilemma. He asked: “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?” This question of Jesus put the lawyers and Pharisees to flight. If they answered that it was lawful to heal the man, it would spoil their chance of accusation against him; but if they answered in the negative, they would be considered unmerciful, unsympathetic, and unhelpful to one in distress. They knew that certain things must be done on the day of rest; sickness and natural exigencies constantly compel men to do some work; they must do some work other than that of healing.
4 But they held their peace.—On the one hand they could not deny the benevolent act of healing the man on the Sabbath; and on the other, they were fearful of compromising themselves with him in some way, if they replied in the affirmative. Hence, they prudently kept silent; this was the cowardly way out of the dilemma that they were in. Jesus thus exposed them to all who observed. He then took the man “and healed him, and let him go.” Jesus took hold of the man and healed him; he put himself in physical contact with the man according to his usual custom. There is a striking antithesis between this heartless silence in regard to the cure of the man and the readiness with which Jesus healed him.
5, 6 And he said unto them,—Jesus had already completely routed his enemies, but he further presses them to greater embarrassment. He now forces them to break their silence by asking them a direct question. “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day?” This is similar to the argument that Jesus made in Matthew 12:11, where the argument is fully expressed, but is left here to be mentally supplied. What Matthew uses as a sheep, Luke uses an ass or an ox; but the term Matthew uses is comprehensive enough for all kinds of domestic animals. (Exodus 20:17; Isaiah 1:3.) They would immediately draw out an ass or an ox if it had fallen into a well this would require great labor and the services of several men to pull an ox or an ass out of a well. They would not let the animal remain in the well until after the Sabbath passed. The argument put in the interrogative form here is made complete by substituting Matthew 12:12 : “How much then is a man of more value than a sheep?”
7 And he spake a parable unto those that were bidden,—Jesus now gives three parable as he dined at the table of the chief Pharisee who had invited him. The first (verses 7-11) refers to the conduct of those who are invited to a feast; the second (verses 12-14) is directed against the selfishness of inviting those only who are able to give entertainments in return; the third (verses 16-24) is designed to correct false views with respect to the blessings of the Messianic kingdom. While Jesus sat or reclined at the feast “he marked” how those who were bidden selected the chief seats. The Greek word for “marked” means “gave attention,” or “observed”; it is sometimes translated “gave heed.” (Acts 3:5.) They had spied on Jesus when he went into the feast with the purpose of criticizing him; he now observes their conduct that he may help them and teach others. “The chief seats” were the best seats; they did not have seats as we have at the table, but reclined on couches. The most honorable station at an entertainment among them as well as among the Romans was the middle part of the middle couch, each couch holding three.
8, 9 When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast, —Jesus now proceeds to point out how different dispositions and traits of character are manifested by the conduct at this feasts. One when invited should come and “sit not down in the chief seat,” but should occupy a humble place and let the one who has invited arrange according to his own judgment and inclination. It shows egotism, self-conceit, and haughtiness to go into a feast and occupy the chief place without an invitation. Humility would suggest a different course.
and he that bade thee and him shall come and say—Humility and modesty should be practiced. If one enters and occupies the chief seat, another more honorable might come in and the host would have to humiliate the one who has occupied the chief place by inviting him to take a lower, or less honorable seat. It is better to be invited to a higher place than to be requested to take a lower place. “Begin with shame to take the lowest place” means that one reluctantly does so with shame. The one who is ousted from the self-selected honorable seat must be requested to take the lowest place with shame. All the higher and more inviting seats were already occupied; no seat was vacant for his use except the one furthest removed from the chief place. He was not told to take the lowest seat, but he must do this from necessity
10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place;—Jesus has given negative teaching; he has told them what not to do, and now he tells what they should do. “Sit down” literally means “lay yourself back” in a convenient lace or couch and wait until invitation is given to come up higher. Jesus does not teach hypocrisy here, neither a mock humility, which takes the lowest seat in order that the eyes of the whole company may be directed to the efforts of the master of the feast, to prevail upon the person who does this to go up higher; there is no greater evidence of pride than such an overdoing of humility.
11 For every one that exalteth himself—This is Jesus’ conclusion which he draws from the parable; its application is easily made. Jesus frequently repeated this. (Matthew 23:12.) Pride and a haughty spirit come before a fall. This principle is applicable alike in the affairs of men and in the kingdom of God; Jesus probably intended to direct their mind, not merely to abasement and exaltation among men, but also in a higher, spiritual sense in his kingdom and before God. This principle is taught throughout the Bible. (Prow. 16:18; Ezekiel 21:26.)
12 And he said to him also that had bidden him,—This second parable of chapter 14 is intended as a rebuke to those who in a selfish way invite others to a feast. Usually people invite those who will later invite them. This parable seems to be addressed to his host as the former one was addressed to his guests. It gave Jesus the occasion to give correct teaching on inviting people to a feast. It is customary to invite friends and kinspeople; but Jesus says not to invite “thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbors.” These four classes will very likely invite you because you have invited them. Jesus tells why they should not invite them— “lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.”
13 But when thou makest a feast,—Again, Jesus presents the negative teaching and then follows that with the positive teaching; he tells who should not be invited, and then tells who should be. Jesus does not mean that we should make a east for the “poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind” to mock their misery, but to extend to them the charity which they need. We need to give attention to the distressed and relieve them as far as we may be able. It is far better to give to relieve the distressed than to set a feast for those who do not need it and expect to be entertained in return. One should exert himself to feed the poor, help the maimed, heal the lame, and guide the blind rather than merely satisfy a selfish pride in entertaining those who do not need it.
14 and thou shalt be blessed;—One will not receive a reward merely for an exchange of entertainments, but will for helping the distressed in the name of Christ. The exchange of entertainments shows a selfishness that is to be condemned, but to help others, when no earthly reward may be had, is to lay up treasures in heaven. One should plan to do all the good possible to the suffering and helpless; Jesus counts all that is done to the distressed in his name as deeds done to him. (Matthew 25:31-46.) One who helps those who need help shall be blessed here and hereafter. “Recompensed in the resurrection of the just” means that one shall be rewarded at the day of judgment when the righteous shall be raised from the dead. The unselfish and charitable believer in Christ shall then receive his reward in that resurrection where will be found multitudes of the poor and distressed of earth.
15 And when one of them that sat at meat—It should be remembered that Jesus was still in the house “of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath” (14:1), and that he was an invited guest. He had spoken the two parables above mentioned and one of the fellow guests heard and said “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.” Much discussion has been had by commentators as to why this one should have so spoken; there is also a diversity of opinion as to what his words man. Some think that he eant literal bread eaten in Jerusalem at the great feast, while others think that he had reference to eating bread in the Messianic kingdom, which, he thought, was an earthly kingdom. The Jews believed that the kingdom of the Messiah would be ushered in with a magnificent festival, at which all the members of the Jewish families should be guests. Some think that this one understood Jesus’ reference to the resurrection as being the resurrection of the old kingdom of Israel. It is thought that Jesus gave the following parable to correct that false view.
Some think that this man gave utterance to a religious thought because he was in company where religious things were being discussed; however, we need not speculate as to what he meant or what prompted him to so express himself. It remains as a fact that he did say what is recorded here.
16 But he said unto him,—Jesus here gave the third parable at this time. It is called the parable of the “great supper.” This parable seems to be designed to correct the idea that it was the prerogative of the whole Jewish nation to be partakers of the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, irrespective of a change in life or character. Jesus was still at the feast and the figure of a supper is continued in order to teach a fundamental truth. Jesus did not contradict others by opposing assertions, yet his teachings were obviously opposed to false teaching. One of the guests had just spoken about eating bread “in the kingdom of God,” as if all Jews were to do this by right of their Jewish birth; Jesus takes the words from him to lift his mind to a better kingdom, into which he was invited.
17 and he sent forth his servant at supper time—This servant was to announce to the invited guests that all things were ready. This parable implies that the man who made the supper belonged to the wealthy and to the nobility of the Jews. This was the second and final summons, the invitations having been previously given. (Compare Esther 5:8; Esther 6:14.) This servant was to announce to those invited that the supper was now in a state of readiness, and that they should at once come to enjoy it.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse.— “Consent” is not in the original; some think that it would be better to supply “mind,” “spirit,” or “accord.” There was the same temper of mind manifested in the various excuses which these persons, made; they all exhibited an utter contempt for the honor done them, and showed their preference to things of comparatively trivial importance. They had not come together and formulated unanimous excuses, but their excuses were all of the same nature, and revealed the same disposition of heart and attitude of mind.
The first said unto him,—This represents the man of landed estate who pleads necessity. He said: “I have bought a field” and that he must needs go out and see it. Land was very valuable; this man must go from home and look after the real estate that he had purchased; this would be regarded as one of the most valid and reasonable excuses for not attending the feast. It was the best excuse that he could give; and if any excuse would be accepted this would come in that class. He would have to go out from the city in order to complete the trade, and would be away from home at the time of the feast. He courteously asked to be excused, thinking that he had a good reason for rejecting the invitation.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen,—This was a man of business and he pleaded a bargain which he had made. “Yoke” means two or more animals yoked together; he has purchased “five yoke of oxen” and had to go and “prove them.” The spirit of this excuse is the same as the former; the language seems to be less polished, as it is that of a rustic. “To prove” them is to try them by putting them to the plow; he wished to test their strength, endurance, and ability. It is evident that he could have deferred this until fter the supper; his excuse seems to represent men in the excitement of business, and he did not have the time to attend the supper. He politely asked to be excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife,—This man did not plead any business engagements, but offered domestic enjoyment and pleasure. “I have married” puts this in the past tense; it refers to an act gone by in contrast to a present action. Here we have the force of temptations which lie in the field of difficulty of reconciling conflicting duties. Attendance on the feast did not entail the violation of any duty arising out of his new relation, but simply the holding it of inferior importance on a given occasion. A newly married man has special favors granted him. (Deuteronomy 24:5; 1 Corinthians 7:33.) He bluntly stated that he could not attend the feast.
21 And the servant came, and told his lord these things.— The three classes of excuses are drawn from the different phases of life; they are not “flimsy” excuses, ridiculous excuses, as some have sought to make them; they were the most important excuses that could be given. They are taken from the honorable stations of life in business and social intercourse. Yet, it was considered an insult to refuse to accept the invitation. These reasons assigned could be put aside; they could have been attended to at another time; those making them could have attended the supper, and later attended to the business and social affairs.
Go out quickly into the streets—No time was to be lost , the supper was ready, provisions abundant and should not be wasted; every place at the table must be filled without delay. He was to go into “the streets and lanes of the city.” The servant would go first into the city. The better class of people will be passing to and fro in the streets or broad ways, and the poor would naturally be found in the “lanes of the city” or narrow streets and alleys. It is evident that both rich and poor are included in the terms and conditions of this invitation. The rich will be passing to and fro in the broad streets and the poor would be in the lanes and alleys. Instead of a select company of invited guests, a promiscuous company was now to be invited; however, the prominence is given to the poorer class in the words “the poor and maimed and blind and lame.” This is the same class as mentioned in verse 13. “Bring in hither” does not mean that he was to compel, but rather the invitation was urgent.
22-24 And the servant said,—The servant obeyed. He was commanded to “go out” quickly, and he did this. It seems that after his urgent invitation not enough guests were found to occupy all of the places at the table; there was yet room for others. This shows that there was provided sufficient food for a great many; hence it is called the “parable of the great supper”; a very large hall was made ready for this banquet. The servant was then commanded to “go out into the highways and hedges” and “constrain” others to come in. “Highways” meant public roads which led into the city, and “hedges” meant the narrow hedge paths, the vineyards and gardens. “Hedges” may mean either a “hedge” or a “place inclosed with a hedge.” The vagrants usually rested along the hedge.
For I say unto you,—None who had despised his offer and had rejected the invitation should enjoy this feast. They had showed themselves unworthy of the honor and blessings which had been offered them; hence they were not to receive or enjoy that which had been prepared for them. Various interpretations and applications have been made of this parable. It is obvious and undeniable that not a man of all those first invited should partake of this supper; the master of the house had fully determined that somebody should enjoy it, but not one of those who had spurned his invitation should have access to it. Jesus had offered the blessings of the gospel to the Jews; they had refused his invitation; they had offered various excuses, and had rejected him. The Gentiles and others more worthy of the blessings of God should receive the blessings first extended to the Jews.
Luke 14:25-35
- THE COST
25 Now there went with him great multitudes:—Be it remembered that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem; he had paused in the house of the Pharisee and had remained there at the feast and had spoken the three parables discussed above. It seems that he is now proceeding toward Jerusalem and a great multitude is following him. The Jews traveled in companies to Jerusalem to attend the feast. (Luke 2:44.) This discourse is recorded only by Luke; there are similar declarations in Matthew 10:37-38; Mark 9:50. This is another proof that Jesus repeated many of his sayings and interwove them into different connections and discourses. As Jesus proceeded on the way the multitude that followed him increased; however, it is not necessary to infer that the crowds followed him all the way to Jericho and thence to Jerusalem.
26 If any man cometh unto me,—Jesus here shows the cost of being his disciple; the great multitude that enthusiastically followed him at this time thought that the would establish an earthly kingdom, and that they would receive all of its blessings without an change of life. They are to know that they cannot follow Jesus without taking up their own cross, without bearing burdens and suffering persecution: One must hate “his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life” in order to be a disciple of Jesus. “Hateth” does not mean that one must do them evil or hold malice against them; Jesus taught otherwise. (John 19:25-27.) “Hate not” frequently means to love less. (Genesis 29:31; Deuteronomy 13:6; Deuteronomy 33:9.) Matthew records Jesus as saying: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37.) This shows that “hate"is to be taken in a comparative sense. “To hate” stands for “to love less”; when a choice between relatives or one’s own life and Christ is before us, we must choose to follow Christ; in doing this, we are hating our relatives and loving Christ more.
27 Whosoever doth not bear his own cross,—We are to see here that everything is to be given up for Christ; we must not let anything come between us and Christ. To choose between relatives and Christ is a cross that many must bear; to choose between one’s own life and Christ is a burden placed upon us. Jesus tells whose cross one must bear; it is “his own cross”; all must bear a cross, but not all the same cross; each one must “bear his own cross.” One cannot be a disciples of Christ without taking this cross and following Jesus.
28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower,—Jesus had just taught the conditions of discipleship—one must take up his cross and follow Jesus; he now teaches the cost of discipleship. This is illustrated by a man building, or proposing to build a tower. Before doing this a wise, prudent man will “first sit down and count the cost.” The word “tower” may designate a military tower, or one to command a view of the surrounding country, or a watchtower of a mansion, combining adornment with utility. We are not able to determine the kind of tower, for it does not matter; the point is just the same. “First sit down” shows deliberate calculation, it excludes haste and requires ample time and trouble to learn the approximate cost before proceeding. A prudent man will count the cost of building the tower and evaluate all resources and determine whether he has sufficient funds to complete the work.
29, 30 Lest haply, when he hath laid a foundation,—If one does not take sufficient time to estimate his resources as well as the cost of building, one may start the building and be unable to complete it. If he can build only the foundation or any part of it, but unable to complete the building, the unfinished building will stand as a monument to his folly and lack of good judgment and deliberation in the affair. Those who look upon the unfinished building will “begin to mock him.” They will deride and scoff because he had so little judgment to begin that which he could not complete. They will say, “This man began to build, and was not able to finish.” The imprudent tower builder will be put to shame before his fellows because of his foolish attempt at that which he was unable to do. The enemies of Jesus scoffed at him while he was on the cross. (Matthew 27:40-42.) The folly of this man is also seen in the waste of money in laying a foundation upon which he could not complete the building.
31 Or what king, as he goeth to encounter another king— The same thought is illustrated more vividly in two kings planning to engage in battle. No king will plan a military campaign without estimating the forces on both sides. He will estimate the number of soldiers that he can command; then he will seek to estimate as far as possible the number of men that he will have to meet; he will seek to find out the strength and weakness of the opposing king. Any other course would be foolish and rash. Like the man planning to build a tower, the king will “sit down first and take counsel” as to whether he will be able to meet his opponent. Again, the term “sit down” means to take deliberate counsel as to the wisdom of taking ten thousand men and arraying them against an opposing king with twenty thousand.
It would be very unwise for any king with only ten thousand soldiers to go against one who has twenty thousand; it would be rash folly to do so. Wisdom and prudence would suggest that he not rush blindly against such odds.
32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off,—Good judgment and keen foresight would suggest that he seek some compromise before the enemy engages in battle; it would be too late then. He would not wait until the opposing forces were at his gate, but would make overtures before his enemy discovered his weakness; he would get better terms if he would act before the battle is really joined. While the enemy is afar off, he may meet with his ambassadors on an equal footing with the one who has double his strength.
33 So therefore whosoever he be of you—Here Jesus draws his own conclusion and makes his own application. The one who does not renounce all cannot be a disciple of Jesus. One must “renounce” all; here the principle in the two parables of the rash builder and of the rash king is applied; the minor details do not matter; the spirit of self-sacrifice is the point. One should neither make a false start nor a hopeless stand, but give up all at once for Christ, and give his life to him. The cost is great; one must give his influence, his money, his energy, his life, his all, if he would be a disciple of Jesus.
34, 35 Salt therefore is good:—These two verses seem to have been thrown in without any close connection with what precedes them. Some think that they are intended to emphasize that the disciple of Jesus must keep active in his service. He had already compared them to salt. (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50.) Jesus shows the uselessness of a false profession and intimates the end of false professors; in this light these two verses further emphasize what he has just taught. Salt is good in its place and for that which it was intended. Salt may lose its savor; it may lose its saltness; it may become insipid and tasteless. There is a true similitude existing between the faithful disciples of Jesus and the properties of salt; hence, Jesus frequently used this likeness to enforce and illustrate the great and important truths that he had just announced.
It is fit neither for the land—When salt has lost its saltness, it has lost its true nature; when it has lost its nature, it cannot function as salt and is unfit for that which people use salt. It is good for nothing and is cast away. Salt that has lost its savor does not make good fertilizer; rather it destroys the fertility of the soil and kills vegetation. There is no place about the house, yard, or garden where it can be used; no one will allow it to be thrown into his field, and the only place for it is in the street, and there it is cast to be trodden under foot of men. “Dunghill” is used here for “manure”; this is its only use in the New Testament; it is used a few times in the Old Testament. Jesus used strong terms to emphasize the worthlessness of a mere professor in his discipleship. He concluded with an oft-repeated saying: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15; Matthew 13:43; Luke 8:8.)