Luke 14

CHAPTER XIV

Luke 14:1

1 And it came to pass when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a Sabbath to eat bread, they kept watching him closely.

For καὶἐγένετοκαί see 5:12; the second καί follows farther down in the sentence. For ἐντῷ with the infinitive see 1:8 and 3:21. Jesus is proceeding slowly through Perea (v. 22). Comparing the present narrative with that of the other visit to a Pharisee’s house recorded in 11:37–52, we see that the two differ greatly. The Pharisaic hostility manifested in the present case is far less intense than that which was evidenced in the previous one. “The rulers of the Pharisees” occurs only here and means Pharisaic rulers of the synagogue. How this ruler came to invite Jesus, i. e., with what motives, is not indicated.

The narrative makes the impression that, despite the Pharisaic hostility, perhaps even because of it, these men sought contact with Jesus, most likely to fan their hostility, at any rate to observe him more closely by getting him into their own midst. Jesus accepted the invitation. He had come to save also these men and, when he was in their midst was ready to show them their grave faults.

We need no article in εἰςοἶκον since the genitive makes “house” definite. See 5:17 on Pharisees. “To eat bread” means to dine, and the story shows that this was a grand meal to which also many other Pharisees and rabbis were invited. We hear nothing about the Twelve and judge that, as was the case in 11:37, etc., they were not included. This seems to have been a δεῖπνον, the main meal toward the end of the day, a dinner in our language. The Pharisees and the Jews in general made the Sabbath a day of feasting and often went to excess although no excess is reported in this instance. Παρά in the periphrastic imperfect brings out the idea that all those present watched Jesus “on the side,” not enviously (R. 613), but in a covert way, and the imperfect implies constant watching.

Luke 14:2

2 And lo, a man with dropsy was there before him!

Τίς is only our indefinite article. Luke does not say that this man was placed there in order to tempt Jesus and to find out whether he would heal on the Sabbath; hence we decline to assume, as some do, that his presence was arranged in advance. Trench draws attention to the fact that feasts such as the present one were semipublic. Outsiders could enter, stand, or sit, and watch what was going on. So the woman mentioned in 7:37 came in after the dinner was in progress, and this man apparently before it started, for Jesus presently found him right before him. Did the man have the desire and the hope that Jesus would heal him, Sabbath though it was?

Or did he come in only as others did because a great person was being entertained? The point is immaterial for the narrative, and no certain deduction can be made because we have no answer to these questions.

Luke 14:3

3 And answering Jesus said (1:19) to the lawyers (10:25) and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not? But they were quiet. And having taken hold, he healed him and released him.

“Answering” is used in a broad sense when a situation, for instance, requires a statement. Jesus does not wait until the real point of the case is brought forward by these Pharisees but at once states it himself. He had come to help these men by freeing them from their false ideas; this was his contribution to the feast, and so he starts at once. The one article combines “lawyers and Pharisees” into one class, for Jesus addresses them as one group; in other connections they may be viewed as two groups, each will then have its own article. Not all lawyers were Pharisees, and many Pharisees were, of course, not lawyers. The question is simplicity itself, and men like these ought evidently to be able to answer it at once.

Surely, they knew whether it was in harmony with the law or in conflict with it to heal (aorist: actually heal) on the Sabbath. “But they were quiet,” which is stronger than just silent. Strange, indeed; no one spoke up, no one came forward to do so, there is no whispering even among themselves—all are motionless, their eyes are fixed on Jesus. The situation became dramatic as the Lord looked around and waited for a reply, waited until it was clear that he would get none.

Luke 14:4

4 So Jesus makes the reply himself—forthwith and before the eyes of all he heals the man. Deeds speak louder than words. This is the most decisive answer of Jesus himself: “Indeed, it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath!” The participle is not redundant but says that Jesus took hold of the man and healed him in this manner. He could have avoided that act and could have uttered only a word, but he added the act—in the case of some other Sabbath healings he did not do so—to show that the Sabbath law did not forbid even that. He sent the healed man away, who might otherwise have remained. The man was to be removed from this company to a place where he could be undisturbed and think of the miraculous blessing God had bestowed upon him through Jesus.

The miracle is reported with the utmost brevity because it is told, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the explanations which Jesus made regarding the Sabbath. So it is beside the mark to ask about this man’s faith as a requisite for being healed. Faith or no faith, he was healed; and the miracles justify no deduction that faith was invariably a prerequisite to healing.

Luke 14:5

5 And he said to them, Of which of you shall a son or an ox fall into a well, and he will not draw him out at once on the day of the Sabbath? And they had no strength to reply to these things.

The R. V. decided in favor of the reading “an ass or an ox,” which would make the argument exactly the same as that employed in 13:15, from the less to the greater: if one rescues an animal on the Sabbath, much more should he deliver a human being. But the better reading seems to be “a son or an ox”—the other readings may be disregarded—and this would offer a different argument, one that is based on the divine law that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves: what we would do for our own, even for our own beast, we should do for others likewise. The φρέαρ is the shaft of the well. When one was watering cattle, an unruly ox might fall into such a shaft; yet, Sabbath though it be, what man would not at once go to the rescue, and do that without regarding it as a transgression of the Sabbath law? Jesus implies that such a deed, whatever strenuous work it required, would be perfectly lawful. Shall the same love, which requires no labor at all, be denied a fellow man?

Luke 14:6

6 To this justification of his healing act the learned nomikoi and the other legalists not only made no reply, they had not the strength, the ability, and the courage, to attempt one. Since Luke reports no more in regard to the attitude of these men, this was probably all there was to report. Whatever they thought, the dinner proceeded.

Luke 14:7

7 Moreover, he went on to say a parable to those that had been invited, noting how they were choosing for themselves the chief reclining places, saying to them, etc.

Ἔλεγε merely describes, see 3:7; also v. 12. The perfect κεκλημένους, “having been invited,” implies that they were now present as such invited guests; and with ἐπέχων we supply νοῦν, “holding the mind on something,” “noting.” The vice of securing the prominent places at table and elsewhere was so general among the Pharisees that Jesus scored it more than once (20:46; Matt. 23:6; Mark 12:39).

The chief reclining places at table were those on the left end of each couch (not those in the center as some suppose), for the person reclining there had the fullest view of the table and the guests while those toward the right end had to bend back in order to see. There were at least three persons to a couch. When there was a number of couches, even when they were larger, the number of chief places would be increased. In the present instance the guests must have crowded and scrambled in a very unseemly way to pre-empt these coveted places. Jesus, we take it, waited to take whatever place was left or whatever place the host assigned to him.

He then spoke what Luke calls “a parable.” It would, however, not be a parable if it ended with v. 10, save for εἰςγάμους (regarding which there is dispute), for the whole would then be a direct admonition to the guests regarding their table manners. It is v. 11, which announces a divine principle, that makes the preceding illustration an actual parable; compare Matt. 22:1–14 where v. 14 brings in the point that is illustrated.

Luke 14:8

8 Whenever thou art invited by anyone to a wedding, do not recline in the chief reclining place lest one more honored than thou have been invited by him, and he who invited thee and him, having come, shall say to thee, Give this man place! and then thou wilt begin with shame to hold the last place. But when thou art invited, having gone, drop into the last place in order that, when he that has invited thee comes, he shall say to thee, Friend, go on up higher! Then there will be honor for thee before all those reclining together with thee.

We see no reason for having γάμοι (the plural is used in the same sense as the singular) mean “feast” instead of “wedding,” for this is a parable and not a description of the present dinner. The same question was raised in 12:36. The reason for “wedding” is not, however, that at a wedding the places at table were allotted according to ranking, for a guest who himself took the lowest place without waiting to be directed to the place that was intended for him would then be acting disorderly. No; if “wedding” is chosen for any special reason it would be because many guests would be invited to such a function, and thus the chief places would be multiplied, and the difference between the highest and the lowest place would be the greater.

Among the high places one would, of course, be the highest of all, namely for the guests. Since this is a wedding, it would be the upper place on the couch that was nearest to the groom, and thus the lowest place would be the minor one on the couch that was farthest away. Since this is a parable, the illustration presents the extreme by mentioning the highest place of all and opposite to that the selection of the lowest one. When a vice is illustrated, its fullest development must be covered, and that automatically includes its minor manifestations. So murder includes anger in Matt. 5:21, etc., adultery includes lustful looks in Matt. 5:27, etc. Here the choosing as high as possible a place at table is covered by referring to the choice of the highest place.

Luke 14:9

9 Jesus describes what may happen and states it mildly for what will most likely happen. After μήποτε we have the subjunctive (the periphrastic perfect) in v. 9 and then the future indicative ἐρεῖ, a frequent construction in the Koine, R. 988. In the same way we have ἵναἐρεῖ in v. 10. Ordered out of the highest place, the presumptuous guest will have to take what is left, namely the lowest place, everybody else having found his place before this fellow’s case is settled. He certainly also deserves his “shame.”

Luke 14:10

10 So the parable bids us do the opposite: “drop back into the last or lowest place,” “drop back” is a variant for “recline” occurring in v. 8. As μήποτε introduces negative purpose, so ἵνα states a positive purpose; in fact, we have two opposites throughout, even to the words with which the host ousts the one and elevates the other guest. In this parable Jesus steps down to the level of these Pharisees by showing that, if they wanted honors at table, the way to get them was not to run for the highest place and risk being ordered to the lowest but quietly to take the lowest place in order to be conducted to the higher one. Let it be understood that the motive implied in both “lest” and “in order that” is the selfish, base one exhibited by these Pharisees and not the motive Jesus would inculcate for us at table or in our lives in general. He is making a parable out of what he sees the Pharisees doing right before him and, not without stinging irony, telling them that they ought to go about it in just about the opposite way if they intend to be greedy of empty honor; for by doing it in their way they always run the risk of getting “shame” whereas the opposite way would be almost sure to get them δόξα, “honor” or distinction—provided, of course, they are the distinguished persons they think they are.

Luke 14:11

11 All this would be little more than a sarcastic dig at the Pharisees at table with Jesus if he had not added: Because everyone exalting his own self shall be humbled, and the one humbling his own self shall be exalted. Compare the same dictum in 18:14 and in Matt. 23:12, and similar statements in Ps. 18:27; Prov. 29:23; James 4:6.

We now see that all that precedes is a parable, and this is the great truth it is to convey. These future passives have God as their agent. This business of putting oneself up high by rudely crowding oneself Into the foremost place or getting a higher place by hypocritically dropping into the very lowest one is not just a matter regarding men, whether it succeeds in the one or the other way, but one that God takes note of. Before him all such selfish pride and arrogance, whether they are open as in the case of the rude fellow or sneaking as in the case of the hypocritical fellow, are an abomination which he will most certainly punish, perhaps already in this world, but surely in the next. With God only genuine humility counts, which neither pushes itself forward nor cunningly schemes to get itself pushed forward; and this God invariably rewards, perhaps already in this world, but surely in the next.

It was this worldly pride of the Jews, this unspiritual holiness superiority of the Pharisees especially, that made them despise a Messiah who was as humble as Jesus was. In spite of all the humiliation the Jews have suffered they to this day deem themselves the cream of the human race and attempt to come before God in this pride. And they have hosts of others who are as presumptuous and as arrogant as they are, especially over against the gospel and its way of salvation through repentance. That way may be good enough for the common herd (John 7:48, 49), it is not good enough for them. But he that exalts himself shall be humbled, and only he who humbles himself shall be exalted. And the parable shows that even men copy God in their blind way, and this may help us to see what he will do in a far more perfect way.

Does not a host ask a guest who crowds into the highest seat to step down and bid him who acts humble and takes the lowest place to step up higher? Is not the one covered with shame before the company while the other is graced with honor?

Luke 14:12

12 Moreover, he went on to say also to him who had invited him: Whenever thou makest a morning meal or an evening meal, do not keep calling thy friends or thy brothers or thy relatives or rich neighbors lest they, too, invite thee again, and there be a due return for thee; but when thou makest a banquet, be inviting poor people, maimed, lame, blind; and blessed shalt thou be because they have not in order to make due return to thee; for due return shall be made to thee in the resurrection of the righteous.

Jesus first served the guests, now he serves also the host. The perfect τῷκεκληκότι parallels the perfect τοὺςκεκλημένους occurring in v. 7: “he has invited,” they have been invited. With the exception of Jesus, who was probably invited as an afterthought, this was evidently one of the dinners that were exchanged by the prominent company present, it being the present ruler’s (v. 1) turn. It is on this point that Jesus speaks. The ἄριστον was eaten near noon (see 11:37) and the δεῖπνον toward evening. The present tense of the imperative is important: μὴφώνει, as is also the same tense in κάλει (v. 13): “do not make a practice of calling only thy friends”—“but make a practice of inviting poor people.” Jesus by no means forbids our inviting those who will in turn invite us; nor does he demand that we invite only such as cannot invite us again. What he does is to forbid us always to invite the former and to forget all about the latter.

Note the four classes that he mentions, over against which he places four other classes. Again note that the article and the possessive “thy” are used with the three classes but are not used with the fourth, not “the rich neighbors of thine” but “neighbors (such as are) rich,” not other neighbors, for they can offer no return invitation. The point is that if I invite those who will invite me again, this amounts to nothing. I have my due return (ἀντί, in return; ἀπό, due, especially when it is added to a form from δίδωμι). To this day men feast each other and spare no expense; but for charity and sacred needs—not one cent or a mere pittance.

Luke 14:13

13 Do the opposite, Jesus says. We help the poor and needy, however, not by gathering them around our rich dinner table once in a while and then imagining that this beatitude will apply to us. False literalism has led to many sad misinterpretations and mistakes. Jesus wants genuine love and proper care for the needy, which are true fruits of faith. His pointed words are illustrative of this meaning and are thus pertinent, indeed. The δοχή is any feast.

Luke 14:14

14 “Blessed” = in the divine and thus true sense; “because they have not in order to make due return to thee.” That is one of the tests of true charity. The idea is not that due return shall be made. God himself will attend to that through Christ, and how he will do this is related at length in Matt. 25:24–40. Hence we have the addition “in the resurrection of the righteous.” Only the Sadducees denied the resurrection (Acts 23:6–9; 24:15). Only “the righteous” are mentioned simply because the resurrection of the unrighteous has nothing to do with what Jesus is saying. Δίκαιος is always used in the forensic sense: he who has God’s verdict in his favor; he whom God pronounces free from guilt at his judgment bar—as the Scriptures teach in extenso: by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith. We thus see that the love and the good works which Jesus asks are the fruits of faith and are produced by the righteous alone.

Luke 14:15

15 Now, on hearing these things one of those reclining together at table said to him, Blessed he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!

This exclamation on the part of one of the guests, who must have been a Pharisee and, perhaps, also a lawyer, comes as a surprise; but it helps to show that “these things” which Jesus was saying were not enraging the Pharisee, that some of those present were deeply impressed, and that Jesus therefore adds further instruction. What the man says is certainly true. He thought of it as the eating of bread, i. e., of dining with the saints in heaven, therefore Jesus speaks a new parable of the Great Supper which God makes for us here on earth, of which we must partake in order to dine with the saints in heaven and thus to be forever blessed.

This response on the part of Jesus shows that it is wrong to call this Pharisee’s exclamation a mere Jewish platitude which anybody could utter. Jesus treated it as a serious word that was seriously meant. It is correct to say that the last statement of Jesus (v. 14) caused the exclamation, the reference to the exaltation and due return in the resurrection of the righteous. But it is sinning against the Eighth Commandment to call the man’s utterance a piece of ignorance or hypocrisy, to add that the man may have meant that dining in heaven was a prerogative of the Pharisees, and may have complacently assumed that he was to be one of the blest. In exegesis, too, it is a sin to put anything but the best construction upon the utterances of men. This man’s words sound like a longing for the heavenly feast—let us understand them so. Then the parable fits admirably: Jesus shows this man and the company at table with him how to become truly righteous, and how thus to come to the heavenly banquet.

Luke 14:16

16 And he said to him: A man was making a great dinner, and he invited many. And he commissioned his slave at the hour of the dinner to tell those that had been invited, Be coming because things are already prepared!

“To him,” yet in the hearing of all. Like the two preceding parabolic presentations (v. 7–11; 12–14), this, too, refers to a dinner. “A man,” has τίς like our indefinite article. The parable itself shows who he is, and he grows ever greater as the parable unfolds, for he is none other than God. We should note the imperfect ἐποίει, “he was engaged in making a great dinner,” and this is not inchoative: “he was on the point of making” (R., W. P.). This imperfect tense covers the entire Old Testament preparation which culminated in Christ, his death and his resurrection, when “things are already prepared.” Yet we should abide by what the parable pictures and not insert what is left out, namely the provisions made for salvation in the old covenant. Abraham, etc., (13:28) dined at the heavenly table and thus partook of the gospel feast during his earthly life; but the parable restricts itself to the time of Jesus and the ages that followed and refers to the old covenant only as the preparation for the gospel feast which was finally ready in Christ.

This is likened to a δεῖπνον (compare v. 12), but only because it designated the main meal of the day, and the old idea that it was eaten in the evening and thus pictures the end of time must be dropped. Already the fact that this deipnon was “great” casts its light on the “man” who was making it; his own greatness is revealed more and more fully. He naturally invited “many”; who they were appears presently already in the aorist ἐκάλεσε, “he did invite.” This, too, reaches back into the past, and the Greek is content to state only that the invitation was extended some time in the past whereas the English would place this verb in relation to ἐποίει and thus use the past perfect “he had invited many.”

The parable is thus seen to be historical, the “many” who were invited thus early were the Jews. They had this invitation in the old covenant and in the Old Testament; we might say that God sent them a written invitation. But we should here again abide by the parable which has in mind the Jews who were then living and their treatment of the invitation and does not intend to cover the previous generations of the Jews. While it is thus plainly historical, the parable is at the same time prophetic and reaches out to all future generations, whether of Jews or Gentiles. This appears in what follows.

Luke 14:17

17 When the proper time came, the summons to the dinner went out. This is not a second invitation even as καλεῖν, “to invite,” is not used. In the invitation that had been extended in the past the date of the banquet was not announced, that announcement was now finally made. This procedure is said to be an ancient custom and as such lends itself perfectly to the parable. Some challenge this alleged custom; yet, whether it can be properly verified or not, the parable is built in this fashion. And that means that we should discard the idea that the many had to be urged by a renewal of the invitation, i. e., that they treated already the original invitation with contempt.

This spoils the picture; for one thing, it lowers the great Giver of this feast who would not add a second invitation to the one that had already been despised. Moreover, “he invited” in v. 16 and “to tell those that have been invited” (we should say “had been”) are single acts in the parable and in the reality pictured constitute the invitation issued during the entire Old Testament, which was followed by the summons issued during the ministry of Jesus.

“The hour of the dinner” was about to begin with the redemption on the part of Jesus. It is important to note this, for the dinner of which Jesus is speaking takes place in the kingdom of grace whereas the eating of bread in the kingdom referred to in v. 15 is the feast in the kingdom of glory. It is all one kingdom, but its grace and its glory should not be confused; see 4:43. “Be coming because things are already prepared!” is the parable’s language for the call of the gospel of Christ. In ἕτοιμα, “things prepared,” we have the completed redemption.

Various opinions have been held regarding the δοῦλος, “slave,” who appears repeatedly in this parable. Does he represent the prophets or the Baptist or the evangelists and apostles or, as Theophylact thought, Jesus, the great Ebed Yahweh of Isaiah, Jehovah’s Servant who “took the form of a servant”? Only the latter satisfies, and does that in every respect. This “slave” was right here summoning the Pharisees to the great dinner. There is some hesitation to adopt this interpretation because of the use of the term “slave,” but Phil. 2:7 ought to satisfy on that point, where “slave” is used in nonfigurative language with reference to Jesus.

Luke 14:18

18 And they began with one voice all to make excuse. The first said to him: I bought a field, and I am compelled, after going out, to see it. I request thee, consider me excused. And another said: I bought five yoke of oxen and am on my way to test them out. I request thee, consider me excused. And another said, I have married a wife, and because of this I cannot come.

So many declined in the reality that is here pictured that the parable may well say, “They all began to make excuse,” and that “all” is true with regard to the Jews to this day, and too many among the Gentiles followed the example of the Jews. What a strange unanimity! Ἀπὸμιᾶς occurs only here and calls for some feminine noun like γνώμης (“with one consent”), hardly ψυχῆς (“with one soul”), we prefer φωνῆς (“with one voice”), meaning that they all talked alike and, of course, not that they sang out in unison. Παραιτεῖσθαι and its two perfect participles that follow has several meanings, here it means “to beg off,” “to ask to be excused.”

The parable offers three excuses as samples, and let it be understood that these are the best that were offered and are still the best that are offered today, all the many others being worse as are those recorded in the other parable, Matt. 22:6. By stressing the mildest all the rest stand condemned. All the excuses are empty, have to be, for no reason exists why a man should not save his soul by means of God’s gospel of redemption but only a multiplied and tremendous reason why he should. All three present something that is perfectly legitimate in itself but use this in a fearfully illegitimate way for declining the means of salvation and thus salvation itself. All are dishonest, for they that make these excuses know that they are pretending. All merely veil the real reason the invitation is now turned down, the wicked will which says: “I will not—reason or no reason!” (13:34: “you did not will,” see the comment).

The first pleads necessity, he is compelled to go out to see his newly bought field. It is impossible for him to put this off. He simply cannot come. Who has not heard this type of declination repeated again and again? But this man and the next are polite: “I request thee,” etc. The use of ἔχε is a Latinism, the verb being used in the sense of aestimo, “consider me as having been excused,” the slave is to do that for his master. R. 109, 1122.

Luke 14:19

19 The plea of the second is that he cannot well come. Πορεύομαι, he is already starting to test out the five yoke of oxen he had just bought; he is now on his way and cannot well change his plans as the slave should, of course, be able himself to see. This is typical of thousands. They cannot arrange to save their souls at present!

Luke 14:20

20 The third drops the politeness and is blunt. This man has married a wife (ἔγημα, perfect tense) and is thus in the married state, hence he will not come—it is utterly impossible: οὐδύναμαι, “it is impossible for me to come”; and that is why he does not even ask to be excused—one does not ask to be excused for an impossible situation. Yet, though the first could not take his field or farm with him, nor the second his five yoke of oxen, this third could and should have taken his wife along. The excuses become thinner until the last even drops the show of an excuse, and any others would, of course, voice open objections to the gospel, Christ, the church, the church members, etc. The third is after the pleasures offered in his new marriage, and how many have forsaken the gospel for the pleasures of this life?

Other distinctions between the three have been sought, but they seem to be either only variations of the one indicated or mere refinements that are of little or no service. Some of the ancients allegorized: 1) priests, the ecclesiastical state, husbandmen who sow the seed of the Word; 2) rulers, the governmental state, those who drive oxen; 3) the domestic state. Or 1) pagans (pagani); 2) Israelites (5 yoke=10 oxen=the Ten Commandments); 3) heretics.

Luke 14:21

21 And having returned, the slave reported these things to his lord. Then having become angry, the housemaster said to his slave, Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the city and the poor and crippled and blind and lame bring in here! And the slave said, Lord, it has been done what thou didst order, and still there is room. And the lord said to the slave, Go out into the roads and hedges and compel to come in in order that my house may be filled.

In the parable it is always the same single slave, and the whole work of filling the banquet hall is his alone, and he works in closest conjunction with his lord. This certainly fits Jesus and his Father. This is different in Prov. 9:3 and in Matt. 22:3, 8. The house-lord’s anger pictures the wrath of God against all who despise him and his salvation, and all attempts to erase this from the Scriptures are in vain. See 13:26 on πλατεῖαι; these were the wide streets, the opposite of the narrow alleys (a city has no “lanes”). The naming of the two together makes it plain that the entire city was to be scoured for guests, and the greatness of both the feast and of its giver now begin to loom up.

Any and all are to be brought in. There will, of course, be left only the four classes mentioned already in v. 13, which are now grouped under one article as a single immense class.

All these have nothing whereas the others have wealth, one to buy a field, the other to buy so many oxen, the third to support a wife. This new class is composed entirely of beggars. The descriptions refer to spiritual states—any other interpretation is untenable. The transient values of the earth satisfy so many (12:16, etc.), but they who have learned to despair of them may be won for the eternal values. These are “the poor, crippled,” etc. But note, they are “in the streets and alleys of the city,” still in the city (Israel) but practically homeless there. By these Jesus pictures the publicans, sinners, harlots (Matt. 21:31, 32) and many others who were little esteemed by the haughty Sadducees, lawyers, scribes, and Pharisees who were taken up entirely with their wealth of false religious ideas and practices.

Luke 14:22

22 The parable does not need to say that these homeless and destitute and injured ones were brought in; “there is still room” implies that. The idea is never that, if those who were first summoned had come, the banquet would have been filled, and there would have been no room for others. All the others would also have been brought in. The parable is, however, not hypothetical, it sticks to the historical facts and aims to picture only these. Theoretically all the Jews should have come at Jesus’ call, but the mass of leaders were the very ones who refused; this is illustrated and no more. So it is unwarranted to speak of two calls for the Jews and of a third for the Gentiles. Yes, “there is still room”—God made the banquet of gospel grace so great that there was ample room for even the Gentiles, and these together with not a few Jews are still being called.

Luke 14:23

23 It is the same δοῦλος who is now ordered to go outside the city (Israel) “into the roads and hedges or hedgerows,” where wanderers and homeless wayfarers stray (like gypsies, Trench). Paul characterizes them: “being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world,” Eph. 2:12, 19. The new order is: “Compel them to come in!” and we need not soften the verb to mean “constrain” (R. V.)

Yes, this is the text for the persecutor and the inquisitor who would compel with brute force and claim that he is doing this by order of Jesus. We answer at once that Jesus has in mind the compulsion of grace, its spiritual drawing power, and may point to any and all of the strong gospel commands even as Paul said: God “now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” But this order to compel appears only here in the parable and has its appropriate place only here; for those outside of the city, who are roaming around far from it, need especial assurance and urging so that they may believe that this invitation really and truly includes also them. Something like that was needed, we may say, already for the poor, etc., in the city although, being in the city, they could know about this feast that was to be prepared in the fulness of time. The Gentiles could not know, it was all new to them. Thus “compel” does not mean to overcome hostile resistance but to remove the fear that so gracious and wonderful a feast could not be intended for them.

“In order that my house may be filled” means that it will indeed be filled—no place shall be left vacant, and no one shall come and find no place for him. It does not mean that God takes miserable wretches and outcasts because he cannot get the grand people, the aristocracy; read 1 Cor. 1:26–29. This purpose of God that his house must be filled is uttered here because Jesus is speaking to lawyers and Pharisees who reject the invitation and refuse to take their places at the banquet; they are to understand that despite their outrageous absence every place shall be full, and nobody will even notice that they are not there.

The effort is made to confine the whole parable to only two parts, both of which treat only of the Jews, by combining v. 21–23. The effort to exclude the Gentiles from the parable appears arbitrary, for it skims over v. 22, 23 and says practically nothing that could be considered an interpretation so that one feels that Jesus should have omitted these two verses.

Luke 14:24

24 For I say to you, That not one of those men that had been invited shall taste my dinner.

Some interpreters contend that this final word is not a part of the parable but is an addition that presents its cardinal point. It does do the latter, but the imagery of the parable is continued without a break. According to this view ὑμῖν would refer to the lawyers and Pharisees present. And this is the real reason for this view. For if the house-lord is still speaking, whom does he address with ὑμῖν? It will not do to say the “slave,” for ὑμῖν is plural. Some think that this pronoun refers to all the guests at table, others think of his numerous household, for a host such as this certainly had many servants about him. It is hard to decide because the parable itself offers no hint.

Ἄνδρες is more in keeping with the parable than ἄνθρωποι would be, “men,” not “human beings” in general. After a verb of tasting we have the genitive (R. 473), and not to taste the dinner means not to partake of it. Luther brings out the sense of this main point: “They who are most certain and want to taste the supper. But why, dear Lord, seeing they have done nothing wicked? Why, this is the cause, that they refused faith.” Indeed, unbelief is back of every refusal of the gospel invitation. Therefore they are called “those men that have been invited”—yes, “those,” now speaking of them as being far, far away.

Luke 14:25

25 Now great multitudes were going along with him; and having turned, he said to them: If one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even also his own life he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

Luke records no more than is necessary for the purpose of the discourse that follows. Jesus is journeying slowly on toward Jerusalem, he is far down in Perea (v. 22). The great crowds that were following him may have consisted in part of pilgrims who were also traveling slowly to Jerusalem for the coming Passover. Judging from what Jesus tells them, some must have wanted to become his disciples. The imperfect pictures the great crowds as moving along with Jesus; he turns about, a general halt ensues, and he speaks as follows.

Luke 14:26

26 The condition is one of reality, i. e., Jesus thinks and speaks of somebody who really wants to be a disciple of his. “Comes to me” means: with the desire to attach himself to me as disciples attach themselves to a master or rabbi. If such a man does not “hate” his own father and all other relatives, plus even his own life, Jesus tells him right out that he is not able to be his disciple.

Much ingenuity has been expended on the verb “hate,” to little or no effect. Instead of leaving μισεῖν in its true sense “to hate,” it is generally reduced, even “watered down till the point is gone.” All we need to remember is that this hating is the same as that which was exercised by God: “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity,” Ps. 5:5; 45:7; Heb. 1:9; the same hate that is voiced by the saints as in Ps. 101:3 and in other passages. The startling thing lies, not in the verb “to hate,” but in the objects to be hated, one’s own father, etc., with the still more startling climax: and even also (ἔτιτεκαί) his own life, ψυχή, that which animates the body and is thus inclined to become ψυχικός, “carnal.” This is nothing but a repetition of 12:49–53, father against son, etc. Despite all of this hate in God his love ἀγάπη remains, and the two are entirely compatible (see 6:27), each even to the highest degree of intensity.

So the hate required for discipleship goes together with our love (ἀγάπη) to our parents, etc., that love which understands any evil in them and would, with the help of Jesus, remove it. Jesus is speaking of the father who is not a disciple, or, if he be a disciple, would in his blindness hinder his son in his discipleship. Even our natural affection for all our relatives and for our own life is left untouched by this hating, for our very φιλία toward them will keep us from yielding to any desire of theirs which is in conflict with our discipleship.

It is thus that we are to do this hating, μισεῖν, which is not to be reduced and softened in any way but is to be understood in the fullest sense of the word even as it is required by ἀγαπᾶν and even by φιλεῖν. For this we have Jesus’ own example in Matt. 12:48–50. When Jesus says: “is not able to be my disciple,” we should remember that a μαθητής (from μανθάνω) is one who has learned and imbibed, at least to a degree, and is endeavoring to learn to the fullest degree through the teaching and the example of Jesus the latter’s very own spirit so that as a disciple he may be like his teacher, Matt. 10:25; Luke 6:40. When this is noted, it is at once apparent that Jesus asks only that any and every disciple of his must be copying him as his Master in this hating. Jesus naturally had to state this requirement of true discipleship many times; a few of them are on record: Matt. 10:37; 19:29; Luke 18:29.

Luke 14:27

27 This requirement, too, is repeated as it is in 9:23; Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34 (2 Tim. 3:12). The form is again negative and shows who cannot be regarded as a “disciple” in the sense just indicated. Coming “after me” is only a variant of the preceding expression coming “to me.” But in coming to him we turn from others, and in coming after him we share what is his. And that is the cross. Each disciple will have to bear “his own cross,” only in this way can he “come after Jesus” and be his disciple, truly copy Jesus as his Master. On the word “cross” see in full 9:23. Since there is no escape from some suffering for Christ’s and the gospel’s sake, it is impossible for anyone to be a true disciple without carrying this cross, whatever it be that is allotted to him.

28–30) For who of you, wanting to build a tower, does not first, after sitting down, calculate the cost, whether he has it for the completion lest perhaps, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who behold begin to make fun of him, saying, This man began to build and was not able to finish!

Two illustrations elucidate (γάρ) the point of the two preceding negative statements that discipleship demands much from which the natural man is bound to shrink, a certain hate of what the natural man counts most dear, and a certain love for what the natural man always hates (the cross in its true sense). So the two illustrations are properly negative: ἵναμήποτε, “lest perhaps,” and εἰδὲμήγε, “but if not.” The object of the entire presentation is, however, not merely a warning against a hasty decision to become a disciple. These negatives involve a positive: not with a hasty but with a deliberative and thoroughly considered decision resolve to become a disciple.

Discipleship is no small thing. Jesus magnifies it when he describes it as undertaking to build no less than a grand tower—not merely an ordinary house or shed. He magnifies it again when he describes it as a great war campaign, fighting a king with an army that is twice the size of our own. The psychology involved is altogether true: an appeal to do great things. To build a Christian-like life is like erecting a mighty tower (positive), also like conquering an enemy who is twice our strength (negative). Such things certainly cannot be done by blindly, inconsiderately rushing in.

As to the tower, any sensible man would first calmly sit down and calculate the cost lest he become a joke to everybody, unable to lay more than a foundation, a lasting monument of his folly. In ἐκτελέσαι the preposition signifies to carry “out” to the very end; and ἐμπαίζειν means to have fun as with a child (παῖς).

The great point to be noted is that Jesus does not say that this man should not build the tower. That is the usual interpretation, but it is not even by implication contained in Jesus’ words. Jesus wants us to become disciples, the man ought to build the grand tower. But no man can do this by his own natural ability; to attempt it thus is utter folly. He could never get beyond the foundation, mere outward profession of faith, mere outward attachment to Jesus. Where, then, is the money to come from to build this tower? Grace furnishes us all that discipleship needs, grace alone.

31, 32) Or what king, going to clash with another king in war, will not, after sitting down, deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who is coming with twenty thousand against him? And if not, while he is still far off, by sending an embassy, he inquires for the terms of peace.

The middle βουλεύσεται means to deliberate with himself; εἰδὲμήγε is a fixed phrase which is always used without a verb: “and if not,” “otherwise”; ἐρωτᾶ is dignified, as one king dealing with another; συμβαλεῖν, “to throw together” as armies are thrown in battle, the aorist to designate the one decisive clash. The added point of this second illustration is the negative one of overcoming an enemy, which is placed beside the positive idea of erecting a tower. Discipleship builds up something grand in us and strikes down something hostile outside of us. It builds faith and a new life—a glorious tower, indeed; and it overcomes the devil and all his assaults—a glorious victory, indeed.

Again Jesus does not say: “Go, inquire for the things toward peace (τὰπὸςεἰρήνην)” with the idea of accepting the terms that are imposed by the mighty enemy in abject and permanent surrender. The king would have to do that if he depended on his own unaided strength; every man would have to do that if he depended on himself alone in fighting the devil and trying to be a disciple. The king would have ignominy either way, whether he surrendered or whether he fought in defeat. We should not insert the thought that this king should not in the first place have allowed things to come to the point of war. This war is inevitable the moment one decides to be a disciple; it is the devil that will not have such a decision. Only by never attempting such a decision, by quietly remaining under Satan, can we escape war with him.

Jesus wants disciples, he wants this war, and he therefore warns us not to enter it with our inadequate strength, for we should then be doomed. That means that we take the armor of grace (Eph. 6:10–17) and so, like Paul, fight the good fight of faith.

Luke 14:33

33 The fact that this is the burden of these illustrations comes to full view in the application that is now marked as such by both οὕτως and οὖν, the one drawing the point of comparison, the other indicating a deduction. Both are needed for a correct understanding. Since everything that precedes is negative, this deduction is properly so also. Thus, therefore, everyone of you who does not renounce all his own possessions cannot be my disciple.

It would be a mistake to think that Jesus adds renunciation of earthly wealth and property. If that were meant, this dictum would have to precede v. 26. Here, after the illustrations, it would be worse than an anticlimax. Nor is this a mere repetition, “all his own possessions” merely summing up those mentioned in v. 26; this view overlooks the intervening illustrations and “thus, therefore.” Nor should this statement be divided into two sentences by making: “thus, therefore, everyone of you!” a sentence by itself. How can anyone think that Jesus is telling these people: “Do not build the tower!” “Do not enter this war!” i. e., “Do not try even to become my disciples!” No; the present statement links right into the two illustrations which, of course, illustrate v. 26, 27. And Jesus now tells his hearers to renounce everything, literally everything they have in and of themselves, because it will all, however much of it there may be, never get beyond the foundation of a tower, beyond 10, 000 against 20, 000 troops.

They must get what will take them through, clean through from start to finish in the case of the tower; clean through from the first clash to a complete victory in the war. When they come to Jesus absolutely empty of anything in and of themselves, then they can truly be his disciples; then he can fill them with his possessions, and with them the tower can and will be built, the battle can and will be won.

This is not synergism as if to the funds in hand Jesus would add enough to build the tower and to the 10, 000 soldiers add enough re-enforcements to make an army that is greater than 20, 000. He supplies all the funds, the entire army: “Renounce all your own possessions!” Discipleship and salvation are so great things that nothing of our own can avail in securing them. The two illustrations should not be extended beyond the tertium they are intended to illustrate: the vanity of all that lies in and of ourselves. And the deduction is: “Abandon all that is your own!”

34, 35) So the last point is reached. Excellent, therefore, the salt! But if even the salt become insipid, with what shall it be seasoned? Neither for land nor manure is it fit; out they throw it. He who has ears for hearing, let him be hearing!

The figure of the salt that loses its saltiness was used repeatedly by Jesus (Matt. 5:13; Mark 9:50), and each time in a distinctive way. Much has been said about the use of “salt” in Jewish sacrifices, Lev. 2:13; Ezek. 43:24; Mark 9:49; in binding covenants, Num. 18:19; 2 Chron. 13:5; in Elisha’s purifying the water of Jericho, 2 Kings 2:21; about a pinch of salt being placed in the child’s mouth at baptism in the old church; about the Arab considering him inviolate with whom he had eaten salt. In any figurative use of salt the tertium comparationis must be that which was used by Jesus; it is the quality of checking corruption, and we should not add the other of rendering food palatable.

When Jesus uses ἐάν he speaks of salt at times becoming saltless, μωρανθῇ, becoming μωρόν or tasteless, insipid, ἄναλον in Mark 9:50, unsalty. Cases are cited to show that in olden times when natural salt was procured in an impure state and mixed with other chemicals it might actually lose its power and become unsalty. This proof is deemed necessary on the assumption that Jesus would not draw a figure from what does not actually occur in nature. But the assumption is unwarranted—Jesus does use such figures. Who ever lights a lamp and clamps a peck measure over it? Who ever goes out to gather figs from thistles?

What father would ever send his son as did the one mentioned in Matt. 21:37 does? Where is the lord who would reward his slaves as does the one mentioned in the parable of the Talents and in that of the Pounds?

These impossible figures bring out most strikingly the astounding realities that Jesus intends to picture. The use that Jesus makes of figures is beyond the mastery of “the good writers.” The very idea of salt losing its saltiness! But that is exactly what happens in the reality which Jesus portrays. The fact that Jesus is using as a figure something that is impossible in nature is shown by the question: “With what shall it be seasoned?” i. e., made salty again. “There is no salt of salt,” Jansen. Once the saltness is gone out of salt, nothing can restore the saltness to that salt again. Both ideas are beyond nature—salt losing its saltness and having it restored. Yet Jesus speaks of both as if men had found the former and had tried the latter.

With οὖν Jesus connects the new, strongly figurative statement as a further deduction from the foregoing. Beyond question, “excellent is salt.” The entire connection from v. 26 onward shows that by salt Jesus means “being my disciple” (μουεἶναιμαθητής, three times). To be rid of all false loves (v. 26), heroically to bear the cross (v. 27), actually to build the tower and to triumph over the foes, and doing this by renouncing all the things of self as being utterly useless, yes, this is καλόν, spiritually excellent to a high degree.

But what if this excellent salt should turn μωρόν, insipid? By using the condition of expectancy (ἐάν with the subjunctive) Jesus says that such cases may be expected. One may return to the old love, refuse to bear the cross, again trust in his old possessions. It would, of course, be just as unnatural as salt losing its salt-ness. Salt is better than some disciples; it ever stays salty, but some disciples become renegades. And they are then hopeless (Heb. 10:26, 27); saltless salt—“with what shall it be seasoned” so as to restore its saltness?

It is good for nothing. After its chemical action has been dissipated, it would be useless for the cultivated land or for the manure pile, the lowest possible use for salt. “Out they throw it” into the street where men tread it under their feet (Matt. 5:13), and this pictures judgment. The renegade disciple is worse and meets a worse fate than the pagan.

The call to use one’s ears was used frequently by Jesus. His immortal figures naturally stick to the mind. Let their meaning sink in. Let them keep sounding in your ears, not only while you hear them, but also ever after. That is why God put ears on sinners.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.