Luke 14

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 14 HEALING ON THE SABBATH A GUEST ON THE SABBATH Luke 14:1-24 Luke 14:1 —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 in¬vited 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 ob¬served him closely as spies, bent on finding fault, if he vio¬lated any of the customs or rules governing conduct on the Sabbath. Luke 14:2-3 —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 healing 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 ex¬tend 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 law¬yers and Pharisees to flight. If they answered that it was lawful to heal the man, it would spoil their chance of accusa¬tion against him; but if they answered in the negative, they would be considered unmerciful, unsympathetic, and unhelp¬ful to one in distress. They knew that certain things must be done on the day of rest; sickness and natural exigencies con¬stantly compel men to do some work; they must do some work other than that of healing. Luke 14:4 —But they held their peace.—On the one hand they could not deny the benevolent act of healing the man on the Sab¬bath ; and on the other, they were fearful of compromising themselves with him in some way, if they replied in the af-firmative. 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. Luke 14:5-6 —And he said unto them,—Jesus had already completely routed his enemies, but he further presses them to greater em-barrassment. 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?” Luke 14:7 —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 re¬turn ; 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 re¬clined 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. Luke 14:8-9 —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 haughti¬ness 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-se¬lected 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 neces¬sity. Luke 14:10 —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 place 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 mas¬ter 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. Luke 14:11 —For every one that exalteth himself—This is Jesus’ con-clusion 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. (Proverbs 16:18; Ezekiel 21:26.) Luke 14:12 —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 in¬vited them. Jesus tells why they should not invite them— “ lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.”Luke 14:13 —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 feast 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. Luke 14:14 —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. Luke 14:15 —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” (Luke 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 meant 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 mem¬bers 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. Luke 14:16 —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 funda¬mental 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 in¬vited. Luke 14:17 —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 invita¬tions 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. Luke 14:18 —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 to¬gether 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 es-tate 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. Luke 14:19 —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 after 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. Luke 14:20 —And another said, I have married a wife,—This man did not plead any business engagements, but offered domestic en-joyment 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 im¬portance 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. Luke 14:21 —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 ex¬cuses, 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 inter¬course. 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 mak¬ing 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. Luke 14:22-24 —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 in¬terpretations 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 ac¬cess to it. Jesus had offered the blessings of the gospel to the Jews; they had refused his invitation; they had offered vari¬ous excuses, and had rejected him. The Gentiles and others more worthy of the blessings of God should receive the bless¬ings first extended to the Jews. THE COST Luke 14:25-35 Luke 14:25 —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; how¬ever, it is not necessary to infer that the crowds followed him all the way to Jericho and thence to Jerusalem. Luke 14:26 —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 bless¬ings 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 other¬wise. (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. Luke 14:27 —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. Luke 14:28 —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 disci¬pleship. 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, combin¬ing 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 ex¬cludes 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. Luke 14:29-30 —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 una-ble 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 impru¬dent tower builder will be put to shame before his fellows be¬cause 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. Luke 14:31 —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. Luke 14:32 —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. Luke 14:33 —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 de¬tails 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. Luke 14:34—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 emphas¬ize 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 in¬timates 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 in¬sipid 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 can¬not 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 worth¬lessness 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.)

Verse 1 This section of Luke (Luke 14:1 to Luke 17:10) is made up practically altogether of “material which Luke alone reports."[1] This chapter recounts the healing of the man with dropsy at the Pharisee’s feast (Luke 14:1-6), the teaching on humility which Jesus addressed to the guests (Luke 14:7-11), advice to the host regarding his list of guests (Luke 14:12-14), the parable of the slighted invitation (Luke 14:15-24), and Jesus’ pronouncement on the cost of discipleship (Luke 14:25-35). THE HEALING OF THE MAN WITH DROPSYAnd it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him. (Luke 14:1) Went into the house of one of the rulers … In view of the opposition of the Pharisees and rulers to Jesus, it is a little surprising that he should have been invited and that he should have accepted such an invitation; but this is clear in the light of two considerations. First, as Barclay said, “Jesus never refused any man’s invitation to hospitality, … and never abandoned hope of men."[2] Second, the Pharisee intended to use the occasion against Jesus. As Clarke said: Professing friendship and affection, he invited our blessed Lord to his table, merely that he might have a more favorable opportunity of watching his conduct, that he might accuse him, and take away his life.[3]On the sabbath … The following miracles were performed on the sabbath day: The healing of Simon’s wife’s mother (Luke 4:38) The healing of the man with the withered hand (Luke 6:6) The healing of the woman crippled eighteen years (Luke 13:14) The healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:9) The healing of the man born blind (John 9:14) The healing of the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark 1:21) The healing of the man with dropsy, as recorded her Thus, the Pharisees had every reason to believe that if confronted with the opportunity Jesus would surely heal on any sabbath day; therefore they contrived the incident before us. The invitation for Jesus to have a sabbath meal, the dramatic appearance of a man with dropsy, and the presence of many distinguished guests “had been carefully preconcerted among the Pharisees as a trap for Jesus."[4]“The Jews took only two meals on week days, but they had three meals on the sabbath”;[5] that extra meal was celebrated after the morning worship and was the big meal of the entire week. “The only restriction upon those feasts was that the food had to be cooked the day before."[6][1] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 386. [2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 194. [3] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 451. [4] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 191. [5] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 387. [6] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 546.

Verse 2 And behold, there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy.Spectators often entered the house to witness an eastern banquet”;[7] but as Russell noted, “Other schemes of the Pharisees on like occasions make it very probable that the Pharisees had placed him there."[8]Of course, all eyes were fixed upon Jesus; as the previous verse said, “They were watching him.” The word used for watching in the text means “interested and sinister espionage."[9][7] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 756. [8] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 175. [9] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 194.

Verse 3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?Significantly, Jesus answered not the words of his watchers, but their thoughts. Like human vultures, those evil men were waiting for Jesus to fall into their trap; but he took it all in at a glance, snaring them with one of their own devices, a dilemma. If they said, “Yes,” they had no case; if they said, “No,” they would have spoken a lie. “The law did not condemn such acts of mercy; and they undoubtedly saw the point of the Master’s question."[10]ENDNOTE: [10] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 546.

Verse 4 But they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go.Astounded by the position in which Jesus had placed them, and being unable to discover some means of saving face, they simply remained silent; whereupon, Jesus healed the man; and, since the man was evidently not one of the guests invited to dinner, the Lord sent him on his way.

Verse 5 And he said unto them, 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?It was well known that the Pharisees would indeed do such things on the sabbath; and here Christ pointed out the first of three reversed ethics in the Pharisees’ thinking, the first being that they valued property above a man. “Jesus did not condemn this act of mercy (to animals); but he did condemn their attitude toward men."[11]ENDNOTE: [11] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 227.

Verse 6 And they could not answer again unto these things. As Hobbs said, “They did not want to admit that they valued their law and property more than they valued a man; but their attitude spoke louder than their words."[12] There is no New Testament example of an episode in which the Pharisees were able to answer Jesus’ words in open debate. ENDNOTE: [12] Ibid.

Verse 7 And he spake a parable unto those that were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief seats; saying unto them.JESUS’ LESSON FOR THE GUESTSA parable … “This word PARABLE is an elastic word. Here it means a piece of advice, inculcating humility."[13] This is not therefore the usual type of parable with clear analogies. The chief seats … As Plummer said, “In the mixture of Jewish, Roman, Greek and Persian cultures at that time, we cannot be sure which were the `chief seats’"[14] The Talmud ranked three seats on a couch by making the center chief, the one on the right second, and the one on the left third! Whatever were accounted the most honorable seats, there was a vulgar scramble among the guests on that occasion, each man jockeying with others for the better places. [13] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 757. [14] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to St. Luke (New York: T and T Clark, 1922), in loco.

Verse 8 When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast, sit not down in the chief seat; lest haply a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him.A more honorable man than thou … What an irony is this! To egotistical social climbers like those guests, it was an unheard-of-consideration that a “more honorable” man than any of them might have been invited.

Verse 9 And he that bade thee and him shall come and say to thee, Give this man place; and then thou shalt begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when thou art bidden, go and sit in the lowest place; that when he that hath bidden thee cometh, he may say to thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat with thee.It should be noted that in Luke 14:8 preceding, Jesus begins with the postulate of being invited to a “marriage feast”; and since the feast where this admonition was spoken was not that kind of feast, it is not amiss to look for the analogy Jesus had in mind. Was the Lord merely passing out some advice, or is there a deeper meaning? In watching the selfish scrambling for the chief seats, it suddenly appeared to Jesus that the unseemly thing going on in his presence was typical of a far greater sin on the part of that same class of people. Had they not indeed usurped the chief seats in the theocracy for themselves, the honor always going not to the worthy, but to the arrogant usurper? Furthermore, note the inference in “When he that hath bidden thee cometh”!

Who is this, if not Christ? The Master of the messianic banquet was indeed before them, and he was confronted with the harsh necessity of demoting the proud, arrogant, and unspiritual priests from the chief seats they had usurped and conveying them to “publicans and harlots” instead, such persons being more honorable than the usurpers. A decent humility on the part of the ruling priesthood would have saved them the shame which came upon them.

Verse 11 For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.In these words, Jesus concluded this remarkable teaching; and it is one which all men should heed. A little later, Jesus would return to this same subject by relating the story of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9 ff); but here he announced the eternal ethic of humility. How may men cultivate humility? They can do this in two ways: (1) They can consider the facts. No man is wise in any ultimate sense, good in any heavenly sense, or powerful in any eternal sense. Man’s life is ephemeral; his days are few and full of trouble; at his best, man is above only a few of his contemporaries, and that only for a brief moment in time. “O why should the spirit of mortal be proud?” (2) They can look at the lives and achievements of others which exceed their own in excellence and glory. As Barclay suggested, “Many a man has decided to burn his clubs after watching the Golf Open Championship."[15] For further comment on the grace of humility, see under Matthew 23:12 in my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 23:11-12. JESUS’ SPECIAL WORD TO THE HOSTThe Lord had naturally included his host in the remarks addressed to the guests; but he reserved a very special word for the host himself. ENDNOTE: [15] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 196.

Verse 12 And he said to him also that had bidden him, When thou makest dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbors; lest haply they also bid thee again and a recompense be made thee.Geldenhuys said this means “One should not invite such persons ."[16] Adam Clark wrote: Our Lord certainly does not mean that a man should not entertain at particular times his friends, etc.; but what he indicates here is charity to the poor.[17]Spence thought that “Jesus did not mean to forbid our entertaining those whom we love. He means, simply, `In view of the life to come, thou canst do better still’."[18]Lamar believed that: Jesus does not mean here to prohibit the invitation and entertainment of those who might be able to reciprocate the courtesy; but to condemn (1) the motive with which it is some times done, and (2) the exclusiveness growing out of such motive, which limits the invitation of this class.[19]All of the above softening of the impact of this passage would appear to be valid! However, there is far too much of the same thing that Jesus condemned in the hospitality one sees today; and, in not a few churches, there are little cliques engaged almost exclusively in entertaining themselves; and that, we are certain, is wrong. John Wesley, also, like practically all commentators on this passage, diminished the impact of it in this manner: “That is, I do not bid thee call thy friends or thy neighbors. Our Lord leaves those offices of humanity and courtesy as they were, and teaches a higher duty."[20]We may not be too certain, however, that the commentators have fully understood what Jesus meant here. Perhaps Jesus was outlining here just what true righteousness and genuine hospitality actually are; and if that is the case, one confronts here a righteousness that is above all human achievement of it. This is what man SHOULD do, regardless of the fact that all men find themselves unable, absolutely, to live up to this ethic, thus making the passage similar to the command, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). [16] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 391. [17] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 452. [18] H. D. M. Spence, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke II, p. 24. [19] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 193. [20] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 257.

Verse 13 But when thou makest a feast, bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.Boles’ comment on this is: “It is far better to give to relieve the distressed than to set a feast to those who do not need it."[21] A man is not in the true sense hospitable who entertains only those who can entertain him. “Such interested hospitality is not wrong, but it does not lay up treasure in heaven."[22]With this word to the host, Jesus pinpointed the third of three distortions, or reverse ethics, which marked the conduct of his hearers. In Luke 14:5, it was love of property elevated over love of men; in Luke 14:7, it was pride and conceit elevated above humility; and here in these verses it was selfishness elevated above genuine hospitality. [21] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 285. [22] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 757.

Verse 14 And thou shalt be blessed; because they have not wherewith to recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just.This verse clearly shows that Jesus had in mind the instruction of his audience in how to lay up treasures in heaven. The resurrection of the just … Despite the fact that Harrison believed this verse supports the idea of a double resurrection, one of the righteous and one of the wicked, separated by an interval of time,"[23] there is no agreement with that here. The men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South, separated by centuries of time, will nevertheless arise in judgment with the contemporary generation of Jesus (Matthew 12:41-42). Geldenhuys affirmed that this verse does not deny either a resurrection of the wicked or the fact of its being simultaneous with the resurrection in view here. Likewise, Matthew Henry stated: The exclusive mention in this place of rewards to the righteous, does not in the least imply that the wicked shall not receive their reward, which is so clearly stated elsewhere.[24][23] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 241. [24] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), Vol. 5, Luke, p. 276.

Verse 15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.THE PARABLE OF THE Trench explained what was probably in the mind of that guest who thus spoke in Jesus’ presence: When we keep in mind what were the Jewish hopes concerning the setting up of the kingdom of God (that it would be ushered in by a glorious festival), it is easy to perceive how this man’s mind passed on to the great festival which (in their view) was to accompany the resurrection.[25]Such a carnal view of God’s kingdom was wrong, of course; but there was an even greater wrong in the assumption of the guest that himself and all the other Jews would enjoy such a messianic banquet to the exclusion of all others, especially Gentiles. In the following parable, Jesus moved to correct such false views and to warn that his hearers were in danger of missing the kingdom of God altogether. ENDNOTE: [25] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 362.

Verse 16 But he said unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and he bade many.The man = God The great supper = God’s kingdom Many = the Israelites

Verse 17 And he sent forth his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.The servant = God’s messengers such as the Twelve and the Seventy Supper time = The advent of the Messiah Theophylact understood “the servant” to be none other than the Suffering Servant, Jesus himself; and others have supposed him to represent John the Baptist; but Trench is obviously correct. He said: We behold in him, not the heralds who preceded, but those who accompanied the King, the evangelists and apostles … who bade the Jews to enter on the enjoyment of those good things, no longer far off, but near.[26]All things are now ready … The fullness of time had come. The Messenger of the Covenant had arrived and would shortly make an atonement for sin. The first invitation (Luke 14:16) was the call of the Hebrews to be the chosen people and to receive the promises made to Abraham. This renewal of the invitation (Luke 14:17) through Christ and his apostles was the final call of Israel to the feast of the kingdom of God. Such a second invitation was customary in the East, and it would have been a serious breach of etiquette to have omitted it, a breach that Plummer described as “equivalent to canceling the more general invitation. To refuse the second invitation was an insult, equivalent among the Arab tribes to a declaration of war."[27][26] Ibid., p. 364. [27] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., en loco.

Verse 18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a field, and I must needs go out and see it; I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them. I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have married a wife and therefore I cannot come.Boles insisted that “These are not flimsy and ridiculous excuses, as some have sought to make them, but the most important excuses that could be given."[28] But Summers called them “ridiculous and humorous."[29] As far as these excuses may be weighed as justifying the refusal of those bidden to attend the feast, they are worthless and therefore ridiculous; but from the standpoint of the carnal man, they did pertain to the things men of the world hold to be most important: real estate, business, and family relations. There is evident a progressive unwillingness to attend in the excuses offered: (1) One pleads necessity; (2) the next pleads his will not to go; and (3) the third said flatly, “I cannot,” but did not bother to ask any release from his obligation. In the case of this last, a marriage did exempt the bridegroom from the war (Deuteronomy 24:5; Deuteronomy 20:7), but not from a feast it was his duty to attend. It has been often noted that there was really no compelling reason behind any of the excuses. Viewing land or proving oxen which had “already been purchased” cannot be looked upon as valid reasons for their refusal; and, in the case of the man with a bride, where was there ever a bride who would not have wished to attend a feast in the home of a rich man? The three excuses have this in common, that “They all plead something that pertains to self, and all place the gratification of selfish desires above duty and obligation."[30]In the aggregate, these three who made excuses stand for the Jews who rejected the invitation to receive the kingdom. There had come about, through ages, a deterioration of what the concept of the kingdom meant to the chosen people. Especially among the leaders, a malignant carnality had distorted their thoughts of what God’s kingdom would be; and, for that reason, they insultingly rejected Christ. [28] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 288. [29] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 179. [30] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 195.

Verse 21 And the servant came and told his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and maimed and blind and lame. The man giving the feast here moved to a wider circle than before; and this corresponds to the call of the publicans, harlots, and others of those classes despised by the leaders of Israel. The anger of the master of the house is the same as the anger of the king (Matthew 22:7), and in both parables it is the anger of God for their rejection of the Son of God which is indicated.

Verse 22 And the servant said, Lord, what thou didst command is done, and yet there is room.Not even the inclusion of that wider circle of beneficiaries had the desired effect of filling the feast with guests; and God, no less than nature, abhors a vacuum; nor will the purpose of the Almighty be frustrated by willful and rebellious men.

Verse 23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and constrain them to come in, that my house may be filled.“This time the master of the house invites to his banquet the Gentiles."[31] As this had not yet been accomplished at the time of this parable, it is clear that the parable was prophetic at this point, moving altogether beyond the narrow circle of Israel, either of its leaders or its less noble classes. All men will be laid under tribute to provide guests for the Father’s kingdom banquet. Constrain them … is translated “compel them” in some versions; but only a moral and rational force is indicated. Despite this, these words are a favorite text of the persecutor and inquisitor. Long ago, Augustine used this text as a justification for religious persecution. It was used as a defense, and even as a command, to coerce people into the Christian faith. It was used as a defense for the inquisition, the thumb-screw, the rack, the threat of death and imprisonment - and for all those things which are the shame of Christianity.[32]Christ never intended that kind of constraint to bring people into his kingdom; and “The church which tolerates, encourages, and practices persecution is not the Church of Christ; and no man can be of such a church without endangering his salvation."[33]That my house may be filled … These words are a definite suggestion that God intends to redeem from earth “a certain number of souls.” “The invitation will therefore be continued, and consequently the history of our race prolonged, until that number be reached."[34][31] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 26. [32] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 200. [33] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 455. [34] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 27.

Verse 24 For I say unto you, that none of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper.As Jesus frequently did, he abandoned the metaphor here and stood forth in the majesty of his own right. He no longer addressed a servant (as did the lord in the parable), but said, “I say unto you (plural),” meaning those very men in his presence, that “none of those that were bidden (and refused) shall taste of my supper.” Thus Jesus identified himself with the Father in heaven and himself as the one giving the supper, and the supper as the kingdom he came to set up. Summers pointed out that Jesus did not mean “that no Jews would participate in God’s mercy, but that none of those who rejected it would experience it."[35]The application of this parable is not restricted to the immediate situation of Israel’s rejection of Christ, for it is also descriptive of men in all ages who place personal, selfish desires above the kingdom obligations in Christ. In this parable, God’s greatest gift, the salvation of the soul, appears in the analogy of an invitation to a great feast, the unspeakable tragedy being man’s blind, foolish rejection of it. Countless thousands of people were following Jesus, but the vast majority of them had no practical understanding of what following Jesus actually entailed. “He desired to check this light-hearted manner of following him, … so he lays down the absolute demands for everyone who wishes to be his disciples."[36] What Jesus did in the next paragraph strongly suggests what Jesus did to that great throng in Capernaum who had followed him after the miracle of feeding the five thousand; and what was that? He stunned them with that metaphor of eating flesh and drinking his blood (John 6:52 f). That cooled their superficial ardor; and the same effect was achieved by Jesus in this multitude through the equally hard sayings of the next paragraph. [35] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 179. [36] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 397.

Verse 25 Now there went with him great multitudes: and he turned and said unto them, If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also he cannot be my disciple. THE COST OF The simple meaning of this astounding declaration is that one, in order to be a disciple of Christ, must love him more than any other being, not even excluding self. Hateth … as applied here to father, mother, wife, etc., means “to love less,” and is void of the sentiments usually associated with that word today. The Biblical use of this word becomes clear when it is recalled that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Genesis 29:30), and that the next verse says that “The Lord saw that Leah was hated.” The truly difficult part of the requirement in view here is in the words, “yea, and his own life also,” Loving the Lord more than self is the plan of salvation.

Verse 27 Whosoever doth not bear his own cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.Long familiarity has softened the meaning of this for modern disciples, the usual notion of it being that the reference here is to a patient, submissive acceptance of the ills and misfortunes of life; but Jesus plainly meant that to be his disciple one would have to hate his own life to the extent of willingness to accept crucifixion at the hands of the Romans for the sake of fidelity to Christ. The background against which Jesus spoke these words proves this to be true. Only twenty-four years previously, about A.D. 6, “The Romans crucified hundreds of followers of the rebel, Judas the Gaulonite … Crucifixion was a common spectacle both before and after that date."[37] Therefore, Jesus’ mention of bearing a “cross” could not have failed, in the audience which heard him, to mean the most horrible of deaths. ENDNOTE: [37] Ibid., p. 400.

Verse 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, doth not first sit down and count the cost, whether he have wherewith to complete it? Lest haply, when he hath laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all that behold begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.As Henry said, “All that take upon them a profession of religion, undertake to build a tower."[38] The Saviour’s teaching here is that the endeavor should be attempted in full view of the enormous cost of it. Men must bid farewell to the dearest earthly ties, mortify the lusts of the flesh, set their affections on heavenly things, and subordinate all earthly prospects to the will of the Master. All of the details of this parable and the one following are inert factors. “They simply enforce the one idea that it is folly to undertake a serious business (here, becoming a disciple of Christ), without counting the cost.[39][38] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, op. cit., p. 276. [39] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 757.

Verse 31 Or what king, as he goeth to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and asketh conditions of peace.The meaning of these two parables is similar; but the unusual nature of the illustration here suggests the possibility that there might have been a historical basis of it. Spence pointed out that Herod had divorced his first wife, the daughter of a powerful Arabian prince, in order to marry Herodias, which precipitated a war between them. “The results were disastrous to Herod."[40]A significant difference appears in the fact that the first of these two parables regards building, and this regards fighting, the same being two phases of the Christian life. The great London preacher, Spurgeon, made these the sum and all of true faith. He named his newspaper, “Sword and Trowel.” And, while it is true that there is much fighting in the Christian life (1 Timothy 6:12), such is not in view in this parable. Hence, the situation demands that an ambassage be sent and peace negotiated, and with whom?

Certainly not with Satan? The Mighty One with whom the soul must be careful to make peace while there is time, is God. Therefore, the second of the twin parables strongly suggests that while counting the cost of following Jesus Christ, the soul would do well also to count the cost of becoming Christ’s enemy! And what an overwhelming cost that is! Let the man who will not follow Jesus consider that his refusal is a denial of the only hope of redemption. Let it be considered that all of the sobbing tides of human mortality converge in the abyss of the grave, that all of the strength, beauty, and glory of life are only for a moment, that only Christ has provided the remedy for sin, stabbed the gloom of death with eternal’ light, planted the lilies of the resurrection upon the tomb, and arched every cemetery on earth with a rainbow of promise. The parable had an application to Israel. Just as Herod was shamefully beaten by Aretus, Israel stood to be destroyed by Rome, unless they accepted the Saviour; they would have done well, therefore, to have made peace with Christ; but there is also application to every man: with his mortal resources as his only strength, does man really wish to be the enemy of God? ENDNOTE: [40] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 28.

Verse 33 So therefore whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. In the light of this, who is truly a disciple of Jesus? Every soul that contemplates the terms of discipleship as outlined here must fall on his knees and say, “Lord, I am a disciple; help me to be a disciple.” Just as the Lord helped Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, mentioned in the preceding chapter, so will he help all who truly desire to be his followers.

Verse 34 Salt therefore is good: but even if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is fit neither for the land nor for the dunghill; men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.For a more detailed study of the salt metaphor, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 5:13. The use of the metaphor here is different from that in Matthew. Christ used many of his illustrations on various occasions and for the purpose of making different points. Spence declared that: Here “salt” stands for the spirit of self-sacrifice, self-renunciation. When in a man, or in a nation, or in a church, that salt is savourless, then that spirit is dead; and there is no hope remaining for the man, for the people, or the church.[41]Likewise Dr. Ash wrote that: “SALT represented disciples who would count the cost and pay the price. Men who would not were as worthless as tasteless salt."[42]This passage has no bearing whatever upon the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, or impossibility of apostasy; but that does not prevent the allegation that it does. Based upon the chemical fact that sodium chloride CANNOT lose its taste, that salt “(cannot) ever lose its peculiar pungency and power to hinder corruption,” Bliss concluded that “no true subject of regenerating grace ever has or ever will become utterly void of new life."[43] However, Christ said nothing of sodium chloride, the salt of that day being an utterly different product, which not only COULD but frequently did lose its taste (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 5:13). The illustration as here given by Christ posed no impossibility at all. “If even the salt have lost its savor” was certainly a development that Christ held to be possible, for he went further and declared that “It is fit neither for land nor for the dunghill.” Whereas in Matthew Christians are viewed as “the salt of the earth,” here it is the spirit of renunciation and sacrifice within Christians which is the salt. Strict and demanding as the conditions of true discipleship assuredly are, the rewards are abundantly sufficient to justify any and all sacrifices required in following the Lord Jesus Christ. [41] Ibid. [42] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 63. [43] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press,), Vol. II, Luke, p. 239.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 141. Into whose house did Jesus go? 2. Why did they watch him ? 3. Tell what patient was there. 4. What question did Jesus ask the lawyers? 5. Repeat their answer. 6. What did Jesus then do? 7. To what practice did he refer? 8. And what did they say to this? 9. What called forth his next lesson? 10. Give his advice about choosing seats. 11. Lest what? 12. How might honor be obtained? 13. Who will be exalted or abased ? 14. Who should be invited to a dinner? 15. Why not the rich? 16. At what time will the favor be returned ? 17. What remark did this lesson bring forth ? 18. State the subject of his next parable. 19. To whom were servants next sent? 20. Which guest came first? 21. Which made the first excuse? 22. State the second excuse. 23. And the third. 24. What effect did this have on the host? 25. Tell what he directed to be done. 26. Did this take up the room? 27. State the further directions. 28. When were the first guests to be reinvited ? 29. State who went with Jesus as he journeyed? 30. Whom should we love less than Jesus? 31. If not, what can we not be ? 32. What also must be borne for Him? 33. Before building what should be done? 34. Otherwise what might be said? 35. What other man is used for illustration? 36. What was he about to do? 37. Tell what he first considers. 38. If doubtful what move does he make? 39. To what subject does he liken this ? 40. How much must be forsaken for Christ? 41. Can salt become useless? 42. What is done with it then? 43. Who are required to hear? 44. Which parable in this chapter teaches consistency? 45. And which teaches humility? 46. Which teaches unselfishness? 47. What nation made these excuses ? 48. How may people be compelled to come? 49. Show weakness of the excuse about land. 50. And about the oxen. 51. Why was the new wife no valid excuse?

Luke 14:1

1 The Pharisees were ever on the alert to discover something in the work of Jesus for which to condemn him. Their most convenient pretext usually came on the sabbath day. Since Jesus was always busy, it was not unusual to see him performing some act of kindness on that day.

Luke 14:2

2 Sure enough, there was a man in the group who was afflicted with dropsy. That word is from HY-DROPS, meaning “water.” It is related to the word from which we get our English word “hydrant.”

Luke 14:3

3 Jesus answering. The text says nothing about whether the people said anything openly, but Jesus could read the thoughts of men, and he knew they were thinking of criticizing him. He anticipated them by speaking on the very subject of their wicked motives. But he did not put the question in the form they would have wished. He could have asked if it was lawful to do anything on the sabbath, but that form of question would have implied its own answer which would have been negative. So he put it on the humane basis of healing a man on the sabbath day.

Luke 14:4

4. The Pharisees were too wise to say that it would ever be wrong to heal an afflicted person, and they were too prejudiced to say yes to the question of Jesus. He then pro-ceded to heal the man and release him cured.

Luke 14:5-6

6. Referring to their own practice, Jesus asked them another question which they could not answer. It means they could not harmonize their practices with the criticism they made against Jesus in their hypocritical hearts.

Luke 14:7-8

8 Chief rooms means the same as highest rooms, the expression used in this verse. More honorable means from a social standpoint, not in the sense of character.

Luke 14:9

9 The host might wish to prefer the more honorable in assigning a seat. It would be humiliating to be directed to step down with the other guests looking on.

Luke 14:10

0 A guest would be running no risk of embassassment to take a low place voluntarily, even should he be left there; instead, he would stand a chance of being promoted. Worship in this place means “honor” according to the note at Matthew 2:2.

Luke 14:11

1 This verse states a principle that applies to human beings in general, whether in their relation to each other, or to that under the Lord and His treatment of human servants. (See Esther 7:9-10; Daniel 4:37; James 4:10.)

Luke 14:12

2 We recall that Jesus spoke the present group of parables while at the feast mentioned in verse 1. We know Jesus did not condemn showing hospitality to persons who were not actual cases for “charity,” for he was at that very time enjoying a meal given for the sake of sociability and friendship. Lest a recompense be made denotes he should not restrict his feasts to those who would be able to repay him.

Luke 14:13

3 The classes named could not “return the call,” hence if a man offered them a feast, it could be for no selfish motive as to temporal things.

Luke 14:14

4 It is right to do good to the unfortunate with a view of reward after the resurrection, for that would mean one is expecting his reward from the Lord.

Luke 14:15

5 Jesus had just spoken of the future reward for one giving a dinner to the poor. This fellow guest thought it was to be in the form of another meal in the kingdom of God, meaning a spiritual feast in heaven. With such an idea in view, he pronounced a blessing on whomsoever would have that privilege.

Luke 14:16

6 This group was evidently of the Jewish race since it was by invitation of a chief Pharisee (verse 1) that the meal was being served. Knowing the attitude the Jews as a nation were going to take toward the Gospel, Jesus saw the need for an important lesson in which a spiritual meal (the Gospel) would be served long before the one this guest had in mind, and he spoke a parable in the form of a great supper.

Luke 14:17

7 Them that were bidden means the Jews to whom the invitation was first given. (See Matthew 10:5-6; Acts 13:46; Romans 1:16.)

Luke 14:18

8 In an illustration some items need to be told to make the story intelligible, even though they are not literally applicable. Make excuse is rendered “excuse themselves” in the Englishman’s Greek New Testament. Much speculation has been done over these “excuses,” but we should see in them only a part of the parable that was intended to portray the unfavorable attitude of the Jews to the Gospel.

Luke 14:19

9 If I cared to moralize on this subject, I would say this man was more interested in his temporal products than in the good things offered by the “certain man.”

Luke 14:20

0 Marriage is a divine institution, but a man should not let love for his wife be greater than the things offered him by the Lord.

Luke 14:21

1 The servant who was sent to call the invited guests was one of the preachers of Christ. He reported the cold reception he had been given by the ones originally invited. It made the master of the house angry, and he decided to extend the invitation to others who had not been previously favored. They would be Jews, but of the lower class, such as the “publicans and harlots” (Matthew 21:31).

Luke 14:22

2 There is room enough in the plan of salvation for the whole world, hence the servant told the master that yet there is room.

Luke 14:23

3 Highways and hedges means the regions of the Gentiles. Compel means to use the force of truthful persuasion in bringing them into the house of the Master, which means the kingdom of heaven on earth.

Luke 14:24

4 This is explained at verse 17.

Luke 14:25

5 The crowds that walked after Jesus did not all have the same motives (John 6:26), and that called forth the teaching of several verses following.

Luke 14:26

6 Hate is from MISEO which Thayer defines at this place, “to love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight.” It is clear, therefore, that. Jesus does not contradict other passages that require us to love our parents. He means for us to love the Lord above all earthly beings.

Luke 14:27

7 This is explained at Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24.

Luke 14:28

8 The lesson of the parable, beginning with this verse, is that following Christ should not be a matter of carelessness or light concern. Whoever thinks of being a disciple of Jesus should realize it will cost him many sacrifices.

Luke 14:29-30

0 In temporal matters a man usually manifests the good judgment expressed in the preceding verse. That is not only because it is good business, but to avoid the belittling remarks that might be made by the observers. They would criticize a man for starting something before he learned whether he would be able to finish it.

Luke 14:31

1 This parable teaches the same lesson as the preceding one. A wise commander would not declare war against another until he had studied the comparative strength of the two armies and other military resources.

Luke 14:32

2 Even after hostilities have started, if he realizes that the outcome may be doubtful, he will not rashly proceed without first trying to make a settlement with the opposing forces. Verse 33. We need not speculate on all the details of the story. Jesus gives us his own interpretation of the parable by repeating what he had previously taught, namely, that one who proposes to follow Him must sacrifice everything that would hinder.

Luke 14:34-35

5 This is commented upon at Matthew 5:13.