Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 14:5
And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
5. an ass or an ox ] The unquestionable reading if we are to follow the MSS. is ‘a son or an ox.’ The strangeness of the collocation (which however may be taken to imply ‘a son nay even an ox’) has led to the conjectural emendation of huios into ois ‘a sheep’ (whence the reading probaton ‘a sheep’ in D) or onos ‘an ass’ which was suggested by Deu 22:4. When however it is a question between two readings it is an almost invariable rule that the more difficult is to be preferred as the more likely to have been tampered with. Further (i) Scripture never has “ass and ox” but always “ox and ass and (ii) “son” is a probable allusion to Exo 23:12, “thine ox and thine ass and the son of thine handmaid shall rest on the sabbath,” and (iii) the collocation ‘son and ox’ is actually found in some Rabbinic parallels. If it be said that ‘a son falling into a well’ is an unusual incident, the answer seems to be that it may be an allusion to the man’s disease (dropsy=the watery disease); also that pits and wells are so common and often so unprotected in Palestine that the incident must have been less rare than it is among us.
straightway pull him out ] although the Sabbath labour thus involved would be considerable. And why would they do this? because they had been taught, and in their better mind distinctly felt, that mercy was above the ceremonial law (Deu 22:4). An instance which had happened not many years before shews how completely they were blinding and stultifying their own better instincts in their Sabbath quibblings against our Lord. When Hillel then a poor porter had been found half-frozen under masses of snow in the window of the lecture-room of Shemaiah and Abtalion where he had hidden himself to profit by their wisdom because he had been unable to earn the small fee for entrance, they had rubbed and resuscitated him though it was the Sabbath day, and had said that he was one for whose sake it was well worth while to break the Sabbath.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See the notes at Mat 12:11.
Which of you … – In this way Jesus refuted the notion of the Pharisees. If it was lawful to save an ox on the Sabbath, it was also to save the life of a man. To this the Jews had nothing to answer.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. An ass or an ox] See Clarke on Lu 13:15.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And answered them, saying,…. Murmuring secretly at what he had done:
which of you shall have an ass, or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? being just ready to be drowned there; and therefore it must be much more right and necessary to cure a man, a reasonable creature, just drowning with a dropsy, as this man was. The Syriac and Persic versions, instead of “an ass”, read “a son”, very wrongly: a like kind of reasoning is used by Christ, in [See comments on Mt 12:11],
[See comments on Lu 13:15].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
An ass or an ox ( ). But Westcott and Hort ( a son or an ox ). The manuscripts are much divided between (son) and (ass) which in the abbreviated uncials looked much alike (TC, OC) and were much alike. The sentence in the Greek reads literally thus: Whose ox or ass of you shall fall (, future middle of ) into a well and he (the man) will not straightway draw him up (, future active of ) on the sabbath day? The very form of the question is a powerful argument and puts the lawyers and the Pharisees hopelessly on the defensive.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Pit [] . The primary meaning is a well, as distinguished from a fountain.
Pull out. More correctly up [] .
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And answered them, saying,” (kai pros autous eipen) “And he said directly to them,” responded to the entrapment motivated Pharisees, to the administrative Pharisees and lawyers in the residence where He had been invited for the meal, by religiously treacherous men, who resisted truth and the Holy Spirit, continually, Mar 7:9; Act 7:51.
2) “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit,” (tinos himon hulos he bous eis phrear peseltai) “Who of you all shall have a son, an ass, or an ox having fallen into a pit,” Luk 13:15, a ditch or a well, in a suffering or endangered state or condition; There is an analogy between dropsy and drowning in a pit, well, or ditch, that the astigmatized blind Pharisees could even see, 1Co 2:9; 2Co 4:3-4.
3) “And will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day”‘ (kai ouk eutheos anaspasei auton en hemera tou sabbatou) “And will he not pull him up immediately on a day of the sabbath?” as commanded in the law, Deu 22:4. He will, will he not? The implied answer is, by necessary inference, certainly; unless he is himself below an ox, an ass, or a son in mercy and compassion, 2Co 1:3-4. Even their law required that the righteous show mercy and compassion, Pro 20:28; Mic 6:8.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. Which of you shall have an ox or an ass? Though they did not deserve that Christ should take pains to remove the offense, yet he shows that he did nothing inconsistent with the observance of the Sabbath. And this he undoubtedly does, not so much with the view of instructing them, as of protecting himself against their slanders; for he knew that they were too much blinded by virulent hatred to yield submissively, to argument, but wished to triumph over their malice, by compelling them through shame to be silent. If we are at liberty to relieve brute animals on Sabbath, it would be unreasonable that we should not perform a similar office of kindness to man, who is formed after the image of God.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) Which of you shall have an ass or an ox . . .The line of thought is all but identical with that of Luk. 13:15. Here, as there, the outward features of Jewish life are the same as they had been in Exo. 20:17, and Isa. 1:3. The ox and the ass are the beasts which common men use and value. The horse belongs to conquerors and kings. This is said with reference to the received text. Many of the best MSS., however, read, Which of you shall have a son, or an ox . . .? and, on the whole, this reading seems likely to be the true one. The familiar combination of the ox and the ass would naturally lead a transcriber to substitute (ass) for (son). There would be nothing to tempt any one to a change in the opposite direction.
Fallen into a pit.Literally, into a well, as in Joh. 4:6-11, but the word was applied also, as in Rev. 9:1-2, to wells without wateri.e., as here, to pits.
And will not straightway pull him out.The words appeal to the common action and natural impulse of men, but the casuistry of the Pharisees had, as a matter of fact, given a different answer. Food might be let down to the ox or ass, but no effort to pull him out was to be made till the Sabbath rest was over.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Fallen into a pit Our Lord used the instance of unloosing the beast in defending his loosing the bonds of a daughter of Abraham. He uses this instance of relieving the beast from the well in this case of the man saved from the watery disease.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he said to 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?”
Then Jesus turned to those who were watching Him through narrowed eyes and asked them which of them, if a domestic animal had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, would not lift it out. Strictly speaking they should only have done so if its life was being threatened, but in practise all knew what they would do. No decent person could leave an animal struggling in a pit. For like many today they were more caring for animals than for humans.
Note how the ‘falling’ of the animal into the pit parallels the disease of a man whose skin was ‘falling’ because of liquid under the skin.
Some leading MS (including p45, p75, B and W) have ‘son’ instead of ‘ass’. It certainly makes the argument more powerful, and is textually strong. It is probably correct and strengthens the statement. No one would conceivably leave their own son, presumably a child, in a well when he had fallen down it. Even at Qumran the helping of a son out of such a situation was permitted on the Sabbath. But it was not the same at Qumran for an ox.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
Ver. 5. Pull him out on the sabbath day ] The Jew of Tewkesbury, that would not be pulled out of the outhouse whereinto he fell on their sabbath day, perished deservedly.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. ] There is a strict propriety in the comparison: the accident and disease are analogous .
] This reading, which evidently was the original, seemed incompatible with the supposed argument minori ad majus : was therefore altered to (as in ch. Luk 13:15 ) or (Mill and Bornemann conjectured ). But our Lord’s argument is of another and a far deeper kind. The stress is on : and the point of comparison is the ownership, and consequent tender care, of the object in question. ‘ Those who are in your possession and care, whether belonging to your families, or your herds, are cared for, and rescued from perishing: am I ( the possessor of heaven and earth , this lies in the background) to let mine perish without care or rescue? ’
There may be in the words the meaning ‘ son, or even ox ;’ but I prefer rendering them simply.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 14:5 . , etc.: an awkward Hebraistic construction for , etc. , a son or (even) an ox, in either case, certainly in the former, natural instinct would be too strong for artificial Sabbatic rules. , a well, or cistern, an illustration as apt to the nature of the malady as that of the ox loosed from the stall in Luk 13:15 (Godet). , at once, unhesitatingly, without thought of Sabbath rules. The emphasis lies on this word.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
answered them = answering unto (Greek. pros; as in Luk 14:3) them.
an ass. All the texts read huios = a son, instead of onos = an ass, which latter has no MS. authority. In O.T. always ox and ass. Compare Exo 23:12.
not. Greek. ou. App-105. Not the same word as in verses: Luk 8:12, Luk 8:28, Luk 8:29,
straightway = immediately.
pull . . . out = draw. . . up. The Greek word occurs only here and Act 11:10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] There is a strict propriety in the comparison: the accident and disease are analogous.
] This reading, which evidently was the original, seemed incompatible with the supposed argument minori ad majus: was therefore altered to (as in ch. Luk 13:15) or (Mill and Bornemann conjectured ). But our Lords argument is of another and a far deeper kind. The stress is on : and the point of comparison is the ownership, and consequent tender care, of the object in question. Those who are in your possession and care, whether belonging to your families, or your herds, are cared for, and rescued from perishing: am I (the possessor of heaven and earth,-this lies in the background) to let mine perish without care or rescue?
There may be in the words the meaning son, or even ox; but I prefer rendering them simply.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 14:5. , will pull out) with much toil.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Which: Luk 13:15, Exo 23:4, Exo 23:5, Dan 4:24, Mat 12:11, Mat 12:12
Reciprocal: Luk 17:7 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
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.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
[Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, etc.] it being an undoubted maxim, “That they must deal mercifully with an Israelite’s goods,” the doctors in many things dispensed with the sabbath for the preservation of a beast. “They do not play the midwives with a beast that is bringing forth its young on a feast day, but they help it. How do they help it? They bear up the young one, that it doth not fall upon the ground: they bring wine, spirt it into the nostrils: they rub the paunch of the dam, so that it will suckle its young.”
“A firstling if it fall into a ditch [on a fast day, or the sabbath], let the Mumcheh look into it; and if there be any blemish in it, let him take it out and kill it: if not, let him not kill it.” He draws it out however, that it might not be lost. And so they deal with other beasts; only the Mumcheh is not made use of.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Luk 14:5. If a son or an ox. The weight of authority is for the reading a son. The thought then is: If on the Sabbath you help what is your own, then help others (love thy neighbor as thyself). The common reading; an ass or an ox, suggests the same argument as in chap. Luk 13:15-16; if you would do this for a dumb animal, much more for a human being.
Fallen into a well. As in chap. Luk 13:15-16, we find here an analogy between the case cited and the condition of the dropsical man; the danger in the well was that of drowning.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Luk 14:5-6. And answered them Accordingly, while the Pharisees were considering with themselves how to turn the miracle against him, he disconcerted them by proving the lawfulness of what he had done from their own practice. Which of you shall have an ass, &c., fallen into a pit on the sabbath day Will you, for fear of breaking the sabbath, let it pass before ye attempt to draw the beast out? and not rather make all the haste you can to save its life, though it should cost you a great deal of work? But the labour of this cure was barely that Jesus laid his hand on the man. His argument, therefore, was what the grossest stupidity could not overlook, nor the most virulent malice contradict. Our Lord had used the same reasoning before, almost in the same words, when vindicating the cure of the man whose hand was withered, Mat 12:14; and at another time had urged an argument in effect the same, with regard to the cure of the crooked woman, Luk 13:15. Which may serve, among a variety of other instances, to vindicate several repetitions which must be supposed, if we desire to assert the exact and circumstantial truth of the sacred historians. And they could not answer him again What he said was so consonant to common sense, and common practice, that they had not a word to reply. They were much ashamed, therefore, and vexed at their disappointment, having gathered themselves together, and invited him in with a design to insnare him.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jesus proceeded to show the logic of His action (cf. Mat 12:11). The Old Testament and rabbinic tradition permitted saving a son and even an animal in such a situation (cf. Exo 23:4-5). [Note: Mishnah Shabbath 128b.] Jesus implied that the sick man belonged to Him. This was the case since Jesus is the possessor of heaven and earth. His critics had no reply since Jesus’ logic was irrefutable. Moreover they already knew what He believed about the relative importance of helping people and observing the Sabbath (Luk 6:1-11; Luk 13:10-17).
This incident set the stage for the discussion that followed. That seems to be its primary purpose in Luke’s narrative. This fact accounts for the lack of development that Luke gave this incident. Above all else it established Jesus’ authority to teach the lessons that followed immediately.