Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 14:1

And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

1-6. Sabbath healing of a Man with the Dropsy.

1. of one of the chief Pharisees ] Rather, of the Rulers of the Pharisees. The rendering of our version gives the general sense but is inadmissible. It is perhaps due to the translators being aware that the Pharisees had (strictly speaking) no Rulers. There were no grades of distinction between-Pharisees as such. But obviously the expression would be popularly used of a Pharisee who was an eminent Rabbi like Hillel or Shammai, or of one who was also a Sanhedrist.

to eat bread on the sabbath day ] Sabbath entertainments of a luxurious and joyous character were the rule among the Jews, and were even regarded as a religious duty (Neh 8:9-12). All the food was however cooked on the previous day (Exo 16:23). That our Lord accepted the invitation, though He was well aware of the implacable hostility of the Pharisaic party towards Him, was due to His gracious spirit of forgiving friendliness; and to this we owe the beautiful picture of His discourse and bearing throughout the feast which this chapter preserves for us. Every incident and remark of the banquet was turned to good. We have first the scene in the house (Luk 14:1-6); then the manoeuvres to secure precedence at the meal (Luk 14:7-11); then the lesson to the host about the choice of guests (Luk 14:12-14); then the Parable of the King’s Feast suggested by the vapid exclamation of one of the company (Luk 14:15-24).

that they watched him ] More emphatically in the original ‘ and they themselves were carefully watching Him,’ comp. Luk 6:7. The invitation in fact even more than those in Luk 7:36, Luk 11:37 was a mere plot; part of that elaborate espionage, and malignant heresy-hunting (Luk 11:53-54, Luk 20:20; Mar 12:13), which is the mark of a decadent religion, and which the Pharisees performed with exemplary diligence. The Pharisees regarded it as their great object in life to exalt their sacred books; had they never read so much as this? “the wicked watcheth the righteous and seeketh occasion to slay him,” Psa 37:32; “all that watch for iniquity are cut off, that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate,” Isa 29:20-21.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:31 . Rejected by the Samaritans. A lesson of Tolerance.

This section forms a great episode in St Luke, which may be called the departure for the final conflict, and is identical with the journey (probably to the Feast of the Dedication, Joh 10:22) which is partially Luk 9:51-56. And it came to pass, when the time was come that he touched upon in Mat 18:1 to Mat 20:16 and Mar 10:1-31. It contains many incidents recorded by this Evangelist alone, and though the recorded identifications of time and place are vague, yet they all point (Luk 9:51, Luk 13:22, Luk 17:11, Luk 10:38) to a slow, solemn, and public progress from Galilee to Jerusalem, of which the events themselves are often grouped by subjective considerations. So little certain is the order of the separate incidents, that one writer (Rev. W. Stewart) has made an ingenious attempt to shew that it is determined by the alphabetic arrangement of the leading Greek verbs ( , Luk 10:25-42; , Luk 11:1-5; Luk 11:8-13, &c.). Canon Westcott arranges the order thus: The Rejection of the Jews foreshewn; preparation, Luk 9:43 toLuk 11:13; Lessons of Warning, Luk 11:14 toLuk 13:9; Lessons of Progress, Luk 13:10 toLuk 14:24; Lessons of Discipleship, Luk 14:25 xvii. 10; the Coming End, Luk 17:10 toLuk 18:30.

The order of events after ‘the Galilaean spring’ of our Lord’s ministry on the plain of Gennesareth seems to have been this: After the period of flight among the heathen or in countries which were only semi-Jewish, of which almost the sole recorded incident is the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (Mat 15:21-28 ). He returned to Peraea and fed the four thousand. He then sailed back to Gennesareth, but left it in deep sorrow on being met by the Pharisees with insolent demands for a sign from heaven. Turning His back once more on Galilee, He again travelled northwards; healed a blind man at Bethsaida Julias; received St Peter’s great confession on the way to Caesarea Philippi; was transfigured; healed the demoniac boy; rebuked the ambition of the disciples by the example of the little child; returned for a brief rest in Capernaum, during which occurred the incident of the Temple Tax; then journeyed to the Feast of Tabernacles, during which occurred the incidents so fully narrated by St John (Joh 7:1 to Joh 10:21). The events and teachings in this great section of St Luke seem to belong mainly, if not entirely, to the two months between the hasty return of Jesus to Galilee and His arrival in Jerusalem, two months afterwards, at the Feast of Dedication; a period respecting which St Luke must have had access to special sources of information.

For fuller discussion of the question I must refer to my Life of Christ, ii. 89-150.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

It came to pass – It so happened or occurred.

As he went … – It is probable that he was invited to go, being in the neighborhood Luk 14:12; and it is also probable that the Pharisee invited him for the purpose of getting him to say something that would involve him in difficulty.

One of the chief Pharisees – One of the Pharisees who were rulers, or members of the great council or the Sanhedrin. See the notes at Mat 5:22. It does not mean that he was the head of the sect of the Pharisees, but one of those who happened to be a member of the Sanhedrin. He was, therefore, a man of influence and reputation.

To eat bread – To dine. To partake of the hospitalities of his house.

On the sabbath-day – It may seem strange that our Saviour should have gone to dine with a man who was a stranger on the Sabbath; but we are to remember:

1. That he was traveling, having no home of his own, and that it was no more improper to go there than to any other place.
2. That he did not go there for the purpose of feasting and amusement, but to do good.
3. That as several of that class of persons were together, it gave him an opportunity to address them on the subject of religion, and to reprove their vices.

If, therefore, the example of Jesus should be pled to authorize accepting an invitation to dine on the Sabbath, it should be pled just as it was. If we can go just as he did, it is right. If when away from home; if we go to do good; if we make it an occasion to discourse on the subject of religion and to persuade people to repent, then it is not improper. Farther than this we cannot plead the example of Christ. And surely this should be the last instance in the world to be adduced to justify dinner-parties, and scenes of riot and gluttony on the Sabbath.

They watched him – They malignantly fixed their eyes on him, to see if he did anything on which they could lay hold to accuse him.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Luk 14:1-6

He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees

The gospel for the seventeenth Sunday after Trinity

I.

WE HERE BEHOLD OUR SAVIOUR IN THE SOCIAL CIRCLE. Jesus was not a recluse. He had a kind and social heart. He came to instruct, benefit, and redeem men, and He took pleasure in mingling with them. With all His holiness, majesty, and glory, He was a meek and social being, worthy of all admiration and imitation.

II. WE HERE HAVE A REMARKABLE TESTIMONY TO CHRISTS GOODNESS. There is reason to suspect that His invitation to this Pharisees house was for no friendly purpose. The Pharisees, as a class, hated Jesus, and were intent upon bringing Him into condemnation; and this man had distinguished friends with him on this occasion, who were no exception. This is proven from what occurred when they all got together in the house. Immediately in front of Christ, and in a manner thrust upon His notice, was a certain man that had the dropsy. How he got there is to be inferred. Evidently he was placed there to tempt our Lord to commit Himself. Yes, even their hard and bitter hearts were so assured of the Saviours goodness, that they felt warranted in building on it their plot to ruin Him. Sabbath day as it was, their convictions were deep and positive that He would not pass by the opportunity for exercising his marvellous power to cure the invalid they had stationed before Him. And that one incidental fact speaks volumes. It tells of the constant stream of healing power dispensed by the Saviour wheresoever He went. As the very cloud that would cover the sun with darkness bears the bow which the more beautifully reflects his glory, so the very wrath and malignity of these designing hypocrites did the more magnificently attest the gracious goodness of our Lord. Nor did they miscalculate. Knowing full well the nature and intent of the arrangement, and comprehending all the ill use the treacherous watchers around Him meant to make of it, He did not flinch from His wont, nor suffer His merciful power to be diverted or constrained.

III. BUT HOW BASE THE COWARDICE BROUGHT BEFORE US IN THE CONDUCT OF THESE MEN! To wish to unseat and injure one of whose goodness they were so thoroughly convinced, was in itself a self-contradictory wickedness almost beyond comprehension. Shame on a zeal that attaches sanctity to such hypocrisy, or honour to such cowardice!

IV. WE HERE BEHOLD THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. The Sabbath was not ordained for itself and its own sake; nor as a mere arbitrary act of Divine sovereignty; but for the good of the living beings concerned in its observance.

V. WE LIKEWISE BEHOLD FROM THIS NARRATIVE, THAT AN UNCHARITABLE PUNCTILIOUSNESS ABOUT RELIGIOUS THINGS, IS APT TO HAVE, AS ITS ACCOMPANIMENT, IF NOT ITS ROOT, SOME HIDDEN SELFISHNESS AND SELFCONSEQUENCE. It was not that they so loved Gods appointments, or that they were so devoutly concerned to obey them; but anxiety for a bludgeon to break the head of Him whose pure teachings were undermining their falsehood and tyranny. It was not God, but greed; not righteousness, but honour, place, and dominion; not concern for Moses and the prophets, but for themselves and their own consequence. On the occasion before us, there was a marked concern about honours and place. This was the inspiration of their assumed sanctity, and all their superior orthodoxy was only a sham for pride and lust of power. And only too apt is this to be the case in every intolerant and uncharitable ado about the mere mint, anise, and cummin of the faith.

VI. BUT THE END OF THE WHOLE MATTER IS ALSO HERE SHOWN US. Such a spirit has no favour with God, and has nothing good to expect. (J. A.Seiss, D. D.)

They watched Him

What may be learnt from watching Christ

If we watch Christ also, we see how exalted piety instructs the worldly-minded.

1. He condescends to accept in friendly spirit the invitation that appeared to be friendly.

2. He explains and defends the right use of the Sabbath.

3. He rebukes pride by inculcating humility.

4. He unfolds to those around Him the nature of true humility.

5. From humility as His subject, in the presence of the proud, He proceeds to speak of hospitality in the presence of the selfish.

6. Our Lord distinguishes between the hospitality of ostentation, and the hospitality of true benevolence.

7. He deduces His instruction from passing events or from surrounding objects.

8. Seated at the supper, He utters to His host and the guests the parable of the Great Supper. (Van Doren.)

Healing on the Sabbath

Is it lawful to do anything but heal on the Sabbath day? Certainly not; that is the purpose of the day; it is a day of healing. If, therefore, in the very complex arrangements of our modern life, we are trying to interfere with anything that is customary on the Sabbath day, we should ask whether we are interfering with that which has a healing effect, or whether we are interfering with that which has an injurious effect; because there are many things that in their outward form are works that nevertheless in their general effects are healing. (T. T. Lynch.)

The coming Sabbath

We have been thinking and speaking of a miracle done on the Sabbath. It is evident that our Saviour had a preference for the Sabbath as a time for working miracles. How, then, is it with respect to ourselves–we who, many of us, would be glad to have a miracle wrought on our behalf, and yet have no right whatever to expect one? It is just thus–we are waiting for the Sabbath. In other words, it was intended, no doubt, to be taught us by our Saviours practice, that there is a special time of rest coming, when all the various troubles that hamper and injure us will be utterly removed–our burdens unbound; our fevers cooled for ever; our weakness changed to strength; all our heaviness lightened; our blind eyes made clear; our deaf ears unstopped; our feet filled with vigorous leaping blood; and all that is within us lighted up with joy, even as the house was lighted up, and music and dancing sounded in it, when the prodigal came home. There is a Sabbath coming; and as Christ wrought His cures upon the Sabbath, when He was upon earth, we are taught to look on to a day of cure that is coming–that Sabbath, namely, of rest, into which we hope to enter hereafter. It may be needful for our perfection, and the perfection of our friends, that we should still be burdened; but we are quite sure that, after the round of the six days, there will come the seventh; we are quite sure, when the time of trial has ended, the boon of health will be granted. (T. T. Lynch.)

The dropsy

Dropsy a figure of avarice

Dropsy is a disease which in general attacks only those of an advanced age. In a similar manner, from indifference to God and celestial things, and attachment to earthly goods, arises avarice–a vice to which many fall victims, especially in advanced years.

I. SIMILARITY BETWEEN DROPSY AND AVARICE.

1. In the thirst occasioned by both.

2. In the sufferings occasioned by both.

(1) Want of rest and joy.

(2) Pains throughout the whole body.

3. In the dangerous character of the respective diseases.

(1) Avarice is difficult of cure.

(2) Should the avaricious man be converted, there is the utmost danger of his relapsing into his former sins.

(3) Avarice frequently causes premature death.

(4) Avarice causes everlasting death.

II. DEATH THE DELIVERER FROM BOTH DISEASES.

1. Death and the grave warn us to despise earthly goods.

2. The judgment warns the avaricious to tremble on account of their possessions. For they provoke God–

(1) By their injustice and hard-heartedness, which are often the cause of sins crying to heaven.

(2) By the false confidence which they place in their goods.

3. Eternity teaches us to covet unfailing goods. (Venedien.)

Grief aiding thought

Here, then, stands the man that had the dropsy. Does he object to a miracle on the Sabbath day? It is surprising how our own necessities give an internal light to our principles. Many a thing that has been wholly dark to a man, so that he has said, I cannot understand it, becomes translucent to him as soon as God has lighted up a grief within him. Put a grief inside a thought, and it is astonishing how much clearer the thought is. This man had clear views of the Sabbath–very clear views. The dropsy had given him those views. (T. T. Lynch.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XIV.

Christ heals a man ill of the dropsy, on a Sabbath day, 1-6.

He inculcates humility by a parable, 7-11.

The poor to be fed, and not the rich, 12-14.

The parable of the great supper, 15-24.

How men must become disciples of Christ, 25-27.

The parable of the prudent builder, who estimates the cost

before he commences his work, 28-30.

And of the provident king, 31, 32.

The use of these parables, 33.

The utility of salt while in its strength and perfection; and

its total uselessness when it has lost its savour; 34, 35.

NOTES ON CHAP. XIV.

Verse 1. Chief Pharisees] Or, one of the rulers of the Pharisees. A man who was of the sect of the Pharisees, and one of the rulers of the people.

To eat bread on the Sabbath day] But why is it that there should be an invitation or dinner given on the Sabbath day? Answer: The Jews purchased and prepared the best viands they could procure for the Sabbath day, in order to do it honour. See several proofs in Lightfoot. As the Sabbath is intended for the benefit both of the body and soul of man, it should not be a day of austerity or fasting, especially among the labouring poor. The most wholesome and nutritive food should be then procured if possible; that both body and soul may feel the influence of this Divine appointment, and give God the glory of his grace. On this blessed day, let every man eat his bread with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God. In doing this, surely there is no reason that a man should feed himself without fear. If the Sabbath be a festival, let it be observed unto the Lord; and let no unnecessary acts be done; and avoid that bane of religious solemnity, giving and receiving visits on the Lord’s day.

They watched him.] Or, were maliciously watching, – from , intens. or denoting ill, and , to observe, watch. Raphelius, on Mr 3:2, has proved from a variety of authorities that this is a frequent meaning of the word: – clam et insidiose observare, quid alter agat – to observe privately and insidiously what another does. The context plainly proves that this is the sense in which it is to be taken here. The conduct of this Pharisee was most execrable. Professing friendship and affection, he invited our blessed Lord to his table, merely that he might have a more favourable opportunity of watching his conduct, that he might accuse him, and take away his life. In eating and drinking, people feel generally less restraint than at other times, and are apt to converse more freely. The man who can take such an advantage over one of his own guests must have a baseness of soul, and a fellness of malice, of which, we would have thought, for the honour of human nature, that devils alone were capable. Among the Turks, if a man only taste salt with another, he holds himself bound, in the most solemn manner, never to do that person any injury. I shall make no apology for inserting the following anecdote.

A public robber in Persia, known by the name of Yacoub, ibn Leits Saffer, broke open the treasury of Dirhem, the governor of Sistan. Notwithstanding the obscurity of the place, he observed, in walking forward, something that sparkled a little: supposing it to be some precious stones, he put his hand on the place, and taking up something, touched it with his tongue, and found it to be salt. He immediately left the treasury, without taking the smallest article with him! The governor finding in the morning that the treasury had been broken open, and that nothing was carried off, ordered it to be published, that “Whoever the robber was who had broke open the treasury, if he declared himself, he should be freely pardoned, and that he should not only receive no injury, but should be received into the good graces of the governor.” Confiding in the promise of Dirhem, Yacoub appeared. The governor asked; How it came to pass that, after having broken open the treasury, he took nothing away? Yacoub related the affair as it happened, and added, “I believed that I was become your FRIEND in eating of your SALT, and that the LAWS of that friendship would not permit me to touch any thing that appertained to you.” D’Herbelot. Bib. Orient. p. 415. How base must that man be, who professes Christianity, and yet makes his own table a snare for his friend!

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

We have before observed the freedom of our Saviours converse; sometimes he will dine with publicans, sometimes with Pharisees, becoming all things to all men that he might gain some. Christians certainly have the same liberty; the matter is not in whose houses we are, but what we do or say, how we behave ourselves there. In his going to a Pharisees house, he gives us a great precedent of humanity and self-denial, for the Pharisees were his great enemies, and we shall observe no great kindness showed to him in the invitation of him. Whether this Pharisee be called

one of the chief of the Pharisees because he was a member of the sanhedrim, or a ruler of a synagogue, or because he was one of the eldest and greatest repute, is not worth the inquiry. Thither Christ went

to eat bread, that is, to take a meal with him. It is a phrase often used to signify dining, or supping, for they ordinarily under the notion of bread understood all manner of victuals.

It was

on the sabbath day. In the mean time, the evangelist tells us,

they watched him, to wit, whether they might hear any thing from him, or see any thing in him, whereof they might accuse him.

It happened

there was a man which had the dropsy, whether casually, or brought thither on purpose by the Pharisees, the Scripture saith not; he was not there without a Divine direction, to give Christ an occasion of a miracle, and further to instruct people in the true doctrine of the sabbath.

Christ upon the sabbath begins us a discourse proper for the day, asking the Pharisees if it were

lawful to heal on the sabbath day. They make him no reply. Christ healeth him, then preacheth a doctrine to them, which he had twice before inculcated, in the case of a man who had a withered hand, Mat 12:10, and of the woman whom Satan had bound, of which we heard, Luk 13:11, viz. That works of mercy are lawful on the sabbath day. Then he justifieth his fact by the confession of their own practice, in lifting up beasts fallen into pits on the sabbath day. His argument is this: If it be lawful on the sabbath day to relieve a beast, it is much more lawful to relieve a man: but you do the former. The evangelist reports them put to silence, but saith nothing of their conviction. It is an easier thing to stop malicious persons mouths than to remove their prejudices. Malice will ordinarily hold the conclusion, when the reason of the soul infected with it is not able to justify the premises.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And it came to pass,…. The Persic version adds, “on a certain day”; and it is afterwards said to be the sabbath day. This seems to have been somewhere or other in Galilee; see Lu 17:11.

As he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees; or rather, one of the rulers, and of the sect of the Pharisees: and he might be either a ruler of a synagogue, or a member of one of the lesser or greater sanhedrim; such another as Nicodemus, who was of the Pharisees, and a ruler of the Jews, Joh 3:1 for that there was any distinction among the Pharisees as a sect, does not appear: to this man’s house Christ went, after he came out of the synagogue, being invited by him;

to eat bread on the sabbath day. The sabbath day was a feasting day with the Jews, in which they made very large and magnificent entertainments, for the honour of the sabbath; and he was reckoned the most praiseworthy, that exceeded this way; and no doubt, since this man was a Pharisee, one that was tenacious of the traditions of the elders, and was also a ruler, his table was well spread: the rules concerning this part of keeping the sabbath, are these g;

“what is this delight? the wise men say, a man ought to prepare abundance of food and spiced liquids, for the sabbath, all according to a man’s substance; and whoever multiplies in the expenses of the sabbath, and in preparing food, much and good, lo, he is praiseworthy; and if he is not able, though he only prepares boiled food, and such like, on account of the glory of the sabbath, lo, this is the delight of the sabbath: and he is not obliged to straiten himself, nor to ask of others, to increase the food of the sabbath: the ancient wise men said, make thy sabbath a common day, and do not make thyself necessitous to men; he who is delicate and rich, and lo, all his days are as a sabbath day, ought to have food on a sabbath day, different from that on a weekday; and if it is not possible to change, let him alter the time of eating; if he had been used to have it soon, let him have it late; and if late, let him have it sooner: a man is obliged to eat three meals, or feasts, on a sabbath day; one in the evening, and one in the morning, and one at the time of the meat offering; and he ought to take heed to those three feasts, that he does not diminish them at all; and even a poor man that is maintained by alms, must keep the three feasts.”

And this last canon, or rule, is of the utmost importance with them; for they h say,

“whoever keeps the three feasts on the sabbath day, shall be delivered from three punishments, from the sorrows of the Messiah, from the judgment of hell, and from the war of Gog and Magog.”

That they watched him; that is, those that sat down to meat with him, the lawyers and Pharisees: and it is very probable, that it was not out of pure respect to him, that he was asked to eat meat at this ruler’s house; but with a design to observe whatever might be said, or done by him, they could take any advantage from, against him.

g Maimon. Hilchot Sabbat, c. 30. sect. 7, 8, 9. h T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 118. 1. Kimchi in Isa. lviii. 13.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

A Man Cured of the Dropsy.

      1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.   2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy.   3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?   4 And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go;   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?   6 And they could not answer him again to these things.

      In this passage of story we find,

      I. That the Son of man came eating and drinking, conversing familiarly with all sorts of people; not declining the society of publicans, though they were of ill fame, nor of Pharisees, though they bore him ill will, but accepting the friendly invitations both of the one and the other, that, if possible, he might do good to both. Here he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees, a ruler, it may be, and a magistrate in his country, to eat bread on the sabbath day, v. 1. See how favourable God is to us, that he allows us time, even on his own day, for bodily refreshments; and how careful we should be not to abuse that liberty, or turn it into licentiousness. Christ went only to eat bread, to take such refreshment as was necessary on the sabbath day. Our sabbath meals must, with a particular care, be guarded against all manner of excess. On sabbath days we must do as Moses and Jethro did, eat bread before God (Exod. xviii. 12), and, as is said of the primitive Christians, on the Lord’s day, must eat and drink as those that must pray again before we go to rest, that we may not be unfit for that.

      II. That he went about doing good. Wherever he came he sought opportunities to do good, and not only improved those that fell in his way. Here was a certain man before him who had the dropsy, v. 2. We do not find that he offered himself, or that his friends offered him to be Christ’s patient, but Christ prevented him with the blessings of his goodness, and before he called he answered him. Note, It is a happy thing to be where Christ is, to be present before him, though we be not presented to him. This man had the dropsy, it is probable, in a high degree, and appeared much swoln with it; probably he was some relation of the Pharisee’s, that now lodged in his house, which is more likely than that he should be an invited guest at the table.

      III. That he endured the contradiction of sinners against himself: They watched him, v. 1. The Pharisee that invited him, it should seem, did it with a design to pick some quarrel with him; if it were so, Christ knew it, and yet went, for he knew himself a match for the most subtle of them, and knew how to order his steps with an eye to his observers. Those that are watched had need to be wary. It is, as Dr. Hammond observes, contrary to all laws of hospitality to seek advantage against one that you invited to be your guest, for such a one you have taken under your protection. These lawyers and Pharisees, like the fowler that lies in wait to ensnare the birds, held their peace, and acted very silently. When Christ asked them whether they thought it lawful to heal on the sabbath day (and herein he is said to answer them, for it was an answer to their thoughts, and thoughts are words to Jesus Christ), they would say neither yea nor nay, for their design was to inform against him, not to be informed by him. They would not say it was lawful to heal, for then they would preclude themselves from imputing it to him as a crime; and yet the thing was so plain and self-evident that they could not for shame say it was not lawful. Note, Good men have often been persecuted for doing that which even their persecutors, if they would but give their consciences leave to speak out, could not but own to be lawful and good. Many a good work Christ did, for which they cast stones at him and his name.

      IV. That Christ would not be hindered from doing good by the opposition and contradiction of sinners. He took him, and healed him, and let him go, v. 4. Perhaps he took him aside into another room, and healed him there, because he would neither proclaim himself, such was his humility, nor provoke his adversaries, such was his wisdom, his meekness of wisdom. Note, Though we must not be driven off from our duty by the malice of our enemies, yet we should order the circumstances of it so as to make it the least offensive. Or, He took him, that is, he laid hands on him, to cure him; epilabomenos, complexus–he embraced him, took him in his arms, big and unwieldy as he was (for so dropsical people generally are), and reduced him to shape. The cure of a dropsy, as much as any disease, one would think, should be gradual; yet Christ cured even that disease, perfectly cured it, in a moment. He then let him go, lest the Pharisees should fall upon him for being healed, though he was purely passive; for what absurdities would not such men as they were be guilty of?

      V. That our Lord Jesus did nothing but what he could justify, to the conviction and confusion of those that quarrelled with him, Luk 14:5; Luk 14:6. He still answered their thoughts, and made them hold their peace for shame who before held their peace for subtlety, by an appeal to their own practice, as he had been used to do upon such occasions, that he might show them how in condemning him they condemned themselves: which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, by accident, and will not pull him out on the sabbath day, and that straightway, not deferring it till the sabbath be over, lest it perish? Observe, It is not so much out of compassion to the poor creature that they do it as a concern for their own interest. It is their own ox, and their own ass, that is worth money, and they will dispense with the law of the sabbath for the saving of. Now this was an evidence of their hypocrisy, and that it was not out of any real regard to the sabbath that they found fault with Christ for healing on the sabbath day (that was only the pretence), but really because they were angry at the miraculous good works which Christ wrought, and the proof he thereby gave of his divine mission, and the interest he thereby gained among the people. Many can easily dispense with that, for their own interest, which they cannot dispense with for God’s glory and the good of their brethren. This question silenced them: They could not answer him again to these things, v. 6. Christ will be justified when he speaks, and every mouth must be stopped before him.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

When he went ( ). Luke’s favourite temporal clause = “on the going as to him.”

That (). Another common Lukan idiom, = after , like Hebrew wav.

They (). Emphatic.

Were watching ( ). Periphrastic imperfect middle. Note force of , middle voice, and –. They were themselves watching on the side (on the sly), watching insidiously, with evil intent as in Mr 3:2 (active).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Watched [ ] . The participle and finite verb, were engaged in watching. Closely [] . See on Mr 3:2.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

SABBATH HEALING OF A DROPSY V. 1-4

1) “And it came to pass,” (kai egeneto) “And it occurred,” happened, or came to be.

2) “As he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees,” (en to elthein auton eis oikon tinos ton archonton ton Pharisaion) “As he went into a residence of one of the administrative leaders of the Pharisees, “not shrinking from an opportunity to do good, a ruler of the Pharisees, like Nicodemus “a ruler of the Jews,” Joh 3:1. He was an influential Pharisee, a rabbi, perhaps a member of the Sanhedrin, as Nicodemus, a teacher in Israel seemed to be, Joh 3:2; Joh 3:10.

3) “To eat broad on the sabbath day,” (sabbato phagein arton) “To eat bread (food) on a sabbath day,” Exo 16:23, a custom among the Jews. They loved feasts on sabbath days, sumptuous meals which they cooked the day before for the sabbath, Neh 8:9-12. The term to eat bread was used as an Hebraism to mean “food” or to feast.

4) “That they watched him,” (kai autoi esan parateroumenoi) “And they were carefully watching or guarding him,” eyeing Him like an hawk watches a chicken, or a cat watches a mouse, or a snake watches a frog. That is they watched for ulterior motives, with evil designs, as in Mat 16:1; Mat 19:3.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

This narrative contains nothing more than a miracle which Christ performed, in order to correct the superstitious observance of the Sabbath. For he did not, intend, as some imagine, absolutely to abolish the Sabbath, but only to point out, that neither the works of God, nor the duties of charity, violate the holy rest which is enjoined by the law. Whether or not those very persons had purposely brought the dropsical man to that place cannot be known with certainty. He unquestionably could not be present at the table by accident, nor break into a private dwelling without the permission and consent of the owner. It is therefore probable, that he was placed there with the concealed design of tempting Christ, which, on their part, was as foolish an action as it was wicked; for they had already known by experience what Christ was accustomed to do, whenever a similar occasion presented itself.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE CHALLENGE OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

Luk 14:1-6.

THERE are two mornings in the year in which the weight of ones ministry is more heavily felt than at other times. The one is the Anniversary occasion, necessitating for the sake of inspiration and instruction, the outlining of the responsibilities of the twelve months to come; the other is the day in which this great subject of foreign missions is to be presented and the offering taken. The work at home and the work abroadthese are the foci of the ellipse of church life. The determination of each is essential to the establishment of the other.

This text, Luk 14:1-6, needs as a complement, Act 3:1-10, and also Act 16:6-10. These three texts present A Challenge of Christ, The Challenge of the Church, and The Call to the Church and Christ.

A CHALLENGE OF THE CHRIST.

And it came to pass, as He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day, that they watched Him.

And, behold, there was a certain man before Him which had the dropsy.

And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?

And they held their peace. And He took him, and healed him, and let him go;

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?

And they could not answer Him again to these things (Luk 14:1-6).

There is more than one point in this challenge. The Pharisees were adepts at snare-setting. Their traps had multiplied triggers, and in these verses they have combined a Challenge to the Prejudice of Christ, a Challenge to the Power of Christ, and a Challenge to the Patriotism of Christ.

A challenge to the prejudice of Christ. And it came to pass, as He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day, that they watched Him (Luk 14:1). It is very doubtful if this invitation was given in good faith. Already Christ had excoriated the class to which this man belonged, and it had been noised abroad; and even while He was dining with one such, and the Pharisee marvelled that He had not bathed before dining, Christ said unto him, For ye (the Pharisees) make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess (Mat 23:25). And straightway He charged them also with tithing mint and rue and passing over justice and the love of God, and with loving the chief seats in the synagogue, and the salutations in the marketplaces; yet really being tombswhited within and reeking without. One would imagine that He would never enter the house of a class against which He felt such sentiments; and yet Christ was not a man swayed by prejudices. There is many a man parading a conscience that keeps him from being civil to this or that sinner, who ought to name his temper properly, calling it contemptible prejudice, and at the feet of Jesus learn how to bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.

This text also contains a challenge to Christs power. They were watching Him (Luk 14:1). And, behold, there was a certain man before Him which had the dropsy (Luk 14:2). He had professed to have power to heal the sick and even to raise the dead. They provided Him with a man whose physical condition was such that only a supernatural work could rid him of the water accumulated in the veins. In one respect at least, the Pharisee of old was in perfect line with the modern skeptiche doubted the reality of the supernatural and proposed to subject the proposed miracle to the scientific test of observation and experiment. The Christ, who failed not in the Pharisees house, will not fail before the assaults of twentieth century skepticism; the miraculous power of Jesus is as definitely established from a historical standpoint as is His name and character. The man who derides the likelihood of the former ought in all consistency to deny the existence of the latter, and dispose of the Christian religion in a breath. No greater nonsense has engaged so-called philosophers than that now popular proposition to strip Christ of supernatural power, and yet retain Him as an attractive person. As Dr. Lorimer once said, This, every friend of our Lord should fully realize and should steadfastly maintain. He may have other material for stronger arguments than the miracle may furnish, but let him be careful, for if he first surrender the miracle, he may soon discover that nothing has been left worth contending for. Like a man who violently shuts the window against a robber after having politely opened the door, or like one who industriously builds dikes to keep out the sea, having previously unloosed submerged floodgates, so is he who imagines he can hold the fortress of Christian doctrine when he has betrayed into an enemys hands the postern on which its very safety depends.

Again we find here a challenge to the patriotism of Christ. He was invited to eat bread on a Sabbath day. And it was on a Sabbath day that they brought before Him a man that had the dropsy. The one charge with which they had tracked Him from place to place, with which they had excited the prejudice of the Jewish people, and by which they finally condemned Him to die, was that of disloyalty to Moses and the Law. The trick of the Pharisees was to create a dilemma in which, if Christ took not the one horn, He would impale Himself on the other, as in that case where they asked, To whom shall we pay tribute? If He said not to Caesar, then He offended the Roman power; if He said to Caesar, then the Jews would be angered to the last degree, but Christ was competent, and answered, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things which are of God. It was a no more shrewd dilemma than that which they put to Him here. If He healed not the dropsical man, they would declare Him either lacking in supernatural power or compassion; if He healed him, they would denounce Him as lacking in patriotism, since He had transgressed Moses Law of the Sabbath.

The conduct of the Christ in this dilemma is another evidence of His Deity. Never man spake as this Man. Knowing their thought, He said, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? If they answered, It is unlawful, they could not charge Him with lack of compassion or power, since they had objected to the exercise of either on that day; if they answered, It is lawful, then they could not object when He had wrought the good work. The question was so pertinent that they were struck dumb, and held their peace. Truly, as one has said, Here, as in so many matters of debate, it only needs for the question to be rightly stated, and it remains a question no longer; there can be but one answer.

Having silenced them, He proceeded with His gracious work; He took him and healed him, and let him go. But, knowing that when they had gone abroad, they would fail to report Him to the people, He sought their personal conviction of truth, and asked, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into the pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day? (Luk 14:5). The pertinence of Christs questions was a part of their power. When He released a woman on the Sabbath who had been bound for many years by Satan, He asked which one of them did not also release his ox or his ass and lead him away to water on this day. And so when He redeemed the man whose veins were flooded with water, actually drowning the life that was in the blood, He put to them the pertinent question, 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? (Luk 14:5). It was hardly necessary to add, Is not a man better than an ox or an ass?

Patriotism in its last analysis is not a matter of words, but of deeds. The best lover of his country is not necessarily the one who unfurls its flag before his door, but rather, the man who leads a loyal life. It is not necessarily the one who keeps well within the limits of the letter of the Law, but rather the one whose spirit is obedient, whose heart is compassionate, and whose hand is helpful. Christ was the patriot of the centuries!

THE CHALLENGE OF THE CHURCH.

Act 3:1-10.

Now Peter and John went up together into the Temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

And a certain man lame from his mothers womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the Temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the Temple;

Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the Temple asked an alms.

And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, Look on us.

And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the Temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

And all the people saw him walking and praising God:

And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the Temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomons, greatly wondering (Act 3:1-10).

Here our second text is extremely suggestive!

What then is the challenge as set forth in this Scripture?

First of all, to assist the poor. The people that enter Gods temple must expect to have alms asked of them. Any religion that despises or even neglects the poor, is not of God. He that hath pity on the poor, happy is he (Pro 14:21). Whoso mocketh the poor, reproacheth his Maker (Pro 17:5). He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack (Pro 28:27). One of the last acts of Christs life was remembering the poor, and one of the last sentences delivered to His Apostles before going to His grave, was this, Ye have the poor always with you and whensoever ye will, ye can do them good. Ones standing in his final judgment is made to depend upon his attitude toward the poor, for when at last the lost shall be driven from His presence, with the sentence, Depart, from Me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels, the reason assigned is, For I was hungry, and ye did not give Me to eat; I was thirsty and ye gave Me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in; naked, and ye clothed Me not. And when they shall say, Lord, when saw we Thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee? Then shall He answer them saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto Me. I cannot recall an instance in which Christ ever identified Himself with the well-to-do of earth. To be sure, there are many of the poor who believe not on Christ; a criminal poverty is the most painful known to men. Its very sorrows present certain claims for alleviation to the Church of God. But all the poor are not the sons and daughters of Satan. Some of them are truly sons of God and their very need is the challenge of the Church of God. The Church of God has no right to assign its obligations to the poor to some civic charity. For the sake of intelligent aid, a certain amount of conference and occasional reports to an associated clearing house may be wise; but to turn over into the hands of civic associations the needy of the land, may be for the church to escape at once the painful sentiment of compassion and the somewhat expensive task of assistance, but it also involves the utter neglect of Christ who has many of His jewels among the poor, and whose compassions are such that even the veriest sinner was still the subject of His sympathy and assistance.

Again, the Church is here challenged to heal the sick. The real need of this man was not money but health! It was not temporary release from poverty, but the permanent enjoyment of physical power. It is the business of the Church of God to discern the real need of those who make appeal to it. If Peters pockets had been lined with gold, and he had flung to this man a sufficient amount to have kept him for a year, he would have wrought a very different blessing as compared with that which was bestowed. The two methods of helping the needy are well illustrated in the stories told of two great musicians. Ninety years ago a poor beggar boy stood on London Bridge. With an old violin on which he played wretchedly, he tried to draw a few pennies from the charitably disposed listeners. A stranger who was passing asked the lad for his fiddle, and after doing some tuning, he began to play a low, plaintive melody. A man paused to listen, and threw some pennies into the boys cap. Then another and another stopped, and instead of the pennies, sixpences, shillings, crowns and sovereigns were thrown to the boy. In a few minutes there were thousands of people crowding the bridge, and the boys hat was filled with coins. At last the police had to command the musician to stop in order that the street might be cleared. It was the great Paganini who had thus charmed the multitude and filled the pockets of the beggar. But it was only a temporary relief, and in a few weeks, the money would be gone and the beggar would be as before.

Some years ago a little beggar girl went to the home of Patti soliciting aid. The queen of song did not give her any money, but asked her if she could sing. The child sang a couple of Welch hymns, and Pattis trained ear detected something in the voice that gave promise of future power. She arranged with the child to come to her house for lessons every day. For seven years she trained her, and afterwards introduced her to the public. Later she earned thousands a year for herself, and brought blessing to multitudes with her song. Surely Pattis service was better than Paganinis. It is a question whether we are giving to the world the best we might contribute; and it is another question whether in behalf of the needs, we have the power that Christ promised, and for the exercise of which we must be held responsible. When Christ commissioned the seventy and sent them out two and two, He said, Into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you (Luk 10:8-9). That He expected the exercise of that healing power is clearly proven in the rebuke He administered His disciples on an occasion of its utter failure. One had brought his son who had a dumb spirit to the disciples that they should cast out the spirit, and they were not able, and Jesus, when their failure was reported, said, Oh, faithless generation! how long shall I be with you! how long shall I bear with you? And when, after Jesus Himself had healed the child, the disciples put to Him the question, Master, why could not we do this? He answered, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer. After all our wriggling endeavors to escape the Bible doctrine of Divine healing, the fact remains, and the church is becoming increasingly conscious of the truth that our powerless spirit is our prayerless spirit, for the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick and the Lord shall raise him up. It is time that we began to confess our faults one to another and pray one for another, that we might be healed. Every invalid in the membership of a church is a challenge to prayer, and a call to the exercise of faith in the importunate pleading of the promises of God.

Again, this incident contained a challenge to the Church to instruct the sinful. The gift of healing granted to the Church of God must have had, not as its sole, but as one of the most fundamental occasions, the object of teaching. Wherever in America we have found a man in answer to whose prayers God has raised up men and women from beds of affliction, about him we have seen the multitudes flock for instruction. The true apostle could never be content with physical healing only; he knows that even though the body be blessed, the souls health depends upon Scriptural teaching. Peter, therefore, properly employed this occasion (Act 3:12-19).

Great as is the need of that prevailing prayer to bring again the gift of healing to the Church of God, it is not more great, perhaps not so great, as the need of a reviving of Scriptural instruction. There is scarce a man or woman you pass but has some bodily ill. In a majority of cases it does not incapacitate, but in all cases it impedes; and yet the bodily ills of the earth are not so many nor so serious as the mental clouds and the soul-sicknesses. There are people who say, Why should we send our money to foreign missionaries, and foreign fields when there are suffering men all about us? The sufficient answer is that it is a much greater work to release the soul of a Chinaman than it is to relieve the body of an American; to give Christ to the man of Africacrippled in intellectthan to buy a crutch for the bodily injured. This ought we have done, but in the name of eternity, let us not leave the greater thing undone! That is why the young couple, having been missionaries to India since the day of their marriage, returned to America for a brief rest, and were determined to go back again. After some months in India, the husband had said, Fannie, these people do not talk; they only grunt. Yet this devoted couple, after a patient endeavor, from these grunts formulated an alphabet, arranged a vocabulary, and transformed the grunts into speech. While in this country, the question was asked them, Are the people really Christian? No; only partly so; said the wife, it will take a lifetime to Christianize them well, but they are worth it. That is why we are going back. We cannot leave our work half done. Bravo!

Finally

THE CALL TO CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

Act 16:6-10.

Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas.

And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.

And after he had seen the vision immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel unto them (Act 16:6-10).

It is voiced in this apostolic vision. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him (Act 16:9). There are some men who sleep to endure nightmares, to fight hobgobblins, to be unfitted for service by their slumbers. There are others to whom God can talk in any watch of the night. He giveth His beloved sleep. Some years ago there was a teacher in this city who insisted that the childs mind was more impressionable when asleep than when awake, and that to sit on the side of its bed and speak in clearly understood language and distinct tones, the thought you would impress upon its very soul, was to make its moral education more rapid. One thing is certain and that is that God speaks to His children while they sleep, and many a vision of the night has become the Christians challenge to holy endeavor. Herbert Cox writes of his surrender to Jesus and his fellowship with Him, and then adds,

While walking with Him one dark night,Out in the meadow green,A vision came before my sight,Such as I had never seen.

It was of Jesus on the Cross,Who suffered, bled and died For all mankind (He knew twas lost);And as I looked I sighed.

Then suddenly the vision changed,And this is what I saw;Dark India in Satans chains!While I stood in awe!

Twas there the Master said to me,Go forth at My command,And give the blessed Word of Truth,To that benighted land.

My heart responded to the call He made so clear to me;So down at Jesus feet I fell And cried, Here, Lord, send me!

The distinguishing trait of Joseph was his visions. They were also the promise of his peerless life. If I knew what visions were before young men, or the young women of the hour; if I knew what great dreams have possessed them; if I knew what thoughts have come to the minds and hearts most often, I could well-nigh forecast the future of each. I heard one day in Boston a minister make an appeal for France, and in finishing, he said, If when I am dead, you open my heart, you will find it holds in clear outline a map of France. There is a whole continent of service for every aspiring, consecrated soul. Young men, young women, have you seen the vision?

Then listen, there is a challenge to the Church in the call of the heathen. Come over into Macedonia and help us? It is a call of distress. It is eloquent with pathos. There is one missionary story that will never pass from my mind. It is the story of the aged chief who listened to the great Williams tell the tale of the Christ who loved men and gave Himself for them, and whose blood atoned for sin. When he had finished, the chieftain lifted his hands and said, Oh, that is the story for which I have waited till these locks, once black as a ravens wing, have whitened as the snow. Go back to your country with all speed and gather a multitude of teachers and come to us with all haste, and even then, many of my people will be in their graves without God and without hope, ere this story reacheth them!

Once, when a young disciple went to Bishop Selwyn and asked him, What shall I do for Christ? the great man pf God gave the brief answer, Go where He is not, and take Him with you. Turn your ears to any point of the compass, and as you listen, you will hear the cry, not of the single man but of a dying nation, and it is exactly what this man uttered two thousand years since, Come over and help us.

Finally, we read in this Scripture, the Christians conclusion. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel unto them (Act 16:10). Ah, that was the Christian conclusion! Had the Church kept to it from the first, our task would have been finished long since. Christ would have come to His own; the Kingdom would have been established; righteousness would have been in all the earth. Edwin M. Poteat, reading the words of the man who wrote:

What I spent that I had;What I saved that I lost;What I gave that I have,

penned his interpretation:

Carve your name high over shifting sand, Where the steadfast rocks defy decay All you can hold in your cold, dead hand Is what you have given away.

Build your pyramid skyward, and stand Gazed at by millions, cultured they say All you can hold in your cold, dead hand Is what you have given away.

Count your wide conquests of sea and land Heap up the gold and hoard as you say All you can hold in your cold, dead hand Is what you have given away.

Culture and fame and goldah, so grand Kings of the salon, the mart, a day All you can hold in your cold, dead hand Is what you have given away.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk. 14:1. One of the chief Pharisees.Rather, one of the rulers of the Pharisees (R.V.). The phrase is a peculiar one, since the Pharisees, as such, had no rulers; it may refer to some influential Rabbi, or to some member of the Sanhedrim. To eat bread.The Jews were accustomed to give feasts on the Sabbath (all the food having been cooked the day before), and in the writings of the early Fathers there are many allusions to sumptuous eating and drinking among the wealthier Jews on that day. (Cf. Neh. 8:9-12; Tob. 2:1.) The phrase to eat bread is a Hebraism which is often used to denote to feast, to make good cheer. They watched Him.Rather, they were watching Him (R.V.). It would seem as if they went further and laid a trap to ensnare Jesus. The man with the dropsy seems not to have been a guest, but to have been planted among the company in the sight of Jesus. This appears from the phrase (Luk. 14:2) before Him, and (Luk. 14:4) let Him goas of dismissing him from the room.

Luk. 14:3. And Jesus answering.I.e., knowing their thoughts and, replying to them, though they were unexpressed (cf. Luk. 5:22). Is it lawful?They were in a dilemma; for if they answered in the negative they exposed themselves to an overwhelming retort like that given in chap. Luk. 13:15, while if they answered in the affirmative their whole case against Jesus would fall to the ground.

Luk. 14:4. Held their peace.And even thus could not avoid giving an answer to the question. They did not forbid the miracle, by declaring that it was unlawful to heal on the Sabbath day. Took Him.I.e., took hold of Him, laid His hands upon him.

Luk. 14:5. An ass or an ox.The balance of evidence is about equal in favour of a son or an ox, or an ass or an ox. The R.V. retains the latter in the text and relegates the former to the margin. The natural connection between ass and ox (cf. Luk. 13:15) may account for that reading. The other is a more difficult reading, and therefore more likely to have been the original one, according to a well-known canon of criticism. The reading son suggests two different kinds of ownershipone of your children, or even one of your cattle. Fallen into a pit.Rather, into a well (R.V.). There is a certain analogy between the disease and the accidentdropsy, and death by drowning. Pull him out.Rather, draw him up (R.V.).

Luk. 14:6. Could not answer Him.Silent, but not convinced: obstinacy and spiritual pride sealed their minds against the force of His reasoning.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Luk. 14:1-6

There is little that is specially characteristic about this miracle. On other occasions than this Jesus healed disease by a word, or by a touch; on other occasions, as on this, He gave offence to those who were anxious to find it by healing upon a Sabbath, and amply vindicated His action, to the confusion of His adversaries. Yet the incident here recorded is not, by any means, superfluous or wanting in suggestiveness; it gives us a vivid picture of a scene in the life of Jesus, in which both the graciousness of the Saviour and the sullen malice of His adversaries are set forth.

I. The graciousness of the Saviour.This was manifested, first of all, in His consenting to accept the invitation of the ruler of the Pharisees to eat bread in his house. After the preceding scenes, a certain measure of courage, as well as of kindly feeling, is implied in our Lords sitting down at table with members of that party, whose hostility to Him could not be concealed. Yet the righteous anger and indignation which the conduct of the Pharisees had, from time to time, excited in the mind of Jesus, did not exasperate Him against them; the Divine compassion which He manifested towards publicans and sinners was not withheld from those who were blinded by prejudice, and led astray by a delusion as to their own righteousness. The patience and love of the Saviour toward those who were animated by dislike to Him, are, indeed, more wonderful than His compassionate treatment of the outcast and defiled; just as, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the patience of the Father with the harsh elder brother surprises us more than his kindness to the returning penitent. He knows that He is the object of their malicious suspicions, even if they have not laid a snare for Him, and yet He utters no reproaches against them. On the contrary, He reasons calmly with them, in order to convince them of their error and to win them to a better mind. Then, too, we see the graciousness of the Saviour in the cure of the man with the dropsy. The sight of the sufferer awoke pity in His heart, and though no direct petition for relief was offered to Him, the mute appeal was sufficient to call forth His miraculous power. He not only had compassion upon those who besought His help, but also upon those who stood in need of it, even if they were too timid or faithless to apply to Him for relief. And no sooner has Jesus healed him than He dismisses him from His presence, apparently to spare him the acrimonious criticism which the sight of a cure wrought on the Sabbath might provoke (cf. Luk. 13:14).

II. The sullen malice of Christs enemies.They were not ashamed to violate the laws of hospitality by narrowly watching to find some cause of offence, or ground of accusation, in His conduct in private life, on an occasion when He might be expected to be somewhat off His guard. The feast was a formal and elaborate one, but the spirit of love was absent from it. So far from avoiding controversy with their guest, they lay in wait for Him. Nor did they lay aside their hostility when His words of calm wisdom overthrew their theories and arguments, and left them silent in His presence. They could not answer Him, and yet they refused to be persuaded by Him. Could we have a more striking illustration of the power of religious prejudice to blind the eyes and deaden the feelings of those who cherish it? They were in the presence of the Incarnate Son of God, and yet they could not discern His Divine Majesty! They saw the sufferer delivered in an instant from a dreadful form of disease, and yet felt no gladnesstheir thoughts were taken up with the frivolous question as to whether the miracle could be lawfully wrought on that day! They did not see that their own souls were smitten with a spiritual disease, and that they were rejecting Him who alone could heal them. And in all ages religious prejudices exercise the same baneful influence upon all who indulge in themthey make men hard-hearted towards their brethren, and they come as a thick veil between the soul and Christ, so that His words cannot be understood nor His gracious working recognised.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk. 14:1-6

Luk. 14:1-24. Lessons from the Great Teacher.

I. In Sabbath-keeping.

II. In true humility.

III. In true hospitality.

IV. In Gods hospitality.Taylor.

Luk. 14:1-6. The Dropsical Man.The miracle with the account of which this chapter opens gave rise to a conversation of graphic originality, carried on by a series of parabolic illustrations. Chiefly, perhaps, for the sake of introducing these is the healing narrated. The incident in itself is not dwelt upon, and the reasoning which arose upon it closely resembles previous cases of Sabbath healing. The number of these, and the living detail with which they are recorded in the gospels, are noteworthy. Jesus puts signal honour on this day as a day for public worship and for showing acts of mercy. His example must ever remind Christians that care for the poor, the sick, and the ignorant, are duties specially fitted for the Lords Day. It is consecrated by His Spirit for the service of man, as well as for the worship of God.Laidlaw.

Luk. 14:1. One of the Chief Pharisees.In this last period in which the hatred of the Pharisees against Him was most distinctly expressed, the Saviour does not withdraw from them. Obviously Jesus hoped, by the power of the truth, to gain over for Himself and the cause of God the better disposed, at least, among them.

A Treacherous Invitation.The invitation of the Pharisee was a treacherous one. He was carrying out the policy indicated in Luk. 11:53-54, and had set this diseased man in a place where he would catch the attention of Christ, in order to see what He would say or do. Behold in Luk. 14:2 implies something unusual and unexpected; and this circumstance implies that the presence of the diseased man was not accidental.

To eat bread.It belongs to the peculiarities of St. Luke that he loves to represent to us the Saviour as sitting at a social table, where He most beautifully reveals His pure humanity, through table-talk which, more than that of any other was seasoned with salt (Col. 4:6), and was addressed, first to the guests (Luk. 14:7-10), then to the host (Luk. 14:11-14), and, finally, on occasion being given (Luk. 14:15), to both (Luk. 14:16-24).Van Oosterzee.

They watched Him.The kindness and long-suffering of Christ in accepting the invitation of the Pharisee are very noteworthy, when we consider the bad faith displayed in the desire to find something in His words and deeds out of which they might frame an accusation against Him.

They watched whether He would not transgress their Sabbath restrictions: that was the way that they kept the Sabbath.

Luk. 14:2. There was a certain man before Him.The Pharisees argued

(1) that Jesus could not ignore the presence of a man conspicuously placed in front of Him;
(2) that perhaps He might fail in the cure of a disease exceptionally inveterate;
(3) that if He did heal the man on the Sabbath day there would be room for another charge before the synagogue or the Sanhedrim.Farrar.

Christ Moved by the Sight of Suffering.The sight of the suffering man standing there silent moved the heart of Jesus, as the Pharisees had justly expected that it would.

Luk. 14:3. Sabbath day.Our Lord studiously and designedly selected, rather than avoided, the Sabbath day for the performance of His miracles of mercy. The five distinct instances recorded were probably but a few out of many. Add to which, that they seemed, humanly speaking, to cause offence; which our Lord would have avoided, were it not for some great purpose or principle.Williams.

Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?The question was an embarrassing one. If they answered Yes, the occasion of finding fault was taken away; if No, they were open to the charge of want of compassion.

Luk. 14:4. Let him go.A delicate courtesy is indicated in the man being thus dismissed after being cured, before the conversation is resumed upon the work of mercy which had been wrought in his case.

Luk. 14:5-6. Christ and the Sabbath.The teaching to be derived from the Sabbath healings, as recorded in the gospels, may be summarised as follows:

1. We see that Jesus took pains to emphasise the humane element in the original institution as a day of rest, while He rescued it from the exaggerations of Pharisaism.
2. He gave it the sanction of His own observance as a day of public worship and religious congregation.
3. By these deeds of healing He put singular honour upon it as a day for showing mercy.Laidlaw.

Luk. 14:5. Answered them.Again, it is said, He answered them, although they had held their peace. That is because their minds were full of fierce, rebellious thoughts; and thoughts are words in the ears of Him with whom we have to do.Burgon.

Son or ox (R.V.)The argument proceeds from a thing of greater value to one of less. You deliver your children, and even your oxen, on the Sabbath; shall not I much more deliver My creatures and My children? If ass were the true reading, it should follow ox; the Scriptures often say ox and ass, never ass and ox. In Deu. 5:14, in the law of the Sabbath, son stands first in the list of rational creatures, ox in that of irrational.

Inconsistency of the Pharisees.As on other occasions (Luk. 13:15; Mat. 12:11), the Lord brings back those present to their own experience, and lets them feel the keen contradiction in which their blame of Christs free work of love sets them with themselves, in that, where their worldly interests were at hazard, they did that very thing whereof they now made an occasion against Him.Olshausen.

Luk. 14:6. Could not answer.Nothing is said, however, about their being convinced of error. Prejudice and malicious feelings are not always to be overcome, even by the best-ordered arguments.

The Truth Exasperates Them.The truth, which did not win them, did the only other thing which it could doexasperated them the more; they replied nothing, biding their time (cf. Mat. 12:14).Trench.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Butlers Comments

SECTION 1

Good (Luk. 14:1-6)

14 One sabbath when he went to dine at the house of a ruler who belonged to the Pharisees, they were watching him.2 And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy. 3And Jesus spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not? 4But they were silent. Then he took him and healed him, and let him go. 5And he said to them, Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a sabbath day? 6And they could not reply to this.

Luk. 14:1-2 Cordiality: Apparently Jesus received numerous invitations to dine in the homes of Pharisees. Earlier, in the Later Judean ministry, in the fall of A.D. 29, he was invited to a Pharisees home for a meal (cf. Luk. 11:37 ff.). That invitation was after the Feast of Tabernacles (September) and before the Feast of Dedication (December). This dinner invitation is in the Later Perean ministry, probably in January or February, A.D. 30. Jesus was cordial to all meneven to Pharisees and when invited always accepted and made the most of every situation for God.

A study of Jewish meal customs of the first century furnishes interesting background for this dinner invitation to Jesus. Plutarch, the Greek historian (46119 A.D.) wrote: The Hebrews honor the Sabbath chiefly by inviting each other to drinking and intoxication. Not all Hebrews were this self-indulgent, but many of them were, especially the Pharisees who indulged themselves privately and pretended publicly to be very religious men.
Jews of the first century usually ate only twice daily. The first meal was anytime from early morning to noon, depending on the occupation of the head of the house and the social rank of the family. The evening meal came usually at sunset when the working day had ended and was the principal meal. The Hebrew diet was more varied than one might expect in light of so many dietary laws. Vegetables such as beans, cucumbers, onions, garlic, leeks, lentils (peas), carob pods, wild gourds, squash and others were served. Varieties of fruits, such as grapes, figs, olives, mulberries, pomegranates, oranges, lemons, melons, dates, almonds and walnuts were also common. Bread made from wheat, often leavened (except on Sabbath), was usually eaten warm and served with sour wine or meat gravy. Kosher meat for the more affluent tables might be mutton, goat, fish, beef, and sometimes wild game. Milk, cheese, butter and some eggs (fish and locust) were included in some meals.

The rich (Pharisees and others) usually reclined upon dining couches in imitation of Greek and Roman ways of dining. A triclinium is a long couch, large enough for three people to recline on as they ate. The ruler of the feast in Joh. 2:9 is called in Greek, architriklinos, literally, the ruling triclinium person. Knives, forks and spoons were not used to eat withknives were used to prepare the meals. Contents of the meat and gravy bowl were taken either with the fingers or placed on a piece of bread (sopped or dipped) and carried to the mouth. The houses of the rich were large and it was customary for the poor and curious to come into the dining room to stand and watch the rich indulge. Pharisees enjoyed such ostentation. There was always a pecking order or seating arrangement at formal dinners according to importance or popularity and places of honor were rigidly observed.

The man who invited Jesus to dine was a ruler who belonged to the Pharisees. Not all the Jewish rulers were Pharisees, and not all Pharisees were rulers. This man must have been a member of the local Sanhedrin. Each city and village had its local Sanhedrin or ruling body to settle religious and civil affairs. There was the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (like our Supreme Court and Congress all in one body). There were other Pharisees present at this dinner where Jesus was a guest. The invitation extended to Jesus was not out of cordiality or hospitality. They were watching Him. The Greek word is parateroumenoi. The prepositional prefix, para, intensifies the participle, meaning they were watching intently with a sinister motive, or watching Him like a hawk hoping to find something in His behavior or teaching by which they might accuse Him as a lawbreaker.

These Pharisees were watching Jesus because they saw a man there with dropsy and they knew Jesus reputation for healingeven on the sabbath. This man was not one of the invited guests, but one of the onlookers. It was a custom of those days to allow the poor and curious to enter the courtyards of the rich and be spectators at formal dinners and feasts. The Greek word hydropikos is translated dropsy and is related to the Greek word hydor which means, water. Dropsy, in modern medical language called edema, is a condition in which the tissues retain too much fluid. It may be caused by heart disease, kidney disease, or other infections, and may be fatal. In those days it was incurable. The Pharisees saw to it that this afflicted man was placed right in front of Jesus (Gr. emprosthen) so He would be forced into some choice. Would He ignore the man?, That would contradict His reputation for compassion. Would He heal the man on the sabbath? That would add to the accusations the Pharisees already had against Him. Perhaps the Pharisees doubted that Jesus could cure the man and they would have evidence once for all that He was an imposter.

Luk. 14:3-6 Compassion: All their conniving was to no avail. Jesus destroyed any possibility that they could represent Him as a lawbreaker or an inconsiderate pretender. He knew exactly what they intended, so He put the onus on them by asking the question, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not? It is always lawful to do good on the sabbath (see comments Luk. 13:10-17). The Greek word exestin is an impersonal verb meaning, it is permitted, or, it is possible. As we have pointed out in Luk. 13:10-17, even their own traditions permitted care and the practice of medicine on the seriously ill on the sabbath. There is Jewish legend that Hillel (famous rabbi), before he became a rabbi, was found once half-frozen under masses of snow in the lecture room of certain teachers where he had hidden himself to profit by their great wisdom. He had to hide because he had been unable to earn the fee for entrance as a pupil. These teachers found him and rubbed and resuscitated him, even though it was the sabbath day. They are reported to have said that such a dedicated student was one for whose sake it was well worth while to break the sabbath.

His antagonists could not answer the righteousness of the question. They were silent because they knew if they denied the lawfulness of healing on the sabbath they would be exposed for the hypocrites they were and, of course, they did not want to say it was lawful to heal on the sabbath and contradict their own traditions. Jesus took hold of the man (Gr. epilabomenos), to demonstrate the power was from Him. After He had healed the man, Jesus dismissed him from the room (Gr. apelusen, loosed him from) to prevent the Pharisees from persecuting him as they sometimes did to those Jesus healed (cf. Joh. 9:1 ff.), Then Jesus exposed their inhumanness with His reminder that when they had a son or an ox fall into a well they would go immediately, even on the sabbath, and pull him out. The ancient manuscripts are about equally divided over which is the proper wordingwhether it should be son or ass. The Alexandriunus, Vaticanus, Bezae and other lesser manuscripts have the Greek huios or son. The Sinaiticus, Cyprius, Freerianus and others have the Greek onos or ass. Jesus is demanding that what ever the Pharisees permitted themselves to do on the sabbath for their own benefit, they must ethically and lawfully allow the Son of God to do for the benefit of others!

So here in the midst of the Lords last three months of evangelism, the Pharisees give Him an opportunity to display unequivocally the way to please God. Jesus exposes the graphic contrast between the hypocrisy and inhumanity of the Pharisees (who considered themselves the only people pleasing to God) and His own compassion and truthfulness. Jesus made so plain the essence of Gods will no one could contradict it. The true disciple will follow Jesus teaching.

Appleburys Comments

Jesus Healed a Man With Dropsy
Scripture

Luk. 14:1-6 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, that they were watching him. 2 And behold, there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy. 3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not? 4 But they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go. 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? 6 And they could not answer again unto these things.

Comments

when he went into the house.He had gone into the house of a ruler of the Pharisees on the sabbath to have a meal. The Pharisee could have been a ruler of the synagogue or he could have held some other position of authority among the Jews.

there was before him a certain man.This sick man was in the immediate presence of Jesus. Had he been invited or was heas in the case of the woman of the city (Luk. 8:37-38)one of the poor who had come in uninvited? The fact that Jesus sent him away after the miracle may suggest that he had come in of his own accord. On the other hand, it is possible that he had been invited for the very purpose of baiting a trap for Jesus. The Pharisees were looking for an excuse to destroy Him. Had they heard how He had discredited the Pharisees and lawyers on other occasions (Luk. 6:7-11)? Were they aware that Jesus had put His adversaries to shame when He healed the woman with a spirit of infirmity?

Luke says they were watching Him closely. See also Mar. 3:2. Other had tried and failed; perhaps they were hoping that they would succeed in embarrassing Him before their own group.

And Jesus answering.A question was implied by the presence of the sick man. In the minds of those watching, the question was this: What will He do? Jesus spoke in answer to the implied question.

Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?The lawyers, no doubt, who were present had debated the question on many occasions. They should have known the answer. But they were unwilling to risk an answer at this time, so they entered a state of silence and left the issue up to Jesus.

And he took him and healed him.This is evidently what they were hoping He would do. But before they could launch their attack, He fired a question at them that they could not or would not answer.

Which of you shall have an ox or ass fall.When you have an ox or an ass fall into a well, what do you do, even if it is on the sabbath? The answer was clear; they would pull it out. A human being was in distress; Jesus had extended a helping hand, even though it was on the Sabbath.

Some texts add the word son to the list, but there is some question as to the correctness of the text in this matter. The comparison is stronger when it is between the man with dropsy and animals. And they could not answer.He had easily answered the question implied by the presence of the sick man, but they could not refute His logic when He drew the comparison between man and animal. They had to admit that He was right or keep still.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XIV.

(1) Into the house of one of the chief Pharisees.Better, of the rulers of the Pharisees. The meaning of the phrase is probably more definite than that suggested by the English. The man was either a ruler in the same sense as Nicodemus (Joh. 3:1), or the rich young man in Luk. 18:18 – i.e., a member of the Sanhedrin (which seems most likely)or else occupied a high position in the lay-hierarchy (if the phrase may be allowed) which had developed itself in the organisation of Pharisaism.

To eat bread on the Sabbath day.Sabbath feasts were then, as at a later time, part of the social life of the Jews, and were oftensubject, of course, to the condition that the food was coldoccasions of great luxury and display. Augustine speaks of them as including dancing and song, and the Sabbath luxury of the Jews became a proverb. On the motives of the Phariseeprobably half respect and half curiositysee Notes on Luk. 7:36.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 14

UNDER THE SCRUTINY OF HOSTILE MEN ( Luk 14:1-6 )

14:1-6 On the Sabbath day Jesus had gone into the house of one of the rulers who belonged to the Pharisees to eat bread; and they were watching him. And–look you– there was a man before him who had dropsy. Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? Or, is it not?” They kept silent. So he took him and healed him and sent him away. He said to them, “Suppose one of you has an ass or an ox, and it falls into a well, will he not immediately pull it out, even if it is on the Sabbath day?” And they had no answer to these things.

In the gospel story there are seven incidents in which Jesus healed on the Sabbath day. In Luke we have already studied the story of the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law ( Luk 4:38); of the man with the withered hand ( Luk 6:6); and of the woman who was bent for eighteen years ( Luk 13:13). To these John adds the story of the healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda ( Joh 5:9); and of the man born blind ( Joh 9:14). Mark adds one more–the healing of the demon-possessed man in the synagogue at Capernaum ( Mar 1:21).

Anyone would think that a record like that would have made a man beloved of all; but it is the tragic fact that every miracle of healing that Jesus wrought on the Sabbath day only made the scribes and Pharisees more certain that he was dangerous and irreligious and must at all costs be stopped. If we are to understand what happened to Jesus it is essential to remember that the orthodox Jews of his day regarded him as a law-breaker. He healed on the Sabbath; therefore he worked on the Sabbath; therefore he broke the law.

On this occasion a Pharisee invited him to a meal on the Sabbath. The law had its meticulous regulations about Sabbath meals. Of course no food could be cooked on the Sabbath; that would have been to work. All food had to be cooked on the Friday; and, if it was necessary to keep it hot, it must be kept hot in such a way that it was not cooked any more! So it is laid down that food to be kept warm for the Sabbath must not be put into “oil dregs, manure, salt, chalk or sand, whether moist or dry, nor into straw, grape-skins, flock or vegetables, if these are damp, though it may be if they are dry. It may be, however, put into clothes, amidst fruits, pigeons’ feathers and flax tow.” It was the observance of regulations like this that the Pharisees and scribes regarded as religion. No wonder they could not understand Jesus!

It is by no means impossible that the Pharisees “planted” the man with the dropsy in this house to see what Jesus would do. They were watching him; and the word used for watching is the word used for “interested and sinister espionage.” Jesus was under scrutiny.

Without hesitation Jesus healed the man. He knew perfectly well what they were thinking; and he quoted their own law and practice to them. Open wells were quite common in Palestine, and were not infrequently the cause of accidents (compare Exo 21:33). It was perfectly allowable to rescue a beast which had fallen in. Jesus, with searing contempt, demands how, if it be right to help an animal on the Sabbath, it can be wrong to help a man.

This passage tells us certain things about Jesus and his enemies.

(i) It shows us the serenity with which Jesus met life. There is nothing more trying than to be under constant and critical scrutiny. When that happens to most people they lose their nerve and, even more often, lose their temper. They become irritable; and while there may be greater sins than irritability there is none that causes more pain and heartbreak. But even in things which would have broken most men’s spirit, Jesus remained serene. If we live with him, he can make us like himself.

(ii) It is to be noted that Jesus never refused any man’s invitation of hospitality. To the end he never abandoned hope of men. To hope to change them or even to appeal to them, might be the forlornest of forlorn hopes, but he would never let a chance go. He would not refuse even an enemy’s invitation. It is as clear as daylight that we will never make our enemies our friends if we refuse to meet them and talk with them.

(iii) The most amazing thing about the scribes and Pharisees is their staggering lack of a sense of proportion. They would go to endless trouble to formulate and to obey their petty rules and regulations; and yet they counted it a sin to ease a sufferer’s pain on the Sabbath day.

If a man had only one prayer to pray he might well ask to be given a sense of proportion. The things which disturb the peace of congregations are often trifles. The things which divide men from men and which destroy friendships are often little things to which no sensible man, in his saner moments, would allow any importance. The little things can bulk so large that they can fill the whole horizon. Only if we put first things first will all things take their proper place–and love comes first.

THE NECESSITY OF HUMILITY ( Luk 14:7-11 )

14:7-11 Jesus spoke a parable to the invited guests, for he noticed how they chose the first places at the table. “When you are bidden by someone to a marriage feast,” he said. “do not take your place at table in the first scat, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited, for in that case the man who invited you will come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man.’ And then, with shame, you will begin to take the lowest place. But, when you have been invited, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that, when the man who has invited you comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, come up higher.’ Then you will gain honour in front of all who sit at table with you. For he who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Jesus chose a homely illustration to point an eternal truth. If a quite undistinguished guest arrived early at a feast and annexed the top place, and if a more distinguished person then arrived, and the man who had usurped the first place was told to step down, a most embarrassing situation resulted. If, on the other hand, a man deliberately slipped into the bottom place, and was then asked to occupy a more distinguished place, his humility gained him all the more honour.

Humility has always been one of the characteristics of great men. When Thomas Hardy was so famous that any newspaper would gladly have paid enormous sums for his work, he used sometimes to submit a poem, and always with it a stamped and addressed envelope for the return of his manuscript should it be rejected. Even in his greatness he was humble enough to think that his work might be turned down.

There are many stories and legends of the humility of Principal Cairns. He would never enter a room first. He always said, “You first, I follow.” Once, as he came on to a platform, there was a great burst of applause in welcome. He stood aside and let the man after him come first and began himself to applaud. He never dreamed that the applause could possibly be for him; he thought it must be for the other man. It is only the little man who is self-important.

How can we retain our humility?

(i) We can retain it by realizing the facts. How ever much we know, we still know very little compared with the sum total of knowledge. However much we have achieved, we still have achieved very little in the end. However important we may believe ourselves to be, when death removes us or when we retire from our position, life and work will go on just the same.

(ii) We can retain it by comparison with the perfect. It is when we see or hear the expert that we realize how poor our own performance is. Many a man has decided to burn his clubs after a day at golf s Open Championship. Many a man has decided never to appear in public again after hearing a master musician perform. Many a preacher has been humbled almost to despair when he has heard a real saint of God speak. And if we set our lives beside the life of the Lord of all good life, if we see our unworthiness in comparison with the radiance of his stainless purity, pride will die and self-satisfaction will be shrivelled up.

DISINTERESTED CHARITY ( Luk 14:12-14 )

14:12-14 Jesus said to the man who had invited him, “Whenever you give a dinner or a banquet, do not call your friends, or your brothers, or your kinsfolk or your rich neighbours, in case they invite you back again in return and you receive a repayment. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind. Then you will be happy, because they cannot repay you. You will receive your repayment at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Here is a searching passage, because it demands that we should examine the motives behind all our generosity.

(i) A man may give from a sense of duty.

He dropped a penny in the plate

And meekly raised his eyes,

Glad the week’s rent was duly paid

For mansions in the skies.

We may give to God and to man much in the same way as we pay our income tax–as the satisfaction of a grim duty which we cannot escape.

(ii) A man may give purely from motives of self-interest. Consciously or unconsciously he may regard his giving as an investment. He may regard each gift as an entry on the credit side of his account in the ledger of God. Such giving, so far from being generosity, is rationalized selfishness.

(iii) A man may give in order to feel superior. Such giving can be a cruel thing. It can hurt the recipient much more than a blunt refusal. When a man gives like that he stands on his little eminence and looks down. He may even with the gift throw in a short and smug lecture. It would be better not to give at all than to give merely to gratify one’s own vanity and one’s own desire for power. The Rabbis had a saying that the best kind of giving was when the giver did not know to whom he was giving, and when the receiver did not know from whom he was receiving.

(iv) A man may give because he cannot help it. That is the only real way to give. The law of the kingdom is this–that if a man gives to gain reward he will receive no reward; but if a man gives with no thought of reward his reward is certain. The only real giving is that which is the uncontrollable outflow of love. Once Dr Johnson cynically described gratitude as “a lively sense of favours to come.” The same definition could equally apply to certain forms of giving. God gave because he so loved the world–and so must we.

THE KING’S BANQUET AND THE KING’S GUESTS ( Luk 14:15-24 )

14:15-24 When one of those who were sitting at table with Jesus heard this, he said, “Happy is the man who eats bread in the kingdom of God.” Jesus said to him, “There was a man who made a great banquet, and who invited many people to it. At the time of the banquet he sent his servants to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, because everything is now ready.’ With one accord they all began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am on my way to try them out. Please have me excused.’ Another said, ‘I have married a wife, and, therefore, I cannot come.’ So the servant came and told his master these things. The master of the house was enraged, and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the town and bring here the poor, and the maimed, and the blind and the lame.’ The servant said, ‘Sir, your orders have been carried out and there is still room.’ So the master said to his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and to the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you that none of these men who were invited shall taste of my banquet.'”

The Jews had a series of ever-recurring conventional pictures of what would happen when God broke into history and when the golden days of the new age arrived. One of these was the picture of the Messianic banquet. On that day God would give a great feast to his own people at which Leviathan, the sea monster, would be part of the food. It is of this banquet that the man who spoke to Jesus was thinking. When he spoke of the happiness of those who would be guests at that banquet he was thinking of Jews, and of Jews only, for the average, orthodox Jew would never have dreamed that gentiles and sinners would find a place at the feast of God. That is why Jesus spoke this parable.

In Palestine, when a man made a feast, the day was announced long beforehand and the invitations were sent out and accepted; but the hour was not announced; and when the day came and all things were ready, servants were sent out to summon the already invited guests. To accept the invitation beforehand and then to refuse it when the day came was a grave insult.

In the parable the master stands for God. The originally invited guests stand for the Jews. Throughout all their history they had looked forward to the day when God would break in; and when he did, they tragically refused his invitation. The poor people from the streets and lanes stand for the tax-gatherers and sinners who welcomed Jesus in a way in which the orthodox never did. Those gathered in from the roads and the hedges stand for the gentiles for whom there was still ample room at the feast of God. As Bengel, the great commentator, put it, “both nature and grace abhor a vacuum,” and when the Jews refused God’s invitation and left his table empty, the invitation went out to the gentiles.

There is one sentence in this parable which has been sadly misused. “Go out,” said the master, “and compel them to come in.” Long ago Augustine used that text as a justification for religious persecution. It was taken as a command to coerce people into the Christian faith. It was used as a defence of the inquisition, the thumb-screw, the rack, the threat of death and imprisonment, the campaigns against the heretics, all those things which are the shame of Christianity. Beside it we should always set another text–The love of Christ controls us. ( 2Co 5:14.) In the kingdom of God there is only one compulsion–the compulsion of love.

But though this parable spoke with a threat to the Jews who had refused God’s invitation, and with an undreamed of glory to the sinners and the outcasts and the gentiles who had never dreamed of receiving it, there are in it truths which are forever permanent and as new as today. In the parable the invited guests made their excuses and men’s excuses do not differ so very much today.

(i) The first man said that he had bought a field and was going to see it. He allowed the claims of business to usurp the claims of God. It is still possible for a man to be so immersed in this world that he has no time to worship, and even no time to pray.

(ii) The second man said that he had bought five yoke of oxen and that he was going to try them out. He let the claims of novelty usurp the claims of Christ. It often happens that when people enter into new possessions they become so taken up with them that the claims of worship and of God get crowded out. People have been known to acquire a motor car and then to say, “We used to go to church on a Sunday, but now we go off to the country for the day.” It is perilously easy for a new game, a new hobby, even a new friendship, to take up even the time that should be kept for God.

(iii) The third man said, with even more finality than the others, “I have married a wife, and I cannot come.” One of the wonderful merciful laws of the Old Testament laid it down, “when a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, to be happy with his wife whom he has taken” ( Deu 24:5). No doubt that very law was in this man’s mind. It is one of the tragedies of life when good things crowd out the claims of God. There is no lovelier thing than a home and yet a home was never meant to be used selfishly. They live best together who live with God; they serve each other best who also serve their fellow-men; the atmosphere of a home is most lovely when those who dwell within it remember that they are also members of the great family and household of God.

The Banquet Of The Kingdom

Before we leave this passage we must note that Luk 14:1-24 have all to do with feasts and banquets. It is most significant that Jesus thought of his kingdom and his service in terms of a feast. The symbol of the kingdom was the happiest thing that human life could know. Surely this is the final condemnation of the Christian who is afraid to enjoy himself.

There has always been a type of Christianity which has taken all the colour out of life. Julian spoke of those pale-faced, flat-breasted Christians for whom the sun shone and they never saw it. Swinburne slandered Christ by saying,

“Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilaean,

The world has grown gray from thy breath.”

Ruskin, who was brought up in a rigid and a narrow home, tells how he was given a jumping-jack as a present and a pious aunt took it away from him, saying that toys were no things for a Christian child. Even so great and sane and healthy a scholar as A. B. Bruce said that you could not conceive of the child Jesus playing games when he was a boy, or smiling when he was a man. W. M. Macgregor, in his Warrack Lectures, speaks with the scorn of which he was such a master, about one of John Wesley’s few mistakes. He founded a school at Kingswood, near Bristol. He laid it down that no games were to be allowed in the school or in the grounds, because “he who plays when he is a child will play when he is a man.” There were no holidays. The children rose at 4 a.m. and spent the first hour of the day in prayer and meditation, and on Friday they fasted until three in the afternoon. W. M. Macgregor characterizes the whole set up as “nature-defying foolishness.”

We must always remember that Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of a feast. A gloomy Christian is a contradiction in terms. Locke, the great philosopher, defined laughter as “a sudden glory.” There is no healthy pleasure which is forbidden to a Christian man, for a Christian is like a man who is forever at a wedding feast.

ON COUNTING THE COST ( Luk 14:25-33 )

14:25-33 Great crowds were on the way with Jesus. He turned and said to them, “If any man comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life too, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Which of you, if he wishes to build a tower, does not first sit down and reckon up the expense, to see whether he has enough to finish it? This he does lest, when he has laid the foundation and is unable to complete the work, all who see him begin to mock him, saying. ‘This man began to build and was unable to finish the job.’ Or, what king when he is going to engage battle with another king, does not first sit down and take counsel, whether he is able with ten thousand men to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he finds he cannot, while he is still distant, he sends an embassy and asks for terms of peace. So, therefore, everyone of you who does not bid farewell to all his possessions cannot be my disciple.”

When Jesus said this he was on the road to Jerusalem. He knew that he was on his way to the cross; the crowds who were with him thought that he was on his way to an empire. That is why he spoke to them like this. In the most vivid way possible he told them that the man who followed him was not on the way to worldly power and glory, but must be ready for a loyalty which would sacrifice the dearest things in life and for a suffering which would be like the agony of a man upon a cross.

We must not take his words with cold and unimaginative literalness. Eastern language is always as vivid as the human mind can make it. When Jesus tells us to hate our nearest and dearest, he does not mean that literally. He means that no love in life can compare with the love we must bear to him.

There are two suggestive truths within this passage.

(i) It is possible to be a follower of Jesus without being a disciple; to be a camp-follower without being a soldier of the king; to be a hanger-on in some great work without pulling one’s weight. Once someone was talking to a great scholar about a younger man. He said, “So and so tells me that he was one of year students.” The teacher answered devastatingly, “He may have attended my lectures, but he was not one of my students.” It is one of the supreme handicaps of the church that in it there are so many distant followers of Jesus and so few real disciples.

(ii) It is a Christian’s first duty to count the cost of following Christ. The tower which the man was going to build was probably a vineyard tower. Vineyards were often equipped with towers from which watch was kept against thieves who might steal the harvest. An unfinished building is always a humiliating thing. In Scotland, we may, for instance, think of that weird structure called “M’Caig’s Folly” which stands behind Oban.

In every sphere of life a man is called upon to count the cost. In the introduction to the marriage ceremony according to the forms of the Church of Scotland, the minister says, “Marriage is not to be entered upon lightly or unadvisedly, but thoughtfully, reverently, and in the fear of God.” A man and woman must count the cost.

It is so with the Christian way. But if a man is daunted by the high demands of Christ let him remember that he is not left to fulfil them alone. He who called him to the steep road will walk with him every step of the way and be there at the end to meet him.

THE INSIPID SALT ( Luk 14:34-35 )

14:34-35 Jesus said, “Salt is a fine thing; but if salt has become insipid, by what means shall its taste be restored? It is fit neither for the land nor the dunghill. Men throw it out. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear.”

Just sometimes Jesus speaks with a threat in his voice. When a person is always carping and criticizing and complaining, his irritable anger ceases to have any significance or any effect. But when someone whose accent is the accent of love suddenly speaks with a threat we are bound to listen. What Jesus is saying is this–when a thing loses its essential quality and fails to perform its essential duty, it is fit for nothing but to be thrown away.

Jesus uses salt as a symbol of the Christian life. What, then, are its essential qualities? In Palestine it had three characteristic uses.

(i) Salt was used as a preservative. It is the earliest of all preservatives. The Greeks used to say that salt could put a new soul into dead things. Without salt a thing putrefied and went bad; with it its freshness was preserved. That means that true Christianity must act as a preservative against the corruption of the world. The individual Christian must be the conscience of his fellows; and the church the conscience of the nation. The Christian must be such that in his presence no doubtful language will be used, no questionable stories told, no dishonourable action suggested. He must be like a cleansing antiseptic in the circle in which he moves. The church must fearlessly speak against all evils and support all good causes. She must never hold her peace through fear or favour of men.

(ii) Salt was used as a flavouring. Food, without salt, can be revoltingly insipid. The Christian, then, must be the man who brings flavour into life. The Christianity which acts like a shadow of gloom and a wet blanket is no true Christianity. The Christian is the man who, by his courage, his hope, his cheerfulness and his kindness brings a new flavour into life.

(iii) Salt was used on the land. It was used to make it easier for all good things to grow. The Christian must be such that he makes it easier for people to be good and harder to be bad. We all know people in whose company there are certain things we would not and could not do; and equally we all know people in whose company we might well stoop to things which by ourselves we would not do. There are fine souls in whose company it is easier to be brave and cheerful and good. The Christian must carry with him a breath of heaven in which the fine things flourish and the evil things shrivel up.

That is the function of the Christian; if he fails in his function there is no good reason why he should exist at all; and we have already seen that in the economy of God uselessness invites disaster. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

1. One of the chief Pharisees That is, one who was a leading character among the Pharisees. The Pharisees were not an official class, but a sect; and their chief men were their eminent doctors or wise men. But such were often promoted to office, as this sect was very influential in public affairs. Alexander Jannaeus, one of the Jewish kings, opposed the Pharisees with all his power during his own life; but when he came to his death, he advised his surviving queen to submit herself entirely to their control. Obeying this advice, she was able to rule in peace. This chief Pharisee was very likely one of the Sanhedrim.

On the Sabbath day The Jews made it a point of honour to the Sabbath day to take a much more sumptuous meal than upon any other day. They must feast thrice that day as a religious merit; for who so did should be saved from the three punishments: the sorrows of the Messiah, the pains of hell, and the wars of Gog and Magog. Jesus was a guest on this occasion, and rendered it a religions assembly. Those who cannot, like Jesus, render a Sabbath social gathering a profitable occasion, had better absent themselves.

They watched him The standing point of debate, Will he heal upon the Sabbath day? was evidently before their minds.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY, BETWEEN THE FEAST OF DEDICATION AND THE RETIREMENT TO EPHRAIM. Luk 13:22 to Luk 17:10. See Harmony, p. 101.

Jesus went to the Feast of Dedication, Joh 10:22-40. After which, according to Joh 10:40, he went to beyond Jordan, (Peraea,) where John at first baptized, and there abode. Many, as John assures us, who had the original testimony of the Baptist, were convinced of its fulfilment in him, and became believers on him. Of this PERAEN MINISTRY Luke here gives an account; covering apparently, however, but the two or three closing days. Jesus, then, as we learn from John, departed to raise Lazarus, and then retired to Ephraim.

A marked fact in this brief account of the Peraean ministry is the conversion of many Jewish publicans and [Gentile] sinners, and the Lord’s defences of them against the malignity of their Phariseean assailants. This contest draws out from Jesus a series of most striking discourses and parables. Jericho and the Jordan region probably abounded in Publicans and a Gentile population.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And it came about, 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.’

The description here is unusual for there were no rulers of the Pharisees. It may, however, merely signify that the man was both a ruler of the Jews, and also a Pharisee. Or it may suggest some privileged position among the Pharisees. The former is most probable. But Luke’s aim in speaking of the Pharisee as ‘a ruler of the Pharisees’ may be in order to suggest that that we are to see this house as like ‘the ruler’s house’ (Luk 12:36). And he is possibly to be seen as comparing with the householder of the parable in the chiasmus parallel (Luk 12:39) whose servants were expected to fulfil their duties (Luk 12:35-40).

(It is true that the parallel is not wholly exact, but the implications are all there. Exactness was not possible when the master of the house in the parallel was either God or the Lord).

As the servants were in the lord’s house in the parallel parable, so Jesus has come into this man’s house and is surrounded by those who would claim to be His fellow-servants. And here He eats bread with them. But the fellow-servants who surrounded Him were Scribes and Pharisees who were all watching Him. In this last regard it is possible that the sick man had been put there deliberately, but not necessarily so. The situation may simply have been that Jesus was under general surveillance, just as the servants were in the parable. Indeed the Scribes and Pharisees were under surveillance too, although they may not have considered the fact. But certainly as the Servant of the Lord Jesus knew that He was always under God’s surveillance in order to see that He would do what was right.

The meal would be the main meal of the day following the synagogue service, a meal to which it was quite normal to invite guests. On the Sabbath there would be three meals, all of course cooked on the previous day (there were even instructions in the traditions of the elders on how and how not to keep it warm lest any ‘cooking’ occur on the Sabbath), but the midday meal was the main one. On other days there would only be two meals and the main meal would be towards evening. Being in the house of a leading Pharisee there would be jars of water set apart there which provided ‘clean’ water for the washing rites which all would be expected to observe.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

A Sabbath Meal At A Pharisee’s House; The Healing of A Man With Dropsy (14:1-6).

It is unusual in Luke for us to be given the full details of the setting, yet in this passage Jesus is invited into the home of a ‘Ruler of the Pharisees’. And there He eats bread with him and his companions, companions who are ‘watching’ Him (and whom in Luk 14:7 He will liken to people at a marriage feast). They would certainly all have claimed to be ‘servants of God’, and fellow-servants with the Ruler. They would also have acknowledged that in one way or another they were waiting for the Messiah.

But when we note that in the chiasmus of the Section (see introduction above) this incident parallels the householder who should have been in readiness for the thief to come (Luk 12:39) and the parable of the servants who were waiting for their ‘lord’, and who were expected to be in the house ready and waiting for their lord’s return from the wedding feast, and meanwhile were to be about their duties all becomes clear. As we have observed there are a number of connections between the pictures presented. Here are God’s servant waiting in the house, along with the householder, and under God’s scrutiny. Just as they have Jesus under their scrutiny.

Jesus was also there as God’s Servant. He too was to be about God’s business, and when He saw there a man suffering from dropsy, He knew what His responsibility was as a faithful and wise servant. It was to heal the man. But He also knew that He was surrounded by disapproving ‘servants’. Indeed what He would do would even be disapproved of by His host, the householder. Nevertheless, He knows that He must be faithful to the One Who has called Him to be His Servant. If not He Himself would be accused of faithless service and thus lose the blessing from His Father. The parallel with the dual parables is clear.

Analysis.

a When He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, they were watching Him (Luk 14:1).

b Behold, there was before Him a certain man who had the dropsy (Luk 14:2).

c Jesus answering spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?” (Luk 14:3).

d But they held their peace (Luk 14:4 a).

c And He took him, and healed him, and let him go (Luk 14:4 b).

b 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?” (Luk 14:5).

a They could not answer again to these things (Luk 14:6).

Note that in ‘a’ they were watching Him to test Him out, and in the parallel they could not answer His statement. In ‘b’ there was a man who had fluid in the skin which made his skin fall, and in the parallel reference is made to animals which themselves fall into a well. In ‘c’ Jesus asks if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath, and in the parallel He does so. Central in ‘d’ is the fact that they make no reply. They have nothing that they can say against His actions.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

SECTION 5 (12:1-14:35).

We commence here a new section of Luke. As we shall see this section centres around a mighty act of Jesus in delivering a woman bound by Satan, and thus doubled up and unable to straighten. By this He made clear why He had come. He had come to make the crooked straight (Luk 3:5). And here He did it openly on the Sabbath day. Indeed we are regularly told that Jesus saw the Sabbath as a day for ‘healing’ and ‘making straight’, for He had come to turn men from the power of Satan to God (Act 26:18). It may therefore be that He intended men to see by this that in Him God’s new rest had come (Heb 4:3-4; Heb 4:9). The whole of the section may therefore be seen as gaining its significance from this act of power, as He sought to make both His Apostles and those who followed Him ‘straight’.

The centrality of this incident in the section is revealed by the following analysis which indicates that the section is in the form of a chiasmus, with the incident of the straightening of the crooked woman central.

This next Section from Luk 12:1 to Luk 14:35 can be separated into its separate parts as follows:

a Instructions to disciples concerning facing up to eternity (Luk 12:1-12).

b An example is given of covetousness concerning an inheritance which is followed by the parable of the fool who decided to enjoy rich banquets, ignored the needs of the poor, and in the end suffered the unforeseen consequences of prematurely losing his wealth to others who benefited unexpectedly while the one expected to benefit lost out (Luk 12:13-21).

c We are to seek the Kingly Rule of God and not to be anxious about other things (Luk 12:22-34).

d We are to be like men serving the Lord in His house and awaiting His arrival from a wedding feast, being faithful in His service at whatever time He comes and meanwhile making use of all our time for His benefit (Luk 12:35-40).

e There are stewards both good and bad who will be called to account for He has come to send fire on earth which will cause great disruption (Luk 12:41-53).

f Men are to discern the times and not be like a debtor who realises too late that he should have compounded with the Great Creditor (Luk 12:54-59).

g Some present draw attention to the tower that fell on men. He points out that that was no proof of guilt, for all are sinful and will perish unless they repent. They would therefore be wise to repent while they can (Luk 13:1-5)

h The parable of the fig tree which is to be given its chance to bear fruit (Luk 13:6-9).

i The crooked woman is healed on the Sabbath for Jesus has come to release from Satan’s power (Luk 13:10-17).

h The parables of the grain of mustard seed which is to grow and reproduce, and of the leaven which spreads, both of which represent the growth of the Kingly Rule of God in both prospective ultimate size and method of expansion (Luk 13:18-21).

g Someone asks ‘are there few that are saved?’ The reply is that men must strive to enter the door while they can (Luk 13:22-23).

f We must not be like those who awake too late and find the door closed against them and wish they had befriended the Householder (Luk 13:24-28).

e We are to watch how we respond as His stewards for some will come from east, west, north and south, while others will awake too late, like Herod who seeks to kill Him and Jerusalem which is losing its opportunity and will be desolated and totally disrupted (Luk 13:29-35).

d Jesus is invited into the home of a Chief Pharisee. And there He eats with him at table, surrounded by many ‘fellow-servants’. There He sees a man with dropsy. As God’s Servant He knows what His responsibility is if He is to be a faithful and wise servant. It is to heal the man. For God’s works of compassion should be done at all times including the Sabbath and not just at times of man’s choosing. And yet He is surrounded by those waiting to catch Him out (Luk 14:1-6).

c None are to seek the higher place, for he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luk 14:7-11).

b An example is given of inviting the poor to dinner which is followed by the parable of a rich banquet, where those who made excuses were rejected, and the result was that due to unforeseen circumstances there a banquet for the poor, while those for whom it was intended lost out (Luk 14:12-24)

a Instructions are given to the disciples concerning facing up to the cost (Luk 14:25-35).

‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear’ (Luk 14:35).

Note that in ‘a’ the Section opens with instructions to the disciples, and in the parallel it closes with instructions to the disciples, both seeing things in the light of eternity. In ‘b’ we have a parable dealing with the use of riches, and in the parallel the use of wealth to help the poor is dealt with, in ‘c’ we are to seek the Kingly Rule of God and trust our Father over our daily living, and in the parallel we are not to seek the higher place on earth, for the one who humbles himself will be exalted. In ‘d’ we are to be like men awaiting in the Lord’s ‘house’, awaiting His arrival at whatever time He comes and meanwhile making use of all our time and serving Him faithfully, and in the parallel Jesus is in the Chief Pharisee’s house and is called on to perform an act of faithful service even though it is the Sabbath, an act which He does perform. It is an example of faithful service even in the face of difficulties, and a reminder to us that we are to use all our time, including the Sabbath, for doing God’s work. In ‘e’ there are stewards both good and bad who will be called to account, for He has come to ‘cast fire on the earth’, and in the parallel we are to watch how we respond as His stewards, for some will come into the Kingly Rule of God from east, west, north and south, while others will awake too late, like Herod who seeks to kill Him and Jerusalem which is losing its opportunity and will be desolated and will experience His ‘fire on earth’. In ‘f’ men are to discern the times, and in the parallel we are not to be like those who awake too late. In ‘g’ and its parallel the imminence of death and what our response should be to it is described. In ‘h’ the vine is to be allowed its opportunity of bearing fruit, and in the parallel the mustard seed will grow and bear fruit. Central in ‘i’ is the healing and making straight of one who is crooked, a picture of what He has come to do for Israel. This is the whole purpose of the Kingly Rule of God.

Resume.

Prior to looking at this section in detail we should remind ourselves of its context.

When Luke commences Acts he claims that in his earlier writing (this Gospel) he had dealt with ‘all that Jesus began to do and to teach’. That is an apt description of the Gospel, for its first half very much emphasises what Jesus had come to do, while the second half, commencing here, will concentrate very much on what He came to teach.

Not that it is quite as simple as that. In the first half He has certainly also given us a number of examples of the teaching of Jesus, for quite apart from the teaching which is connected with the various incidents, we find the sermon on the plain where He establishes the basis for the new Kingly Rule of God (Luk 6:20-49); the teaching concerning John, which emphasises the new situation brought about by the coming of the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 7:24-35); the parable of the sower, which stresses the coming and spreading of the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 8:4-18); and the detailed teaching concerning discipleship, which contains warning of the cost to His followers of coming under the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 9:21-27). Nevertheless on the whole the emphasis in the first part of the Gospel is on what He did.

In the second half of the Gospel the emphasis will be on what He taught. Again it is not a hard and fast rule. Luke tells us of the healing of the crooked woman and her deliverance from the power of Satan (Luk 13:10-14), the healing of a man with dropsy (Luk 14:1-4); the healing of ten lepers, the number indicating an increased abundance of healing (Luk 17:11-19 compare the one in Luk 5:12-14), and the healing of the blind man as He finally approached Jerusalem (Luk 18:35-42), and the impression is given that His healing work goes on continually, for He tells Herod, ‘I cast out demons and perform cures today, and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course’ (Luk 13:32). But the remainder of the space is then given over to teaching. Having first given the impression of Who Jesus was, emphasis is now to be placed on His words.

Also prominent from now on will be His emphasis on training His disciples by word. Prior to this He had been content to live out His life before them, teaching them by demonstration, until in the end they had recognised that He was ‘the Anointed of God’. As they went about with Him and had seen what He was and what He did, they had had clearly presented to them in some considerable depth something of His uniqueness, a presentation over which He had taken a great deal of trouble.

At the same time they had heard continually His message to the crowds, both those to whom He had taught in the synagogues, and to those who continually flocked around Him. In this they had been taught the attitude of sacrificial love that would be required of them as they established His Kingly Rule (Luk 6:20-49), even if they had not really grasped its full significance (Luk 9:54). That was in teaching given to all. And He had also given them special coaching when they sought it (Luk 8:9). They had further learned that what lay ahead of them may have a great cost in terms of turning their backs on themselves and even facing death for His sake (Luk 9:23-27). And they had been warned, with little sign of taking it in, that He must suffer. But overall this teaching had been additional to His revelation by His doings, and had not been the emphasis, and thus, while they now recognised in Jesus ‘the Messiah of God’, they were still very much imprisoned within their own ideas. For Jesus knew the importance of leading rather than forcing. He knew that simply to overwhelm them with new ideas would be fatal to their understanding. He did not want them just to learn by rote (although that was a useful beginning and many of His messages were designed to that end), but rather that His ideas might seep through gradually and take root in their hearts, until they then became a part of them.

Of course, they knew by now that they had been called to proclaim that the Kingly Rule of God was among them, and that men were now to respond to His Kingly Rule. That had been the message that they had proclaimed when they themselves went out preaching. But they had not really grasped what was involved in this Kingly Rule, and what was to be the final result of it. They still had the idea of a literal kingdom on earth in Palestine (Act 1:6). They still thought in terms of taking over the reins from the Romans in Palestine, ousting them once and for all, and then ruling in their place (as David had once done, followed by the Maccabees). They had still not realised that the Old Testament contained greater heavenly truths than were apparent on the surface, and that they themselves were involved in a greater and more exciting project than the transformation of Palestine. They were involved in something that would lead to the transformation and salvation of men and women throughout the world, through the word.

This lack of understanding comes out in a number of ways:

1). It is made quite apparent that they were still thinking in terms of which of them was to be the greatest, and which of them would hold the most important offices once the new independent kingdom was established. They would continue to jostle for, and argue about, such positions. This was something that they would continue to do right to the end until the coming of the Holy Spirit and the commands they would receive in Acts 1 changed their whole perspective (Luk 9:46; Luk 22:24-27).

2). They were still almost certainly thinking in terms of the need to raise a large number of supporters, and were seeing their future in terms of going forward with such an army when the time was ripe, in order to establish God’s Kingly Rule by this means. This was something that ‘Messianic’ claimants were constantly doing, thus raising the ire and retaliation of the Romans, and what they would continue to do once Jesus had died and risen again. Why then should they be any different? It was the popular conception (see Joh 6:15), and their thinking was little different from that of others. It was what they had been brought up to expect. And they were very much of the people. The only difference between them and the others was that they knew that their leader had extraordinary powers. He could do things that took the breath away.

This is no doubt why they were puzzled at the continuing fewness of their numbers and had to be reassured (Luk 12:32). They had seen the first increase in popularity as they moved around as preparation for what was to come, and had been encouraged. But they were puzzled as to why Jesus had not made the most of it, and why Jesus now appeared to have left the places where His influence was greatest, and was even talking morbidly about being seized by His enemies and being put to death. Was He not then concerned about the size of His army?

At first numbers had not appeared to be a problem. They had appeared to be growing rapidly, with Jesus at work training His leaders. But now many of those very leaders had dropped away (Joh 6:66) and things seemed to have come to rather a low ebb, and this in spite of the continuation of the large, but impermanent crowds which they discovered wherever they went (Luk 12:1). Jesus was still popular but why was He not turning it to advantage? As He Himself was aware they were no doubt more than a little puzzled (Luk 12:32). Yet it was clear to them that Jesus Himself did not seem to be worried. So their thoughts may well even have turned to the thought of Gideon and his few as an explanation (Jdg 7:4-8). God could save by many and by few. Perhaps it was all part of God’s plan to demonstrate His power once and for all.

But then had come the mission of the seventy. That had probably boosted all their hopes. At last He was getting everyone prepared for the coming of the Kingly Rule of God! They probably thought that by this Jesus was establishing a base in every city, with the confidence that when the time came for them to rise up, many would be there ready to rise with them. For they had still not fully taken in His teaching about loving their enemies, or the message of His lowly death, or, to the extent that they had, they saw in the promised resurrection the hope that He would arise with power from the grave to defeat all who stood in opposition to Him.

3). They were still thinking in terms of the position that was going to be theirs once they had finally firmly established God’s Kingly Rule (Mar 10:35). Now that was something to look forward to. They would enjoy positions of great prestige and authority and all would look up to them. They would enjoy being admired, and tell everyone what to do. We can see then why it was hard for them to throw aside all their old ideas and see in humble service the fulfilling of their dreams.

4). They were still thinking in terms of the future possessions that would be theirs once the good times came (Luk 18:28). At present there was hardship, but they had sufficient confidence in Jesus to be certain that there would be a golden tomorrow. And they were thinking of, and looking forward to, physical gold.

All this brings out that they did have faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, but that their eyes were still very much on an earthly Kingdom. They were like many are today. They could not rise above the earthly.

That they were in fact wrong in what they anticipated we now know. And that was why it was now necessary for Jesus to begin His task of wooing them away from such conceptions in view of His forthcoming death. And because men’s minds, once formulated in a certain way from childhood, are very difficult to alter, and because men’s obstinacy of thought is what it is, it was inevitably going to be a slow process. It would be a matter of a slow seeping of information into their minds until in the end the truth would dawn on them (as the truth of His Messiahship had already dawned). This will be the aim of the next few chapters. They are to be times of reformulating all of their wrong ideas, until they begin to grasp more and more of the truth that what the world needed, and what they had been appointed for, was the spread of His word. In this regard no change is more marked than that between what the Apostles are now, and what they will be in Acts.

Jesus’ New Approach.

The whole process commences by His now turning their thoughts to eternity and the Judgment to come (Luk 12:1-11). The first thing that it is necessary for them to do is to begin to live in the light of eternity. So He now sets out to wake up to the fact that they must cease thinking altogether in terms of material possessions, or of prosperous living, or of what they can get out of life (Luk 12:13-31), and must recognise that all their concentration must be on establishing the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 12:31). And He wants to make them see that this will not be by means of a large army, well-armed, but that God will begin to establish His Kingly Rule through a few, with those few having no earthly resources at all (Luk 12:32-34), apart from the Holy Spirit (Luk 12:12 compare Luk 11:13).

Further He wants them to recognise that He will not be with them permanently. He will be going away from them (as He has already told them – Luk 9:21-22; Luk 9:26; Luk 9:44), but that when He is away they must live in readiness for when He returns (Luk 12:35-48), for they will have much to do, and after a while He will be coming back in order to reward them for faithful service. (He wanted them to recognise that, while they must be ready for His coming, they must not expect His return immediately).

He also wants them to know that all that is ahead is not going to be rosy (Luk 12:49-53). Let them not think that the world is soon to become a Paradise. Rather He is shortly going to cast fire down on it, something which would tie in with great suffering that He Himself would have to undergo. And as a result of this He would bring about great divisions in the world (Luk 12:52-53), and Jerusalem would be desolated and forsaken (Luk 13:34-35; Luk 21:6; Luk 21:20; Luk 21:24; compare Mat 23:37-39). So there was to be a revolution. But not quite of the kind that they were expecting. Rather than be a revolution which drives families together, it will be a revolution that splits households in two because of their attitudes towards Him and His word. These will be His next lessons. And they will not be quickly grasped.

But this new emphasis on teaching does not mean that nothing practical was now happening, for, as the chiasmus below reveals, the whole of this present section of concentrated teaching will centre around a practical demonstration of His power in the healing of a crooked woman and her deliverance from Satan’s power. Here was another powerful symbol revealing a picture of Israel in its need and how Jesus has come to meet that need. This woman was a symbol of what He had really come to do. He had come to make the crooked straight (Luk 3:5) and to deliver the oppressed (Luk 4:18). And all His teaching was to that end.

We note that Luke constructs his Gospel in such a way that this is to be the last mention of Satan and his minions in action (Luk 13:11; Luk 13:16) until we come to Jesus’ last days (Luk 22:3; Luk 22:31). And yet at the same time he makes it clear that this is not because that side of things has ceased, for in Luk 13:32 he depicts Jesus as testifying to the fact that his defeats of Satan’s forces will continue on, right up to ‘the third day’ when Jesus will finish His course and finally defeat them once and for all. Then through His crucifixion and resurrection they will become guerrillas on the run, and no longer possessors of the field. So the story of the crooked woman, coming in the middle of a whole host of teaching, is a reminder of the very real spiritual battle that is still going on, and would continue on right to the end. As we shall see, what follows is to be further teaching on the Kingly Rule of God, as He continues to reformulate their thinking, while His continuing activity towards that end is depicted by the deliverance of the crooked woman.

He does, of course, continue to preach to the crowds. That too would continue right up to the end. And yet at the same time it becomes clear that His disciples are now to go through their own intensive training course ready for the future, a future of which He is fully aware, even if they are not.

That is why from this point on attention will turn to life under the Kingly Rule of God, and we will find a series of parables which all look at the development of the Kingly Rule of God, the way life should be lived under His Kingly Rule, and the expected return of the King, all these sandwiched between instructions given by Jesus to His disciples in Luk 12:1-12 and Luk 14:25-35, and all centred around the fact of Jesus’ deliverance from Satan and the making straight of those who come to Him (Luk 13:10-17).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Teaches Concerning Greed, Stewardship and the Need For Fruitfulness Under The Kingly Rule of God Centring on the Fact That He Will Make The Crooked Straight (12:1-14:35).

As we have seen we may analyse this next Section from Luk 12:1 to Luk 14:35 into its separate parts as follows:

a Instructions to disciples concerning facing up to eternity (Luk 12:1-12).

b An example is given of covetousness concerning an inheritance which is followed by the parable of the fool who decided to enjoy rich banquets, ignored the needs of the poor, and in the end suffered the unforeseen consequences of prematurely losing his wealth to others who benefited unexpectedly while the one expected to benefit lost out (Luk 12:13-21).

c We are to seek the Kingly Rule of God and not to be anxious about other things (Luk 12:22-34).

d We are to be like men serving the Lord in His house and awaiting His arrival from a wedding feast, being faithful in His service at whatever time He comes and meanwhile making use of all our time for His benefit (Luk 12:35-40).

e There are stewards both good and bad who will be called to account for He has come to send fire on earth which will cause great disruption (Luk 12:41-53).

f Men are to discern the times and not be like a debtor who realises too late that he should have compounded with the Great Creditor (Luk 12:54-59).

g Some present draw attention to the tower that fell on men. He points out that that was no proof of guilt, for all are sinful and will perish unless they repent. They would therefore be wise to repent (Luk 13:1-5)

h The parable of the fig tree which is to be given its chance to bear fruit (Luk 13:6-9).

i The crooked woman is healed on the Sabbath for Jesus has come to release from Satan’s power (Luk 13:10-17).

h The parables of the grain of mustard seed which is to grow and reproduce, and of the leaven which spreads, both of which represent the growth of the Kingly Rule of God in both prospective ultimate size and method of expansion (Luk 13:18-21).

g Someone asks ‘are there few that are saved?’ The reply is that men must strive to enter the door while they can (Luk 13:22-23).

f We must not be like those who awake too late and find the door closed against them and wish they had befriended the Householder (Luk 13:24-28).

e We are to watch how we respond as His stewards for some will come from east, west, north and south, while others will awake too late, like Herod who seeks to kill Him and Jerusalem which is losing its opportunity and will be desolated and totally disrupted (Luk 13:29-35).

d Jesus is invited into the home of a Chief Pharisee. And there He eats with him at table, surrounded by many ‘fellow-servants’. There He sees a man with dropsy. As God’s Servant He knows what His responsibility is if He is to be a faithful and wise servant. It is to heal the man. For God’s works of compassion should be done at all times including the Sabbath and not just at times of man’s choosing. And yet He is surrounded by those waiting to catch Him out (Luk 14:1-6).

c None are to seek the higher place, for he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luk 14:7-11).

b An example is given of inviting the poor to dinner which is followed by the parable of a rich banquet, where those who made excuses were rejected, and the result was that due to unforeseen circumstances there a banquet for the poor, while those for whom it was intended lost out (Luk 14:12-24)

a Instructions are given to the disciples concerning facing up to the cost (Luk 14:25-35).

‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear’ (Luk 14:35).

Note that in ‘a’ the Section opens with instructions to the disciples, and in the parallel it closes with instructions to the disciples, both seeing things in the light of eternity. In ‘b’ we have a parable dealing with the use of riches, and in the parallel the use of wealth to help the poor is dealt with, in ‘c’ we are to seek the Kingly Rule of God and trust our Father over our daily living, and in the parallel we are not to seek the higher place on earth, for the one who humbles himself will be exalted. In ‘d’ we are to be like men awaiting in the Lord’s ‘house’, awaiting His arrival at whatever time He comes and meanwhile making use of all our time and serving Him faithfully, and in the parallel Jesus is in the Chief Pharisee’s house and is called on to perform an act of faithful service even though it is the Sabbath, an act which He does perform. It is an example of faithful service even in the face of difficulties, and a reminder to us that we are to use all our time, including the Sabbath, for doing God’s work. In ‘e’ there are stewards both good and bad who will be called to account, for He has come to ‘cast fire on the earth’, and in the parallel we are to watch how we respond as His stewards, for some will come into the Kingly Rule of God from east, west, north and south, while others will awake too late, like Herod who seeks to kill Him and Jerusalem which is losing its opportunity and will be desolated and will experience His ‘fire on earth’. In ‘f’ men are to discern the times, and in the parallel we are not to be like those who awake too late. In ‘g’ and its parallel the imminence of death and what our response should be to it is described. In ‘h’ the vine is to be allowed its opportunity of bearing fruit, and in the parallel the mustard seed will grow and bear fruit. Central in ‘i’ is the healing and making straight of one who is crooked, a picture of what He has come to do for Israel. This is the whole purpose of the Kingly Rule of God.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Corrects the Pharisees on the Law In Luk 14:1-6 Jesus takes the opportunity to teach the Pharisees on the Law by healing a man with the dropsy on the Sabbath.

Jesus Heals a Man with the Dropsy In Luk 14:1-6 we have the account of Jesus healing a man with the dropsy. The primary way in which Jesus Christ healed the sick was by teaching, preaching and healing the multitudes (Mat 4:23). However, there were times when Jesus Christ preached in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1Co 2:4). We find this taking place when Jesus healed the man with the dropsy in the Pharisee’s house. Note that in this story, Jesus Christ had to confront the scribes and Pharisees in His preaching and this is often the manner that God chooses to move during such times. Other examples of Jesus Christ preaching and healing in demonstration of the Spirit and of power would be the healing of the man with the withered hand (Luk 6:6-11) and the woman with the spirit of infirmity (Luk 13:10-17).

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Witnesses of Jesus Justifying Him as the Saviour of the World (God the Father’s Justification of Jesus) Luk 4:31 to Luk 21:38 contains the testimony of Jesus’ public ministry, as He justifies Himself as the Saviour of the world. In this major section Jesus demonstrates His divine authority over man, over the Law, and over creation itself, until finally He reveals Himself to His three close disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration as God manifested in the flesh. Jesus is the Saviour over every area of man’s life and over creation itself, a role that can only be identified with God Himself. This was the revelation that Peter had when he said that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the Living God. Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:50 begins with His rejection in His hometown of Nazareth and this section culminates in Luk 9:50 with Peter’s confession and testimony of Jesus as the Anointed One sent from God. In summary, this section of material is a collection of narratives that testifies to Jesus’ authority over every aspect of humanity to be called the Christ, or the Saviour of the world.

Luke presents Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world that was presently under the authority of Roman rule. He was writing to a Roman official who was able to exercise his authority over men. Thus, Luke was able to contrast Jesus’ divine authority and power to that of the Roman rule. Jesus rightfully held the title as the Saviour of the world because of the fact that He had authority over mankind as well as the rest of God’s creation. Someone who saves and delivers a person does it because he has the authority and power over that which oppresses the person.

In a similar way, Matthew portrays Jesus Christ as the Messiah who fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as the King of the Jews supports His claim as the Messiah. John gives us the testimony of God the Father, who says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. John uses the additional testimonies of John the Baptist, of His miracles, of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and of Jesus Himself to support this claim. Mark testifies of the many miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ by emphasizing the preaching of the Gospel as the way in which these miracles take place.

This major section of the public ministry of Jesus Christ can be subdivided into His prophetic testimonies. In Luk 4:31 to Luk 6:49 Jesus testifies of true justification in the Kingdom of God. In Luk 7:1 to Luk 8:21 Jesus testifies of His doctrine. In Luk 8:22 to Luk 10:37 Jesus testifies of divine service in the Kingdom of God as He sets His face towards Jerusalem. In Luk 10:38 to Luk 17:10 Jesus testifies of perseverance in the Kingdom of God as He travels towards Jerusalem. Finally, in Luk 17:11 to Luk 21:38 Jesus teaches on glorification in the Kingdom of God.

The Two-Fold Structure in Luke of Doing/Teaching As Reflected in the Prologue to the Book of Acts – The prologue to the book of Acts serves as a brief summary and outline of the Gospel of Luke. In Act 1:1 the writer makes a clear reference to the Gospel of Luke, as a companion book to the book of Acts, by telling us that this “former treatise” was about “all that Jesus began to do and to teach.” If we examine the Gospel of Luke we can find two major divisions in the narrative material of Jesus’ earthly ministry leading up to His Passion. In Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:50 we have the testimony of His Galilean Ministry in which Jesus did many wonderful miracles to reveal His divine authority as the Christ, the Son of God. This passage emphasized the works that Jesus did to testify of Himself as the Saviour of the world. The emphasis then shifts beginning in Luk 9:51 to Luk 21:38 as it focuses upon Jesus teaching and preparing His disciples to do the work of the Kingdom of God. Thus, Luk 4:14 to Luk 21:38 can be divided into this two-fold emphasis of Jesus’ works and His teachings. [186]

[186] We can also see this two-fold aspect of doing and teaching in the Gospel of Matthew, as Jesus always demonstrated the work of the ministry before teaching it in one of His five major discourses. The narrative material preceding his discourses serves as a demonstration of what He then taught. For example, in Matthew 8:1 to 9:38, Jesus performed nine miracles before teaching His disciples in Matthew 10:1-42 and sending them out to perform these same types of miracles. In Matthew 11:1 to 12:50 this Gospel records examples of how people reacted to the preaching of the Gospel before Jesus teaches on this same subject in the parables of Matthew 13:1-52. We see examples of how Jesus handled offences in Matthew 13:53 to 17:27 before He teaches on this subject in Matthew 18:1-35. Jesus also prepares for His departure in Matthew 19:1 to 25:46 before teaching on His second coming in Matthew 24-25.

Jesus’ Public Ministry One observation that can be made about Jesus’ Galilean ministry and his lengthy travel narrative to Jerusalem is that He attempts to visit every city and village in Israel that will receive Him. He even sends out His disciples in order to reach them all. But why is such an effort made to preach the Gospel to all of Israel during Jesus’ earthly ministry? Part of the answer lies in the fact that Jesus wanted everyone to have the opportunity to hear and believe. For those who rejected Him, they now will stand before God on the great Judgment Day without an excuse for their sinful lifestyles. Jesus wanted everyone to have the opportunity to believe and be saved. This seemed to be His passion throughout His Public Ministry. Another aspect of the answer is the impending outpouring of the Holy Ghost and the sending out of the Twelve to the uttermost parts of the earth. Jesus understood the necessity to first preach the Gospel to all of Israel before sending out the apostles to other cities and nations.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Perseverance: Jesus Testifies of Striving to Enter Into Heaven In Luk 10:38 to Luk 17:10 Jesus testifies of striving to enter into Heaven through perseverance.

Outline: Note the proposed outline:

1. Narrative: Jesus Demonstrates Perseverance Luk 10:38 to Luk 13:21

2. Discourse: Jesus Teaches on Perseverance: Luk 13:22 to Luk 17:10

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Discourse: Jesus Teaches on Perseverance: Persecutions (Towards Jerusalem) In Luk 13:22 to Luk 17:10 Jesus moves further towards Jerusalem as He makes His way through the villages of Samaria and Galilee. In this section, Jesus trains His disciples in the area of perseverance in the midst of persecutions. The way into the Kingdom of God is narrow (Luk 13:22-30). The decision to leave all behind and follow Jesus begins with humility (Luk 14:7-11) and benevolence (Luk 14:12-14). A disciple of Christ forsakes the cares of this world (Luk 14:15-24) as well as his family bonds (Luk 14:25-35). A disciple begins to seek and to save the lost souls (Luk 15:1-32). Good stewardship to this calling is needed (Luk 16:1-13) and managing the riches that God entrusts to us (Luk 16:14-31). Only then can a disciple begin to understand what true faith in God involves (Luk 17:5-10). This kind of faith is not a one-time decision, but a series of daily decision of being a faithful servant.

Luk 15:1 to Luk 17:10 contains a continuous discourse by the Lord Jesus on perseverance in relation to the office of the prophet. The fundamental duty of the prophet is to preach the Gospel to the lost (Luk 15:1-32), being good stewards of one’s prophetic gifts (Luk 16:1-13), not covetous (Luk 16:14-31), neither offensive (Luk 17:1-4), so that their gifts may grow and flourish (Luk 17:5-10).

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Jesus Instructs on Striving to Enter the Kingdom Luk 13:22-30

2. Corrects Pharisees on Fulfillment of His Ministry Luk 13:31-35

3. Jesus Heals & Corrects the Pharisees on the Law Luk 14:1-6

4. Jesus Teaches on Humility Luk 14:7-11

5. Jesus Teaches on Benevolence Luk 14:12-14

6. Jesus Teaches on Forsaking Cares of the World Luk 14:15-24

7. Jesus Teaches on Forsaking All Luk 14:25-35

8. Discourse: Jesus Teaches on Perseverance Luk 15:1 to Luk 17:10

a) Jesus Corrects Pharisees on Seeking the Lord Luk 15:1-32

i) Parable of Lost Sheep Luk 15:1-7

ii) Parable of Lost Coin Luk 15:8-10

iii) Parable of Lost Son Luk 15:11-32

b) Jesus Instructs Disciples on Stewardship Luk 16:1-13

c) Jesus Corrects Pharisees on Covetousness Luk 16:14-31

d) Jesus Teaches Disciples on Offences Luk 17:1-4

e) Jesus Teaches the Apostles on Faith & Duty Luk 17:5-10

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Christ the Guest of a Pharisee. Luk 14:1-14

Healing a man afflicted with dropsy on the Sabbath:

v. 1. And it came to pass, as He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath-day that they watched Him.

v. 2. And, behold, there was a certain man before Him which had the dropsy.

v. 3. And Jesus, answering, spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day?

v. 4. And they held their peace. And He took him, and healed him, and let him go;

v. 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?

v. 6. And they could not answer Him again to these things.

The Pharisees continued their method of attempting to provoke Jesus to some rash utterance, Luk 11:53-54. It was for this reason, also, that He was invited by one of their number, as once before. His host was one of the chief, or first, among the Pharisees, occupying a position of honor among them, since they had no regular rulers. He may have been a member of the Sanhedrin, the highest council of the Jewish Church, or he may have been known for the excellency of his learning. In the house of this man Jesus was a guest; for feasting on the Sabbath was common among the Jews, though they were permitted to serve only cold dishes. The Pharisees had an object in inviting the Lord, for they were observing Him most carefully and suspiciously. They had, as they thought, arranged a trap for Him. For when Jesus came into the house, there was, as though by chance, and yet by most cunning planning, a dropsical man. The omniscient Christ knew their thoughts, answering them as though they had spoken aloud. He addressed Himself to all the scribes and Pharisees present, for they were all equally guilty. His question was the same which He had asked upon other occasions, whether it was the right, the proper, the obligatory thing to heal on the Sabbath-day or not. His question implied an assertion in the affirmative, and they found themselves unable to contradict Him, preferring to say nothing, since their heart and conscience told them that they could not deny the fact which Jesus wanted to convey. Works of love were indeed permitted on the Sabbath-day, even according to the strictest Mosaic law. And so Jesus fulfilled the greatest law of all: putting His hand upon the sick man, He healed him and sent him away. Then the Lord turned once more to the Pharisees and answered their unspoken thoughts, which condemned the healing on the Sabbath. He asked them whether it would not be self-evident for them, in case one of their domestic animals, a mere beast of burden, should fall into a pit, an empty cistern, to draw the poor victim of the accident up at once, without the slightest hesitation, without paying any attention to the fact that it might be the Sabbath-day. Once more they were silenced, not being able to contradict the statement of the Lord, since it was impossible to do anything but acknowledge the truth of His argument. Note: The Pharisee, in inviting Jesus, professed friendship, affection, and respect for Him, while at the same time he was preparing snares to catch Him. Thus many children of the world will simulate interest and regard for the Gospel and its ministry, while in reality they are trying to draw out the Christians, in order to ridicule their belief in the words of Holy Scripture. Also: The same Sabbath fanatics that made the life of Jesus miserable at times are at work also in our days, insisting upon all manner of outward observances of Sunday, though many of them are not one whit concerned about the pure preaching of the Gospel. “The doctrine of Sabbath has mainly this object, that we learn to understand the Third Commandment correctly. For to sanctify the Sabbath means to hear God’s Word and to help our neighbor wherever possible. For God does not want the Sabbath kept so holy that we should on that account leave and forsake our neighbor in his trouble. Therefore, if I serve my neighbor and help him, though this means work, I have kept the Sabbath rightly and well; for I have performed a divine work on it.”

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Luk 14:1-6

The Pharisee‘s feast on a sabbath day. The healing of the sick with dropsy.

Luk 14:1

And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day. Still on the same journey; the Lord was approaching gradually nearer Jerusalem. The house into which he entered this sabbath belonged to one who was a leading member of the Pharisee party, probably an influential rabbi, a man of great wealth, or a member of the Sanhedrim “To eat bread on the sabbath day,” as a guest, was a usual practice; such entertainments on the sabbath day were very usual; they were often luxurious and costly. The only rule observed was that all the viands provided were cold,, everything having been cooked on a previous day. Augustine alludes to these sabbath feasts as including at times singing and dancing. They watched him. This explains the reason of the invitation to the great Teacher, on the part of a leading Pharisee, after the Master’s bitter denunciation of the party (see Luk 11:39-52). The feast and its attendant circumstances were all arranged, and Jesus’ watchful enemies waited to see what he would do.

Luk 14:2

And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. This was the scheme of the Pharisee host. The sick man was not one of the invited guests; with the freedom which attends a feast in a large Oriental house, the afflicted man was introduced, as though by chance, with other lookers-on. The skilful plotters stationed him in a prominent position, where the eyes of the strange Guest would at once fall on him. The situation is described by the evangelist with dramatic clearness: “And, behold, there was a certain man before him which,” etc. In an instant Jesus grasped the whole situation. It was the sabbath, and there before him was one grievously sick with a deadly chronic malady. Would he pass bycontrary to his wont-such a sufferer? Would he heal him on the sabbath day? Could he? perhaps thought the crafty foes of the great Physician-Teacher. The disease was a deadly one, utterly incurable, as they thought, by earthly means.

Luk 14:3

And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And the Heart-reader read their thoughts, and in a moment he saw all and understood all, and answered the unasked question of his host and the assembled guests by putting to them another query which went to the root of the whole were matter which they pondering in their evil hearts.

Luk 14:4

And they held their peace. What could they say? If they had pressed the absurd restrictions with which they hedged round the sabbath day, they felt they would be crushed by one of the Master’s deep and powerful arguments. They had hoped he would have acted on the impulse of the moment, and healed the sufferer or else failed; but his calm question confused them. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go. With one of his majestic exercises of Divine powerso slight a task to Christthe deadly disease was cured in a moment, and then, with quiet crushing contempt, the Physician passed into the Rabbi, and to the awe-struck guests he put a question; it was his apology for the late infringement of the traditions of the sabbath day. What had they to say?

Luk 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? Most of the older authorities here, instead of” an ass or an ox,” read “a son or an ox.” The difference here in the reading without doubt arises from the perplexity which was felt in very early days over the strangeness of the collocation of “a son and an ox.” This is the reading, however, which, according to all the acknowledged principles of criticism, we must consider the true one. The meaning is clear. “If thy son, or even, to take a very different comparison, thy ox, were to fall into a pit, wouldn’t you,” etc.? How the sophistries of the scribes and the perplexing traditions of the Jerusalem rabbis on their sabbath restrictions must have been torn asunder by the act of mercy and power performed, and the words of Divine wisdom spoken by the Physician-Teacher of Galilee! The noble instincts even of the jealous Pharisees must have been for a moment stirred. Even they, at times, rose above the dreary, lightless teaching with which the rabbinical schools had so marred the old Divine Law. Dr. Farrar quotes a traditional instance of this. “When Hillel”afterwards the great rabbi and head of the famous school which bore his name”then a poor porter, had been found half-frozen under masses of snow in the window of the lecture-room of Shemaiah and Abtation, 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.”

Luk 14:7-14

At the Pharisee‘s feast. The Master‘s teaching on the subject of seeking the most honourable places. Who ought to be the guests at such feasts.

Luk 14:7

And he put forth a parable to those which were hidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them. The scene with the sufferer who had been healed of his dropsy was now over. The Master was silent, and the guests proceeded to take their places at the banquet. Jesus remained still, watching the manoeuvring on the part of scribes and doctors and wealthy guests to secure the higher and more honourable seats. “The chief rooms;” better rendered “first places.”

Luk 14:8, Luk 14:9

When thou art hidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room. The pretensions and conceit of the Jewish doctors of the Law had been for a long period intolerable. We have repeated examples in the Talmud of the exaggerated estimate these, the scholars and doctors of the Law, formed of themselves, and of the respect they exacted from all classes of the community. One can well imagine the grave displeasure with which the Divine Teacher looked upon this unholy frame of mind, and upon the miserable petty struggles which constantly were resulting from it. The expositors of the Law of God, the religious guides of the people, were setting an example of self-seeking, were showing what was their estimate of a fitting reward, what was the crown of learning which they covetedthe first seats at a banquet, the title of respect and honour! How the Lordthe very essence of whose teaching was self-surrender and self-sacrificemust have mourned over such pitiful exhibitions of weakness shown by the men who claimed to sit in Moses’ seat! Lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place. As an instance of such unseemly contention, Dr. Farrar quotes from the Talmud how, “at a banquet of King Alexander Jannaeus, the rabbi Simeon ben Shetach, in spite of the presence of some great Persian satraps, had thrust himself at table between the king and queen, and when rebuked for his intrusion quoted in his defence Ecclesiasticus 15:5, ‘Exalt wisdom, and She shall make thee sit among princes.'”

Luk 14:12

Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. This remark of Jesus took place somewhat later in the course of the feast. Those present were evidently mostly, if not all, drawn from the upper ranks of Jewish society, and the banquet was no doubt a luxurious and costly entertainment. Godet’s comment is singularly interesting, and well brings out the half-sorrowful, half-playful sarcasm of the Master. He was the rich Pharisee’s Guest; he was partaking of his hospitality, although, it is true, no friendly feelings had dictated the invitation to the feast, but still he was partaking of the man’s bread and salt; and then, too, the miserable society tradition which then as now dictates such conventional hospitality, all contributed to soften the Master’s stern condemnation of the pompous hollow entertainments; so he “addresses to his host a lesson on charity, which he clothes, like ‘the preceding, in the graceful form of a recommendation of intelligent self-interest.” The , lest (Luk 14:12), carries a tone of liveliness and almost of pleasantry. “Beware of it; it is a misfortune to be avoided. For, once thou shalt have received human requital, it is all over with Divine recompense.” 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.”

Luk 14:13, Luk 14:14

But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee. Great pagan moralists, sick at heart at these dreary, selfish society conventionalities, have condemned this system of entertaining those who would be likely to make an equivalent return for the interested hospitality. So Martial, writing of such an incident, says, ‘You are asking for gifts, Sextus, not for friends.” Nehemiah gives a somewhat similar charge to the Jews of his day: “Eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared” (Neh 8:10). Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. There is no doubt that Jesus here was alluding to that first resurrection which would consist of the “just” only; of that which St. John speaks of in rapt and glowing terms: “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection” (Rev 20:6). This was a doctrine evidently much insisted on by the early teachers of Christianity (see Joh 5:25; Act 24:15; 1Co 15:23; 1Th 4:16; Php 3:11; and compare our Lord’s words again in Luk 20:35).

Luk 14:15-24

In reply to an observation of one of the guests, Jesus relates the parable of the great supper, in which he shows how few really cared for the joys of God‘s kingdom in the world to come.

Luk 14:15

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. One of those who were partaking of the banquet, and had witnessed the whole scene, now speaks to the Stranger Guest. He had looked on the miracle performed for the afflicted man: he had heard the wise words spoken by the Galilaean Rabbi; he had listened to the gentle and yet pungent rebuke to the Pharisee for his ostentatious hospitality to the rich and great; he had marked the quiet reminder as to the many sufferers who really stood in need of the viands so plentifully spread for those who wanted them not; he had been specially struck by the mention of the recompense which the just who remembered the poor would receive at the resurrection. This quiet observer, noticing that the Master’s remarks were touching upon the recompense of the just in the world to come, now breaks in with a remark on the blessedness of him who should eat bread in the kingdom of God. The words do not seem to have been spoken in a mocking spirit, but to have been the genuine outcome of the speaker’s admiration of the Guest so hated and yet so wondered at. There is, no doubt, lurking in the words a certain Pharisaic self-congratulationa something which seems to imply, “Yes, that blessedness to which you, O Master, are alluding, I am looking forward confidently to share in. How happy will it be for us, Jews as we are, when the time comes for us to sit down at that banquet in the kingdom of heaven l”

Luk 14:16

Then said he unto him. The parable with which the great Teacher answered the guest’s remark contains much and varied teaching for all ages of the Church, but in the first instance it replies to the speaker’s words. “Yes,” said the Master, “blessed indeed are they who sit down at the heavenly feast. You think you are one of those whom the King of heaven has invited to the banquet; what have you done, though, with the invitation? I know many who have received it who have simply tossed it aside; are you of that number? Listen now to my story of the Divine banquet and of the invited thereto.” A certain man made a great supper, and bade many. The kingdom of heaven, under the imagery of a great Banquet, was a picture well known to the Jews of that age. The guests in the Pharisee’s house for the greater part were probably highly cultured men. At once they would grasp the meaning of the parable. They knew that the supper was heaven, and the Giver of the feast was God. The manythese were Israel, the long line of generations of the chosen people. So far strictly true, they thought; the Galilaean Teacher here is one with the rabbis of our Jerusalem schools. But, as Jesus proceeded, a puzzled, angry look would come upon the self-satisfied faces of Pharisee, scribe, and doctor; whispers would run round, “What means the Galilaean here?”

Luk 14:17-20

Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The excuses, viewed as a whole, are paltry, and “if,” as it has been well said, “as a mere story of natural life it seems highly improbable, it is because men’s conduct with regard to the Divine kingdom is not according to right reason The excuses are all of the nature of pretexts, not one of them being a valid reason for non-attendance at the feast.” The fact was, the invited were pleased to be invited, but there the matter ended with them. The banquet, which they were proud to have been asked to share in, had no influence upon their everyday lives. They made their engagements for pleasure and for business without the least regard to the day or the hour of the banquet: indeed, they treated it with perfect indifference. The key to the parable is easily found. The Jews were “solemn triflers in the matter of religion. They were under invitation to enter the kingdom, and they did not assume the attitude of men who avowedly cared nothing for it. On the contrary, they were pleased to think that its privileges were theirs in offer, and even gave themselves credit for setting a high value on them. But in truth they did not. The kingdom of God had not by any means the first place in their esteem. They were men who talked much about the kingdom of heaven, yet cared little for it; who were very religious, yet very worldlya class of which too many specimens exist in every age” (Professor Bruce, ‘Parabolic Teaching’). I have bought a piece of ground I have bought five yoke of oxen I have married a wife, etc. These excuses, of course, by no means exhaust all possible cases. They simply represent examples of usual everyday causes of indifference to the kingdom of God. To all these excuses one thing is commonin each a present good is esteemed above the heavenly offer; in other words, temporal good is valued higher than spiritual. The three excuses may be classed under the following heads.

(1) The attraction of property of different kinds, the absorbing delight of possessing earthly goods.

(2) The occupations of business, the pleasure of increasing the store, of adding coin to coin, or field to field.

(3) Social ties, whether at home or abroad, whether in general society or in the home circle; for even in the latter case it is too possible for family and domestic interests so completely to fill the heart as to leave no room there for higher and more unselfish aims, no place for any grander hopes than the poor narrow home-life affords. The primary application of all this was to the Jews of the Lord’s own time. It was spoken, we must remember, to a gathering of the Rite of the Israel of his day. In the report of the servant detailing to the master the above-recorded excuses, it has been beautifully said, “we may hear the echo of the sorrowful lamentation uttered by Jesus over the hardening of the Jews during his long nights of prayer.” The invitation to the feast was neglected by the learned and the powerful among the people.

Luk 14:21

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 the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. The invitations to the great feast, seeing that those first bidden were indifferent, were then sent out far and widethrough broad streets and narrow lanes, among wealthy publicans (tax-collectors) and poor artisans. The invitations were distributed broadcast among a rougher and less cultured class, but still the invitations to the banquet were confined to dwellers in the city; we hear as yet of no going without the walls. Here the invitation seems generally to have been accepted. All this in the first instance referred to the Galilaean peasants, to the Jewish publicans, to the mass of the people, who heard him, on the whole, gladly.

Luk 14:22

And the servant maid, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. While these words are necessary to complete the picture, still in them we have a hint of the vast size of the kingdom of God. The realms of the blessed are practically boundless. Here, again, in the first instance, there was a Jewish instruction intended to correct the false current notion that that kingdom was narrow in extent, and intended to be confined to the chosen race of Israel. It is very different in the Lord’s picture.

Luk 14:23

And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges. Hitherto the parable-story has been dealing with the past and the present of Israel; it now becomes prophetic, and speaks of a state of things to be. The third series of invitations is not addressed to inhabitants of a city. No walls hem in these far-scattered dwellers among the highways and hedges of the world. This time the master of the house asks to his great banquet those who live in the isles of the Gentiles. And compel them to some in. A greater pressure is put on this class of outsiders than was tried upon the favoured first invited. The indifferent ones were left to themselves. They knew, or professed to know and to appreciate, the nature of that feast in heaven, the invitation to which they treated apparently with so much honour, and really with such contempt. But these outsiders the Divine Host would treat differently. To them the notion of a pitying, loving God was quite a strange thought; these must be compelledmust be brought to him with the gentle force which the angels used when they laid hold of the hand of lingering Lot, and brought him out of the doomed city of the plain. Thus faithful men, intensely convinced of the truth of their message, compel others, by the bright earnestness of their words and life, to join the company of those who are going up to the feast above. Anselm thinks that God may be also said to compel men to come in when he drives them by calamities to seek and find refuge with him and in his Church. That my house may be filled. In Luk 14:22 the servant, who knew well his master’s mind and his master’s house too, and its capabilities, tells his lord how, after many had accepted the invitation and were gone in to the banquet, “yet there was room.” The master of the house, approving his servant’s words, confirms them by repeating, “Bring in more andyet more, that my house may be filled.” Bengel comments here with his quaint grace in words to which no translation can do justice: “Nee natura nec gratis patitur vacuum.” Our God, with his burning love for souls, will never bear to contemplate a half-empty heaven. “Messiah will see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied.” “The love of God,” says Godet, “is great; it requires a multitude of guests; it will not have a seat empty. The number of the elect is, as it were, determined beforehand by the riches of the Divine glory, which cannot find complete reflection without a certain number of human beings. The invitation will, therefore, be continued, and consequently the history of our race prolonged, until that number be reached.”

Luk 14:24

For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. Whose words are these? Are they spoken by the host of the parable-story; and if so, to whom does he address them? For in the original Greek it is not “I say unto thee“ (singular), the servant with whom throughout he has been holding a colloquy, but “I say unto you” (plural), Who does he mean by “you”? The assembled guests? or especially the already introduced poor of Luk 14:21 (so Bengel)? But what conceivable purpose, as Stier well asks, would be served by addressing these stern words to the guests admitted? Would their bliss be increased by a side-glance at those who had lost what they were to enjoy? How inharmonious a close would this be of a parable constructed with such tender graciousness throughout l It is better, therefore, to understand it as spoken with deep solemnity by the Master himself to the assembled guests in the Pharisee’s house, with whom he was then sitting at meat, and for whose special instruction he had spoken the foregoing parable of the great supper. “I say unto you, that none of those who were bidden in the parable-story (and ye know full well that you yourselves are included in that number) shall sit at my table in heaven.” This identification of himself as the Host of the great heavenly banquet was quite in accordance with the lofty and unveiled claims of the Master during the last period of his public ministry. Throughout this exposition of the great supper parable, the idea of the primary reference to the Jewish people has been steadily kept in view. It was a distinct piece of teaching, historic and prophetic, addressed to the Jew of the days of our Lord. As years passed on, it became a saying of the deepest interest to the Gentile missionaries and to the rapidly growing Gentile congregations of the first Christian centuries. In time it ceased to be used as a piece of warning history and of instructive prophecy, and the Church in every succeeding age has recognized its deep practical wisdom, and is ever discovering in it fresh lessons which belong to the life of the day, and which seemingly were drawn from it and intended for its special instruction, for its warning and for its comfort.

Luk 14:25-35

The qualifications of his real disciples. Two short parables illustrative of the high pries such a real disciple must pay if he would indeed be his. The halfhearted disciple is compared to flavourless salt.

Luk 14:25

And there went great multitudes with him. These great multitudes were made up now of enemies as well as friends. Curiosity doubtless attracted many; the fame of the Teacher had gone through the length and breadth of the land. The end, the Master well knew, was very near, and, in the full view of his own self-sacrifice, the higher and the more ideal were the claims he made upon those who professed to be his followers. He was anxious now, at the end, clearly to make it known to all these multitudes what serving him really signifiedentire self-renunciation; a real, not a poetic or sentimental, taking up the cross (Luk 14:27). Even his own chosen disciples were yet a long way from apprehending the terrible meaning of this cross he spoke of, and which to him now bore so ghastly a significance.

Luk 14:26

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. The Lord’s teaching throughout, in parable and in direct saying, pressed home to his followers that no home love, no earthly affection, must ever come into competition with the love of God. If home and his cause came ever into collision, home and all belonging to it must gently be put aside, and everything must be sacrificed to the cause. Farrar quotes here from Lovelace

“I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not honour more.”

Luk 14:28-30

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. The imagery was not an unfamiliar one in those days. The magnificent Herodian house had a passion for erecting great buildings, sacred and profane, in the varied cities under their sway. They would doubtless be often imitated, and no doubt many an unfinished edifice testified to the foolish emulation of some would-be imitator of the extravagant royal house. Now, such incomplete piles of masonry and brickwork simply excite a contemptuous pity for the builder, who has so falsely calculated his resources when he drew the plan of the palace or villa he was never able to finish. So in the spiritual life, the would-be professor finds such living harder than he supposed, and so gives up trying after the nobler way of living altogether; and the world, who watched his feeble efforts and listened with an incredulous smile when he proclaimed his intentions, now ridicules him, and pours scorn upon what it considers an unattainable ideal. Such an attempt and failure injure the cause of God.

Luk 14:31, Luk 14:32

Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be 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 desireth conditions of peace. It is not improbable that this simile was derived from the history of the time. The unhappy connection of the tetrarch Herod with Herodias had brought about the divorce of that sovereign’s first wife, who was daughter of Aretas, a powerful Arabian prince. This involved Herod in an Arabian war, the result of which was disastrous to the tetrarch. Josephus points out that this ill-omened incident was the commencement of Herod Antipas’s subsequent misfortunes. Our Lord not improbably used this simile, foreseeing what would be the ultimate end of this unhappy war of Herod. The. first of these two little similes rather points to the building up of the Christian life in the heart and life. The second is an image of the warfare which’ every Christian man must wage against the world, its passions, and its lusts. If we cannot brace ourselves up to the’ sacrifice necessary for the completion of the building up of the life we know the Master loves; if we shrink from the cost involved in the warfare against sin and evila warfare which will only end with lifebetter for us not to begin the building or risk the war. It will be a wretched alternative, but still it will be best for us to make our submission at once to the world and its prince; at least, by so doing we shall avoid the scandal and the shame of injuring a cause which we adopted only to forsake. The Swiss commentator Godet very naturally uses hero a simile taken from his own nationality: “Would not a little nation like the Swiss bring down ridicule on itself by declaring war with France, if it were not determined to die nobly on the field of battle?” He was thinking of the splendid patriotism of his own brave ancestors who had determined so to die, and who carried out their gallant purpose. He was thinking of stricken fields like Morgarten and Sempach, and of brave hearts like those of Rudolph of Erlach, and Arnold of Winkelried, who loved their country better than their lives. This was the spirit with which Christ’s warriors must undertake the hard stern warfare against an evil and corrupt world, otherwise better let his cause alone. The sombre shadow of the cross lay heavy and dark across all the Redeemer’s words spoken at this time.

Luk 14:33

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. “We must live in this world as though the soul was already in heaven and the body mouldering in the grave” (St. Francis de Sales). There was much unreasoning, possibly not a little sentimental enthusiasm, among the people who crowded round Jesus in these last months of his work. The stern, uncompromising picture of what ought to be the life of his real followers was painted especially with a view of getting rid of these useless, purposeless enthusiasts. The way of the cross, which he was about to tread, was no pathway for such light-hearted triflers.

Luk 14:34, Luk 14:35

Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned! It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. 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; there is no hope remaining for the man, for the people, or the Church. The lesson was a general oneit was meant to sink into each listener’s heart; but the Master’s sad gaze was fixed, as he spoke the sombre truth, on the people of Israel whom he loved, and on the temple of Jerusalem where his glory-presence used to dwell. Men cast it out. Jesus could hear the armed tramp of the Roman legions of the year 70 as they east out his people from their holy land.

HOMILETICS

Luk 14:1-24

The great supper.

The feast of which Christ, was partaking had been carefully prepared, and was an event of some consequence in the town. This may be inferred not only from the tone of the Lord’s remarks, but also from the intimations of the evangelists. Thus from Luk 14:12 it appears that the Pharisee had gathered together the elite of the place, along with his more intimate friends and his kinsmen. From Luk 14:7 we learn that there had been an eager scramble on the part of the guests for the chief places, the precedencies, and dignities. It was the observation or’ this which called forth the saying (Luk 14:11), “Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” Notice, too, as proving the care which had been bestowed on the entertainment, that there was an understanding among the more prominent guests that the movements and words of the invited Prophet should be closely watched. In fact, the supper was a trap laid. To complete the scheme, a man was introduced (Luk 14:2) who laboured under a severe illnessdropsy; a man whose presence might be a temptation to the loving-hearted Healer to violate the sacredness of the sabbath. Jesus, we are told (Luk 14:3), “answering,” i.e. knowing the intention of the lawyers and Pharisees, put a question to them which revealed the thoughts of the heart, whilst it so vindicated his work of mercy that it reduced his hypocritical friends to silence: “they could not answer him again to these things” (Luk 14:6). This great supper is the text of one of the most beautiful of our Lord’s parables. The introduction of the parable is very simple. He had taught his host a lesson of charity (Luk 14:12-14), when one of the company, catching at the last clause, “recompensed at the resurrection of the just,” and giving this the accepted Pharisee-meaninga banquet at which the elect of the nation.would sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (presuming, of course, that he would have a place at that banquet)exclaims, “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God” (Luk 14:15). “Yes,” virtually replies the Prophet, “only recollect that this kingdom of God is not the blessedness which you imagine; nay, since the call to it has been rejected by those who were biddeni.e. the covenant-peoplethat call will be extended, in the fulness of its glory, to the publicans and sinners whom you rejectthe people of the streets and lanes; it will be extended further still, even to the ignorant heathenthe people of the highways and hedges. For (representing in these words the giver of the festival) “None of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper” (Luk 14:24). Such was the primary application of the parable. In its details it is entirely within the circle of prophetic ideas. The supper is an Old Testament symbol of the day of Christ, the Messiah (see Isa 25:6). The “many bidden” were those who, having Moses and the prophets, were possessors both of the Word heard outwardly with the ear, and of the grace through which it is grafted inwardly in the heart. The servant at the supper-time denotes that preaching of the kingdom which began with John the Baptist, and was carried on by our Lord and those whom “he sent before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.” The excuses intimate the pleas on which the invited, with one consent, turned away from the call. And the further missions of the servant, first keeping within the city, to the streets and lanes, and, secondly, quitting the precincts of the city, to the highways and hedges, denote, as has been said, the inclusion of the excluded classes of the Jews, along with the Samaritans, and the bidding of the Gentiles to the light of the gospel. “I said,“ thus ancient prophecy expressed it (Isa 65:1), “Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my Name.” Passing from the first relations of the parable to those which more directly concern us, every part of it is suggestive of some aspect of Christian truth or life. Notice three points

I. THE HOSPITALITY OF GOD. God is the Presence shadowed forth in the “man who makes, the great supper.” In the notion of such a supper we see the Divine hospitality. A supper carries with it the thought of an abundant provision, of satisfaction for all want, of an infinite and various fulness. And is not this associated in the Scriptures with the very name of God? Take, e.g., one of the most beautiful utterances of the Psalter, Psa 36:5-9. Indeed, the manifold revelation of God in nature, providence, grace, in the firmament above us, the earth around us, the great and wide sea, our own consciousness, the Word who in the beginning was with God and was GodGod himself in every form of his communication, is the exceeding joy of the pure in heart. His greatness is so hospitable. It makes room for all our littleness and weakness “in its lap to lie.” As Faber, in verses of sweetest music, has sung

“Thus doth thy grandeur make us grand ourselves;

‘Tis goodness makes us fear;

Thy greatness makes us brave, as children are

When those they love are near.

“Great God! our lowliness takes heart to play

Beneath the shadow of thy state;

The only comfort of our littleness

Is that thou art so great.

“Then on thy grandeur I will lay me down;

Already life is heaven for me;

No cradled child more softly lies than I:

‘Come soon, Eternity.'”

It is this hospitality that is declared in the Son of the Eternal Love. Christ is the Great Supper. In him God has “abounded towards us in wisdom and prudence.” St. Paul speaks of” the love of Christ which passeth knowledge,” of Christ “the All in all;” and, more particularly defining the supper-making, he says, “Christ, of God made to us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, Redemption.” All that we need as men, all that is salvation for sinners, is ours in him. And how is it ours? “If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”

II. THE CHURLISHNESS OF MEN. This is God, with the door thrown wide open, the table prepared, the life eternal given, the grand, ever-urgent “Come!” “Ho, every one that thirsteth and he that hath no money, come!” But what is the reception? Strange, wonderful, but still too true, “They all with one consent began to make excuse” (verse 18). Look at the excuses. They are pictures of states of mind, of attitudes of thought, as real now as at any time. Three such pictures are sketched. The first (verse 18), a mind which rejoices in a good realized. The man has the desire of his heart. He is the lord of broad acres. “Soul, take thine ease; what need for thee of the supper?” The second (verse 19), a mind still immersed in business, with its cares and anxieties. The man has just concluded an important purchase; before all else he must prove it. The third (verse 20), a mind absorbed in earthly delights and social relationshipshe “cannot come.” We can trace, in the three pictures, a climax like that of the parable reported in Mat 22:1-46., which closely resembles this. There is an ascending scale in the rejection. The first is covetous to a degree; he would go with all his heartonly that little estate; he must needs “pray let me be excused.” The second is polite, but more abrupt; there is a graceful wave of the hand, a gentlemanly “Pray let me be excused;” but there is no “I must needs.” The third is rude and fiat in his denial; there is a quick “No, I cannot.” Is it not the climax of worldliness in every period? And what is worldliness? The celebrated Robert Hall one day wrote the word “God” on a slip of paper. “You can read that?” he said, as he passed the slip to a friend. “Yes.” He covered the name on the slip with a sovereign. “Can you read it now?” The sovereign was above, was nearer the gaze than God. That is worldliness. It is not the having, not the purchasing, of the ground or the oxen, It is the having the earthly thing in the first place, the setting of the “must needs” over against it. And it is the mind which does this, to which the heavenly kingdom is second to the earthly good, which is fruitful of excuses. Oh, how often it puts off! how often there comes even the rude “I cannot”! Has the Giver of the supper found such a mind in any of us?

III. THE COMMISSION OF THE SERVANT. It is to bear the Master’s call, to declare that “all things are ready;” that salvation is full and is present; life now, life for ever, given with God’s “yea” and “amen’ to even the chief of sinners. The word of the reconciliation is “Come!” the ministry of reconciliation implies, “Go, ever out and out.” The house of the Lord must be filled; he is bent on the winning of souls. A supper, and none to eat; a great supper, and only a few guests!

“Salvation! O salvation!

The joyful sound proclaim,

Till earth’s remotest nation

Has learnt Messiah’s Name.”

“Compel them” is the voice of the Everlasting Love. Use, i.e., all means of moral suasion; circle around their wills; plead, beseech, entreat, persuade, “instant in season and out of season;” draw them, watch over them; establish such links between the messenger and them that they shall feel that they must come with you, since God is with you of a truth. “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.”

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Luk 14:7-11

Christ’s word on modesty.

The remark which the conduct of these guests called forth from Christ suggests to us

I. OUR LORD‘S INTEREST IN THE HUMBLER DETAILS OF OUR DAILY LIFE. We might have imagined, judging antecedently, that the great Teacher would not concern himself with a matter so trivial as this; or that, if he did, we should not find a record of his remark in a narrative so brief as are our evangels. We know that he had occasion to rebuke the Pharisees for letting religious faith lose itself altogether in minute and infinitesimal prescriptions. And there is a very remarkable absence from our Master’s teaching of petty regulations. He sought not to prescribe particulars of behaviour, but to convey Divine principles and to impart a holy and a loving spirit; he knew that these would spontaneously and invariably issue in appropriate conduct. But Jesus Christ would not have us think that he is indifferent to the way in which we act on small occasions. He could be “much displeased” by an act of small officiousness; and he could be deeply moved by an act of simple generosity (Luk 21:2, Luk 21:3). And we may learn from this incident that it is not a matter of indifference how we behave in the common occurrences of our daily life: to what homes we go, what place in the house we take, how we act at the table (1Co 10:31), what is the tone of our conversation (Mat 12:1-50 :87), with what raiment we are clothed (1Pe 3:3), whether we encourage or discourage the weak and timid disciple (Mat 10:42; Mat 18:6). These things, and such things as these, are occasions when, by manifesting a kindly and humble spirit, we may greatly please our Divine Lord, or when, by an opposite spirit, we may seriously offend him.

II. THE PREFERENCE OF MODESTY TO SELF–ASSERTION. Jesus Christ here plainly and emphatically commends modesty of spirit and behaviour, and as decidedly condemns an immodest self-assertion. To take a lower place than we might claim to do is often found to be the prudent and remunerative course. Self-assertion frequently goes too far for its own ends, and is discomfited and dishonoured. Every one is pleased when the presumptuous person is humiliated. But modesty is frequently recognized and honoured, and every one is gratified when the man who “does not think more highly of himself than he ought to think” is the object of esteem. But when, in a more worldly and diplomatic sense, such modesty does not answer; when a strong complacency and a vigorous self-assertion do, as they often will, pass it in the race of life, and snatch the fading laurel of “success;”still is it the becoming, the beautiful thing; still is it worth possessing for its own sake. To be lowly-minded is a far better portion than to have all the honours and all the gains which an ugly assertiveness may command.

III. THE VITAL VALUE OF HUMILITY. (Luk 14:11.) Lowliness of mind, penitence, may be of small account in the eyes of men, but, on the part of those as guilty as we are, it is everything in the sight of God: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Spiritual pride is utterly offensive to God, and draws down his most serious condemnation; if we exalt ourselves we shall be abased by him. But a sense of our own unworthiness is what he looks to see in children that have forgotten their Father, in subjects that have been disloyal to their King; and when he sees it he is prepared to pardon and to restore. If we humble ourselves before him and plead his promise of life in Jesus Christ, he will exalt us; he will treat us as his children; he will make us his heirs; he will raise us up to “heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”C.

Luk 14:12-14

Moderation; disinterestedness; patience.

We find in these words of our Lord

I. THE CORRECTION OF A COMMON FAULT. Jesus Christ did not, indeed, intend to condemn outright all family or social gatherings of a festive character. He had already sanctioned these by his own presence. The idiomatic language, “do not, but,” signifies, not a positive interdiction of the one thing, but the superiority of the other. Yet may we not find here a correction of social, festive extravagance; the expenditure of an undue measure of our resources on mutual indulgences? It is a very easy and a very common thing for hospitality to pass into extravagance, and even into selfish indulgence. Those who invite neighbours to their house in the full expectation of being invited in return may seem to themselves to be open-handed and generous, when they are only pursuing a system of well-understood mutual ministry to the lower tastes and gratifications. And it is a fact that both then and now, both there and here, men are under a great temptation to expend upon mere enjoyment of this kind a degree of time and of income which seriously cripples and enfeebles them. Thus that is given to display and indulgence which might be reserved for benevolence and for piety; thus life is lowered, and its whole service is reduced; thus we fail to reach the stature to which we might attain, and to render to our Master and his cause the service we might bring. In the matter of indulgence, direct or (as here) indirect, while we should keep away from asceticism, it is of still greater consequence that we do not approach a faulty and incapacitating selfishness.

II. AN INVITATION TO A NOBLE HABIT. “Call the poor and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee.” An act of disinterested kindness carries its blessing with it.

1. It is an intrinsically excellent thing. “To do good and to communicate” is honourable and admirable; and to do this with no thought of return from those who are benefited, is an act of peculiar and exceptional worth. It takes very high rank in the scale of spiritual nobleness.

2. It allies us with the highest and the best in all the universe; with the noblest men and women that ever lived in any land or age; with the angels of God (Heb 1:14); with our Divine Exemplar (Mar 10:45); with the eternal Father himself (Mat 5:45).

3. It leaves a benign and elevating influence on our own spirit. Every man is something the better, is so much the worthier and more Christ-like, for every humblest deed of disinterested benevolence.

III. THE PROMISE OF A PURE REWARD. If the idea of recompense is admitted, everything turns upon the character of the reward, so far as the virtue of the action is concerned. To do something for an immediate and sensible reward is unmeritorious; to act in the hope of some pure and distant recompense is an estimable because a spiritual procedure. Our life is, then, based upon faith, upon hope, and especially upon patience. To do good and to be content to wait for our recompense until “the resurrection of the just,” when we shall reap the approval of the Divine Master and the gratitude of those whom we have served below,this is conduct which our Lord approves; it bears the best mark it can bearthat of his Divine benediction.C.

Luk 14:18

Excusing ourselves.

There are two things which seem as if they could not exist together, but which we continually confront. One is the felt obligation and value of religion, and the other is the mournful commonness of irreligion. Where shall we find an explanation of the coexistence of these two things? We find it in the habit of self-excuse. With one consent men excuse themselves. Now, an excuse is one of two things.

I. A PRETEXT which men invent, so as to shun, without self-reproach, a plain but painful duty. A tradesman is not prospering in business; he is aware that he is losing money; he feels sure that an examination of his books will show a serious deficit at the end of the year; he knows that he ought to acquaint himself with his actual financial position; but he is reluctant to see how far he is behind; he would much rather escape that scrutiny, and he consequently looks about for a reason that he can place before his own mind for postponing it. He easily discovers one. He could make better use of the time; he ought not to neglect an opportunity that offers of making a good bargainor anything else. What does it matter? Anything will serve; one pretext is as good as another. Here is a human soul that owes much to its Creator; has received everything, and has paid nothing or scarcely anything-owes “ten thousand talents,” and “has nothing to pay.” One comes to him from God, and says, “See how things stand between you and your Maker; ‘acquaint thyself with him, and be at peace.'” But the man shrinks from the scrutiny; he is in debt, and knows that he is; he would much rather enter into any other account than that. So he searches for some plausible reason for putting it off to another time. And he easily finds one. Excuses are in the air, at every one’s command. He has no time for religious inquiry; so many people speak in God’s Name, he is not sure who holds the truth; be will be under more favourable spiritual conditions further onor something else. What does it matter? One excuse serves as well as another. It is nothing but a screen put up between the eye and the object. This is a course of action to be ashamed of. It is not manly; it is not right; it is perilous; it is delusive, and leads down to destruction.

II. A PREFERENCE of that which is second-rate to that which is of supreme importance. Here the particular illustrations of the parable serve us. These men are invited to be present at that which they ought to attend; but they allow something of inferior urgency to detain them. God is inviting us to partake of a most glorious spiritual provision; he is offering eternal life to his human children. He is sending his servants to say, “Come, for all things are ready!” But how many decline! and they decline because they “make excuse;” they put into the first place that which should come second. It is the demands of business; or it is the cares of the household; or it is the sweets of literature, of art, of family affection; or it is the claims of human friendship; or it is the hope of political influence or renown. It is something human, earthly, finite, on the ground of which the soul is saying, “Ambassador of Christ, I pray thee have me excused!” But it is wrong and it is ruinous to act thus.

1. Nothing will ever justify a man in placing first in his esteem that which God has placed second, in keeping behind that which has such sovereign claims to stand in front. The claims of God the eternal Father of spirits, of Jesus Christ our Divine Saviour, of our own priceless spirit, of those whom we love and for whose immortal well-being we are held responsible by God,these cannot be relegated to a secondary and inferior position without serious guilt.

2. Nothing will make it other than foolish for a man to leave unappropriated the immeasurable blessings of godliness; to prefer any passing earthly good to the service of Jesus Christ, the service which hallows all joy, sanctifies all sorrow, ennobles all life, prepares for death, and makes ready for judgment and eternity. How can such folly be surpassed?C.

Luk 14:23

Spiritual breadth.

The parable presents the gospel as a sacred feast prepared by the Divine Lord for the hungering hearts of men. The invitation is declined by one and another, who have inclinations for other and lower good than that which is thus provided. Hence the measures taken to supply their room. The text suggests

I. THE LARGENESS OF GOD‘S LOVING PURPOSE, God wills that his house *’ shall be filled.” This house of his grace is built on a large scale; in it are “many mansions,” many rooms. The magnitude of it answers to the greatness of his power and to the boundlessness of his love. The number of the ultimately redeemed will be vast indeed. To this point:

1. The hopes of all holy and generous souls.

2. The terms of predictive Scripture.

3. The attributes of the wise, strong, benignant Father of men.

4. The duration of the redemptive scheme.

5. The character of the redemptive workthe Incarnation, the sorrow, the shame, the death, of the Son of God.

God’s loving purpose is to gather a multitude which no man can number into the heavenly home, into the eternal mansions,

II. THE FULNESS OF THE DIVINE COMMISSION. Those who represent the Lord of the feast are to “go into the highways and hedges, and compel men to come in.” No people are to be excluded; no efforts are to be spared; no “stone is to be left unturned “to win men to the feast. There is to be a sacred compulsion used rather than the efforts of the “servants” should be unsuccessful. Here is no warrant for persecution. No two things can conceivably be further apart from one another than the use of violence and the spirit of Christ. To employ cruelty in order to compel men into Christianity is worse than a senseless solecism; it is a flagrant and guilty contradiction. There are other and nobler ways of “compelling men to come in” to the kingdom and the Church of Christways which are not discordant but harmonious with the spirit and the teaching of the Lord of love. They are such as these:

1. The constant and irresistible beauty of our daily life. The “waters” of spiritual loveliness “wear” the hardest stones of spiritual obduracy.

2. Occasional magnanimity of Christian conduct. Men are often compelled to bow down in admiration and even in reverence before some deed of noble self-sacrifice, of lofty heroism.

3. Convincing presentation of the Christian argument. The truth of Christ may be presented so cumulatively, so forcibly, so directly, so practically, so winningly, so affectionately, that the most defiant are abashed, the most prejudiced are convinced, the most impervious are penetrated, the most insensible are moved and won; they are compelled to come in.

4. Earnest persistency of Christian zeal. There is a blind, imprudent zeal, which is worse than worthless, which only teases and torments, which does not allure but drives to a greater distance. But there is also a wise, holy, Divine persistency, which will not be refused, which employs every weapon in the sacred armoury, which knows how to wait in patience as well as how to work in ardour, which, like the patient Saviour himself, “stands at the door, and knocks.” This is the zeal which continues to plead with men for God, and ceases not to plead with God for men, until the barriers are broken down, until the indifference is broken up, until the heart looks up to heaven and cries, “What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life”C

Luk 14:25-33

The time and the room for calculation in religion.

What room is there in the religion of Jesus Christ for calculation? What amount of reckoning before acting is permissible to the disciple of our Lord? When and in what way should he ask of himselfCan I afford to do this? Have I strength enough to undertake it?

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH SUGGESTED THE IDEA. It was the temporary popularity of Christ that led him to the strain of remark we have in the text. “There went great multitudes with him” (Luk 14:25), fascinated by his presence and bearing, or struck by his teaching, or marvelling at his mighty works. And these men and women were far from entering into his spirit or sharing his high purpose; it was necessary that they should understand what discipleship to Jesus meant, what absolute self-surrender it involved. So the Master gave utterance to the strong and trenchant words recorded in the context (Luk 14:26, Luk 14:27). And the words of the text itself are explanatory of this utterance. Their import is this: “I say this because it is much better you should know what you are doing by following me than that you should enter upon a course which you will find yourselves obliged to abandon, than that you should undertake a duty to which you will find yourselves unequal. All wise people, before they definitely commit themselves to any policy carefully consider whether they can carry it through. Every wise builder calculates the cost before he begins to build; every wise king estimates his military strength before he declares war. So do you consider whether you are prepared to make a full surrender of your will to my will, of your life to my service, before you attach yourselves to my side; for whoever is not able to ‘forsake all that he hath at my bidding, cannot be my disciple’ Ponder the matter, therefore; weigh everything before you act, count the cost, decide deliberately and with a full understanding of what it is you are doing.”

II. THE PLACE THERE IS FOR CALCULATION IN PERSONAL RELIGION.

1. At the entrance upon a Christian life. It would seem as if there could be no room for reckoning here. We may well askWhen God calls us to himself, when Christ invites us to come unto him, what time should we allow ourselves before responding to his summons? Should not our response be immediate, instantaneous? We replyTime enough to understand what we are undertaking to be and to do; time enough to take the Divine message into our full and intelligent consideration; so that our choice may be not the impulse of an hour, but the fixed and final purpose of our soul. God would not have us act in ignorance, in misconception. In malice we may well be children, but in understanding we should be men. There is no step any man can take which is comparable in importance with that which is taken when a human soul enters the kingdom of God: on that hang everlasting issues. Let men, therefore, diligently and reverently inquire until they understand what it means to have a living faith in Jesus Christ, to enter his spiritual kingdom, and become one of his subjects; let them understand, among other things, that it means the cheerful and full surrender of themselves to the Saviour himself, with all that such surrender involves (Luk 14:33).

2. At the entrance on a public profession of personal religion. Here is a visible “Church” which we are invited to join, taking upon ourselves the Christian name, and openly avowing our attachment to our Lord; thus honouring him before men. This is a step to be taken deliberately. Before taking it, a man should certainly ask himself whether he is prepared to act in accordance with his profession everywhere, in all circles and in every sphere; not only where he will be encouraged to do the right, but where he will be solicited to do the wrong thing; not only in the midst of genial influences, but in the throng of perilous temptations. But while these things are to be carefully taken into account, there must be reckoned, on the other side, the assurance which genuine piety may always cherish of needed Divine succour. If we go forth in the Name and in the strength of our Lord to do that which is his own command, we may confidently count on his support; and with him at our right hand we shall not be moved from the path of integrity and consistency. Look the facts in the face, but include all the facts; and do not forget that among these are the promises of the faithful Friend.

3. Before undertaking any post of sacred service. It would be worse than foolish for a Christian man to go forth to any enterprise requiring an amount of physical strength, or of intellectual capacity, or of educational advantages, which he knows well he does not possess. That would be to begin to build and to be unable to finish, to declare war with the certainty of defeat. At all times, when we are thinking of Christian work, we must carefully consider our qualifications. A wise and modest refusal is a truer sacrifice than an indiscreet and unwarrantable acceptance. But, again, let our judgment include the great factor of the Divine presence and aid, and also the valid consideration that competency comes with exercise, that to him that hath (uses his capacities) is given, and he has abundance (of power and of success).C.

Luk 14:26

Christ and kindred.

The circumstances under which these words were spoken will explain the strength of the language used. Jesus Christ said that he came “not to send peace on earth, but a sword,” by which he meant that the first effect of the introduction of his Divine truth would be (as he said) to set the members of the same family at variance against one another, and to make a man s foes to be “they of his own household” (Mat 10:34-36). By honouring and acknowledging him as the Messiah of the Jews and as the Redeemer of mankind, his disciples would excite the bitterest enmity in the minds of their own kindred; they would be obliged to act as if they hated them, causing them the keenest disappointment and the severest sorrow. They would be compelled to act as if they hated their own life also, for they would take a step which would remove all comfort and enjoyment from it, and make it valueless if not miserable. On the relation of Jesus Christ and his gospel to human kindred, it may be said that Christianity

I. DISALLOWS PARENTAL TYRANNY. Such unmitigated authority as the Roman law gave to the parent over the child is not sanctioned, but implicitly condemned, by Jesus Christ. No human being is wise enough or good enough to exercise such prerogative; and to yield such deference is to cede the responsibility which our Creator has laid upon us, and which cannot be devolved.

II. DISALLOWS FILIAL WORSHIP. Such idolatrous homage as the children of the Chinese render to their parents is also distinctly unchristian; it is giving to the creature what is due only to the Creator. It is to elevate the human above its lawful level.

III. SANCTIONS AND ENJOINS FILIAL DEVOTEDNESS. Our Lord himself severely condemned the perversity of the Pharisees, who contrived to evade filial obligations by sacred subtleties (Mar 7:9-13). And amid the physical agonies and the spiritual struggles and sufferings of the cross he found time to commend his mother to the care of” the beloved disciple.” His apostles explicitly enjoined filial obedience (Eph 6:1). And entering into the profounder spirit of our Lord’s teaching, we are sure that he desires of children that they should not only be formally obedient to their parents’ word, but that they should be careful to render to them all filial respect in manner; should have regard to their known will, whether uttered or unexpressed; should render the service of love and of cheerfulness rather than of constraint; should make their filial ministry to abound as parental health and strength decline.

IV. RESERVES ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE FOR THE DIVINE REDEEMER. When Christianity is assailing a false faith, as in the first century, as in heathen lands to-day, it very frequently happens that disciples have to choose between their attachment to the earthly parent and their obligations to Christ. Then the words of Jesus Christ have a literal application; then the convert has to pass through the most severe and trying of all conflicts; he has to weigh one authority against another; he has to make a decision which will cause grief and wrath to one whom he would fain please and honour. But much as the human parent may have been to him, and strong as are his claims, the Divine Redeemer is more, and his claims are stronger still and stronger far. The Lord who created him (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16); who redeemed him with his own blood; who sought and found and restored him; who has made him an heir of eternal life;this Lord, who has been upholding him by his power, and who is the one Hope and Refuge of his soul, has claims upon his obedience to which even those of a human parent are utterly unequal. And when the choice has to be made, as it sometimes has even here and now, there can be but one course which he recognizes as right; it is to choose the side and the service of the holy Saviour; meekly bearing the heavy cross of domestic severance; earnestly praying for the time when the human authority will be reconciled to the Divine; faithfully believing that the sacrifice which is thus entailed will bring with it, in Christ’s own time and way, a large and abundant recompense (Mar 10:28-30).C.

Luk 14:34, Luk 14:35

Ourselves as salt.

It is hardly possible to mistake the meaning of Christ here. We know that salt is the great preservative of animal nature, the antidote of putrefaction and decay. We know also that the great Teacher intended that his disciples should be the salt of the earth, doing in the human the same purifying work which salt does in the animal world.

I. THE PRESERVING POWER OF THE GOOD IN THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY ARE FOUND.

1. As those who act directly on God, and so on behalf of men. Had there been ten righteous men in Sodom, they would have preserved it from destruction. Similarly, the presence of a few righteous men would have saved the cities of Canaan. Is it not the presence of the righteous men and women in our modern cities which averts the retribution of God?

2. As those that act directly on man, and thus on God. As there is a tendency in animal nature, when life is extinct, towards putrefaction, so is there a tendency in human nature, when spiritual life is extinct, towards degeneracy and corruption. It is the function of salt in the economy of nature to prevent this result, to preserve sweetness and wholesomeness; it is the part of moral goodness to prevent corruption in society and to preserve purity and excellency there. And this it does. Purity, sobriety, uprightness, reverence, self-control,these are powers for subduing, for restraining; they are powers that permeate, that sweeten, that preserve. This is eminently true of Christian discipleship: for it has

(1) truth to propound which is most cleansing in its character; and it has

(2) a life to live which is eminently purifying in its influencethe distinctive truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the life of the great Exemplar, which every follower of his is charged and is empowered to live again.

II. THE DANGER THAT THIS POWER WILL BE LOST. “Salt is good: but if the salt have lost its savour!” It may do so. The salt, by exposure to sun and rain, may lose its pungency and its virtue while retaining its appearance.

1. And so Christian truth may lose its distinguishing force. Men may use Christian forms of speech in their teaching, and yet the doctrine they declare may be an enfeebled and emasculated Christianity, from which all that is distinctive and all that is redeeming is extracted: it is salt without its savour.

2. And so Christian life may lose its excellency and its virtue. These may be blurred and blemished lives, or they may be spotted and stained lives, or they may be lives with nothing in them beyond mere conventional proprietylives not animated by the love of Christ, not filled with the Spirit of Christ, not governed by the principles of Christ; not blamable, but not beautiful; not wicked, but worldly; not criminal, but not Christian: the salt has lost its savour.

III. THE EXTREME UNLIKELIHOOD OF RESTORATION. “If the salt have lost wherewith shall it be seasoned?” That is an impossibility. Salt that has lost its virtue is useless for all ordinary purposes, and is “cast out.” It is not absolutely impossible for the soul that has lost its Christian spirit and character to regain its worth, but it is very difficult and it is very rare. The recovery of lost feeling is a spiritual marvel.

1. It is so improbable that no man who loves his soul will expose himself to the peril; if he does, he most seriously endangers his spiritual life, he most gravely imperils his eternal future.

2. It is not so impossible that any unfaithful soul need despair. True penitence and genuine faith will bring back the wanderer from the fold to the shelter of the good Shepherd’s love.C.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR

Luk 14:1-24

Table-talk of Jesus.

We have now brought before us an interesting conversation which Jesus had with certain guests at an entertainment in the house of “one of the chief Pharisees.” It was a sabbath-day feast, indicating that sociality was not incompatible even with Jewish sabbath-keeping. Into the guest-chamber had come a poor man afflicted with the dropsy, and, to the compassionate eye of our Lord, he afforded an opportunity for a miracle of mercy. But, before performing it, he tests their ideas about sabbath-observance. They were sufficiently merciful to approve of sociality among themselves, but the healing of neighbours was another matter. They could even be merciful to cattle if they were their own; but to be merciful to a brother-man would have shown too much breadth of sympathy. The sick man might wait till Monday, but an ass or an ox might die if not delivered out of its difficulty, which would be so much personal loss. In spite of their narrow-mindedness, our Lord took the poor man and healed him, and then proceeded to give the guests very wholesome advice.

I. LET US LOOK AT THE PARABLE ABOUT THE WEDDING. (Luk 14:7-11). To the Lord’s eye the feast became the symbol of what is spiritual. The wedding of the parable is the consummation of the union between God and his people. The invitation is what is given in the gospel. Hence the advice is not instructive as to the prudential temper, but as to our spirit in coming before God. Shall it be the spirit which claims as right the highest room, or that which accepts as more than we deserve the lowest room? In other words, shall we come before God in a spirit of self-righteousness or in a spirit of self-abasement? Now, our Lord points out, from the collisions of social life, the absolute certainty of the self-important and self-righteous being abased among men: how much more in the righteous administration of God! The self-righteous under his administration shall be abased, how deeply and terribly we cannot conceive. On the other hand, those who have learned to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God shall be exalted in due season, and have glory in the presence of the celestial guests! Jesus thus attacked the self-righteousness of the Pharisees, not as a social, but as a spiritual question. God would at last cast it away from his presence and society with loathing and contempt On the other hand, self-abasement is the sure sign of grace and the sure earnest of glory. He who takes with gratitude the lowest room in God’s house is certain of speedy promotion!

II. OUR HOSPITALITY SHOULD BE DIVINE IN ITS SPIRIT AND CHARACTER. (Luk 14:12-14.) Having improved the conduct of the guests, and shown its spiritual bearings, he next turns to the host, and gives him an idea of what hospitality should be. It should not be speculative, but disinterestedsomething, in fact, which can only be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. In no clearer way could our Lord indicate that hospitality should be exercised in the light of eternity; and the bearing of it upon spiritual interests should constantly be regarded. And here we surely should learn:

1. How important it is to be social. God is social. His Trinity guarantees the sociality of his nature. We are to be God-like in our sociality.

2. It may be most helpful to lonely spirits upon earth. Many a lonely heart may be saved for better things by a timely social attention.

3. There is great blessing in giving attention to people who cannot return it. It is a great field of delight that those with large hearts may have. “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” We are following God’s plan in the attentions we bestow.

4. At the final arrangement of God’s kingdom, all such disinterested hospitality shall be recompensed. How? Surely by opportunity being afforded of doing the like again! The hospitable heart, which keeps eternity in view in all its hospitality, shall have eternity to be still more hospitable in.

III. THE PARABLE OF THE GREAT SUPPER. (VEER. 15-24.) Jesus proceeds from the question of hospitalities to present the gospel in the light of a supper provided by the great Father above, and to which he invites sinners as his guests. And here we have to notice:

1. The greatness of the supper. The preparations were long and elaborate. How many centuries were consumed in preparing the feast which we have in the gospel! It was to be the greatest “feast of reason and flow of soul” the world has seen. And so it is. Nowhere else does man get such food for his mind and heart as in the gospel of Christ.

2. The freedom of the invitations. Many were bidden. No niggardliness about the invitations. They are scattered so freely that, alas! they are not by many sufficiently prized.

3. The supplementary summons by the faithful servant. It is not an invitation by ink and pen merely that God sends, but he backs the written revelation by personal persuasion by the mouth of faithful servants. Here is the sphere of the gospel ministry. These true ministers tell what a feast is ready in the gospel, and what their own experience of it has been.

4. The triviality of the excuses. To the invitations sent out by God men make excuses. There is something peculiarly sad and significant in refusals upon insufficient grounds. Our Lord gives us three examples of the excuses men make for refusing salvation and the gospel.

(1) The first man puts a piece of ground before salvation. “Real property” keeps many a man out of the kingdom of heaven.

(2) The second puts cattle before salvation. Many men are so interested in good “stock,“ and all the mysteries of breeding and work, as to have no time for their eternal interests. A few chattels keep multi-ruder out of God’s kingdom.

(3) The third puts social concerns before spiritual. He has married a wife, and so cannot attend to the claims of God. Society, its attractions and allurements, is keeping multitudes out of the kingdom above. These are but specimens of the trivialities which are monopolizing men’s attention, and preventing their giving good heed to the things of the gospel.

5. The extension of the invitation to those who are sure to accept it. The poor, maimed, halt, and blind represent the souls who feel their spiritual poverty and defects, and who are sure to appreciate God’s gracious invitation. When the self-righteous spurn it, the abased and humiliated greedily receive it.

6. The abundant room, and the difficulty in getting the places filled. There is no possibility of any one coming and being refused admittance. There is room for all who Care to come. Those who will not taste of the supper are those who thought themselves better employed. In compelling men to come in, we must do our best in persuading them to accept the gospel. May we leave nothing undone that the Divine table may be filled. R.M.E.

Luk 14:25-35

The cost of discipleship.

The Pharisee’s banquet being over, our Lord continues his journey towards Jerusalem, and, as a crisis is evidently at hand, he has a goodly multitude of expectant followers. Have they any notion of the cost of discipleship? Are they prepared for all which it involves? Jesus determines to make this unmistakable, and so he gives them the admonition contained in the present section. He gives point to his advice by mentioning the folly of beginning to build a tower without calculating the cost of finishing it, or of beginning a war without calculating the reasonable chances of success. Each follower would have a costly tower to build in the devoted life he must lead, and a costly war to wage in the contest for the faith. It was every way desirable, therefore, that they should go carefully into the meaning of discipleship, and undertake it intelligently.

I. NOTHING LESS THAN THE FIRST PLACE IN THE HEART MUST BE OFFERED UNTO JESUS. (Luk 14:26.) He insists on being put before father and mother, before wife and children, before brothers and sisters. All relations are to be put below him. He must be more than them all. It is a great demand, and yet a most reasonable one. For:

1. The love of Jesus anticipated all parental love. In fact, the love of our parents is only the latest expression of his far-seeing and foreseeing love. The generations to whom we owe so much have only mediated for us the love of Jesus.

2. The unity of marriage only feebly illustrates the intensity of Christ’s love. Husband owes much to wife, and wife to husband. The marriage union is a close and intimate one; but Jesus comes closer to our hearts than husband or wife can. He is nearer, and should be dearer, than either.

3. The rising generation does not lay so much love and hope at our feet as Jesus. Children are dear; the promise of their young lives and hearts is precious; they come as pledges for the future; they are prophecies of the world about to be; but “the holy Child Jesus” comes closer to our hearts than even they. He is the prophecy of all coming time, the goal and ideal at which, not the rising generation only, but generations yet unborn, are to aim.

4. He gives us a more profound brotherhood than brothers or sisters can. The brotherhood of Jesus, “the elder Brother born for all adversity, and who can never die,” is an experience which brothers and sisters can only help us to understand. Jesus consequently claims first place, because in his manifold relations he is not only more than each, but more than all combined.

II. WE MUST PRIZE CHRIST MORE THAN LIFE ITSELF. (Luk 14:26.) Life is another precious benefit which we naturally prize. Satan, in the trial of Job, imagined that Job would give all that he had rather than lose his life (Job 2:4). He fancied that the patriarch, who would not curse God under the loss of children and property, would break down if God touched his bone or his flesh. But Job was so spiritually minded as to be ready to trust God, even should he, for some mysterious and hidden reason, slay him (Job 13:15). Now, Jesus comes and insists on being put before life itself. When the two come into competition there must be no question about yielding the palm to Christ. Jesus is more to us than physical life, because he is our spiritual life (Joh 14:6). We can never forfeit blessed existence so long as we trust in Christ, and the mere existence of the body is but a bagatelle in comparison.

III. SELF–SACRIFICE IS THE MARCHING ORDER OF THE REDEEMED. (Verse 27.) The idea of cross-bearing is often interpreted as if it simply meant enduring those “crosses” to which life is heir. But much more is meant than this. In the Revised Version it is put, “Whosoever cloth not bear his own cross.” Now, as Christ carried his cross to die upon, so must we take our lives in our hands, and be ready at any moment to sacrifice them for Jesus. He was crucified for us: are we ready to be crucified for him, or to die in any other way he wishes? It is the martyr-spirit which Christ here insists upon. He is surely worthy of such self-sacrifice.

IV. WE MUST FORSAKE ALL AS A GROUND OF CONFIDENCE IF WE WOULD FOLLOW JESUS. (Verse 33.) Christ, having insisted on disposing of our lives as he pleases, next insists on disposing of our property. He comes in with his right to tell us, as he told the rich young ruler, that we must give up our all for his sake. Not, of course, that he exercises this right often. Voluntary poverty has been an exceptional way of serving him. But we may all show plainly that our property is his, and that, when Christ and our possessions come into competition, all must give way to him. If we prize property more than Jesus, then he is nothing to us. We must be ready to put him before everything which we have, and to sacrifice everything when he claims it from us. In this way we make Christ first and all in all.

V. THE WORLD NEEDS SUCH PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE TO KEEP IT FROM CORRUPTION. (Verses 34, 35.) Were it not for the self-sacrifice of souls, the world would become utterly corrupt. Now, it is this heroic element which Christ’s cause has par excellence supplied. Only by the martyr-band, whose pure self-sacrifice was unmistakable, has the world been kept from utter selfishness and corresponding corruption. It was mindful of this martyr-spirit which his gospel ensures, that Jesus told his servants they were “the salt of the earth” (Mat 5:13). Unless this wholesome antidote to natural selfishness be supplied, society must go to pieces. It cannot be built on selfishness. The economics which assume no higher ethical element than each man looking after himself, may give expression to tendencies; but they must be overpassed by realities if the world is to keep moderately sweet and habitable. But suppose that Christ’s servants make a mere profession of self-sacrifice, and do not carry out the spirit of their Master, then they become but insipid salt, which can only be trodden underfoot of men on the highway, where nothing is meant to grow. In other words, the Christians who are not genuine are sure to be despised. They are trodden down by a world whom they have vainly tried to deceive. A false professor is the most contemptible of all men.R.M.E.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Luk 14:1. One of the chief Pharisees A member of the great council, or sanhedrim, who had a country-seat in Perea. The higher courts among the Jews allowed some recess to their members. This person’s invitation to our Lordwas insidious; for we are told that they watched him.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Luk 14:1-6 peculiar to Luke from his source of the narrative of the journey.

. . .] when He came , to wit, in the progress of the journey, Luk 13:33 .

. ] not: of the members of the Sanhedrim belonging to the Pharisees (Grotius, Kuinoel, and many others), such as Nicodemus therefore, Joh 3:1 ; for the incident is in Galilee (not Jerusalem , as Grotius; not Judea , as Schenkel will have it), and, literally, it means nothing more than: of the Pharisee leaders , i.e. of the chiefs of the Pharisees . It is not to be defined more precisely; but men such as Hillel, Schammai, Gamaliel, and others belong to this category.

] the holiness of which (the preparation occurred previously) was not opposed to it, nay, “lautiores erant isto die illis mensae idque ipsis judicantibus ex pietate et religione,” Lightfoot. Comp. Neh 8:10 ; Tob 2:1 ; also Joh 12:2 ; Wetstein in loc .; Spencer, de leg. rit . p. 87 ff.

] comp. Mat 15:2 . Jesus was invited , Luk 14:12 .

] This is the common use of after ; , they on their part , the Pharisees.

.] generally, whether He would give them occasion for charge or complaint. Otherwise, Luk 6:7 .

Luk 14:2 . And behold a dropsical man was there in His presence . This denotes the unexpected sight of the presence (not as a guest, see Luk 14:4 ) of the sick man, who , , , Euthymius Zigabenus. The view of many (see also Wetstein, Kuinoel, Glckler, Lange), that the sick man was intentionally brought in by the Pharisees, is the more arbitrary, as Luk 14:2 is not linked on by . Moreover, the cure occurred before the dinner , Luk 14:7 .

Luk 14:3 . .] at this appearance of the sick man.

Luk 14:4 . ] a taking hold which brought about the miraculous cure, stronger than . [172] Otherwise Mar 8:23 . The accusative is not dependent on . See Buttmann, Neut. Gr . p. 140 [E. T. 160].

Luk 14:5 . Comp. on Mat 12:11 . The construction is such that the nominative of is the subject in the second half of the sentence. Comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 468; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed . p. 72 B.

In respect of the reading (see the critical remarks; Mill, Bornemann, and Lachmann, Praef . II. p. vii., unjustifiably conjecture ), which is not inappropriate (de Wette), the conclusion of Jesus is not drawn, as Luk 13:15 f., a minori ad majus , [173] but from the ethical principle that the helpful compassion which we show in reference to that which is our own (be it son or beast) on the Sabbath, we are also bound to show to others (love thy neighbour as thyself ).

[172] Paulus after his fashion makes use of the word for the naturalizing of the miracle: “Probably Jesus took him aside, and looked after the operation of the means previously employed.”

[173] This reading, moreover, sets aside the opinion of Schleiermacher, p. 196, that in respect of the quotation of this expression there is no reference back to Luk 13:10 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

G. The Son of Man Mating and Drinking. Luk 14:1-24

1. The Healing of the Dropsical Man and the Beginning of the Discourses at Table (Luk 14:1-14)

(Luk 14:1-11, Gospel for the 6th Sunday after Trinity.)

1And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat2bread on the sabbath day, that they watched [were watching] him. And, behold,there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. 3And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day4[or not1]? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and lethim go; 5And answered them, saying,2 Which of you shall have an ass3 or an ox falleninto a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? 6And they couldnot answer him4 again to these things. 7And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden [invited], when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms [places];saying unto them, 8When thou art bidden [invited] of [by] any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room [place]; lest a more honourable man than thou be biddenof [invited by] him; 9And he that bade [invited] thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room [place].10But when thou art bidden [invited], go and sit down in the lowest room [place]; that when he that bade [invited] thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship [honour] in the presence of them that sit at meat [attable] with thee. 11For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humblethhimself shall be exalted. 12Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid [invite] thee again, and a recompense bemade thee. 13But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the14blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot [have not wherewith to] recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk 14:1. And it came to pass.The narrative of the healing of the dropsical man, peculiar to Luke, belongs without doubt to the journey communicated Luk 13:22, and the here-mentioned meal therefore took place apparently on one of the there-mentioned three days. As in the answer of the Saviour to the Pharisees (Luk 13:31-33) a kind of melancholy joy appears, which can be better felt than described, so was it undoubtedly the same frame of mind which impelled Him even in this critical period of His life to accept a dangerous expression of honor, and sit down at the table of a Pharisee.

One of the chief Pharisees.According to Grotius and Kuinoel, it was a Sanhedrist belonging to the Pharisees, and according to De Wette a president of the synagogue, one of the heads of the Pharisees. They, however, had as a sect no chiefs in the common sense of the word, and we shall hardly be able to understand anything else here than a Pharisee who, by his rank, learning, or influence, had obtained a moral predominance over those of his sect, like Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Hillel, Shammai, or others.

To eat bread.The Jews were accustomed on their Sabbath days to make visits and give entertainments, Neh 8:10. It, however, could be done the more easily, without actual desecration of the Sabbath, as they did not need to make a fire for cooking their food, as they had already prepared this the day before; so that the members of their family had to perform no special work on the Sabbath, Exo 35:3. We are not here to understand, however, a public banquet (Paulus). Our Lord was, on the other hand, as had several times already been the case, invited in with the family, Luk 14:12. It belongs to the peculiarities of Luke, that he loves to represent to us the Saviour as sitting at a social table, where He most beautifully reveals His pure humanity. This time He glorifies the meal through table-talk which, more than that of any other, was seasoned with salt, Col 4:6, and, according to the exceedingly vivid and internally credible account of Luke, was addressed first to the guests (Luk 14:7-10), then to the host (Luk 14:11-14), finally, on occasion being given (Luk 14:15), to both (Luk 14:16-24). A Sabbath miracle takes place immediately previously.

Luk 14:2. Which had the dropsy.The commencement evidently emphasizes the unexpectedness of the appearance of the man, who had by no means been invited as a guest, since Jesus, after his healing, sends him away. Since now in this place we read nothing of a great throng of the people, such as appears to have been found at other similar meals, in consequence of which this man might have boldly come in, it is highly probable that the Pharisee had placed him there with a malicious intention. This view is not arbitrary (Meyer), for, Luk 14:1, we read that the Pharisees were watching Jesus, and although Luk 14:2 does not begin with , yet it appears plainly enough that here the very crisis is related which gave occasion to such a lying in wait; a case entirely similar to that in Luk 6:6-7. Therefore, also, we find the patient just . in a place where he must meet the eye of the Saviour. The same treacherous disposition lay at the bottom of the hospitality of the Pharisees, as previously at the bottom of their friendly warning, Luk 13:31. The sick man, however, probably did not know to what end he had been led there, nay, perhaps they had already, by large promises, awakened in him the spark of faith and hope which the Saviour always made the condition of His miraculous power, of which, however, nothing comes to be mentioned, unless it be that before the healing more had taken place between Jesus and the sick man than the narrative informs us. Perhaps they thought, in view of the helpless condition of the dropsical man, that the healing this time would not succeed, and that their craftiness, therefore, would bring the powerlessness of the Saviour to light. And in the worst case, yet even by a healing on the Sabbath, would they not have again new matter for an accusation? Grounds enough which might occasion them to grant to this unhappy, perhaps also poor, man, for some moments the honor of their presence in the neighborhood of the festive table.

Luk 14:3. And Jesus answering.These words of the Saviour are an answer to this act of His enemies, and to the secret evil thoughts which He had therewith read in their hearts. He will not perform the miracle without first showing them that He sees through their plan. Therefore He begins of His own accord to speak, while the sick man, out of timidity before so distinguished a company, or, perhaps, in the expectation of a friendly word, stands there in silence.

Is it lawful.In a certain sense we can say that the Saviour shows them His superiority by this, that He lays for them with so categorical a question a snare. For had they answered unconditionally, Yes, they would thereby have sanctioned His miracle; while their answering No, would, in this particular case, have betrayed their own want of love. On this account they held their peace as before, Luk 6:9. Only after this triumph does the Saviour go on to speak by deeds: He lays hold of the dropsical man with mighty hand () and lets him go from Him healed. In this, however, it is worthy of note how He still spares the enemies at whose table He sits, inasmuch as He castigates them not in the presence, but only after the departure, of the recovered man.

Luk 14:5. Which of you.Here also, as before, the act is vindicated with a reference to daily life, yet this time again in a peculiar form, with relation to the nature of the miracle. At the healing of the woman whom Satan had bound eighteen years, Luk 13:16, our Saviour speaks of the loosing of the ox and ass. Here, where a dropsical man has been made sound, He speaks of a well in which the cattle ran the danger of drowning (a minor proof, we may cursorily remark, for the accuracy of the Evangelist in the communication of the sayings of the Saviour). In general, the Sabbath miracles of our Lord, even with inevitable coincidences, present so many fine shades of difference, that the opinion (Strauss) as if all were only mythical variations upon the same monotonous theme, is, by a more exact comparison of them, best shown to be a lie.

An ass or an ox.The reading has, it is true, a great number of external testimonies for it (see the enumeration in Lachmann and Tischendorf), and has been acutely defended by Rettig (Stud. und Krit., 1838), but brings a disturbing element into the discussion. There is here, at all events, plainly a conclusion a minori ad majus, which by the combination of Son and Ox in great part falls away. The appeal to the paternal sensibility of the Pharisees would here, where it was the healing of a stranger that was in question, have entirely failed of its end. The various reading mentioned appears, on the other hand, to require an explanation in this way, that an ignorant copyist wished to put a still stronger expression into the Saviours mouth than that which He had, according to the common reading, made use of, but for this very reason weakened involuntarily the force of His argument. That the Saviour wished here to express the ethical principle, that what we do in relation to our own on the Sabbath we are also bound to do for others (Meyer), is certainly possible, but, when compared with similar apologetical dicta, is yet by no means probable. Had the Saviour wished to impress the rule, Mat 7:12, in this manner, the mention of the ox, at all events, would have been superfluous. Moreover, the son in the well appears, at all events, in a somewhat singular case. On all these grounds, we do not venture to apply here the elsewhere so trustworthy rule, lectio difficilior prferenda. The various reading (D.) also points already to an uncertainty of the reading, in which case it is, perhaps, safest to keep to the Recepta.

Luk 14:7. He put forth a parable to those which were invited.The word parable is here to be taken in the wider sense, not in that of an invented narrative, but in that of a parabolic address. Against the imputation of the indecorum of this table-talk (Gfrrer, De Wette), see the remark on Luk 11:37. Meyer, Here, moreover, the occurrence with the dropsical man had prepared another point of view than that of urbanity; and if we assume, moreover (Lange), that the two brief parables also, Luk 14:7-14, bear a symbolic character, by which the relation of the guests to the kingdom of God is intimated, there vanishes the lightest semblance of indecorum. But even apart from this, we are not to forget how much here depended on the tone of the speaker, and we may here well remind the reader of the familiar expression, Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.

When He marked.The unseemly demeanor of the guests gives of itself the occasion for the first parable. It is hard to suppose that the Saviour here wished to instruct them what demeanor became them in reference to the feast in the kingdom of God, since He does not regard the unbelieving Jews as those who really sit at the head of the festal board, but, on the contrary (Luk 14:18 seq.), as those who have, indeed, been invited thereto, but have not made their appearance. No, as yet the instruction is framed entirely according to the circumstances of the moment: Go and sit down in the lowest place. We might almost suppose that the Saviour Himself, with His disciples, belonged to those who sat below, and with right, but in vain, waited for a higher place, but would, however, in no way appropriate this to themselves. In this case, the noblest sense of dignity and His highest hope for the future also expressed itself in the utterance: He that humbleth himself shall be exalted, as, on the other hand, a sharp threatening for the Jews lay in the warning, which He for this particular case utters as a general truth: He that exalteth himself shall be humbled. That this saying was one of those which the Saviour on different occasions could very fittingly repeat, strikes the eye at once, comp. Mat 23:12; Luk 18:14. As to the rest, the whole picture is taken from life, and shows anew with what observant look the Saviour often noticed the most habitual usages of daily life. The feast which is here spoken of is no common , but a wedding, in which decorum as to the place is yet more important than on other occasions. Where a strife arises about places, it must naturally not be one of the guests but the impartial host who decides, who has invited the one and the other ( , te et illum, Vulg.). To the one pressing forward with so little modesty he says briefly, Give this man room; thus put back, he begins then (, the lingering beginning of receding, with a feeling of shame, Meyer) to take not only one of the lower but the lowest place ( . .). Qui semel cedere jubetur, longe removetur. Bengel. The humble one, on the other hand, who has gone blithely and joyfully to the feast (), and contents himself there with the lowest place, receives a friendly , that urges him to come up, if not in every case to the highest seat of all, at least higher, , and the honor which is herewith connected even in and of itself gains yet double worth by the fact that it falls to him his fellow-guests, comp. Pro 25:6-7.

Luk 14:12. Then said He also.The second parable is not a eulogy on the host because he had invited the Saviour, although He did not belong to the high in rank, and to his friends (Ebrard), but is, on the other hand, a sharp rebuke on account of a fault which is almost always committed in the choice of guests at splendid banquets. It is, of course, apparent that the precept of the Saviour must not be understood absolutely, but a parte potiori. The Mosaic law had already allotted to the poor and needy a place at the feast-table, Deu 14:28-29; Deu 16:11; Deu 26:11-13, and the Saviour also wills that one should henceforth show his kindness not exclusively or primarily to those who can most richly requite the same. The thought that the origin of the Christian Agap must be derived from this precept (Van Hengel) is purely arbitrary.

Lest they also invite thee again.The common understanding with which one gives a feast to a man of consequence, namely, that he shall be invited in turn, the Saviour here represents as something that is far more to be avoided than anxiously to be sought. It is of like character with the , Mat 6:5. Metus, mundo ignotus. Bengel. Only where one does something, not out of an everyday craving for advantage, but out of disinterested love, does the Saviour promise the richest reward.

Luk 14:14. At the resurrection of the just.The last phrase, , would have been entirely purposeless if the Saviour had here had in mind the general resurrection which He describes, e. g., Joh 5:28-29. He distinguishes like Paul (1Th 4:16; 1Co 15:23) and John (Rev 20:5-6) between a first and a second resurrection, comp. also Luk 20:34-36, and impresses thereby on this oftcontroverted doctrine the stamp of His unerring . At all events, this word contains a germ which is further developed in the later apostolic writings. Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. Judorum, 38. That which according to Paul and John intervenes between the first and second resurrection, the Saviour here leaves untouched, without, however, in any respect contradicting it. That He does not speak of in the Pharisaical, but in the ethical, sense, is, of course, understood. Nor is He here concerned to praise His host, who had invited Him, Luk 14:1, apparently with a perverse intent, but only to lay down the general principle which in social intercourse may never be lost out of mind, and to allude to the joyful prospect at which every one may rejoice who obediently conforms himself to this precept.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See Exegetical and Critical remarks, and the remarks on Luk 6:1-11.

2. Here also the Saviour does not reject the offered feast of the Pharisee, and shows thereby the human kindliness of His character. In the miraculous deed which He performs on the occasion, in the humiliating words which He thereby utters, He reveals His Divine greatness. He shows even in social intercourse a free-spokenness, but at the same time a conscientiousness and dignity, according to which His disciple can direct himself in all cases with safety.

3. The warning of the Saviour against seeking after vain honor may be applied also in a wider sense to the seeking after high places and offices of honor in the kingdom of God, when it offends us to see another before us, in which, however, the high-aiming ones draw upon themselves very many a humiliation. So far this admonition coincides with the general principles stated more in detail, Mat 23:6-8; Joh 13:1-17, and elsewhere. Comp. 1Pe 5:5; Jam 4:6. Here the Saviour represents self-humiliation as an act of holy prudence. Other motives, however powerful, could in this connection not well be touched upon. But certainly he acts most according to the spirit even of this admonition who names himself, with Paul, the chief of sinners, 1Ti 1:15.

4. The eternal rule in Gods government according to which the humble is raised and the lofty is humbled, was not unknown even to God-fearing heathen. Comp. the admirable answer of sop to the question, What God does? elata deprimere, humilia extollere. Yet we may affirm with certainty that humility such as the Saviour here and in other places required, remained unknown to the heathen, and must be called a peculiar Christian virtue.

5. Not ungrounded is the complaint (Newton) that the Saviours precept in respect to those whom one must principally invite to a feast is only all too often forgotten by His disciples. On the other hand, however, it must not be overlooked that admonitions of this kind are not possible to be interpreted , but rather like Mat 5:39-42, and similar passages. Upon the disinterested temper which is here emphatically commanded, all at last depends in the case of His disciples. As to the rest, even heathen antiquity was not wholly without similar precepts. Call to mind Martials poscis munera, Sexte, non amicos, and especially the remarkable words of Plato in the Phdrus, Edit. Bipont. X. 293, a proof the more that in this saying of the Lord a purely human feeling, but not a breach against decorum, expresses itself. To the Saviour alone did it belong to bring the here-commended principle into direct connection with the future and everlasting happiness of His people.

6. What the Saviour here commends to others He has Himself fulfilled in the most illustrious manner. To the feast in the kingdom of God He has principally invited not such as were related to Him after the flesh, and from whom He might hope for recompense again, but the poor, blind, etc., in the spiritual sense of the word. But for that reason, also, He has now joy to the full in the kingdom of the Father, and a name that is above every name.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Even in the thickening conflict of His life, the Saviour is not unreceptive of social enjoyment.The Sunday meals, Sunday dangers, Sunday duties of the Christian.Even where we should not expect it, hostile looks are often directed against us.Human misery in the midst of the house of joy.The house of mourning and the house of feasting (Ecc 7:3) here united under one roof; in both the Lord is perfectly in His place.Jesus understands even the unuttered sighs.Where Jesus stretches forth His hand there follows healing.Humanity even towards beasts is also promoted by the Saviour.Humanity towards beasts not seldom united with inhumanity towards men. [Eminently exemplified among the Hindoos.C. C. S.]Powerless silence over against the great deeds of the Lord: 1. From rancor; 2. from perplexity; 3. from inflexible disdain.The seeking after vain honor: 1. In daily life; 2. in Christian life.The shame prepared for unrestrained craving after honor, even on this side of the grave.Take the lowest place (Address at the Communion): 1. Even there dost thou as guest most fittingly belong; 2. there does the Host love best to see thee; 3. there does the feast most refresh thee; 4. there dost thou most quickly attain to the place of honor.Whosoever exalteth himself, etc.: 1. The result of the worlds history; 2. the fundamental law of the kingdom of God; 3. the chosen motto of every Christian.Selfish profit the ground of most of the exhibitions of love of the natural man.The giving of feasts is by no means forbidden to Christians, but not every feast is alike good in the eyes of the Lord.Recompense from man and reward from God go seldom hand in hand.The blessedness of Him who receives no earthly recompense for his love.True love does not only help the needy, but it quickens and gladdens him also.He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord.The resurrection of the just a time of the noblest recompense.

Starke:Brentius:Although learned mahco is the worst of all, yet one has not to be too greatly in fear of it.Canstein:People of repute and preachers should consider, wherever they are, that notice is taken of them, 2Co 6:3.Our entertainments should be only feasts of love, but falsehood is the first dish that is served up.Although we find ourselves among evil people, yet we shall not lack opportunity to do good.Cramer:Silence is sometimes good, but malicious silence, when one should speak, is sin.Canstein:Them that need help we should willingly assist, and not allow ourselves to be begged out and moved with long entreaties, but rather anticipate them out of compassion.According to circumstances, it is fitting and profitable to give account to people of ones doing.Nova Bibl. Tb.:Falsehood is put to shame by sincerity, craftiness by wisdom, malice by the light of truth, and must be dumb.It is good at a meal, even where a number are present, to hold edifying discourse, 1Ti 4:5.Zeisius:Among the proud there is ever strife, Pro 13:10.Osiander:Dear Christian, thou must concern thyself not only for godliness, but also for courteousness and good manners, Php 4:8.Nova Bibl. Tb.:In lowliness of mind, let each esteem other better than himself, Php 2:3.Brentius:Between seeking power, and accepting beseeming honor in humility, there is a great distinction, which one has occasion to take good note of, 1Th 2:5-6.Biblical hospitality belongs especially to the poor and distressed.Hedinger:Love is not covetous; Gods children share as long as they have.To entertain the poor and needy is the same as to receive Christ, and has the promise of this life and that which is to come, Isa 58:7.Quesnel:Happy indeed does he esteem himself who in case of need advances something to a royal prince who is expecting the crown; (pious) poor people are nothing but needy princes; the kingdom of heaven is theirs; we without doubt make our fortune if we lend to them in need.

Heubner:The dangers in high society.Jesus brings the man into his heart; he is himself to feel the right and declare it to himself.Against its will the evil heart must secretly acknowledge the truth.The discourse of Christ is earnest, convincing, but never satirical against His enemies.To save a man from danger of life every one accounts a duty, why then not also to save his soul?Demeanor of Christians in reference to rank.The power of dispensing with worldly honor makes worthy of honor.Examples of exact fulfilment of the precept, Luk 14:12-14, vol ii. pp. 108110.

On the Pericope:Jesus as Guest in the Pharisees house.The dangers of Sunday.The right employment of Sunday.Lisco:Occasion for thought in the history of the miracle; Thou shalt sanctify the solemn day.Ulber:The bounds of Christian freedom: 1. In reference to Divine service, Luk 14:1-6; Luke 2. to intercourse with ones neighbor, Luk 14:7-11; Luke 3. to temporal recreation, Luk 14:12-14.Fuchs:Divine service on Sunday: 1. The Divine service of the temple; 2. Divine service of the house; 3. Divine service of the heart.Self-exaltation and self-humiliation: 1. Their nature; 2. their expression; 3. their consequences.Ahlfeld:How celebrates the living Christian Church her Sunday? 1. She has the Lord in the midst of her; 2. exercises love; 3. is humble before the Lord her God.Westermeyer.Jesus at the table of a Pharisee; how He reveals Himself: 1. In His great-hearted love; 2. in His unsurpassable Wisdom 3. in His humble seriousness.

Footnotes:

[1]Luk 14:3.According to the reading , accepted by Tischendorf on considerations not without weight and in some measure already supported by Lachmann. The Rec. is taken from Mat 12:10.

[2]Luk 14:5.The fuller reading, . . , is critically suspicious. See Lachmann and Meyer. [B. omits, Cod. Sin. inserts.]

[3]Luk 14:5.The widely-diffused reading appears to us, often as it has been vindicated, on internal grounds to be rejected. See below in the Exegetical and Critical remarks. [ supported by A., B., 10 other uncials; by Cod. Sin., 3 other uncials. accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Bleek, Alfred, Tregelles. It appears to me that to read it climactically his son, or even his ox, is the only way in which this reading becomes tolerable, notwithstanding its weight of external authority.C. C. S.]

[4]Luk 14:6.The of the Recepta is untenable.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 1537
THE MAN CURED OF THE DROPSY

Luk 14:1-4. And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath-day, that they watched him. And behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go.

ALTHOUGH the Gospel requires those who embrace it to become dead to the world, it does not forbid us to maintain occasional and friendly intercourse with unenlightened men. St. Paul rectifies a mistake which had arisen in the Church upon this very subject, and tells us that to renounce all connexion with the ungodly, would be to exclude ourselves from the world altogether [Note: 1Co 5:9-10.]. But peculiar caution is necessary when we are in their company; and the most effectual way of counteracting their pernicious influence is, to labour to do them good. This we may learn from our Lords own example in the history before us. He was in a Pharisees house, whither he had been invited to dinner; and his conduct there will afford us many useful lessons. We shall consider,

I.

The character of those who entertained our Lord

The lawyers and Pharisees professed a high regard for religion, and on this occasion appeared to act a very friendly part. But they soon manifested,

1.

Their inveterate malignity

[Under the mask of friendship they were traitors at heart. They watchedour Lords words and actions, not with a desire to receive instruction, but with a determination to seize an opportunity of traducing his character and destroying his life. Such was their employment on the Sabbath-day, when they should have been more particularly in the exercise of all holy affections. Such was their return to our Lord for all his condescension and kindness. And such was their conduct while they wished to be esteemed as patterns of sanctity and virtue. Would to God that this spirit had died with them! But are there none in this day like-minded with them? Do none, who appear friendly in their outward conduct, occupy themselves with watching the words and actions of a godly person, marking any frailty with critical acuteness, and animadverting upon it afterwards with malicious pleasure? Do none even on the Sabbath-day attend the public ministration of the word, with this captious disposition, disdaining to receive instruction, and seeking only to find some expressions which they may report and ridicule?]

2.

Their utter want of candour

[Our Lord put a simple question to them, in answer to what he knew to be passing in their minds. There was but one answer that could possibly be given to it. But they knew that a just reply would subvert their own superstitious notions, and justify our Lord in a conduct which they wished to condemn. Unable to maintain the sentiments they professed, and unwilling to acknowledge their error, they held their peace. What a base and disingenuous spirit was this! Yet, how many resemble them! If we address the consciences of some, how backward are they to acknowledge the plainest and most unquestionable truths! If they be compelled to give their assent to any position which militates against their practice, they shew, in the very mode of assenting, a fixed determination to resist every inference that may be drawn from their concession. If invited to consider calmly the most important and most obvious truths, they will shun the light lest their deeds should be reproved. They have no ears to hear, no eyes to see any thing that condemns themselves; but are all eye, and all ear, when a religious person is to be exposed. Nor is this character found only among the profane; but often among those who affect a great regard for religion, and sometimes even among those, whose office calls them to propagate and defend it [Note: The lawyers, as well as Pharisees, are mentioned in the text.].]

Difficult as the path of Jesus was hereby rendered, he was enabled to preserve himself unblameable in

II.

His conduct towards them

In every part of our Lords demeanour he was a pattern of all perfection. On this occasion in particular we cannot but admire,

1.

His wisdom

[Conscious as he was of the rectitude of his ways, he was nevertheless concerned to obviate the prejudices which subsisted in the minds of others. On this account he put the question respecting the sanctification of the Sabbath, before he proceeded to work the miracle; and again, after he had wrought it, appealed to them respecting their own practice. Thus, though he did not convert, he at least confounded them, and prevented those clamours which they would otherwise have raised against him. Worthy is this example to be followed by all who embrace the Gospel. We cannot extirpate the prejudices of men; but we should blunt the edge of them. We should condescend to reason even on the most obvious truths, and to defend, by argument, the most blameless conduct. We should endeavour to cut off occasion from those who seek occasion against us [Note: 2Co 11:12.]. We should shew out of a good conversation our works with meekness of wisdom [Note: Jam 3:13.]; and prevent, as much as possible, our good from being evil spoken of [Note: Rom 14:16.].]

2.

His fortitude

[When he saw their obstinacy, he was not deterred from doing his Fathers will. He would do good, even at the peril of his life, rather than lose the opportunity afforded him. He therefore healed the man of his dropsy, and dismissed him, lest he also should be exposed to their murderous rage. Thus should we act, whenever we are opposed in the way of duty. While we labour to disarm our adversaries by a meek and gentle behaviour, we must not fear them. We should say, like Nehemiah, Shall such a man as I flee? We should be ready to face any danger and suffer any extremity rather than decline from the path which God, in his word or providence, has marked out for us.]

Three cautions naturally arise from this subject:
1.

Let us be on our guard when in the company of the ungodly

[The more friendly the world appear, the more are we in danger of being ensnared by them. While they continue carnal, they cannot but retain a rooted enmity against spiritual things. Though, therefore, considerations of honour, interest, or consanguinity, may restrain their anger, they will watch for our halting [Note: Jer 20:10.]; they will seek to find some matter of offence in us, that they may seem the more justified in following their own ways [Note: Psa 35:19-21; Psa 35:25.]. Let us then be doubly on our guard when in their company. Let us keep our lips as with a bridle, and pray to God to lead us because of our observers [Note: See Psa 5:8. in the marginal translation.].]

2.

Let us study that not even our good may be evil spoken of

[A thing may be good in itself, and yet be imprudent as to the manner in which it is carried into execution. The primitive Christians were at liberty respecting the eating of meats offered to idols; yet in the use of their liberty they might offend their weaker brethren, and sin against Christ. It is a great part of Christian prudence to discern persons, times, and circumstances, that we may be able to adapt ourselves to the exigencies of the occasion. Let this, then, be our endeavour; let us walk in wisdom toward them that are without, and endeavour to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. by well doing [Note: 1Pe 2:15.].]

3.

Let us proceed without fear in the way of duty

[Daniel and the Hebrew Youths would not conform to the sinful practices of others, notwithstanding they were threatened by the tyrants of their day. Our Lord also was continually opposed by the most malignant adversaries; yet both he and they chose to persist in what was right at the risk of their lives, rather than violate the dictates of their conscience. Thus let us be ready to live or die for God. Let us willingly endure the contradiction of sinners against ourselves. Let us put away that fear of man which bringeth a snare [Note: Pro 29:25.]; and continue steadfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord [Note: 1Co 15:58.].]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

CONTENTS

The Lord Jesus dineth with a Pharisee. He healeth a Man of the Dropsy. He puts forth a Parable. Describes his Gospel under the Similitude of a great Supper; and adds a blessed Discourse.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; 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? And they could not answer him again to these things.

Our Lord, we find, frequently visiting the Pharisees, though from the complexion of that sect, none of them had the least regard to his person or doctrine. Here we find, in the midst of this seeming kindness to Jesus, they watched him; that is, they waited to reproach him. It is not said how this man with the dropsy came to the house of the Pharisee; but it afforded a blessed occasion for the display of the Lord’s grace and power, and their resentment. That the cure Jesus wrought made them angry, is evident, from the Lord’s answer. We find a similar instance in the preceding chapter, Luk 13:15 : See also Mat 12:9-14 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

The Men Without a Sabbath

Luk 14:3-6

The Lord delivered His primary challenge to the Jews through the Sabbath Day. It was, as it were, His gauge of battle, His test case. For His own personal significance turned on His relation to this Sabbath Day question. Not that in this He challenged the validity of the older Covenant. On the contrary, He always claimed the authority of the older Covenant on His own side. He appealed for His own justification to the principles established in the Law of Moses, or to the precedents recorded in the sacred books. He asserted that He Himself was giving to the Sabbath its proper legal value, and that the Jews, in obstructing His action, were defying their own law.

The collision arose wholly on the interpretation to be put upon the Sabbath. And here the logic of Christ worked in exactly the opposite direction to the logic of the Pharisee. He and they, therefore, could never come to terms, for they drew opposite conclusions from the same premiss; that premiss was the sanctity of the Sabbath. Both held by that. The Sabbath was the day consecrated to God, when man came before His Maker to rejoice in the work of His hands, as God had rejoiced in His own works in the day when He pronounced all very good.

I. ‘All was very good.’ That was the note of the day. God’s benediction was on everything that He had made. He found the peace of His repose in that splendid satisfaction. So it had been at the beginning. So it still was for those drawn within the covenanted relationship, for that Israel whom He had redeemed out of slavery, for that first-born race ransomed by the Passover Lamb, lifted out of Egyptian darkness into the light of Divine knowledge, sanctified and purified by deliverance through the waters of the Red Sea. All was good for those, at any rate, bound to Him by covenant. The eternal verdict stood fast. Each recurring Sabbath proclaimed it afresh. Israel stood in the favour of God, and could come up with delight, with praise and thanksgivings into the courts of the Lord’s house. It was the day of privilege and favour. And, therefore, out of it must be cast all that offends. There must be nothing to blur or stain the happy fellowship of man with his God. There must be no interruption to the harmonious intercourse.

Yes; and if so, then, argued the Jews, let us clear away out of sight all that breaks this gracious pause, all that wrecks this perfect harmony. For today let it be left alone, untouched and unregarded. Other days are enough to occupy ourselves with our own affairs and to remedy our own troubles. To-day is God’s only. Give it all to Him. He asks for it all. It is all to be filled with joy, with rest, not with care. Leave for at least this one day your pains behind you, out of sight, out of mind. And come and sing, in thanksgiving, unto the Lord your God.

II. The call to cease from your own labour in order to rejoice in God’s work on your behalf presupposes that you are in a condition so to praise God, and give Him thanks for all that He has done for you. What if you are deprived of any reason for thanksgiving? What if the Divine work for you and upon you has been wrecked, broken down, defaced? What if you have been flung outside the conditions which God had pronounced to be very good? What if those conditions are no longer at all good, and are unfit to be presented before the Divine review, and are unworthy of the Divine satisfaction, and traverse the very purpose of creation which the Sabbath celebrates? What if they fail their primal meaning, and their intended glory, and are harsh, hideous, cruel, godless? What is the use of talking this Sabbath-talk over them? What is the use of declaring that all is very good when it is not good? It may be a question who has sinned to bring about this or that disaster, whether it was the man himself or his parents. Anyhow, there the disasters are. You cannot sing praises and thanksgivings, as if these outrages on all praises and thanksgivings did not exist. Your zeal for the honour of the Sabbath, and for the blessing laid on the first creation, ought to force you to attend to the blots that deface it. Far from sweeping them away out of sight, it ought to make it impossible for you to keep your eyes off them, or to forget them.

Before you can keep your Sabbath you must get the poor creature out of the pit. That is the first necessity, and that necessity is no breach of the Sabbath itself; for the Sabbath call assumes that you are qualified to keep it. It assumes that all is well with you. It bids you recognise that God and you are at peace. It invites you to offer thanks for your peace and gladness. If things are not right, then you must at all costs put them straight at once, in order to make your Sabbath possible. Hurry off, then! If your ox is in the pit, that is what is violating the Sabbath, not the labour of pulling it out. The labour spent on pulling it out is labour consecrated to the demands of the Sabbath. You work under the immediate stress of the Sabbath in order to make its fulfilment practicable.

Work then with all your power. Never rest until you have won the right to rest and to bless God that all is very good. And if you ought to do so for ox or ass, how much more so for this or that poor woman whom Satan has bound these twelve years? So the counter-logic works, the logic of the Lord’s salvation.

III. For He came on earth out of this very desire, to renew our ancient Sabbath joy. It was for the sake of the Sabbath that He made His unique claim. For man’s Sabbath had fallen into suspense. Its command, indeed, stood, ‘Come before God and rejoice in Him who rejoices over you’. ‘Leave all your own works aside to do this one work of Divine thanksgiving.’ The call was as imperative as ever. But what if man himself had fallen into a pit? What if he was powerless to obey? Then the Sabbath itself cried aloud for his deliverance. The Sabbath itself enforced the prime necessity of restoring him to himself. There was only one way of enabling the Sabbath requirements to be satisfied, and that was by pulling man out of the pit there and then by opening his eyes if he was blind, by healing his limbs if they were withered, by casting out his devils if he were possessed, by raising him to his feet and giving him power to walk and carry his bed if he was paralysed. Sabbath works these! For without them no Sabbath could be kept. ‘If you Jews loved your Sabbath for its true sake, you could not help rejoicing in anything that removed the obstruction that had its blessings. Your passion for the honour of the Sabbath would inevitably kindle in you the wish to see its honour verified. You would clamour for its good name to be unsullied. You would release anything that set its full peace free. You would be restless and miserable in your own Sabbath spirit, so long as you saw it blotted and spoilt for others. Oh! the leap of relief if some strong hand more capable than your own could do the work that restored to them their Sabbath and gave back the good peace that had been lost.’

The whole challenge of Jesus Christ lies here. That is why He made the Sabbath day His critical test. ‘You men are professing to rejoice in your God-given Sabbath. But is there any one of you who can keep it? You claim to walk in the light of God’s eyes. Dare any of you face them? I am here to give back the Sabbath to man by making man fit for the Sabbath. That is why, as Lord of Man for whom the Sabbath was made, I am Lord also of the Sabbath, which is My crowning gift to that humanity which I have redeemed that it may enter into My rest.’

H. Scott Holland, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxviii. p. 251.

Reference. XIV. 5. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iv. p. 213.

Luk 14:7

In his treatise on the Holy Spirit, St. Basil the Great inveighs against the contemporary ambition of the Christians around him. ‘Every one is a theologian, even he whose life is stained with countless pollutions. Self-appointed individuals with a keen appetite for place reject the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and then divide among themselves the high offices of the Church. There is an indescribable pushing and elbowing for precedence, every one who is eager to make an appearance straining every nerve to put himself forward prominently.’

References. XIV. 7-11. G. W. Brameld, Practical Sermons, p. 222. XIV. 8. J. Learmount, British Congregationalist, 26th July, 1906, p. 733. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ix. p. 306. XIV. 9. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year (2nd Series), vol. ii. p. 141.

Luk 14:10

In the letter to Napier, in which he refuses to republish his reviews, Macaulay protests: ‘I will not found any pretensions to the rank of a classic on my reviews. I will remain, according to the excellent precept in the Gospels, at the lower end of the table, where I am constantly accosted with, “Friend, go up higher,” and not push my way to the top at the risk of being compelled with shame to take the lowest room. If I live twelve or fifteen years, I may perhaps produce something which I may not be afraid to exhibit side by side with the performance of the old masters.’

Luk 14:10

Cardinal Perraud, in his Life of Pre Gratry, describes his last watch by the death-bed of his friend. ‘My dear father,’ he said, ‘it was you who called me to the service of God, and to you, after Him, I owe my vocation. Do you remember, how twenty-five years ago, at the Normal School, you so often repeated to me the words of the Saviour in the Gospel, ” Amice, ascende superius ?” He pressed my hand, to show me that he heard and understood. Then I knelt down and said to him, “My dear father, bless me and Charles also”‘ [his brother Charles Perraud, another saintly priest who had been a pupil of Pre Gratry. The names of Adolphe and Charles Perraud, Henri Perreyve and Eugene Bernard, will be always associated in the annals of French religious history with those of Gratry and Lacordaire.].

References. XIV. 10. H. G. Daniell-Bainbridge, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlv. p. 86. J. Keble, Sermons for the Sundays after Trinity, p. 154. E. Armitage, Christian World Pulpit, vol. liv. p. 333.

Luk 14:11

The English are an Old Testament people; they never cared about the New. No other nation has such profound sympathy with the history and creeds of Israel. Did you ever think of it? That Old Testament religion suits us perfectly our arrogance and our pugnaciousness; this accounts for its hold upon the mind of the people; it couldn’t be stronger if the bloodthirsty old Tribes were truly our ancestors. The English seized upon their spiritual inheritance as soon as a translation of the Bible put it before them. In Catholic days we fought because we enjoyed it, and made no pretences; since the Reformation we have fought for Jehovah…. The English are the least Christian of all so-called Christian peoples. They simply don’t know the meaning of the prime Christian virtue humility.

George Gissing, in The Crown of Life.

References. XIV. 11. F. B. Cowl, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xvii. p. 335. J. Learmount, The Examiner, 19th July, 1906, p. 709. XIV. 12. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vi. p. 212. XIV. 12-14. C. Bradley, Faithful Teaching, p. 30. J. Bunting, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 135. XIV. 13. F. B. Cowl, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xvii. p. 383.

The Selfishness of Society

Luk 14:13-14

There are certain passages of Scripture which are condemned to suffer an almost perpetual martyrdom. It is not because they are either unimportant or hard to understand, but rather because they seem to be pitched in too lofty and exacting a key. Among the number of these the words selected above may well be reckoned. Christ’s most exacting sayings are the most searching tests of our spiritual condition. They demand what nobody else thinks of demanding, and their claim upon our observance is drawn exclusively from His authority.

I. There can be no doubt that the course which Jesus here disapproves is the one that is still most generally followed. Indeed it is alarming to think on how thoroughly selfish a basis the friendships of this world rest. The bonds that draw people together are mainly of the most mercenary sort Perhaps some will demur to this as a little extravagant and overdrawn. Well, you must see that you are not deceiving yourselves, and shelving the real issue, because its serious consideration may prove unpleasant There cannot be Christian society which has not a Christian object, or at least does not coincide with Christian aims. Let us, then, ask ourselves one or two questions. Do our social engagements contribute to the strength of our Christian character? Or, do they leave behind the exhaustion and weariness that succeeds excitement? If so, how can you reconcile them with faithfulness to Christ? But it is not so much the excitement and dissipation of excessive social enjoyment which Christ condemns, as the calculating, sordid spirit which too often regulates its whole arrangement.

II. What, then, is it to which Christ exhorts us? in what direction does He bid us advance? He tells us that when we make a feast we are to call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and we shall be blessed. Then He adds as the reason, that they cannot recompense us again. Disengaging the truth which is taught us here from the particular connection in which it occurs, we find He inculcates that spirit of unselfishness which does not contemplate or seek for a present reward. But the principle receives its direct application in another and a wider area. It inculcates the spirit of the good Samaritan, the doing of good for its own sake or rather for Christ’s sake. It directs us to give where our gift is most required, and will confer the largest amount of happiness.

C. Moinet, The Great Alternative and other Sermons, p. 231.

Well-meaning Blunderers

Luk 14:15 ; Luk 11:27

We have here two instances in which well-meaning persons lost their heads when they heard Jesus speaking plain home-truths. They have their successors in every age, and stand for peculiarly characteristic types of the two commonest ways of turning aside the edge of conviction. The woman turns it aside by an emotion, the man by a pious remark.

I. The Woman. Women were ever quicker than men to perceive the greatness of Jesus. In this instance we can see the woman’s rising excitement as we read the story. The perversity and rudeness of His treacherous enemies must have stung the hearts of His friends. His reply to them, describing the miserable plight of the devil-haunted, and the wandering of demons in the wilderness, further heated her imagination, until perhaps she had grown almost hysterical, and needed the relief of speech. It was the cry of one full of delight in His human power and more than human grace. The kind and womanly heart of her speaks out, it may be with the passion of the childless or the yearning of one whose children had shamed her. She blesses the unknown mother of Jesus, thinking how proud she herself would have been to have borne such a son. Her cry was the spontaneous utterance of the purest and most natural emotion.

Yet Jesus turned it aside with pointed words about the blessedness of those that hear the Word of God and keep it. His words were very gentle, yet they were relentless. He was carrying on His great work, intent upon the supreme moral and spiritual issues of men’s lives. This inrush of emotion, distracting attention from the line of His teaching, was in the nature of an interruption; and He was not one who would allow the beauty or even the kindliness of an emotion to interfere with His higher mission.

II. The Man. Seated at the table as a guest, this unnamed man interrupts the discourse of Jesus with a somewhat similar remark. It does not look like an original saying, and may very likely have been a familiar quotation from some of the Rabbinical writings. Matthew Henry takes a kindly view of the incident: ‘Even those that are not of ability to cany on good discourse themselves ought to put in a word now and then, to countenance it and help it forward’. It is an interpretation characteristic of that most courteous of divines, but it is quite impossible here. Jesus evidently regards the words as an intended interruption, and throws them aside in His very pointed parable of the feast and the excuses.

We all know the type of man who, when the situation is becoming somewhat strained, exclaims, ‘Blessed ‘is somebody or other! ‘Don’t let us talk about that, let us talk about something pleasant.’ This is the sort of man who might conceivably be saved by an outburst of clean anger or even frank profanity saved from nervous timidity and bloodless want of character. As it is, his motto is caution.

So the two instances are really common examples of the practice of making excuses which Jesus so explicitly rebukes in the parable which follows.

John Kelman, Ephemera Eternitatis, p. 248.

References. XIV. 15. S. A. Tipple, The Admiring Guest, p. 1. H. Bell, Sermons on Holy Communion, p. 120. W. R. Inge, The Guardian, 13th May, 1910. Expositor (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 117. XIV. 16. H. Bell, Sermons on Holy Communion, p. 99. XIV. 16, 17. Bishop Brickersteth, Sermons, p. 110. XIV. 16-24. J. S. Maver, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lx. pp. 14, 95, 231, 271. XIV. 17. J. A. Alexander, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 147. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year (2nd Series), vol. ii. p. 17. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii. No. 1354.

Excuses

Luk 14:18

I. It is necessary to bear in mind that the supper or, as we should call it now, the dinner is a spiritual feast; it is the supper of the Lord. The behaviour of the invited guests is strange enough as it is, but, unless the supper were a feast of Divine things, it would be unintelligible. For most people are glad of an invitation to a dinner-party; at least I suppose they are glad, or why do such parties exist? Your host seeks ‘the honour of your company,’ and you express your ‘great pleasure’ in accepting the invitation to dine with him. Let us charitably suppose that the truth is spoken or written on both sides.

It is plain, I think, that the guests of the parable had not only been invited, but had accepted the invitation. For the host sent his servant to remind them of his dinner-party. It is probable that the invitation had been given verbally; the guests might have forgotten it. Anyhow, it was in accordance with the usage of the East to remind them. So the message went out, ‘Come, for all things are now ready’. But the response was disappointing. ‘They all with one consent began to make excuse.’

If I am right in thinking that the guests had accepted the invitation, then the excuse now offered by each of them was the breach of an engagement. They had promised to do something, and they did not do it, because they did not want to do it They broke their word. May I pause here to remark that we do not think half enough about the simple Christian duty of keeping engagements? What a world of trouble we often cause by breaking them! Here was the master of the house with his dinner prepared, his oxen and his fatlings killed, and all things now ready, but with no guests. I can well believe he was angry. Most of us, I suspect, would have been angry too.

I do in my heart believe that we ought to be far more scrupulous than we are in the matter of keeping engagements. Our word, when once it is given, should be our bond. Nothing, or scarcely anything, should be allowed to come in the way of our doing what we have undertaken to do. There was a King of England whose lifelong motto was Pactum Sera ‘Be true to your plighted word’. It is a motto well worth remembering in these days.

II. ‘They all with one consent began to make excuse.’

How true it is and yet how sad that men and women too are so ready to make excuses for abandoning their highest prerogative! We need religion; we all need it so vitally; we need the grace of God, the services and sacraments of His Church for the high and holy inspirations which lift the soul to heaven. We need them so much, yet we suffer any poor threadbare pretext to tear us away from them.

For the excuses in the parable are no more than types of the various ways in which we all excuse ourselves for not doing what we know to be our duty. Let me warn you against excuses.

III. The habit of making excuses is only too common. ‘They all with one consent began to make excuse.’ It is none the better, nay, it is the worse, for being so common. For it almost invariably betrays some flaw or fault, some act which will not bear inspection in the past history of a life. The only sure way of avoiding excuses is so to live as to be in no need of making them. Let us then have ‘a conscience void of offence both towards God and towards man’; let us live a life simple and sincere, bright as a crystal lake; let us eschew subterfuges and prevarications, the half-truths which are always half-lies; let us seek to be true as He was, who could say of Himself not so much ‘I speak the truth,’ or even ‘I do the truth,’ as ‘I am the Truth’.

Bishop Welldon, The Gospel in a Great City, p. 155.

The Failure of Success

Luk 14:18

The tragedy of suffering is often terrible, but it is as nothing to the tragedy of success. Not indeed that all success is tragic, but perhaps it would be true to say that all success is at least dangerous and most of it tragic. It is always a menace to the higher life, and often its destruction. And so the quest for it is one of the most pathetic things in the world; it is as if a man were to strive, by every means and with what speed he may, to compass his own ruin.

I. Nothing tests a man so surely as his definition of success. He loves best that in which he is most anxious to succeed; and it is a pathetic testimony to the externalism of our standards that the men most commonly called successful are those whose wealth or worldly position has dazzled the eyes of the multitude. But is it not very plain, upon reflection, that the only successful man is the man who has most triumphantly done the real business of his life? And here we are face to face with the question which is ultimate for all of us: What is the real business of life? Is it not just to make the most and the best of ourselves, and the most through the best? In a letter to a friend, Carlyle happily defined success as ‘growing to your full spiritual stature under God’s sky’.

II. Under modern conditions, success, as commonly understood, lies in doing one thing well; and it is sadly true that most men contrive to do one thing well by neglecting things of at least as much importance as those which they consider. The attitude of ordinary men to the highest things has been immortalised by Jesus in His parable of the supper. It was a great supper this worthy of so generous a host and guests of all sorts were invited. But as soon as the table was spread and they had nothing to do but come, they all began to excuse themselves. One had to see to his cattle, another to his fields, another to his home; and so they allowed business and pleasure to shut them out of the banqueting-hall. They cared more for the oxen and the land than for the great King who had graciously asked them to come in to Him and sup with Him; and their terrible, but reasonable, doom was that they should never taste of His supper. If they should come, they would find the doors shut, and they would be left in the darkness with the weeping and the wailing.

III. Doubtless every man’s profession is a Divine school of discipline. It is by doing its duties that he develops his capacities and attains to any power that is ever his. But to most men it proves a prison as well as a school. They can see little of the great and beautiful world beyond the cruel bars of their window, and they seldom travel beyond the courtyard. In allowing our work to develop us, we ought not to allow it unduly to restrict us; for all things are ours.

The famous words of Darwin should be taken to heart by those who feel that they are giving their exclusive affection to the work of their lives, however important and honourable that may be. ‘Up to the age of thirty,’ he says, ‘or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays…. Pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry. I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music…. I retain some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the exquisite delight which it formerly did…. My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts…. If I had to live my life again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would thus have been kept active through use. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.’

The preacher, like other men, is asked to the great supper; and he is tempted, like other men, for professional reasons, to plead, ‘I pray thee, have me excused’. But here, as often elsewhere, it is true that he who excuses accuses himself.

J. E. Macfadyen, The City with Foundations, p. 211.

References. XIV. 18. H. S. Holland, Old and New, p. 81. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. li. p. 93. St. V. Beachey, The Excuses of Non-Communicants, p. 7. J. Stalker, Christian World Pulpit, vol. li. p. 148. A. Maclaren, The Wearied Christ, p. 102. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x. No. 578. Expositor (6th Series), vol. x. p. 280. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 28. XIV. 18-20. C. Perren, Sermon Outlines, p. 127. XIV. 20. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxvi. No. 2122.

Luk 14:21

Oh this wonderful, wonderful world, and we who stand in the middle of it are in a maze, except poor Matthews of Bedford, who fixes his eyes upon a wooden cross and has no misgiving whatsoever. When I was at his chapel on Good Friday, he called at the end of his grand sermon on some of the people to say merely this, that they believed Christ had redeemed them; and first one got up, and in sobs declared that she believed it; and then another, and then another I was quite overset all poor people: how much richer than all who fill London churches!

Fitzgerald’s Letters.

References. XIV. 21. Expositor (5th Series), vol. ii. p. 29. XIV. 21-24. H. S. Holland, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvii. p. 353.

Luk 14:22

The question has often been repeated which was asked in the time of Christ, ‘Are there few that be saved?’ The answer is twofold. The counsels and invitations of Divine wisdom and love are large, generous, and free; but the obstacles which are offered by human indolence, incredulity, and sin, are serious and formidable. In one aspect the way is easy and pleasant, in another it is toilsome and painful. The language of the text reminds us that there is abundant provision in the counsels of God, and a gracious welcome in the heart of God, for all who need the Gospel and who are willing to comply with its requirements and accept its blessings.

I. Where there is Room. (a) In the heart of the Father. His desire is that all men should be saved, and should come to the knowledge of the truth. His appeal to men is, ‘Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters’. His entreaty and expostulation is, ‘Why will ye die?’

(b) In the Covenant of Christ. He died for all. He was lifted up to draw all men unto Himself. His blood was shed for many.

(c) In the Spiritual Kingdom. The greatness of a kingdom lies largely in the number of the subjects. No right-feeling man can do other than rejoice in the inclusion of multitudes in the kingdom, which is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Our Saviour Himself foretold that the tree shall grow and that the leaven shall spread.

(d) In the Heavenly Mansions. There are many abodes, and, to people these, many shall come from the east and from the west. No limitation, no exclusiveness there, but room for men of all nations, kindreds, and tongues.

II. For Whom there is Room. (a) For the Indifferent. There is room for those whose possessions and pre-occupations too often render them indifferent to the Gospel invitation. The wealthy, the busy, and the festive, who, in the parable referred to respond to the summons, are not excluded, save by their own folly.

(b) For the Indigent. There is room for the spiritually indigent, who are sensible of their wants; those who may be represented by the poor, the maimed, the halt, the blind.

(c) For the Outcast. There is room even for the outcast and the despised, who are abandoned by men, and who have given themselves over to despondency. And if there be any others, with human hearts and human wants, there is room for them.

Yet, thus far, even now, there is room. But the hour shall come when the Master shall arise and close the long-open door.

Luk 14:23

‘When I had been long vexed with this fear,’ of being too late for salvation, says Bunyan, ‘and was scarce able to take one step more, these words broke in upon my mind, Compel them to come in, that My house may be filled; and yet there is room. These words, but especially them, and yet there is room, were sweet words to me; for, truly I thought that by them I saw there was place enough in heaven for me; and moreover that when the Lord Jesus did speak these words, He then did think of me; and that He, knowing that the time would come that I should be afflicted with fear that there was no place left for me in His Bosom, did before speak this word, and leave it upon record, that I might find help thereby against this vile temptation. This I then verily believe. In the light and encouragement of this word I went a pretty while; and the comfort was the more, when I thought that the Lord Jesus should think on me so long ago, and that He should speak these words on purpose for my sake.’

References. XIV. 23. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. v. No. 227. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, vol. ii. p. 15. J. Keble, Village Sermons on the Baptismal Service, p. 163. A. Shepherd, The Gospel and Social Questions, p. 123.

Words of Warning

Luk 14:24

Here is a warning to us all lest we should be shut out of heaven.

I. There is only One Thing which will prevent us coming under the Condemnation, the warning contained in our text. Unless we repent we shall none of us reach heaven. Six component parts go to make up repentance:

a. Self-examination, to find out our sins.

b. Sorrow for our sins.

c. Confession of our sins.

d. Making satisfaction for our sins and trying to undo the wrong we have done.

e. Trying to lead a better life and to keep from sin in the future and to take advantage of His grace.

f. Willingness to forgive others as we hope God will forgive us.

Love is the beginning and the end of repentance. But what a contrast: God’s love for us and our carelessness and want of love for Him! We take such care of our bodies, but how little care do we take for our souls those precious souls our souls eternal! How little love we have for them! Is it not a fact that we starve them? We cherish our bodies, which return to dust, but do we take sufficient care of our precious souls?

II. Let us Feed and Nourish these Souls in the only way in which they can be nourished, which is surely the taking of the Blessed Sacrament referred to especially in this parable the great Sacrament: the Last Supper, the Holy Communion.

References. XIV. 24. S. Cox, Expositions, p. 390. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 86. XIV. 25, 26. Expositor (6th Series), vol. xii. p. 153.

Luk 14:26

Compare Milton’s noble words, describing his resolve to risk his eyesight for the sake of writing his Defence of the English People. ‘The choice lay before me,’ he avers, ‘between dereliction of a supreme duty and loss of eyesight; in such a case I could not listen to the physician, not if sculapius himself had spoken from his sanctuary; I could not but obey that inward monitor, I know not what, that spake to me from heaven. I considered with myself that many had purchased less good with worse ill, as they who give their lives to reap only glory, and I thereupon concluded to employ the little remaining eyesight I was to enjoy in doing this, the greatest service to the common weal it was in my power to render.’

References. XIV. 26. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlv. No. 2650. Reuen Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. liv. p. 406. Expositor (6th Series), vol. v. p. 258. XIV. 26, 27. Ibid. vol. iv. p. 285. XIV. 27. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. iii. p. 726.

Luk 14:28

In every action consider what precedes and what follows, and then proceed. Otherwise, if you do not consider, you will start with spirit, but afterwards, when some of the consequences emerge, you will barely give over…. Consider, first of all, the particular action, and then your own nature: consider what you can endure.

Epictetus.

References. XIV. 28. Expositor (6th Series), vol. i. p. 394; ibid. (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 87. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 38. XIV. 28-30. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx. No. 1159.

The Policy of Concentration in Foreign Missions

Luk 14:28

There must be a generous seed-time; but there must be careful preparation for harvest, lest we fail to gather it There must be youthful zeal, but there must also be quiet, resolute thinking as to how it can best be used. And it applies equally well (as indeed the illustrations show) to large operations as to small; to the building up of a kingdom as to the edification of an individual; to a campaign with heathen forces as with personal passions. And, further, there are indications in the New Testament that it was always borne in mind. Our Lord’s own mission is a singular illustration of it He was the first and the great Apostle of God, as the Epistle to the Hebrews declares, the first Christian Missionary, and He came to evangelise the whole world. But how does He set about it? He does not, like some great human leader, carry the standard of the Faith He proclaims from Nazareth to Rome. He does not seek to accomplish what St. Paul does in the three years between the first and third missionary journeys; makes no attempt to cover a wide field. He confines Himself to the narrow and limited district of Judaea. And before doing so He does what He urges us to do. He retires to the wilderness that He may think out how the evangelisation of the world is to be carried out To use His own illustration, He sits down first and ‘counteth the cost’ of the great sacrifice; consulteth with Himself as to how the campaign is to be undertaken.

I. The Restraint of the Church. The example of our Lord in this respect was emphasised by His direction that His disciples should bear witness to Him in Jerusalem, Juda, Samaria, and into the ends of the world. And though, no doubt, at the time there was no clear knowledge as to how the direction was to be obeyed, it seems highly probable, as we look at the work accomplished by the end of the second century, that, whilst the evangelisation of the whole world was never out of sight, only a comparatively small part was attempted. In spite of the legend that was afterwards circulated that the Apostles preached the Gospel to the whole world, there was no real attempt, as some have dreamed of in these days, to evangelise the whole world in one generation. A study of Dr. Harnack’s two maps in his interesting work on the Mission and Expansion of Christianity, the one giving the spread of Christianity down to A.D. 180, the other down to A.D. 325, together with the exhaustive and detailed summary of such facts as his wide historical knowledge gives, shows clearly that this was not expected. It is true that their geographical knowledge was very small compared with ours, but they knew of a much larger world than they evangelised. Owing to the wide dispersion of the Jews, they were more or less familiar with countries far distant from Palestine. The Persian Empire beyond the Tigris, and stretching as far east as India, had representatives in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, so also Arabia and parts of Africa. But though known, yet so far as can be discovered there were no Christian Missions there of any account, even at the time of the Council of Nica. The policy directing the evangelisation of the world was then evidently very different from that which would send broadcast anywhere those who were ready to preach the Gospel. From the direction which the first missionaries took, from the care with which their journeys were repeated, from the comparatively very restricted area in which they worked, it would seem clear that there was a more or less settled policy, and that this was that of concentration. It was felt to be better to do a little thoroughly well than a great deal imperfectly; better to keep the communications between Christian towns and villages open than to have them scattered and isolated; better to have one country Christian than twenty where only the Gospel is preached. This is the more surprising when we remember two facts. First, that the number of missionaries was large. In the Apostolic days every Christian was a missionary whether man or woman, every member of the body felt himself bound by his love to the Lord Who had died for him to communicate his faith to those who were without it. This was everywhere taken for granted, and there was no necessity to press it. The idea of a Society within the Church pledged to promote its propagation would have seemed to them ridiculous. And, secondly, there was a confident expectation during the lifetime of most of the Apostles that the Lord would return during the first century.

II. The policy of concentration is abundantly justified. I say nothing as to how this was brought about, as to whether it was due to the master mind of St. Paul alone, or to his counsels with the Apostles, but only suggest that there are passages in the narrative of the Acts suggestive of caution and restraint. At the outset, St. Paul is three years in Arabia in retirement, a time that must have been partly used, as our Lord’s stay in the wilderness was used, in thinking out the campaign. And when it is begun and carried on there are limitations. When they had passed through the Galatian country they are ‘forbidden’ to preach the Word in Asia, and when they make for Bithynia the Spirit ‘suffers them not’. A vision leads them into Macedonia, but they pass by large towns like Amphipolis and Apollonia, apparently because there are no synagogues there. Though St. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, he insists on first preaching to his own countrymen.

III. The weakness of a widely scattered and diffusive Christianity is plain to all in spite of the splendid enthusiasm and the generous devotion by which it is sustained, and it seems as though the time had now arrived to return to that old self-denying policy of prudence which the Lord commended both by His example and His words. Must it not be confessed that in the past, owing to the fervour of an awakened interest in Foreign Missions, for which we devoutly thank God, we have supposed that zeal and enthusiasm are of themselves sufficient to secure success; that the proclamation of the Gospel will of itself build up a strong Church without foresight and care as to locality or nearness to Christian centres; that the heroism of one devoted missionary standing by himself in the midst of a densely dark heathen city must from its very grandeur accomplish great things. Prudence and caution when urged have been argued as lack of faith. Did not Christ say, it is asked in reproachful surprise, ‘Go ye therefore and teach all nations’? as though He gave no other direction. May it not be hoped that a more patient study of the principles and laws which govern all warfare may be made by those who have time and, when carefully thought out, applied to the great tasks that lie before us? A tower must be builded whose top is to reach heaven. A war is to be waged with an Adversary whose subtle cunning and skill is well known, and who has still a marvellous hold of the world, and no lasting success can be looked for except on those lines which our great Leader has sanctioned both by His example and His words.

Bishop Walpole, The Guardian, 21st January, 1910.

Not Able to Finish

Luk 14:30

That which God in the person of His Son condemns in others He can never permit Himself to do. Thus we gain, as it were, unexpectedly a sudden but clear and large vision of the method of God. It is infinitely profitable to turn the parables into their Divine as well as their human applications. We did not expect to see God so clearly self-revealed. Let us look at the case. It is a figure drawn by the greatest Artist, more beautiful than light, more mystical than the sacrament of the rainbow.

‘Which of you,’ said Christ, ‘intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ Jesus Christ practically led the laughter of the world against the fool who began something which he could not end. It was a case of bitter taunt and mockery. If the man had done nothing, nothing would have been said about him, but he began to build and left off half-done; took away the scaffolding and left the ruin. That is Christ’s own picture; we want to apply it, in the first instance, to God. He who buildeth all things is God; men are only underbuilders; square and compasses and triangles are all Divine revelations and man was taught how to strike the stone into shape and into music. It is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. The point to which I want to fasten down, so to say, the Divine Teacher is this, that if God mocks the man who began to build and was not able to finish, how He must laugh Himself into destruction if He began to shape the universe and could never fill up the outline.

I. It is impossible to think of God creating man as we know him that is to say, as we know ourselves and allowing that man to end in nothingness. Here is man, as we know him, so abject, so august; he has thoughts, dreams, poems, philosophies, high purposes, noble ambitions, a heart that is like a golden fountain of love, and God made him so; and it is all going to end in smoke and nothingness! Never! The parable of the text is against that theory. God does not make men that He may mock them. God does not hang Himself up in His universe to be laughed at as the God who began a man and built only his feet, could not reach to his head, much less put a crown on the man whom He had created. This cannot be; the whole shuddering universe, appalled with his black blasphemy, says, No!

II. It is impossible to think of the Bible reducing all its own promises, oaths, assurances, consolations, to falsehood or mockery. Not perdition itself has fire enough hot enough to burn the book that has so misled us as the Bible has done if its oaths are lies and its promises are illusions. Man cannot be brought in that agony to regard the lying Bible as a mere effort in literature, the brightest and most exciting of the romances. The true heart has never read the Bible in that sense; the true heart has regarded the Bible as sent from God, written by God, pledging God to a ministry of love and redemption, of righteousness and judgment.

We are assured that there will be no failure on the part of God. Being confident, said the Apostle, the most heroic of all souls, that He who hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His; he that endureth unto the end shall be saved. There is sustenance on every mile of the road, there is comfort for every condition of life, there is ample preparation made for all the changes of the case; be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life. Be there when the crowns are given out!

Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. i. p. 268.

References. XIV. 31. A. Maclaren, After the Resurrection, p. 267. W. G. Rutherford, The Key of Knowledge, p. 171. XIV. 31, 32. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi. No. 632.

Forsaking All

Luk 14:33

I. The entire giving up of all self-dependence is the indispensable condition of discipleship. It is to be noticed that the text inculcates this self-surrender not as a meritorious act in itself deserving anything, nor as what we have to pay for Christ’s mercy, but as a condition of discipleship.

II. The entire forsaking of self as an object in life is the inseparable accompaniment of discipleship.

III. The surrender of outward goods to Him is the outward expression of the inward dependence and regard. The outward surrender is worthy only when it is an outgrowth of inward trust.

A. Maclaren.

References. XIV. 33. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv. p. 62. Bishop Gore, The New Theology and the Old Religion, p. 251.

Luk 14:34

Oh let us remain faithful to the altars of the ideal! It is possible that the spiritualists may become the Stoics of a new epoch of Csarian rule. Materialistic naturalism has the wind in its sails, and a general moral deterioration is preparing. No matter, as long as the salt does not lose its savour, and so long as the friends of the higher life maintain the fire of Vesta. The wood itself may choke the flame, but if the flame persists, the fire itself will only be the more splendid in the end.

Amiel.

References. XIV. 34. H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons vol. iii. 203. XIV. 34, 35. D. Fraser, Metaphors in the Gospels, p. 1. XV. 1. H. Howard, The Raiment of the Soul, p. 89. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiv. No. 809.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Out of Place

Luk 14:7-11

There is a fitness of things. We all know it. We feel it, though we may not be able to explain it in words. There is an instinctive judgment about proportion, and social rightness, and personal action. There is a regularity in irregularity. Life is not so tumultuous as it seems. If we could see the action of all the lines of life we should see that beneath all the tumult and uproar, all the eccentricity and irregularity, there is a steady line, direct, inevitable, persistent. It is upon that line that God looks when he talks of progress and the final out-blossoming of all the things he has sown and planted in the earth. There is what is called tendency. It can hardly be measured; it is often imperceptible; it may require whole centuries in order to note the very least progress that that tendency has made. It is in the air, it is in the remoter thought of men, it is in the things which they say to themselves when nobody hears them. It is thus that God leads us on from one point to another, whilst we ourselves imagine that things are irregular and upsidedown and wanting in order and peacefulness. There are two looks: there is the outward and superficial look that sees nothing, and there is the penetrating and spiritual look to which you may trust for a true and profound criticism. There is therefore, I repeat, a fitness of things, a sense of proportion, and colour, and weight, and values. We know one another at once; in a few minutes we soon learn whether the man should be here or there, or elsewhere: there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding. There is an order of things which every one must approve. You may talk as much democracy and vulgarity as you please, but there is an order appointed of God, and you cannot upset it. It is not an order based upon mere money. When money is mere money there is nothing so poor on all the earth: nobody wants it, nobody will change it, nobody will trust to it. Money by itself is mockery, imposition, disappointment. There is no order or classification founded upon mere golden sovereigns. It is not an order of dress. Men shine brightly through their clothes. The clothes of a poor man are always radiant, not to the eye of vulgar judgment; but there is something about the man that makes his very cloak shine and glisten as no fuller on earth can whiten it. It is a marvellous process, wholly mysterious, and out of the way of the common run of criticism; but there it is, and we feel that the man has a right to be at the top. He does not look much, but let him give a judgment, let him utter one sentence, let him put his finger down upon one point in the argument; and at once the primacy is conceded. It is the ghostly, the mental, the spiritual, that rules all things in the long-run.

This order or fitness of things is not merely hereditary. We do not despise that which is hereditary. Because it ought to bring history with it There ought to be a good deal of grey moss on certain names, and grey moss ought to be full of wise writing, it ought to be the treasure-house of experience and character and honour and service. But the fitness of things I refer to now is not founded either upon money or dress, or heredity, or anything that is external. It is a house not made with hands. Hands spoil everything. No man can pluck a flower without killing it. Plucking means killing. You cannot put back the drop of dew on the rose-tip that you shook off just now. That dew will not be handled. How sweet a thing it is, and beautiful, to know that our hands have done so little! And whatever our hands do time wears out, nature begins to quarrel with at once. You no sooner put the roof upon your house than nature begins to take it off. There is an inner fitness, a spiritual relation and kinship, and when souls that know one another meet, how accidentally soever, they know one another instantly; an introduction would be a dishonour: the introduction comes up from eternity and is stamped upon the face of the occasion. There is a spirit in man.

I could imagine all the bankers in London gathered together with all their gold with them, pile on pile, and quite a snowstorm of financial paper; and I could imagine it being announced to them that Robert Burns, who hardly ever had a sovereign in his life, was at the door, and would be glad to look in if they would allow him. I could imagine all the bankers of London starting to their feet to receive the ploughman. How so? He has a right to such salutation. He has no paper, he has no bullion, but he has written words that make life doubly precious: he has sent angels through the air singing of common things and little things; he makes the house the pleasanter whenever he comes by his songs into it. He would be recognised at once as welcome, and honoured, and honourable. This is also a marvellous thing, that the spirit that is in man bows to spirit. For a time it may bow to the gold, but there are times when it recognises its true kinship, and when it rises and bows itself down again in humble and reverent homage before its own higher kindred. I could imagine all the lords of Great Britain and Ireland assembled under their gilded roof, and I could imagine circumstances under which they would also rise to their feet to welcome a stranger. Let it be announced to them that Beethoven was at the door and would like to come in, and there is not a lord amongst them that would not rise and say, Welcome! Why? He was no peer, he was a poor man. He has been set down even at great royal festivals to sit and dine apart, but he also was so much of a man and a king that when they set him down at the side-table he took up his hat and went out, and left them to dine without him as well as they could; and on other occasions he was called to the chief seat, where he had a right to be. It is mind that must be at the top: beauty of soul, pureness, grandeur of imagination, massiveness of intellect, that must rule; and every other aristocracy must pay tribute to its majesty. There must always be an aristocracy of mind. I do not like the free-and-easy way which I have seen in some countries. I do not care for that broad and vulgar doctrine which says that all men are equal, because I know that is a lie. All men are not equal. There are masters and there are servants, and there must be so to the end of time. I am not now using these words in their ordinary social sense. There are master minds, master thinkers, men who catch the light of the morning first and throw it down upon the valleys. All men are equal? is the landscape all equal? are the stars all equal? is nature all equal? Why, we must have masters, rulers, kings, and sometimes what we call tyrants; there must be an order or level of mind that must domineer for the time being, and prove its rectitude and harmony with the higher sovereigns after long time, so that we shall salute the dead. We often reserve our encomiums for the dead. We kill them, we crucify them, and then we sing hymns to their memory. We slay the prophets, and the next generation will come and build marble tombs over them, with elaborate epitaphs. But there should be and must be inequality now: it is inevitable, we cannot alter it. There must be class after class, lower and higher; and blessed is that nation the citizens of which can recognise these great distinctions of mind, and moral force, and pay appropriate tribute to them. I have no right to be equal in the presence of a man like Longfellow; a servile mind like mine must bow down at the feet of such a man, and look up to him. We know what he has written, we know what a master of music he was; his words are now part of the air we breathe, and when we see him we do not accost him with some false bald doctrine of “All men are equal, and I will stand in your presence covered.” There are not many men who have a right to keep their hats on when Longfellow comes in. And what is true of the one poet is true of poets of our own. I would have therefore an exaltation of mind, genius, character above all things. The pure-minded man should be the sovereign of the age in which he lives.

But the speaker of this parable is no Epictetus, he is no Seneca, he is no mere moralist; he did not hang up these little pictures for the purpose of having them admired as men admire cameos and forget them. He was the Son of God, and therefore there must be even in this parable, simply ethical and social as it appears to be, a gospel element, a sacrificial doctrine and thought and purpose. What is it? Is it true that Christianity is a religion of manners? Certainly Christianity teaches men how to behave themselves; and when a man does not know how to behave himself he is no Christian. But he believes in nine hundred and fifty-nine articles and doctrines and other addenda. So he may do, but he is no Christian if he be not courteous, if he does not know how to behave himself and restrain himself and exhibit excellence of conduct; I do not care if he multiply his beliefs by ten, it is nothing. If he have not charity, love, all-teaching, all-guiding love, he is nothing, and less than nothing. So Christianity is a religion of manners. “Be not weary in well-doing.” We misunderstand that word oftentimes. It is not well-doing in the sense of doing well, doing things that are excellent, but doing things that are excellent excellently. The emphasis is on the adverb. A man may do excellent things and do them roughly; a man may preach the gospel in an ungospel tone; a man may bid you welcome to heaven as if he were threatening you with punishment. Literally, the apostle says, Be not weary in courtesy, in good manners, in the civil treatment of one another. A man is not candid because he is brutal. Courtesy does not ask for bluntness to sustain its charter and its dignity. Christianity is therefore, I repeat again and again, a religion of manners, of behaviour, of conduct. When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding sit not down in the highest room, but seek out the right place. Never be out of position; and if you have to elect the position always proceed upon the assumption that you are not the best man that is coming to the feast. Christianity insists upon self-knowledge. How honourable are you? How many men are there who are more honourable? Suppose there are fifty men coming to the wedding-feast, who is the most honourable? Blessed is he who says, Not I; I must wait until I see all the guests before I can form a judgment; it is my business to wait until all others are in. And depend upon it sooner or later there comes a destiny, a gentle, genial, beautiful, yet inexorable fate, that says, Friend, that is not your place, your place is further up. You cannot keep men back from the places they are destined to occupy. God goes by the fitness of things which he himself has established. You need not edge and elbow and crush your way, in obedience to the vulgar exhortation, Now make your way in the world! Do nothing of the kind. Depend upon it, we are under a fatherly providence, and if you will look back upon your life you will see that you have never forced your way to any real position worth having, but have been led to it; men have heard a voice in the air, saying, This is the man. It is so in statesmanship, and in commerce, and in literature, in journalism, in preaching, in everything. There is a master of ceremonies, an angel of God, a spirit of right that says, You are wanted higher up: or, Sit where you are until you are sent for. God knows where you are, and when he wants you he will not forget you. You are in a little village, and you want to be in a great city, and you are impatient because a man of your bulk almost occupies the whole of the village. Draw yourself in, and wait just where you are, and when God needs you in the great city he will come for you certainly. If you live in this faith, you will have peace, you will have great measure of enjoyment in life. Oh, rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him, and he will arrange the wedding-table; and when the whole geometric figure is completed, and all the living people are at the table, they will look round and say, Why, this is a mosaic; this is a mosaic not made with hands. How well fitted we are, how admirably thrown together! Yet there was no throwing in it, except in the sense in which the clouds throw their showers upon the thirsty ground. Believe in God, live in God, and know that he knows you better than you can know yourself. You think you could occupy the top seat, but you could not. If you could believe that we should have no fret at home, no chafing, no mortified ambitions, but just that wonderful silence which often says to itself quite inaudibly to others, What is this? I wanted to be otherwhere, and yet I am here; for a time I was in patient, but now I see I would not change my place: all has been ordered wisely; he who is the Master of the feast hath done all things well.

A marvellous Christianity is this for continually shall we say eternally? striking the self out of the man. It will not rest until it has got out of you and me every little weight of selfishness that is lying in the most secret part of our hearts. In this very chapter the doctrine is laid down in graphic language: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple,” What, may I not retain one little atom of my very self? And the gospel says, No. Then what are the terms of acceptance with the higher life? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The words are at least four in number: humble himself, deny himself, crucify himself, mortify himself. Are these the terms of entrance? Name them again: Humble, deny, crucify, mortify. Then where am I? Nowhere; killed, slain, the last shred of selfishness crushed: now you are prepared to receive the kingdom of heaven.

An awful word is the word “mortify.” What does it literally mean? Make dead. Unless a man make dead himself, he cannot begin to live. You know the term well enough in your deeds of partnership and deeds of arrangement and deeds of settlement “That he the said A. B. shall be as if dead.” You have often written yourselves dead on your legal parchments: that is just what you must do in this entrance into the wedding chamber; you must have no self, no selfishness, no self-idolatry, no self-trust; you must hate your own life; then God can begin to do something with you. Ambition killed the race; wanting the next and higher thing brought us to ruin. That spirit will ruin the Eden of your life, and blight the Eden of your home, and bring you down to disappointment and shame and misery. What you have to do therefore is to get rid of self. “Unless a man deny himself he cannot be my disciple.” You say it is necessary for you to live, and God says it is not. There is no need for you to live another moment. A man may say, “I must do something for a living.” No; that is atheism; there is not one whit of gospel in that. It is absolutely needless that you or I should live another moment. And if we cannot live without sharp practice, and without injustice, and without taking up the room that belongs to other people we had better not live; it is not life. In some money there is no comfort. Once a man got hold of thirty pieces of silver, fifteen in each hand, and his hands were scorched, and he took it back and could hardly shake it off, and he said, “Take it again, I have betrayed innocent blood!” Why not make the confession and keep the money? You cannot; restoration follows confession. There is some honour in which there is no real sense of dignity; it is a thing of feathers and air and paint and gilt. True honour cometh only from God; it belongs to righteousness and to obedience.

Here then is the great Moralist and the great Teacher, and especially the great Saviour, saying to us by parable and by doctrine, If you want to come into my kingdom one man must be killed. Who is that one man? Yourself. “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” We might all find it if we really wanted to do so.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

Ver. 1. They watched him ] Gr. , They superstitiously and maliciously observed him. (Aristot. lib. ii. Rhet.) Accipit pro eo quod est ulciscendi tempus captare. They watched as intently as a dog doth for a bone; they pried as narrowly into his actions as Laban did into Jacob’s stuff.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 6. ] HEALING OF A DROPSICAL MAN ON THE SABBATH. Peculiar to Luke .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1. ] . ., viz. during the , ch. Luk 13:33 .

. . [ . ] ., of the chief men of the Pharisees; or, if the be omitted, of the Pharisees who were rulers. Though the Pharisees had no official rulers as such, they had men to whom they looked up, as Hillel, Schammai, Gamaliel, &c. (Meyer.)

. . ] The Jews used to give entertainments on the Sabbath, see Neh 8:9-12 ; Tob 2:1 . The practice latterly became an abuse, ‘Hodiernus dies sabbati est: hunc in prsenti tempore otio quodam corporaliter languido et fluxo et luxurioso celebrant Judi.’ Aug [94] in Psa 91:1 , Enarr. 2, vol. iv. Again, ‘observa diem Sabbati, non Judaicis deliciis ’ in Psa 32:2 , Enarr. ii. 6.

[94] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

, usual after : not ‘ also ,’ or ‘ even .’

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Luk 14:1-24 contain a digest of sayings of Jesus at the table of a Pharisee, this being the third instance in this Gospel of such friendly intercourse between Him and members of the Pharisaic party. The remaining part of the chapter consists of solemn words on self-sacrifice and on counting the cost represented as addressed to the people.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luk 14:1-6 . The dropsical man healed, with relative conversation , in Lk. only ( cf. Mat 12:9-14 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luk 14:1 . , etc.: the indication of place and time is very vague so as to lend plausibility to the suggestion that the introduction is extracted from the parabolic speeches, Luk 14:7-24 (Holtzmann, H. C.). . ., the house is described as that of one of the rulers of the Pharisees, an inexact expression, as the Pharisees as such had no rulers, being all on a level. Omitting the article before . (as in [116] ) we might take this word as in apposition and render: one of the rulers, Pharisees; rulers meaning the Sanhedrists, and Pharisees denoting their religious tendency (so Grotius, who therefore thinks the scene was in Jerusalem). : feasting on Sabbath was common among the Jews, ex pietate et religione (Lightfoot), but the dishes were cold, cooked the day before. , introducing the apodosis, and the main fact the suspicious observation of Jesus by those present at the meal ( ). Altogether a strange situation: Jesus the guest of a great man among the Pharisees, as if held in honour, yet there to be watched rather than treated as a friend; simple-hearted geniality on one side, insincerity on the other.

[116] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luke Chapter 14

Luk 14:1-6

The last chapter had closed with the setting aside of the Jew and the judgment of Jerusalem. We have now the moral principles involved set forth in Luk 14 . The Lord was asked to “the house of one of the rulers [who was] of the Pharisees to eat bread on [the] sabbath.” One might have expected, if there were anything holy or any appreciation of grace, now was the time for it. But not so. They were watching Him. They, ignorant of God, looked for evil, desired evil. God was in none of their thoughts, nor His grace. Yet these were the men who most of all piqued themselves upon their nice observance of the Sabbath day.

But grace will not stay its work or withhold the truth to please men: Jesus was there to make known God and do His will. “And behold, there was a certain dropsical [man] before Him.” No religious forms can shut out the ruin that is in the world through sin, and our Lord, filled with the good that was in His heart, answers their thoughts before they uttered them, speaking to the lawyers and Pharisees with the question, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?* His question was an answer to their evil judgments. It was impossible to deny it. Hardened as man was and habituated to evil, he could not say that it was unlawful to heal on the Sabbath day. Yet they really wished that it should be so, and, as we know, made it repeatedly a ground of the most serious accusation against the Lord. However, here He challenges those who were ostensibly the wisest and most righteous in Israel, the lawyers and Pharisees; but “they were silent.” The Lord then takes the dropsical man, heals him, and lets him go. Then He answers them further by the question: “Of which of you shall an ass or an ox fall into a well and he doth not straightway pull him up on the sabbath day?” (Cf. Mat 12:11 .) This is a little different from His reply to the ruler of the synagogue in the chapter before. There it was more the need of the animal, the ordinary supply of his wants. But here it is a more urgent case. It was not simply that the animal needed watering and must be led to it, but “of which of you shall an ass or an ox fall into a well and he doth not straightway pull him up on the sabbath day?” It was lawful, therefore, to look after the good of an animal on that day. They proved it where their own interests were concerned. God had His interests and love: therefore was Jesus in this world, therefore was He in the Pharisee’s house. He had meat to eat that they knew not of. It was not the Pharisee’s bread, but to do the will of His Father. In healing the dropsical man He was glorifying His Father. He was boldly acting upon that which even they durst not deny – the right of healing on the Sabbath day. If they could relieve on that day their animals from their pain or danger, what title had they to dispute God’s right to heal the miserable among men, among Israel?

*”On the sabbath.” Edd. here add “or not,” following BDL, 1, 69, Syrcu Memph. The words are not in AEX, etc., cursives in general (33), Syrsin Amiat. Arm., etc. They are attested by some Old Lat. and not by others.

“An ass”: so KLX, etc., 1, 33, Syrrsin hier (sin.: “ox or ass”), Memph. Arm. Aeth. D: (as Matthew). Edd. adopt “a son,” after ABEGH and later uncials, many cursives, Syrrcu pesch hcl Sah. Cyril. Alex. The balance of Latt. favours “ass.” – D has “sheep.” See W.H., App., p. 62, also note tid=59#bkm368- in Part II. of this volume.

“And they were not able to answer him to these things.” How unanswerably good is the grace and truth of God! (See Mat 22:46 .)

But it is plain that the heart of Israel was sick and that this very scene showed how much they needed to be healed. But they knew it not. They were hardened against the Holy One Who could do them good. They were maliciously watching Him, instead of presenting themselves in their misery that He might heal them.

Luk 14:7-11 .

Mat 23:6 .

But the Lord in the next scene puts forth “a parable to those that were invited, remarking how they chose out the first places.” It is not only that there is a hindrance of good to others, on the part of those who have no sense of need themselves, but there is a universal desire of self-exaltation. The law does not hinder this: it can only condemn, and that, too, for the most part, what the natural conscience condemns. But Christ here brings in the light of God’s grace, of Divine love in an evil world as contrasted with human selfishness. He marked how those that were guests chose out the chief rooms. They sought for themselves; they sought the best. But “when thou art invited,” says He who was Himself the perfect Pattern of love and humility – “when thou art invited by anyone to a wedding, do not lay thyself down in the first place at table, lest, perhaps, a more honourable than thee be invited by him. And he who invited thee and him come and say to thee, Give place to this [man]; and thou begin with shame to take the last place.” Assuredly it would be so with Israel themselves. They had had the outward call of God, they had chosen the chief seats, and now they were going to lose all place and nation. Jesus was in the fullest contrast with them. He went down to the lowest room, He took it in love for God’s glory; and certainly there is One Who will say for Him, Give this man place. Clearly, however, it is an exhortation for every heart and more particularly for those who heed the call of God.

Then comes a more positive word: “When thou hast been invited, go and put thyself down in the lowest place” – He had done so Himself – “that when he who hath invited thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher.” He took the form of a servant, was found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name.” (Phi 2:9 .) As He says here, “Then shalt thou have honour before all* that are lying at table with thee. For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that abaseth himself shall be exalted.” (Cf. Mat 23:12 .) They are universal principles of God: the one true of Christ and of all that are Christ’s, as the other is of the spirit of man. The first Adam sought to exalt himself, but only fell through the deceit of Satan. The Second Man humbled Himself and is set above all principality, and power, and might.

*”All”: so most Edd., as ABLX, 1, 33, 69, Syrcu Sah. Memph. Aeth. Blass, after D, etc., most cursives, Syrsin Old Lat. Goth. Arm. omits.

Luk 14:12-14 .

Then we find, further, it is not a question only of guests but of a host: He has a word for every man. God looks for love in this world, and this, too, apart from nature. His love is not for one’s friends or family alone; it is not on this principle at all. “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsfolk, nor rich neighbours, lest it may be they also should invite thee in return and a recompense be made thee.” A witness for Christ is marked by that which is supernatural. There is no testimony to His name in merely natural kindness or family affection, but where there is love without a human motive or any hope of recompense, there is a testimony to Him. It is exactly so that God is doing now in the Gospel, and we are called to be imitators of God. It is not meant to be merely in making a feast or a supper, but that grace should stamp its character on all our Christian life. The whole time of the Gospel call, as we shall see farther on, is compared to a feast to which the activity of love is gathering in from the miserable of this world.

Hence, the Lord adds, “When thou makest a feast, call poor, crippled, lame, blind,tid=59#bkm369- and thou shalt be blessed; for they have not [the means] to recompense thee.” How Divinely fine, yet how different from the world and its social order out of which the Christian is called! If we thus act in unselfish self-sacrificing love, God will surely recompense according to all His resources and His nature. This will be at the resurrection of the just, the great and final scene when all that are severed from the world will be seen apart from it, when human selfishness will have disappeared for ever, when they that are Christ’s will reign in life by one, Christ Jesus. Anything short of this is not the exercise of the life of Christ, but of our nature in this world; and this is precisely what has no place at the resurrection of the just.

The Lord speaks here of a special resurrection, in which the unjust have no part. Not that these too do not come forth from their graves; for indeed they must rise for judgment. But our text speaks of the resurrection of life in which none can share but those who are just by the grace of God – justified, no doubt, but also just – those that practised the good things, in contrast with those that did the evil. Other Scriptures prove that these two resurrections differ in time as decidedly as in character; and the great New Testament prophecy determines that more than a thousand years separate the one from the other, though the effects for each never pass away. It is manifest also that only the resurrection of the just admits of recompense. For the unjust there can be but righteous retribution.tid=59#bkm370-

Luk 14:15-24 .

Mat 22:2-10 .

It was an unwonted sound to man. The evidently Divine grace of the Lord acted on the spirit of one of those who were lying at table with Him, who, hearing that which was far more suitable to heaven than ever was as yet seen carried out on earth, said “Blessed [is] he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.”tid=59#bkm371- Our Lord then proves that this is a great mistake as far as concerns man’s readiness to answer the grace of God. Hence He puts the case in the following parable: “A certain mantid=59#bkm372- made a great supper and invited many.” There was no lack of condescension and goodness to win man on God’s part. His heart went out to any. He invited according to His own largeness of mercy and grace. “And he sent his bondman at the hour of supper to say to those who were invited, Come, for already all things are ready.” This Gospel, like Paul’s epistles, shows that God even in His grace does not forsake, in the first instance, prescribed order. So Paul, when he went to any place, went first to the synagogue; and in explaining the Gospel in the epistle to the Romans, says, “To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.” (Rom 2:10 .)

Though God has no respect of persons, He nevertheless does heed the ways that He has Himself established. This makes so much the less excusable the lack of faith on the part of the Jew. God never fails – man always. Favoured man only makes the greater show of his own unbelief. Here the message to them that were bidden was, “Come, for already all things are ready.” Such is the invitation of grace. The law makes man the prominent and responsible agent; it is man that is to do this, and, yet more, man that must not do that. Man therein is commanded to love God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his strength, and with all his mind. But the commandment, just as it is, is wholly unavailing, because in this case man is a sinner and loveless. No law ever produced or called out love. It may demand but cannot create love; it is not within the nature or power of law to do so. God knew this perfectly; and in the gospel He becomes Himself the Great Agent. It is He that loves, and who gives according to the strength of that love in sending His only begotten Son with eternal life in Him – yea, also to die in expiation for sin. Law demonstrated that man, though responsible, had no power to perform. He was incapable of doing God’s will because of sin; but his pride was such that he did not, would not, feel his own incapability, or its cause. Were he willing to confess it, God would have shown him grace. But man felt no need of grace any more than his own guilt and powerlessness to meet law. So he slights the call to come, though all things are now ready,

“And all” (says the Lord Jesus) “without exception began to excuse themselves.” No doubt these were the Jews – the persons who were bidden. “The first said unto him, I have bought land and I must go out and see it; I pray thee hold me for excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them; I pray thee hold me for excused.” Not that these things were in themselves wrong; they are the ordinary duties of men. It is not a person who is too drunk to come, or one living in misery in consequence of his grossness, like the prodigal son; but these might be decent, respectable men. They were engrossed in their own things, they had no time for the supper of grace. God invited them, having prepared all things for them; but they were each so preoccupied that none had heart or care for God’s invitation. Is not this a true picture of the condition of man – yea, of man who has the Bible, of Christendom no less than Judea? It is an unbelieving excuse founded on alleged duties, certainly on present material interests. But what blindness! Does eternity raise no questions? Not to speak of judgment and its awful issues, has heaven no interest in man’s eyes? If Christ or God be nothing, is it nothing to be lost or to be saved?

These are evidently serious questions, but man goes off without the moral courage to seek an answer from God. Here those bidden despised His mercy and grace, as they felt no need of it for their own souls. They lived only for the present. They blotted out all that is really admirable in man according to God’s grace. They were living only for nature in its lowest wants – the providing what is necessary for food or for pleasure. The commonest creature of God, a bird or a fly, does as much; the meanest insect not only provides food, but also enjoys itself. Does boastful man by sin degrade himself to be in profession no better than a butterfly, in practice far worse? “Another said, I have married a wife, and on this account I cannot come.” He did not even say, “I pray thee hold me for excused.” His wife was an excellent reason in his eyes for refusing God’s invitation. tid=59#bkm373- It was a question of a family in this world, not of God hereafter. It is clear that the real root of all unbelief is the absence of sense of sin, and no glory given to God. There is no sense of what God is, either in His claims or in His grace.

Again, “The* bondman came up and brought back word of these things to his lord. Then the master of the house in anger said to his bondman, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring here the poor and crippled, and blind, and lame.”tid=59#bkm374- Such is the urgent message of grace, when the proud refuse and God presses it on the most despised. Still we have before us the streets and lanes of the city. I think the Lord had Jerusalem as yet in view, though not put forward distinctly. At any rate, it was that which was orderly and settled in the world: only the despised and the wretched are now the express objects of the invitation. The busy great had slighted it; the lawyers and scribes, the teachers and Pharisees, were indifferent if not opposed. Henceforth it became a question of publicans and sinners, or anybody that was willing, however wretched. “And the bondman said, Sir, it is done as thou hast commanded, and there is still room.” Then comes a third message. “The lord said to the bondman, Go out into the ways and fences, and compel to come in, that my house may be filled.” Thus we have the clear progress of the Gospel among the Gentiles; and this too with the strong earnestness of Divine mercy.tid=59#bkm375- “For I say unto you, that not one of those men who were invited” (none of those who had the promises, but trifled with them when they were accomplished) “shall taste of my supper.”

*”The”: so Edd. following ABD, etc., 1, 69, Old Lat. Memph. Aeth. Arm. EX, etc., Syrr. have “that.”

Thus the whole case is brought before us, but with remarkable differences from the view given in Mat 22 . There it is much more dispensational. Hence it is “the kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son.” All savours of this: the king, the king’s son, the marriage feast – not merely a feast, and again the massages and his action attest it. The first mission there represents the call during Christ’s ministry on earth; the second was when the fatlings were killed – that is, the work was done. This is followed by the judgment that fell upon those who despised the Gospel message and maltreated the servants. “The king was wroth and sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned up their cities.” There is not a word about this in Luke. It was well that it should be brought forward in the Gospel that was intended for the warning as well as the winning of the Jew. And there only was it written. The destruction of Jerusalem befell the Jews because of their rejection of Christ and of the Holy Ghost in the preaching of the apostles finally. Again, it is only in Matthew that we have the case of the man who was present without a wedding garment, setting forth the advantage that an unbelieving man would take of the Gospel in Christendom, where we have the corruption of those who bear the name of the Lord, and their presumptuous pretension to be Christians without the slightest reality, without a real putting on of Christ. Need I say how common that is in Christendom? All this is left out in Luke, who confines himself to the moral dealings of God.

Luke 14: 25-35.tid=59#bkm376-

Mat 10:37 f.

On the Lord’s departure great multitudes go with Him, to whom He turns with the words, “If any man come to me, and shall not hate tid=59#bkm377- his Own father, and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters; yea and his own life too, he cannot be my disciple.” They might have thought that at any rate they would treat the Lord better than His message – so little does man know of himself. The Lord would not permit that the multitude then following Him should flatter themselves that the at least were willing to partake of the supper, that they were incapable of treating God with the contempt described in the parable. So the Lord tells them what following Himself involves. The disciple must follow Christ so simply and decidedly that it would seem to other eyes a complete neglect of natural ties, and an indifference to the nearest and strongest claims of kin. Not that the Lord calls for want of affection; but so it might and must look to those who are left behind in His name. The attractive power of grace must be greater than all natural fetters, or any other claims of whatsoever kind, over him who would be His disciple. And more than this: it is a question of carrying one’s cross and going after Him. “Whoever doth not carry his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” It is not enough to come to Him at first, but we must follow Him day by day. Whoever does not this cannot be His disciple. Thus in verse 26 we see the forsaking of all for Christ, and in verse 27 the following Christ with pain and suffering and going on in it.tid=59#bkm377a-

Again, the Lord does not hide the difficulties of the way, but sets them out in two comparisons. The first is of a man intending to build a tower, who had not the wisdom to count the cost before beginning. So it would be with souls now. Undoubtedly it is a great thing to follow Jesus to heaven, but then, it costs something in this world.tid=59#bkm378- It, is not all joy; but it is well and wise to look at the other side also. Then the Lord gives a further comparison. It is like a king going to war with one who has twice as many forces. Unless I am well backed up, it is impossible for me to resist him who comes against me with twice my array; much less can I make head against him. The inevitable consequence of not having God for us is, that when the enemy is a great way off, we have to send an ambassage and desire conditions of peace. But is it not peace with Satan, and everlasting ruin? “Thus, then, every one of you who forsaketh not all his own possessions cannot be my disciple.” A man should be prepared for the worst that man and Satan can do. It is always true, though not always apparent; but Scripture cannot be broken, and in the course of a disciple’s experience a time comes when he is thus tried one way or another. It is well therefore to look all thoroughly in the face; but then to refuse Jesus and His call to follow, not to be His disciple, is to be lost for ever.tid=59#bkm379-

Mat 5:13 ; Mar 9:50 .

The Lord closes all with another familiar allusion of everyday life. “Salt [then]* is good; but if the salt also has become savourless, wherewith shall it be seasoned?”tid=59#bkm379a- There is shown the danger of what begins well turning out ill. What is there in the world so useless as salt when it has lost the one property for which it is valued? “It is proper neither for land, nor for dung; it is cast out.” It is worse than useless for any other purpose. So with the disciple who ceases to be Christ’s disciple. He is not suited for the world’s purposes, and he has forsaken God’s. He has too much light or knowledge for entering into the vanities and sins of the world, and he has no enjoyment of grace and truth to keep him in the path of Christ. The expression “men cast it out” is perhaps too precise. It has a virtually indefinite meaning: “they cast it out” – i.e., it is cast out, without saying by whom. Savourless salt becomes an object of contempt and judgment. “He that hath ears to hear let him hear”: (Mat 11:15 .) how solemn the call to conscience!

*[“Then”]: so Tisch. following BLX, 69, Memph. Treg. brackets. Other Edd. omit, as ADER, etc., 1, 33, Syrr. Amiat.,

“Also”: so BDLX Syrrcu pesch. It is omitted in AER, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrsin Memph.

Luk 15 *380

*Cf. “Introductory Lectures,” pp. 339-345.

In the latter part of Luk 14 we saw the Lord’s terms, if I may so say, to the multitude that was following Him. There He laid down that, except a man came to Him hating father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he could not be His disciple. “And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.” Thus first He insists on a thorough break with nature, and next that this shall continue. Hence in His illustrations He sets forth the need of purpose and the danger of undertaking such a business. A man is sure, otherwise, to leave the work undone. And how would it fare if a king with double your forces should come against you? The moral of all this is that man is insufficient, and that God alone can enable a man to quit the world for Christ and to keep following after Christ. The worst of all is to renounce Him after bearing such a name – salt that has lost its savour.

NOTES ON THE FOURTEENTH CHAPTER.

368 Luk 14:5 . – “Ass.” Wellhausen pronounces as “impossible” the reading “son” of W. H. (Revv., marg.), followed by Blass and Weiss. Although the diplomatic evidence is in its favour, Mill supposed that was developed from , “pig,” through this being regarded as an abbreviation of it, or that was corrupted into “sheep”; and so Lachmann, followed by Dr. Rendel Harris (Expositor, May, 1907, and “Side-Lights,” p. 204 ff).

369 Luk 14:13 . – Cf. Tobit ii. 2 and iv. 7, 16.

370 Luk 14:14 . – “The resurrection of the just.” Cf., in particular, 1Th 4:16 f. In Mat 25:31 ff. there is no question of resurrection, because there we meet with a judgment of nations, living persons to whom the “Gospel of the Kingdom” is specially addressed at the “end of the age” (cf. Mat 24:14 and Rev 14:6 ).

Resurrection of just and unjust alike is clearly affirmed in Joh 5:29 and Act 24:15 , without distinguishing such resurrections in point of time. But the present passage is co-ordinate with Luk 20:35 f. below, which speaks of an : for this the Apostle Paul uses the yet stronger expression . (Phi 3:11 ). As to coincidence of the two, see B. W. Newton, “Aids to Prophetic Inquiry,” p. 297. The final stage in New Testament terminology is reached in the Johannine “first resurrection” (Rev 20:5 f.). De Wette and Olshausen rightly identify the Lucan and Johannine terminology. This identification goes back to Irenaeus, who in his treatise “Against Heresies” (V., chapter 35) says that the Apocalypse speaks of a “resurrection of the just,” one of the things, he adds, affirmed by the disciples of John.

The phrase “rapture of the Church” sometimes employed is better avoided, as not being Biblical. All believers “asleep in Jesus” and those alive at his Parousia will participate in the first resurrection (1Th 4:14 , 1Co 15:23 ). We know that the Apostle Paul’s desire as to the manner of his departure (Phi 3:11 ) was granted. Whether, however, resurrection from among the dead will be in every case for recompense in the sense of reward is another question. But the Lord has said of all such that “they cannot die any more” (Luk 20:36 below).

The common idea of the ancient Pharisees, seemingly derived from passages like Psa 1:5 (see Heb., and cf. note 108 on John), was that resurrection would be a peculiar privilege of the righteous (Bousset, “The Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times,” p. 356 ff.). Wellhausen, accordingly, whose mind is steeped in Semitic lore, regards our Lord’s words here as confirming that limitation. In Luk 20:35 , however, where it is a question of being deemed worthy to attain, the resurrection spoken of is one that should be from among the dead; i.e., some dead are to be left behind, to be dealt with later on. (Cf. Simcox on Rev 20:4 .) Such is the explanation of Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel – whom Cromwell befriended – in his “Conciliator,” ii., p. 443 f., who says that the unrighteous will not rise at the same time as the righteous.

The mediaeval rabbinical scholar Maimonides held that resurrection did not extend to the body. Such is the view of some Jews of the present day (M. Joseph, p. 144), also of some “Christians,” critics in particular, who have their representatives in this country. As to this, see note on Resurrection, at chapter 24.

371 Luk 14:15 . – “Blessed,” etc.: cf. Rev 19:9 .

For “eat bread,” etc., see notes on Luk 22:16 , Luk 22:30 , and cf. Joh 6 : with note 126 f. there.

372 Luk 14:16 f. – On the fact that the Holy Spirit does not confine Himself to the actual words used by the Lord (see Exposition of Mark, p. 10 f.), Luke giving a “certain man,” Matthew speaking of the “king,” etc., and the reason for the differences in this connection, cf. “Lectures on Matthew,” p. 453 f.

See sermon by Bishop Mcllvaine, Spurgeon’s Sermons, 578 and 1354, and an address by D. L. Moody.

373 Luk 14:20 . – “Married a wife.” With regard to this, contrast Deu 24:5 with 1Co 7:29 .

See Spurgeon’s Sermon, 2122.

374 Luk 14:21 . – This is the second part of verse 8: see A. R. Habershon, chapter on Double Parables.

375 Luk 14:22 f. – Bengel: “Grace no less than Nature abhors a vacuum.”

See Spurgeon’s Sermon, 227.

376 Luk 14:25 . – This third narrative of events of the last journey to Jerusalem (see notes 244, 280) takes us back to just before the Transfiguration (Luk 9 ). It continues to Luk 20:18 .

For surrender of the world, even of life, cf. Joh 12:24-26 .

377 Luk 14:26 f. – It is the first of our Gospels, observe, that softens the language here (“hate”). The word means to renounce the claims or influence of the person or thing concerned (Hahn). Paley, on Joh 15:23 , “to be indifferent to.” Cf. Mat 10:37 , “He that loveth father or mother more than Me.”

377a “Thorough-going Christians,” says Maclaren, “may be disliked, but they are respected: half-and-half ones get and merit the sarcasms of the world” (B. C. E., p. 177).

The reader should note Luke’s specification of “wife” (cf. Luk 18:29 ), “brothers” and “sisters.”

“His own life”: cf. Mat 8:34 , and see also note on Luk 9:23 .

There is a sermon from this place by Venn (vol. ii.).

378 Luk 14:28-32 . – See sermon by Trench in Westminster Series, and one of Newman’s in Allenson’s Selected Series, No. XI.

For “ask for terms of peace” (verse 32), see Psa 122:6 in the LXX., and cf. Luk 19:42 here.

379 Luk 14:33 . – Francis de Sales: “We must live in this world as if the soul was already in heaven and the body mouldering in the grave” (quoted by Spence). Cf. note 352.

Julian the Apostate appealed to this passage when robbing the Church of Edessa (Robertson, “Church History,” i., p. 343).

Dr. Arnold has a sermon from this verse (op. cit., p. 88).

Mackintosh: “He does not admit the possible existence of second-rate Christians” (“Christian Ethics,” p. 44).

379a Luk 14:34 . – See sermon of Dean Alford (vol. iii.).

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

Luke

THE LESSONS OF A FEAST

Luk 14:1 – Luk 14:14 .

Jesus never refused an invitation, whether the inviter were a Pharisee or a publican, a friend or a foe. He never mistook the disposition of His host. He accepted ‘greetings where no kindness is,’ and on this occasion there was none. The entertainer was a spy, and the feast was a trap. What a contrast between the malicious watchers at the table, ready to note and to interpret in the worst sense every action of His, and Him loving and wishing to bless even them! The chill atmosphere of suspicion did not freeze the flow of His gentle beneficence and wise teaching. His meek goodness remained itself in the face of hostile observers. The miracle and the two parables are aimed straight at their errors.

I. How came the dropsical man there?

Possibly he had simply strayed in to look on at the feast, as the freedom of manners then would permit him to do. The absence of any hint that he came hoping for a cure, and of any trace of faith on his part, or of speech to him on Christ’s, joined with his immediate dismissal after his cure, rather favours the supposition that he had been put as the bait of the trap, on the calculation that the sight of him would move Jesus to heal him. The setters of the snare were ‘watching’ whether it would work, and Jesus ‘answered’ their thoughts, which were, doubtless, visible in their eyes. His answer has three stages-a question which is an assertion, the cure, and another affirming question. All three are met with sulky silence, which speaks more than words would have done. The first question takes the ‘lawyers’ on their own ground, and in effect asserts that to heal did not break the Sabbath. Jesus challenges denial of the lawfulness of it, and the silence of the Pharisees confesses that they dare not deny. ‘The bare fact of healing is not prohibited,’ they might have said, ‘but the acts necessary for healing are.’ But no acts were necessary for this Healer’s power to operate. The outgoing of His will had power. Their finespun distinctions of deeds lawful and unlawful were spiders’ webs, and His act of mercy flew high above the webs, like some fair winged creature glancing in the sunshine, while the spider sits in his crevice balked. The broad principle involved in Jesus’ first question is that no Sabbath law, no so-called religious restriction, can ever forbid helping the miserable. The repose of the Sabbath is deepened, not disturbed, by activity for man’s good.

The cure is told without detail, probably because there were no details to tell. There is no sign of request or of faith on the sufferer’s part; there seems to have been no outward act on Christ’s beyond ‘taking’ him, which appears simply to mean that He called him nearer, and then, by a simple exercise of His will, healed him. There is no trace of thanks or of wonder in the heart of the sufferer, who probably never had anything more to do with his benefactor. Silently he comes on the stage, silently he gets his blessing, silently he disappears. A strange, sad instance of how possible it is to have a momentary connection with Jesus, and even to receive gifts from His hand, and yet to have no real, permanent relation to Him!

The second question turns from the legal to a broader consideration. The spontaneous workings of the heart are not to be dammed back by ceremonial laws. Need calls for immediate succour. You do not wait for the Sabbath’s sun to set when your ox or your ass is in a pit. The reading ‘son’ instead of ‘ox,’ as in the Revised Version margin, is incongruous. Jesus is appealing to the instinctive wish to give immediate help even to a beast in trouble, and implies that much more should the same instinct be allowed immediate play when its object is a man. The listeners were self-condemned, and their obstinate silence proves that the arrow had struck deep.

II. The cure seems to have taken place before the guests seated themselves.

Then came a scramble for the most honourable places, on which He looked with perhaps a sad smile. Again the silence of the guests is noticeable, as well as the calm assumption of authority by Jesus, even among such hostile company. Where He comes a guest, He becomes teacher, and by divine right He rebukes. The lesson is given, says Luke, as ‘a parable,’ by which we are to understand that our Lord is not here giving, as might appear if His words are superficially interpreted, a mere lesson of proper behaviour at a feast, but is taking that behaviour as an illustration of a far deeper thing. Possibly some too ambitious guest had contrived to seat himself in the place of honour, and had had to turn out, and, with an embarrassed mien, had to go down to the very lowest place, as all the intermediate ones were full. His eagerness to be at the top had ended in his being at the bottom. That is a ‘parable,’ says Jesus, an illustration in the region of daily life, of large truths in morals and religion. It is a poor motive for outward humility and self-abasement that it may end in higher honour. And if Jesus was here only giving directions for conduct in regard to men, He was inculcating a doubtful kind of morality. The devil’s

‘darling sin

Is the pride that apes humility.’

Jesus was not recommending that, but what is crafty ambition, veiling itself in lowliness for its own purposes, when exercised in outward life, becomes a noble, pure, and altogether worthy, thing in the spiritual sphere. For to desire to be exalted in the kingdom is wholly right, and to humble one’s self with a direct view to that exaltation is to tread the path which He has hallowed by His own footsteps. The true aim for ambition is the honour that cometh from God only, and the true path to it is through the valley; for ‘God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’

III. Unbroken silence still prevailed among the guests, but again Jesus speaks as teacher, and now to the host.

A guest does not usually make remarks on the composition of the company, Jesus could make no ‘recompense’ to His entertainer, but to give him this counsel. Again, He inculcated a wide general lesson under the guise of a particular exhortation appropriate to the occasion. Probably the bulk of the guests were well-to-do people of the host’s own social rank, and, as probably, there were onlookers of a lower degree, like the dropsical man. The prohibition is not directed against the natural custom of inviting one’s associates and equals, but against inviting them only, and against doing so with a sharp eye to the advantages to be derived from it. That weary round of giving a self-regarding hospitality, and then getting a return dinner or evening entertainment from each guest, which makes up so much of the social life among us, is a pitiful affair, hollow and selfish. What would Jesus say-what does Jesus say-about it all? The sacred name of hospitality is profaned, and the very springs of it dried up by much of our social customs, and the most literal application of our Lord’s teaching here is sorely needed.

But the words are meant as a ‘parable,’ and are to be widened out to include all sorts of kindnesses and helps given in the sacred name of charity to those whose only claim is their need. ‘They cannot recompense thee’-so much the better, for, if an eye to their doing so could have influenced thee, thy beneficence would have lost its grace and savour, and would have been simple selfishness, and, as such, incapable of future reward. It is only love that is lavished on those who can make no return which is so free from the taint of secret regard to self that it is fit to be recognised as love in the revealing light of that great day, and therefore is fit to be ‘recompensed in the resurrection of the just.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 14:1-6

1It happened that when He went into the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread, they were watching Him closely. 2And there in front of Him was a man suffering from dropsy. 3And Jesus answered and spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?” 4But they kept silent. And He took hold of him and healed him, and sent him away. 5And He said to them, “Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?” 6And they could make no reply to this.

Luk 14:1

NASB”one of the leaders of the Pharisees”

NKJV”one of the rulers of the Pharisees”

NRSV”of a leader of the Pharisees”

TEV, NJB”of one of the leading Pharisees”

The NASB seems a bit interpretative; he was a local religious leader, who was a Pharisee.

“on the Sabbath” This was a continuing controversy between the written Law of Moses and the rabbinical interpretations of it known as the Oral Law, which was later codified in the Talmud. Jesus had continually confronted the Phraisees on their nit-picking rules that superceded and depreciated people (cf. Luk 4:31 ff; Luk 6:6 ff; Luk 13:10 ff). This paragraph looks like a purposeful confrontation either on the part of Jesus or on the part of the Pharisees. See Special Topic at Luk 6:1.

“to eat” Notice Jesus continues to try to engage the Pharisees in dialog. He eats with them (cf. Luk 7:36; Luk 11:37). He worships with them. He performs miracles before them. In many ways Christianity is an extension of Phariseeism, as is rabbinical Judaism. Pharisees were lifestyle practitioners of their faith. They were serious about God’s word and will. The missing elements were

1. personal faith in Jesus

2. salvation as a gift of God’s grace (to all)

3. not trusting in human performance as a means of being right with God

Luke uses meals and the dialogue which accompanies them as a literary way for Jesus to present truth (cf. Luk 5:29; Luk 7:36; Luk 9:13; Luk 10:39; Luk 11:37; Luk 14:1; Luk 22:14; Luk 24:30, much in the same way John uses dialogues). Eating was an intimate and important social event for family, friends, and community in the first century Mediterranean world.

“they were watching Him closely” This is a periphrastic imperfect middle. They continued to watch Jesus for the purpose of finding something He said or did by which to condemn Him, both to the Jewish population and to the Romans.

Luk 14:2 “dropsy” Notice that Jesus does not heal this man based on his faith, but as a sign to religious leaders (just like the women in Luk 13:10-17) with whom He was still trying to work (cf. Luk 14:3). Dropsy was a retention of fluid that resulted in swelling (the term is from the root for “water”). It usually was the result of other physical problems. It is only mentioned here in the NT, which is appropriate for a physician (cf. Col 4:14), although it is used by non-physicians in Greek literature. The rabbis said this disease was caused by serious sin, which may add to the drama of the moment. Some commentators think this man was planted there by the Pharisees to trick Jesus into doing something disallowed by the Oral Traditions on the Sabbath.

Luk 14:3-4 Jesus is asking these experts in the Mosaic Law a practical question. These were not cold hearted men, but they were committed to worshiping YHWH through a system of rabbinical discussions (Shammai and Hillel), which interpreted OT texts. In the long history of these religious debates, the priority of human beings was lost. Jesus tries to restore the central place of mankind, made in the image of God. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (cf. Mat 12:8; Mar 2:28; Luk 6:5) and the Sabbath is made for mankind, not mankind for the Sabbath (cf. Mar 2:27). Legalism and self-righteousness are still alive and well among very sincere and committed religious people.

Luk 14:3 “the lawyers” See special Topic at Luk 5:21.

Luk 14:5 “He said to them, ‘Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day” There is a manuscript problem here:

1. the term “son” (uios) is found in the ancient Greek manuscripts P45,75, A, B, and W

2. the term “donkey” (onos) is found in MSS and L

The two words have a very similar ending. The manuscript evidence supports “son” (UBS4 gives it a “B” rating, meaning “almost certain”), while the context supports “donkey.” If one follows the principle of the most unusual being the most ancient attestation, then “son” is to be preferred, but the major thrust of Jesus’ statement is that the Jews had greater compassion for animals than for humans (cf. Luk 13:15).

Luk 14:6 Jesus’ questions (Luk 14:4) and examples (Luk 14:6) were so devastating that these religious leaders could not respond. Their rules had become more important than people!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

it came to pass. A Hebraism. See on Luk 2:1.

as He went = in (Greek. en App-104.) His going. into. Greek. eis. App-104.

chief Pharisees = rulers of the Pharisees (App-120).

bread. Put by Figure of speech Synecdoche (of the Part) for any kind of food.

the sabbath day = a certain Sabbath.

watched = were engaged in watching.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-6.] HEALING OF A DROPSICAL MAN ON THE SABBATH. Peculiar to Luke.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Shall we turn in our Bibles now to the gospel according to Luke, chapter 14.

The fourteenth chapter involves an invitation for Jesus to come to a supper on the Sabbath day and of the things that transpired at that supper, and the subsequent exchange between Jesus and the people as Jesus talked to them concerning etiquette and concerning the demands of the kingdom.

So it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him ( Luk 14:1 ).

It is interesting to me that Jesus accepted the invitation. He knew that they were out to get Him. It seems to me that Jesus was always open to an invitation to eat, going so far as inviting Himself to Zacchaeus’ house. “Come on down Zacchaeus. I want to come over to your house and eat.” And finally in Revelation, standing at the door and knocking, waiting for anyone to open so that He can come in and eat. “And if you will open the door I will come in and I will eat supper with you.” As we this morning were talking about the significance of eating in that culture, becoming one, how Jesus desires to be one with us.

Now the Sabbath meal was different from other meals in that all of the food had to be prepared before the Sabbath. You weren’t to kindle any fire. If you were to have anything that was hot it had to be hot before the Sabbath. And somehow there had to be ways to maintain it being hot. Now in those days they had definite rules of those things that you could not do to keep food hot and things you could do to keep food hot, but there was a kosher way of keeping your food hot even that they even had developed for the Sabbath day.

Today they plug in before the Sabbath begins. Their hotplates and their water for their coffee (they use instant coffee on the Sabbath day) all have to plug it in. They can’t fill the pot once the Sabbath is come. But once it is plugged in, you can pour it out of the pot into your cup and make your instant coffee. That doesn’t constitute work. Just don’t pour any water into the pot to heat it on the Sabbath day. You have got to have that going before the Sabbath day. And you can’t turn the switches on. You just have to have it plugged in and going before the Sabbath day comes. So they still have some interesting little rules for the Sabbath day.

If you want to go out to eat, you cannot pay with cash, but you can pay with credit cards on the Sabbath day. To pay with cash would violate the Sabbath, but to pay with a credit card, they have this unfortunate concept that so many people have about credit cards and that is you are really not paying. That is a dangerous thing.

So the Sabbath day meal was different. And they were watching Jesus. Now it seems that they were watching Him because there was a setup.

And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake the words to the lawyers ( Luk 14:2-3 )

Answering what? It doesn’t say they asked Him any question, but realizing, no doubt, that this whole thing was a set up. He was invited to eat on the Sabbath day to break bread with them, and here right before Him they have set this man with this disease of dropsy.

And so Jesus answering them, realizing that it was a setup,

spake to the lawyers and the Pharisees, and he said, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace ( Luk 14:3-4 ).

They didn’t answer Him.

And so he took, and healed him, and let him go; And he answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox that has fallen into a pit, and will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day? And they could not answer him again to these things ( Luk 14:4-6 ).

Now, under the law they did have a provision that if your donkey or ox would fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, you could pull it out. They did have many open wells, so it was not uncommon for a donkey or an ox to fall into a pit. So Jesus brought up their own law to them, and they could not answer Him.

So then He dealt with them concerning etiquette.

And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden to the feast, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms ( Luk 14:7 );

Usually they had at these feasts a table with three pillows around it. They were called tricliniums. And they would usually sit the people three at a table, and the middle pillow would be the place of honor at that table. And say you were going to invite nine guests. You would have three tables set up in this triclinium, and at each of the tables you would have the center pillow for your guest of honor. And of course, they would sit and sort of recline, and that is why they are called tricliniums. They would recline on these pillows and eat in sort of a reclining position.

So, Jesus was watching how they were jockeying for the best positions, for the places of honor, for the places of note, for this business of trying to get into the place of prominence. So He said,

When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, don’t sit down in the highest room; lest a more honorable man than you has been bidden to the feast; And those that bade thee and him come and say to you, Give this man your place; and you with shame will have to go to the lowest room ( Luk 14:8-9 ).

It is an embarrassing situation. You sat at the head table, but you don’t belong there. So they come up and say they are sorry, but they don’t have any place for you at that table, so you better take a table in the back. And everybody sees you leave the head table and head for the table in the back.

But when you are bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; and when he that bade thee comes, he may say unto thee, Friend, come on up higher: then you will have honor in the presence of those that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted ( Luk 14:10-11 ).

I think that one of the characteristics of greatness is humility. Some of the greatest people have been very humble people. I think that one of the most humbling things is to have God use your life. For you know it is not you and you know you are not worthy. But if you seek to exalt yourself, the law of the Lord, you will be abased. But he that will humble himself, the Lord will lift him up.

Then said he also to him that invited him, When you make a dinner or a supper ( Luk 14:12 ),

Now he is turning on the host.

When you make a dinner or a supper, don’t call your friends, and your brothers, and your family, or your rich neighbors; in order that they might bid you again, and recompense you for the invitation. But when you make a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And you will be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: but you will be recompensed at the resurrection of the just ( Luk 14:12-14 ).

These are interesting rules of the kingdom.

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 ( Luk 14:15 ).

I think that someone at the table got the flash of light as Jesus began to talk about how in the kingdom there is going to be an equality. There won’t be the exalting of one man above another. There won’t be important people and unimportant people, but we are all one in Christ Jesus. And we will all share together in the glory and in the honor in the kingdom. And this man got a flash of light in the kingdom and he said,

Blessed is the man that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God ( Luk 14:15 ).

And then Jesus gave a parable unto them. You see, all of these have to do with being invited to dinner, going to dinner, because they are sitting at this dinner, or at this Sabbath dinner with the Pharisee.

Then he said unto him, There was a certain man which made a great supper, and he invited many: And sent his servant at supper time to say to those that were invited, Come; for dinner is ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said, I have bought a piece of ground, and I better go see it: I pray thee you will have me excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: And I pray thee you’ll have me excused. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. So that servant came, and showed 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 here the poor, the maimed, the halt, and the blind ( Luk 14:16-21 ).

These are the ones that Jesus told the fellow he should have invited anyhow.

And the servant said, Lord, it is done as you have commanded, and still we’ve got more room. And the lord said to the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper ( Luk 14:22-24 ).

In this parable I believe that the one who has made the invitation and inviting to the supper is really none other than God. And the reference is to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And these are some of the excuses that people give for not coming to Jesus Christ.

The first man’s excuse was sort of a commercial excuse: “I bought a house and I need to go take a look at it.” Pray tell, what kind of a fool buys a house without looking at it? He was busy in commerce.

The second man is busy in his labors. It takes precedence over the kingdom. “I bought five yoke and I need to prove them.” Again, what man would buy five yoke of oxen without first testing them? Which of you would buy a car without driving it around the block?

Then the third said that he had just married a wife and couldn’t come. Why didn’t he bring his wife?

You notice that they all began to make an excuse. And there is a difference between excuses and reasons. Sometimes you can make an excuse when you don’t have any real reason for it. But I would warn you as Benjamin Franklin said, “The man who is good at making excuses is seldom good for anything else.”

They began to make excuses for different reasons, so the lord said to go out into the highways and bring in the poor, the maimed and the halt. Remember to Jesus, He fulfilled the prophecy to the poor, the gospel is being preached. And still there was room, so he was to go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, and the gospel was being preached compelling men to come into the kingdom of God.

Now at this point he probably left the supper, for we read,

And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them ( Luk 14:25 ),

Having left the house, the people were outside waiting for Him. At this point great multitudes of people were attracted to Him and were following Him and listening to Him. And He is on His way towards Jerusalem, but they think He is on His way towards Jerusalem in order to overthrow the Roman government and to establish and set up His kingdom. And that is why they are being attracted. That is why the multitude is coming. They think that the kingdom is going to come now immediately, and James and John are saying, “Lord, can I sit on the right and left hand?” and all of this jockeying for position was going on. But they don’t understand. He is not going to Jerusalem to overthrow the Roman government. He is going to Jerusalem to be put on a cross.

You cannot follow Christ just because it is a popular movement. There is a shallowness and a danger to popular spiritual movements. The Jesus Movement was sadly weakened by the endeavors to commercialize the thing and to popularize the thing. And the Jesus Movement parades and banners were fade aspects.

In following Christ, you just don’t get on the bandwagon. It is just not joining because everybody is doing it, or it is the in thing to do. This was at that time the in thing. Multitudes were following Him. And because there is a danger in this, He turns to the multitudes and He becomes extremely severe in His words. He is really more severe than I would like Him to be, for He said,

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple ( Luk 14:26 ).

I am not going to be popular, being acclaimed as king. I am going to be crucified. There is a real cost if you are going to come after Me. You better count the cost. You better measure it.

Now, don’t misunderstand Jesus and think that I have got to hate my father, and my mother, because that is just the opposite of what the gospel teaches. The fruit of the Spirit is love. And if say I love God and hate my brother, I am a liar and the truth is not in me. How can I love God who I haven’t seen and hate my brother who I have seen? Then what does Jesus mean, unless you hate your father, mother, brothers and so forth? That is in the language a comparative.

Your love for Jesus Christ must be supreme. It must be greater than your love for your family, your home or yourself, because it may cost you all of these things to follow Jesus Christ. And for many of those people it did cost all those things. Following Christ did cost some of them their families, their family relationships. For they were ostracized by their families when they made their commitment to Jesus Christ. And the same is true today. Many people have found it quite costly to follow Jesus Christ. It cost them their family relationships. But Jesus said if you are not willing to give up these family relationships, you can’t really be My disciple. You have got to love Me more than you love any other relationship that you have. Your love for Me must be supreme and every other love must be subservient to your love for Me.

Then He went on to say,

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple ( Luk 14:27 ).

I am not going to be crowned as king of the world. I am going to bear a cross. I am going to be crucified, and if you are not willing to take up your cross you can’t really be My disciple. If you really want to follow Me and be My disciple, it can involve a cross and you better consider that.

Jesus is deliberately laying out the terms for discipleship and they are not soft, easy, comfortable terms. They are harsh. They are severe. And it is important that you count the cost, the cost of discipleship.

Then Jesus gives a couple of parables in which there is that emphasis of counting the cost.

For which of you, intends to build a tower ( Luk 14:28 ),

This is probably one of those towers that they built out in the middle of their vineyards, which are so common even to the present day in that country.

The people generally lived in the cities, but they had their farms in the countries. During the spring, summer, and fall seasons they would move out of the cities and into these towers that were built out in the middle of their orchards, or vineyards. These towers had the living quarters in the first level, but then you can go up into the upper level, and from the tower you can look over and watch the vineyard to make sure that no one is coming in and ripping you off. They were just towers for the protection for the vineyards. So He is probably referring to one of these vineyard towers.

Which man of you, who intends to build a tower, doesn’t sit down first, and counts the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all those that see it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and wasn’t able to finish ( Luk 14:28-30 ).

Count the cost. It is important. Don’t just jump in. He is not really seeking to create a popular movement. He is seeking to thin the crowds of those that were following. Count the cost.

What king, going to make war against another king, doesn’t sit down first, and consult whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends an ambassadors, and desireth conditions of peace. So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he has, he cannot be my disciple ( Luk 14:31-33 ).

Now, you count the cost. Unless you are willing to forsake everything you can’t be My disciple. Unless you are willing to take up your cross, you can’t be My disciple. Unless you love Me supremely, you cannot be My disciple. The terms of discipleship are harsh. They are severe. And it is wrong when people tell you just accept Jesus and you are not going to have any more problems. Listen, many times when you accept Jesus your problems are just beginning. It is not easy. It is not going to be easy. The Lord doesn’t say it is going to be easy. He said it is going to be tough and you better sit down first and count the cost. You better not get started in it if you can’t finish it, or are not willing to finish it. You need to make an accounting here and determine whether or not you are really willing to pay the price to go all the way through, because unless you are willing to forsake everything, really, you can’t be My disciple. These are heavy, hard words.

Then He said,

Salt is good: but if the salt have lost its tang, who will use it for seasoning? It is neither fit for the land, nor for the dunghill; but men will cast it out. He that has ears to hear, let him hear ( Luk 14:34-35 ).

In those days salt was used for three basic things. Salt was used, number one, as a preservative when they would butcher. They would roast the meat right away and the meat that they didn’t roast they would salt because they didn’t have refrigeration. Salt has an antiseptic type of an effect. It kills the bacteria on the surface of the meat and preserves the meat.

Salt was used as a seasoning to flavor the food, like we use salt today-add a little zing to the food, to the taste. Foods without salt are flat. Just a little salt really makes a difference. Every once in a while when we were kids, Mom would forget to put the salt in. Potatoes without salt, mashed potatoes are flat. It is amazing what a little salt will do for mashed potatoes. We are the salt. Salt is good. But if it has lost it savor it is not good.

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount talked about salt in an earlier part of His ministry. He said, “You are the salt of the earth” ( Mat 5:13 ). Again, talking about if the salt has lost it savor wherewith would it be salted, therefore it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under the foot of man. Salt is good if it is tangy. If it isn’t, it is worthless.

The third purpose for salt was to put it on the path to kill the vegetation so that they would keep the paths clear from vegetation by just putting salt on it. The salt would destroy the vegetation. It was a weed killer.

You as a child of God should have a preserving effect in the society in which you live. Our rotten society testifies against the church. It bears witness against the church. But you should have sort of a zingy effect where ever you go. You should add zest and flavor because of your walk with Jesus Christ.

Salt has another capacity of making people thirsty. And you should be creating a thirst in people.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

14:1-6. And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; 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? And they could not answer him again to these things.

Christs question was unanswerable unless they wished to condemn themselves. Now I want you kindly to turn to the next evangelist, in whose Gospel you will find the record of the fifth miracle which our Saviour wrought on the Sabbath-day. (See Joh 5:1-9)

This exposition consisted of readings from Luk 4:33-36; Luk 6:6-11; Luk 13:10-17; Luk 14:1-6; Joh 5:1-9; ND 9:1-14.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Luk 14:1. , when He was coming) by invitation. See Luk 14:12.-, of the chiefs) The Pharisees had their own chiefs, and these also numerous, possessing pre-eminent authority; which, however, Jesus did not regard with fear. See Luk 14:12, at the beginning. [- , they were craftily watching Him) The spiritual Sabbath is grossly profaned by crafty and wicked thoughts.-V. g.]

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Luk 14:1-24

18. HEALING ON THE SABBATH;

A GUEST ON THE SABBATH

Luk 14:1-24

1 And it came to pass, when he went into the house-Jesus was probably still in Perea at this time. He had been invited into the house of “one of the rulers of the Pharisees.” Some think that this was a chief man among the Pharisees and some have even said that he was a member of the Sanhedrin; we cannot determine whether he was a man of such prominence; his house seems to have been in Perea, and Jesus was his invited guest. He was a man of distinction and probably wanted to satisfy himself concerning Jesus and what he taught. It was on the Sabbath. The Jews were accustomed to meet as families in social converse on the Sabbath and other holy days; they thought it proper and lawful to spend part of the Sabbath in quiet conversation. (See Neh 8:10.) Jesus did not hesitate to accept the invitation. Others were watching Jesus to see what he would so; they were seeking an occasion to accuse him of violating the Sabbath. They observed him closely as spies, bent on finding fault, if he violated any of the customs or rules governing conduct on the Sabbath.

2, 3 And behold, there was before him a certain man-These words seem to inply that this man was there by design of those who watched Jesus; he was put there to meet Jesus; perhaps the man himself knew of their evil designs and lent himself to the occasion. He was afflicted with “dropsy.” Luke, being a physician, singles out this case and records the ealing of this man. This seems to be the only case on record where Jesus healed one with the “dropsy.” This disease seems to have been produced by an accumulation of water under the skin, in various parts of the body, often the result of a previous disease, and generally incurable.

And Jesus answering spake-Jesus spoke to the “lawyers and Pharisees.” It seems that these were the ones who had arranged this affair. If Jesus healed the man at once, they were ready to accuse him of laboring on the Sabbath; if he did not heal him, they were ready to report abroad a failure to extend mercy, or a sign of fear. It is interesting to note how Jesus spoiled their dilemma. He asked: “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?” This question of Jesus put the lawyers and Pharisees to flight. If they answered that it was lawful to heal the man, it would spoil their chance of accusation against him; but if they answered in the negative, they would be considered unmerciful, unsympathetic, and unhelpful to one in distress. They knew that certain things must be done on the day of rest; sickness and natural exigencies constantly compel men to do some work; they must do some work other than that of healing.

4 But they held their peace.-On the one hand they could not deny the benevolent act of healing the man on the Sabbath; and on the other, they were fearful of compromising themselves with him in some way, if they replied in the affirmative. Hence, they prudently kept silent; this was the cowardly way out of the dilemma that they were in. Jesus thus exposed them to all who observed. He then took the man “and healed him, and let him go.” Jesus took hold of the man and healed him; he put himself in physical contact with the man according to his usual custom. There is a striking antithesis between this heartless silence in regard to the cure of the man and the readiness with which Jesus healed him.

5, 6 And he said unto them,-Jesus had already completely routed his enemies, but he further presses them to greater embarrassment. He now forces them to break their silence by asking them a direct question. “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day?” This is similar to the argument that Jesus made in Mat 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. (Exo 20:17; Isa 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 Mat 12:12 : “How much then is a man of more value than a sheep?”

7 And he spake a parable unto those that were bidden,-Jesus now gives three parable as he dined at the table of the chief Pharisee who had invited him. The first (verses 7-11) refers to the conduct of those who are invited to a feast; the second (verses 12-14) is directed against the selfishness of inviting those only who are able to give entertainments in return; the third (verses 16-24) is designed to correct false views with respect to the blessings of the Messianic kingdom. While Jesus sat or reclined at the feast “he marked” how those who were bidden selected the chief seats. The Greek word for “marked” means “gave attention,” or “observed”; it is sometimes translated “gave heed.” (Act 3:5.) They had spied on Jesus when he went into the feast with the purpose of criticizing him; he now observes their conduct that he may help them and teach others. “The chief seats” were the best seats; they did not have seats as we have at the table, but reclined on couches. The most honorable station at an entertainment among them as well as among the Romans was the middle part of the middle couch, each couch holding three.

8, 9 When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast, -Jesus now proceeds to point out how different dispositions and traits of character are manifested by the conduct at this feasts. One when invited should come and “sit not down in the chief seat,” but should occupy a humble place and let the one who has invited arrange according to his own judgment and inclination. It shows egotism, self-conceit, and haughtiness to go into a feast and occupy the chief place without an invitation. Humility would suggest a different course.

and he that bade thee and him shall come and say-Humility and modesty should be practiced. If one enters and occupies the chief seat, another more honorable might come in and the host would have to humiliate the one who has occupied the chief place by inviting him to take a lower, or less honorable seat. It is better to be invited to a higher place than to be requested to take a lower place. “Begin with shame to take the lowest place” means that one reluctantly does so with shame. The one who is ousted from the self-selected honorable seat must be requested to take the lowest place with shame. All the higher and more inviting seats were already occupied; no seat was vacant for his use except the one furthest removed from the chief place. He was not told to take the lowest seat, but he must do this from necessity

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place;-Jesus has given negative teaching; he has told them what not to do, and now he tells what they should do. “Sit down” literally means “lay yourself back” in a convenient lace or couch and wait until invitation is given to come up higher. Jesus does not teach hypocrisy here, neither a mock humility, which takes the lowest seat in order that the eyes of the whole company may be directed to the efforts of the master of the feast, to prevail upon the person who does this to go up higher; there is no greater evidence of pride than such an overdoing of humility.

11 For every one that exalteth himself-This is Jesus’ conclusion which he draws from the parable; its application is easily made. Jesus frequently repeated this. (Mat 23:12.) Pride and a haughty spirit come before a fall. This principle is applicable alike in the affairs of men and in the kingdom of God; Jesus probably intended to direct their mind, not merely to abasement and exaltation among men, but also in a higher, spiritual sense in his kingdom and before God. This principle is taught throughout the Bible. (Prow. 16:18; Eze 21:26.)

12 And he said to him also that had bidden him,-This second parable of chapter 14 is intended as a rebuke to those who in a selfish way invite others to a feast. Usually people invite those who will later invite them. This parable seems to be addressed to his host as the former one was addressed to his guests. It gave Jesus the occasion to give correct teaching on inviting people to a feast. It is customary to invite friends and kinspeople; but Jesus says not to invite “thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbors.” These four classes will very likely invite you because you have invited them. Jesus tells why they should not invite them- “lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.”

13 But when thou makest a feast,-Again, Jesus presents the negative teaching and then follows that with the positive teaching; he tells who should not be invited, and then tells who should be. Jesus does not mean that we should make a east for the “poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind” to mock their misery, but to extend to them the charity which they need. We need to give attention to the distressed and relieve them as far as we may be able. It is far better to give to relieve the distressed than to set a feast for those who do not need it and expect to be entertained in return. One should exert himself to feed the poor, help the maimed, heal the lame, and guide the blind rather than merely satisfy a selfish pride in entertaining those who do not need it.

14 and thou shalt be blessed;-One will not receive a reward merely for an exchange of entertainments, but will for helping the distressed in the name of Christ. The exchange of entertainments shows a selfishness that is to be condemned, but to help others, when no earthly reward may be had, is to lay up treasures in heaven. One should plan to do all the good possible to the suffering and helpless; Jesus counts all that is done to the distressed in his name as deeds done to him. (Mat 25:31-46.) One who helps those who need help shall be blessed here and hereafter. “Recompensed in the resurrection of the just” means that one shall be rewarded at the day of judgment when the righteous shall be raised from the dead. The unselfish and charitable believer in Christ shall then receive his reward in that resurrection where will be found multitudes of the poor and distressed of earth.

15 And when one of them that sat at meat-It should be remembered that Jesus was still in the house “of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath” (14:1), and that he was an invited guest. He had spoken the two parables above mentioned and one of the fellow guests heard and said “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.” Much discussion has been had by commentators as to why this one should have so spoken; there is also a diversity of opinion as to what his words man. Some think that he eant literal bread eaten in Jerusalem at the great feast, while others think that he had reference to eating bread in the Messianic kingdom, which, he thought, was an earthly kingdom. The Jews believed that the kingdom of the Messiah would be ushered in with a magnificent festival, at which all the members of the Jewish families should be guests. Some think that this one understood Jesus’ reference to the resurrection as being the resurrection of the old kingdom of Israel. It is thought that Jesus gave the following parable to correct that false view. Some think that this man gave utterance to a religious thought because he was in company where religious things were being discussed; however, we need not speculate as to what he meant or what prompted him to so express himself. It remains as a fact that he did say what is recorded here.

16 But he said unto him,-Jesus here gave the third parable at this time. It is called the parable of the “great supper.” This parable seems to be designed to correct the idea that it was the prerogative of the whole Jewish nation to be partakers of the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, irrespective of a change in life or character. Jesus was still at the feast and the figure of a supper is continued in order to teach a fundamental truth. Jesus did not contradict others by opposing assertions, yet his teachings were obviously opposed to false teaching. One of the guests had just spoken about eating bread “in the kingdom of God,” as if all Jews were to do this by right of their Jewish birth; Jesus takes the words from him to lift his mind to a better kingdom, into which he was invited.

17 and he sent forth his servant at supper time-This servant was to announce to the invited guests that all things were ready. This parable implies that the man who made the supper belonged to the wealthy and to the nobility of the Jews. This was the second and final summons, the invitations having been previously given. (Compare Est 5:8; Est 6:14.) This servant was to announce to those invited that the supper was now in a state of readiness, and that they should at once come to enjoy it.

18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse.- “Consent” is not in the original; some think that it would be better to supply “mind,” “spirit,” or “accord.” There was the same temper of mind manifested in the various excuses which these persons, made; they all exhibited an utter contempt for the honor done them, and showed their preference to things of comparatively trivial importance. They had not come together and formulated unanimous excuses, but their excuses were all of the same nature, and revealed the same disposition of heart and attitude of mind.

The first said unto him,-This represents the man of landed estate who pleads necessity. He said: “I have bought a field” and that he must needs go out and see it. Land was very valuable; this man must go from home and look after the real estate that he had purchased; this would be regarded as one of the most valid and reasonable excuses for not attending the feast. It was the best excuse that he could give; and if any excuse would be accepted this would come in that class. He would have to go out from the city in order to complete the trade, and would be away from home at the time of the feast. He courteously asked to be excused, thinking that he had a good reason for rejecting the invitation.

19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen,-This was a man of business and he pleaded a bargain which he had made. “Yoke” means two or more animals yoked together; he has purchased “five yoke of oxen” and had to go and “prove them.” The spirit of this excuse is the same as the former; the language seems to be less polished, as it is that of a rustic. “To prove” them is to try them by putting them to the plow; he wished to test their strength, endurance, and ability. It is evident that he could have deferred this until fter the supper; his excuse seems to represent men in the excitement of business, and he did not have the time to attend the supper. He politely asked to be excused.

20 And another said, I have married a wife,-This man did not plead any business engagements, but offered domestic enjoyment and pleasure. “I have married” puts this in the past tense; it refers to an act gone by in contrast to a present action. Here we have the force of temptations which lie in the field of difficulty of reconciling conflicting duties. Attendance on the feast did not entail the violation of any duty arising out of his new relation, but simply the holding it of inferior importance on a given occasion. A newly married man has special favors granted him. (Deu 24:5; 1Co 7:33.) He bluntly stated that he could not attend the feast.

21 And the servant came, and told his lord these things.- The three classes of excuses are drawn from the different phases of life; they are not “flimsy” excuses, ridiculous excuses, as some have sought to make them; they were the most important excuses that could be given. They are taken from the honorable stations of life in business and social intercourse. Yet, it was considered an insult to refuse to accept the invitation. These reasons assigned could be put aside; they could have been attended to at another time; those making them could have attended the supper, and later attended to the business and social affairs.

Go out quickly into the streets-No time was to be lost , the supper was ready, provisions abundant and should not be wasted; every place at the table must be filled without delay. He was to go into “the streets and lanes of the city.” The servant would go first into the city. The better class of people will be passing to and fro in the streets or broad ways, and the poor would naturally be found in the “lanes of the city” or narrow streets and alleys. It is evident that both rich and poor are included in the terms and conditions of this invitation. The rich will be passing to and fro in the broad streets and the poor would be in the lanes and alleys. Instead of a select company of invited guests, a promiscuous company was now to be invited; however, the prominence is given to the poorer class in the words “the poor and maimed and blind and lame.” This is the same class as mentioned in verse 13. “Bring in hither” does not mean that he was to compel, but rather the invitation was urgent.

22-24 And the servant said,-The servant obeyed. He was commanded to “go out” quickly, and he did this. It seems that after his urgent invitation not enough guests were found to occupy all of the places at the table; there was yet room for others. This shows that there was provided sufficient food for a great many; hence it is called the “parable of the great supper”; a very large hall was made ready for this banquet. The servant was then commanded to “go out into the highways and hedges” and “constrain” others to come in. “Highways” meant public roads which led into the city, and “hedges” meant the narrow hedge paths, the vineyards and gardens. “Hedges” may mean either a “hedge” or a “place inclosed with a hedge.” The vagrants usually rested along the hedge.

For I say unto you,-None who had despised his offer and had rejected the invitation should enjoy this feast. They had showed themselves unworthy of the honor and blessings which had been offered them; hence they were not to receive or enjoy that which had been prepared for them. Various interpretations and applications have been made of this parable. It is obvious and undeniable that not a man of all those first invited should partake of this supper; the master of the house had fully determined that somebody should enjoy it, but not one of those who had spurned his invitation should have access to it. Jesus had offered the blessings of the gospel to the Jews; they had refused his invitation; they had offered various excuses, and had rejected him. The Gentiles and others more worthy of the blessings of God should receive the blessings first extended to the Jews.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Nothing escaped the notice of Jesus. He saw the guests in the house, and their method of procedure in seeking the chief seats. As He watched, He enunciated two great truths of social application. First, He criticized those seeking precedence; and, second, He criticized a hospitality which was extended in the hope of recompense.

One of the guests, moved by the word of the Master, exclaimed, “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the Kingdom of God.” In the parable that followed, the Lord revealed the divine action in the establishment of His Kingdom, and showed the reluctance of the human heart to fulfill its condition.

When Jesus left the house where He had been entertained, He was followed by great multitudes, to whom He uttered, perhaps in words severer than on any other occasion, His terms of discipleship. These were severance from every earthly tie in order to follow Him, and an actual fellowship in the Cross. This was the occasion, moreover, on which He gave the reason for that severity. It was that the work of God which He had come to accomplish was building and battle. It was necessary that He have those on whom He could depend to complete the building and win the battle.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

14:1-17:10. The Second Period of the Journey

This forms a new division of the section which has been styled the Journeyings towards Jerusalem: see on 9:51. The first portion of it (14:1-24) may be thus subdivided. A Sabbath-meal in the House of a Pharisee, including the Healing of a Dropsical Man on the Sabbath (1-6), a Discourse about taking the lowest seats (7-11) and inviting Lowly Guests (12-14), and the Parable of the Great Supper (15-24). The whole is peculiar to Lk., and probably comes from some source unknown to Mt. and Mk.

1-24. A Sabbath-meal in the House of a Pharisee. Time and place are quite undetermined. The chief men among the Pharisees no doubt lived mostly at Jerusalem. Beyond that we have no clue.

1-6. The Cure of a Dropsical Man at the Sabbath-meal. The cure of the man with the withered hand (6:6-11; Mat 12:9-14; Mar 3:1-6) should be compared but not identified. Although Lk. records both cures, with very important differences of detail, Strauss and Keim maintain that this is a mere doublet of the other, and reject both. The style of the opening words indicates an Aramaic source.

Of the seven miracles of mercy on the Sabbath, Lk. records five: the Demoniac at Capernaum (4:31), the Withered Hand (6:6), the Woman bowed down eighteen years (13:14), Simons wifes mother (4:38), and this. The others are: the Paralytic at Bethesda (Joh 5:10), the Man born blind (Joh 9:14).

1. . And it came to pass after He had entered (aor.), not as He entered (AV.) nor when He entered (RV.): cum intrasset or introisset (some MSS, of Vulg.) rather than cum intraret (Vulg.). See on 3:21 and the note at the end of ch. i. p. 45.

. Of one of the chief men of the Pharisees. We have no knowledge of official rulers of the Pharisees; but of course they had their leading men. That the invitation of a leading Pharisee was accepted (ver. 12) after what is recorded 11:37-54 might seem surprising, especially as Jesus knew the minds of those whom He was to meet (ver. 3). But there was still the possibility of influencing some of them for good. We know of no case in which Jesus refused an invitation.

. Sabbath banqueting was common, and became proverbial for luxury. Observa diem sabbati, non Judaicis deliciis; and Hodiernus dies sabbati est, hunc in prsenti tempore otio quodam corporaliter languido et fluxo et luxurioso celebrant Judi (Aug.). See Wetst. ad loc., and Polano, The Talmud; Selections translated from the original, p. 259.

. Lk.s favourite construction. See on 5:14 and 6; 20. The introduces the apodosis of : it came to pass that the Pharisees themselves were persistently watching Him. For of interested and sinister espionage see on 6:7. Excepting Mar 3:2 and Gal 4:10, verb occurs only in Lk. (20:20; Act 9:24).

The translation were there, watching is erroneous: is the periphrastic imperf. It is also an error to carry on the construction of beyond ver. 1: vv. 1 and 2 are quite independent statements.

2. . We are left in doubt whether the man was placed there as a trap, which the absence of does not disprove, or was there by accident, or had come in the hope of being healed. The last is probable: but the seems to imply that his presence was unexpected by the company, and perhaps by the host. He was probably not an invited guest, as (ver. 4) appears to show. But in an Eastern house he would have no difficulty in obtaining admission (Tristram, Eastern Customs, pp. 36, 81): and, if he hoped to be healed, he would take care to appear . Note the vv. 2, 19, 20.

. Not elsewhere in bibl. Grk., but freq. in medical writers. The disease seems to be indicated as a curse Num 5:21, Num 5:22; comp. Psa 109:18. Comp. Hor. Carm. ii. 2, 13.

3. . He answered their thoughts implied in . This watching had now a definite object owing to the presence of the dropsical man. Comp. 5:22, 7:40. The (see on 7:30) and are put as one class, and area more definite description of the in ver. 1. Note the Hebraistic .

.; Comp. (6:9); (20:4). The dilemma, if they had planned one against Him, is turned against themselves. These lawyers were bound to be able to answer such a question: and if rigorist Pharisees made no objection when consulted beforehand, they could not protest afterwards. They take refuge in silence; not in order to provoke Him to heal, but because they did not know what to say. They did not wish to say that healing on the sabbath was allowable, and they did not dare to say that it was not. For in this sense comp. Act 11:18, Act 11:21:14; Job 32:6; Neh 5:8.

The before (A, Syrr. Arm.) probably comes from Mat 12:10 (om. B D L 59, Latt. divided). If it is genuine, comp. 13:23. Most of the authorities which insert have for (also from Mat 12:10) and omit

4. . That the laying hold of him is to be regarded as the means of the cure is not certain. The touching in order to heal is more often expressed by (5:13, 22:51; Mar 1:41, Mar 1:7:33, Mar 1:8:22; Mat 8:3, Mat 8:15, Mat 8:17:7, Mat 8:20:34) or by (4:40, 13:13; Mar 6:5, Mar 6:8:23, Mar 6:25, etc.). Both (see small print on 5:17) and (9:47, 20:20, 26, 23:26, etc.) are freq. in Lk. Christ read the mans faith, as He read the hostility of the Pharisees, and responded to it.

. This probably means something more than the letting go after the , viz. dismissed him from the company, to prevent interference with him.

5. . The emphatic word is . How do you act, when your interests are concerned? When your son, or even your ox, falls into a well?1 Palestine abounds in unprotected cisterns, wells and pits. Wetst. quotes from the Mishna, Si in puteum bos aut asinus filius aut filia. The argument is that what the Pharisees allowed themselves for their own benefit must be allowed to Christ for the benefit of others. Their Sabbath help had an element of selfishness; His had none.

The reading probably comes from 13:15. The correction was doubly tempting: 1. because seemed rather to spoil the fortiori argument; 2. because is more naturally coupled with . Comp. Deu 22:4. The reading (D) for has a similar origin, while is a conjecture as the supposed original of both and . The evidence is thus divided: A B A G D M S U V G D L etc., e f g Syrr., Cyr-Alex.- K L X , a b c i Syr-Sin. Vulg. Arm. Aeth. See WH. 2. App, p. 62; Sanday, App. to Grk. T. p. 120. The before ( A, Vulg.) is probably an insertion.

Note the Hebraistic construction instead of , …, ;

6. . stronger than (ver. 3): The had no power to reply. Lk. is fond of noting that people are silenced or keep silence (20:26; Act 11:18, Act 12:17, Act 15:12, Act 22:2). For the compound verb comp. Rom 9:20; Jdg 5:29; Job 6:8, Job 32:12.

7-11. Discourse on choosing the Lowest Seats at Entertainents. We may suppose that the healing of the dropsical man preceded the meal. This now begins; and, as they settle round he tables, there is a manuvring on the part of some of the guests to secure the best places. To suggest a comparison between healing the dropsy and dealing with duplicem animi hydropem, superbi tumorem et pecuni sitim is almost as fancifulas supposing that falling into a well is meant to refer to the dropsy. The latter supposition (Aug. Bade) still finds favour.

7. . Comp. 5:36, 13:6, 18:2. The parable is not in the form of a narrative, but in that of advice, which is thus called because it is to be understood metaphorically. Christ is not giving counsels of worldly wisdom or of good manners, but teaching a lesson of humility. Every one before God ought to feel that the lowest place is the proper place for him. There is no need to suppose that this was originally a parable in the more usual sense, and that Lk. has turned it into an exhortation; still less that ver. 7 is a fictitious introduction to a saying of which the historical connexion had been lost.

. Sc. : comp. Act 3:5; 1Ti 4:16; Ecclus. 31:2. He directed His attention to this: not the same as its attracting or catching His attention. Syr-Sin. omits.

. In the mixture of Jewish, Roman, Greek, and Persian customs which prevailed in Palestine at this time, we cannot be sure which were the most honourable places at table. Josephus (Ant. xv. 2, 4) throws no light. But the Talmud says that, on a couch holding three, the middle place is for the worthiest, the left for the second, and the right for the third (Edersh. L. & T. 2. pp. 207, 494). Among the Greeks it was usual for each couch to have only two persons (Plat. Sym. 175 A, C), but both Greeks and Romans sometimes had as many as four an one couch. D. of Grk. and Rom. Ant. artt. Cena, Symposium, Triclinium; Beaker, Charicles, Sc. 6. Exc. 1.; Gallus, Sc. 9. Exc 1:2. Comp. Luk 20:46; Mat 23:6; Mar 12:39.

. They were choosing out for themselves; eligebant (b c d e ff2) rather than eligerent (Vulg.). The same thing seems to have taken place at the Last Supper (22:24), and the washing of the disciples feet may have been intended as a rebuke for this.

8. . Probably sing. in meaning; to a wedding-feast: see on 12:36. The meal at which his was said was an ordinary one, as is shown by (ver. 1), the common Hebrew phrase for a meal (ver. 15; Mat 15:2; Mar 3:20; Gen 37:25, 43:16; Exo 2:20, etc.). Jesus singles out a marriage, not perhaps because such a feast is a better type of the Kingdom of God, but because on such occasions there is more formality, and notice must be taken of the rank of the guests.

. Peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (7:36, 9:14, 24:30): see on 9:14.

9. . It is misplaced ingenuity to render, thee thyself also, dich auch selbst. Thee and him, te et illum (Vulg.), is right. His inviting both gave him the right to arrange both guests as he pleased. Contrast 2:35.

. For the change from subjunct. to fut. indic. comp. 12:58. See also after , ver. 10.

. Here AV. is inferior to all previous versions. Vulg. has locum in both places. Luth. omits in both. Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. have rowme in both: Wic. and Rhem. place in both. The lowest room means the lowest Place; but in that case give this man room should precede. Otherwise lowest room will seem to mean the bottom chamber. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 267.

Thou hast set my feet in a large room (Psa 31:8), i.e. in abundant space (Psa 18:19). Bishop Hall calls Pope Pius 11. as learned as hath sat in that zooms this thousand yeeres (Letters, Dec, 2.Eph_3). Davies, Bible English, p. 152. Comp. Ter. Heaut. iii. 3, 25. Sy. Jube hunc abire hinc aliquo. Cl. Quo ego hinc abeam? Sy. Quo? quo libet: da illis locom. Abi deambulatum. Cl. Deambulatum? Quo? Sy. Vah, quasi desit locu.

. The marks the contrast between the brief self-assumed promotion and the permanent merited humiliation. Comp. Pro 25:6, Pro 25:7, which Christ seemed to have had in His mind. The displaced guest goes from top to bottom, becausethe intermediate places have meanwhile been filled.

10. . Perhaps is here used , of the result rather than of the purpose: so that he will say to thee. But if the idea of purpose be retained, it is Christs purpose in giving the advice, not the purpose with which the hearer is to adopt the advice. There 1s no recommendation of the pride that apes humility, going to a low place in order to be promoted. See small print on 20:10.

The fut. indic. after is common in late Greek: 20:10; Mar 15:20; Joh 7:3, Joh 7:17:2; Act 21:24; Gal 2:4, etc. Win. 41. b. 1, p. 360; Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 109; Burton., 199.

. Perhaps Come up higher, i.e. to where the host is sitting: accede (a C f ff2 i q r) rather than asccende (Vulg.). Comp. (Pro 25:7). The verb is classical and frequent in LXX, esp. in Joshua of geographical description (11:17, 15:3, 6, 7, 18:12, 19:11, 12; Exo 19:23, etc.). The adv. occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only Heb 10:8; comp. (Neh 3:25), (Tobit 8:3), (Act 16:24; Heb 6:19), (Eph 4:9).

. Both words are characteristic: see on 1:15 and 6:30. The is unquestionably to be retained ( A B L X 1, 33 69, Syrr. Boh. Aeth.).

11. . One of our Lords repeated utterances: 18:14; Mat 23:12. In all three places AV. spoils the antithesis by varying the translation of , abase, humble. The saying here guards against the supposition that Christ is giving mere prudential rules of conduct or of good taste. Humility is the passport to promotion in the Kingdom of God. Comp. for the first half 10:15; and for the second half Jam 4:10; 1Pe 5:6. Note that while Lk. in both places has with the participle (see on 1:66), Mt. has .

12-14. The Duty of inviting Lowly Guests. The previous discourse was addressed to the guests (ver. 7): this is addressed to the host. It is a return for his hospitality. We cannot be sure that all the other guests were of the upper classes, and that this moved Jesus to utter a warning. Some of His disciples may have been with Him, and they were not wealthy. Still less may we assert that, if all the other guests were of the upper classes, this was wrong. All depends upon whether the motive for hospitality was selfish. But it is wrong to omit benevolence to the poor, in whose case the selfish motive is excluded. As before, we have a parable in a hortatory form; for Jesus is not merely giving rules for the exercise of social hospitality.

12. . But He was saying to him also that had bidden Him; qui invitaverat eum (d f), invitanti eum (), invitatori (a b c ff2 i l q r) : convivatori suo benigne rependens, (Grotius). For see on 11:37.

. Pres. imperat. Do not habitually call. It is the exclusive inivation of rich neighbours, etc., that is forbidden.

As distinct from , would specially apply to invitation by word of mouth: and the use of for invitations is very rare. Neither Vulg. nor any English Version before RV. distinguishes between here and , ver. 13, although in vv. 7, 8, 12 is rendered invitare and ver. 12 , vocare.

. With only. It is pleasant to entertain ones friends, seemly to entertain ones relations, advantageous to entertain rich neighbours. But these are not high motives for hospitality; and we must not let our hospitality end there.

. Godet remarks that this warning is playful. Prends-y garde: la pareille recevoir, cest un malheur viter! Car, une fois la retribution reue, cen est fait de la remuneration future. Comp. (Xen. Symp. i. 15).

13. . See on 5:29.

, . The former would not have the money, the latter would not have the strength, to give an entertainment. That is here generic, and that and are species under it, is improbable: comp. ver. 21. The are one class,-those wanting in means; and all the rest belong to another class,-those wanting in physical strength. Beyond this we need not specify; but in Plato we have 1 containing the other two classes, (Crito, p. 53 A). The is intensive: very maimed. For the command comp. ver. 21 and Neh 8:10.

14. , . The is strictly logical. Good deeds are sure to be rewarded either in this world or in the world to come. Those persons are blessed whose good deeds cannot be requited here, for they are sure of a reward hereafter. For see on 12:4. For in a good sense comp. Rom 11:35; 1Th 3:9; in a bad sense, Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30. The expresses retaliation, exact repayment. Comp. Arist. Eth. Nic. ix. 2. 5, where we have , , and .

. It is possible that there is here a reference to the doctrine of a double resurrection, first of the righteous, and then of all. Comp. 1Co 15:23; 1Th 4:16; Rev 20:5, Rev 20:6. If so, this is the (20:35; Act 4:2; Php 3:11; 1Pe 1:3: comp. Mar 9:9, Mar 9:12:25; Mat 17:9; Gal 1:1), which implies that some are for the present left upraised, as distinct from the (Act 17:32; 1Co 15:12, 1Co 15:21; Heb 6:2), which is the general resurrection. See Lft. on Php 3:11. But may be added merely to indicate the character of those who practise disinterested benevolence.

15-24. The Parable of the Great Supper. The identity of this with the Parable of the Marriage of the Kings Son, often called the Parable of the Wedding Garment (Mat 22:1-14), will continue to be discussed, for the points of similarity and of difference are both of them so numerous that a good case may be made for either view. But the context, as well as the points of difference, justifies a distinction. The parable in Mt. is a comment on an attempt to arrest Christ (21:46), and tells of rebels put to death for insulting and killing their sovereigns messengers; this is a comment on a pious remark, perhaps ignorantly or hypocritically made, and tells of discourteous persons who, through indifference, lose the good things to which they were invited. It is much less severe in tone than the other; and even in those parts which are common to the two has very little similarity of wording.

15. . The resurrection of the just suggests the thought of the Kingdom, and this guest complacently assumes that he will be among those who will enjoy it. With this introductory incident comp. 10:25-30, 12:13-15, 15:1-3.

. A Hebraism: comp. ver. 1; 2Sa 9:7, 2Sa 9:10; 2Ki 4:8, etc., and see on ver. 8. It points to the Jewish idea that the Messianic age will be inaugurated by a banquet and will be a prolonged festival (Isa 25:6). The reading (A H M S U V ) is a mere corruption of .

16. . But He said to him (Rhem.). And (Wic.) and Then (Tyn. Gen. AV.) obscure the fact that Christ is opposing the comfortable self-complacency of the speaker. What he says is correct, but the spirit in which he says it is quite wrong. Only those who are detached from earthly things, and treat them as of small account in comparison with the Kingdom of God, will enter therein.

. Was about to make a great supper, similar to that at which Jesus was now sitting. One might expect the mid., but comp. ver. 12; Act 8:2; Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 23. The are the Jews who observe the Law. In Mt. it is who made a marriage-feast for his son.

17. . The vocator, who was sent to remind them, according to custom, and not because they were suspected of unwillingness.1 Comp. Est 5:8, Est 6:14. This custom still prevails. To omit the second summons would be a grievous breach of etiquette, equivalent to cancelling the previous more general notification. To refuse the second summons would be an insult, which is equivalent among the Arab tribes to a declaration of war (Tristram, Eastern Customs, p. 82). The represents Gods messengers to His people, and specially the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Comp. Mat 11:28-30.

, . The true reading may be ( A D K L P R D) to follow (Syr-Sin.), dicere invitatis ut venirent (Vulg.). See small print note on 19:13. But the after (A P, Syr-Sin. Vulg, f) or before (D, a e) comes from Mat 22:4. * B L R, b c ff2 il q omit.

18. . Every word is full of point. The very beginning of such conduct was unexpected and unreasonable, and it lasted some time. There was no variation; it was like a prearranged conspiracy: they all pleaded that they were at present too much occupied to come. And there was not a single exception. The comes as a surprise at the end, there being no or at the outset to prepare for a contrast. This absolute unanimity prepares us for a joyous acceptance of the courteously repeated invitation. On the contrary, they begin to beg off, deprecari (Act 25:11; Act_2 Mac. 2:31). In Jos. Ant. vii. 8. 2. the verb is used, exactly as here, of excusing oneself from an invitation. They ought to have excused themselves when the first invitation came, if at all. Their begging off now was breaking their promise; and the excuses were transparently worthless. In Mt. there is no begging off. Those invited simply ; and some of them insulted, and even killed the vocatores. For of proceedings which last some time comp. 7:38, 12:45, 19:37, 45, 22:23, 23:3. Here the further idea of interruption is not present.

The expression is unique in Greek literature. Comp. , , , . We are probably to supply : (Philo, De Spec. Legg. 2. p. 311). Both and are also found. We might also supply . Less probable suggestions are , (Vulg. simul), , .

. A manifest exaggeration. He had already bought it, probably after seeing it; and now inspection could wait. For the phrase, which is classical, comp. 1Co 7:37; Heb 7:27; Jud 1:3; and the insertion Luk 23:17. Not in LXX.

. It is doubtful whether this is a Latinism, habe me excusatum, i.e. Consider me as one who has obtained indulgence.1 But certainly , which is enclitic, cannot be emphatic: Whatever you do about others, I must be regarded as excused. This would require , and before rather than after . Comp. (Xen. Cyr. iii. I. 35).

19. . I am on my way. He pleads no , and is too indifferent to care about the manifest weakness of his excuse. That he had bought the oxen on approval is not hinted. Both these two seem to imply that they may possibly come later, if the host likes to wait, or the feast lasts long enough. Hence the hoses declaration ver. 24.

20. . He is confident that this is unanswerable. See On ver. 26 When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go out in the host, neither shall he be charged with any business: he shall be free at home one year (Deu 24:5). Comp. Hdt.

21. The (ver. 18) probably means more than three. But three suffice as examples. Some said that they would not come now; others declared that they could not come at all. Comp. the parable of the Pounds, where three servants are samples of the whole ten, and represent two classes (19:16-21).

. Not because his anger makes him impatient; but because he has no intention of putting off anything to please the discourteous persons who have insulted him. He goes on with his arrangements at once.

. We have the same combination Isa 15:3. This use of is late: Act 9:11, Act 9:12:10; Ecclus. 9:7; Tobit 13:18. A lane resembles a stream; and the original sense of is the rush or flow of what is in motion. See Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 16. The two words combined stand for the public places of the town, in which those who have no comfort able homes are likely to be found. Comp. 1Co 1:26-28.

, … The Jews who do not observe the Law; the publicans and sinners. These were not asked simply because the others refused, and in order to fill the vacant places. They would have been asked in any case; but the others were asked first. They both live in the city: i.e. both are Jews. But those who respected the Law had a prior claim to those who rebelled against it. The similarity of wording shows the connexion with the preceding discourse (ver. 13); and therefore Bengels attractive distinction is probably not intended. He points out that the poor would get no other invitation; the maimed would not be likely to many; the blind could not go to see farms; and the lame would not go to prove oxen. Contrast Mat 22:9, Mat 22:10.

. See on 2:27. It is assumed that they can be brought in at once, without formal invitation. They are not likely to refuse. The mixture of guests of all classes is still seen at Oriental entertainments.

22. , . He executes the order, and then makes this report. There is no , and we are not to suppose that he had anticipated his masters order; which would have been audacious officiousness, and could hardly have been done without his masters knowledge.

. Comp. ver. 9. No such expression is found in Mat 22:10. It is added because the servant knows that his master is determined to fill all the places, and that the banquet cannot begin till this is done.

23. . Hedges( = I fence in): Mat 21:33 ; Mar 12:1. Just as represent the public roads inside the city, so the public roads outside the city; and this command is invitation to the heathen.

. By persuasion. A single servant could not use force, and those who refused were not dragged in. Comp. Mar 6:45 |7verbar; and (24:29; Act 16:15). The text gives no sanction to religious persecution. By showing that physical force was not used it rather condemns it.

. Nec natura nec gratia patitur vacuum (Beng.). We are not told the result of this third invitation; but we may conclude that the Gentiles fill the void which the unbelief of the Jews has left (Rom 11:25). In Mt. the result of the second invitation is , and there is no third. Augustine interprets this third summons as a call to heretics, which cannot be correct.

24. . Solemn introduction of the main point of the parable. The transition from sing. () to plur. () is variously explained. (1) That some of the (ver. 21) are present and are included in the address. (2) That there is a transition from the parable to its application, and Christ speaks half as the host to his servant and others, and half in His own person to the Pharisee and his guests. (3) That the host addresses, not only the servant, but all who may hear of what he has done. In favour of (2) we must not quote 11:8, 15:7, 10, 16:9, 18:14; Mat 21:43. In all these places it is Jesus who is addressing the audience; not a person in the parable who sums up the result. Here the and the show that the latter is the case. In Mt. the conclusion to the parable is , (22:14), and these are the words of Christ, not of the .

25-35. Warnings against Precipitancy and Half-heartedness in Following Christ. The Parables of the Rash Builder, the Rash King, and the Savourless Salt. The section has been called The Conditions of Discipleship. These are four. 1. The Cross to be borne (25-27; Mat 10:37, Mat 10:38). 2. The Cost to be counted (28-32). 3. All Possessions to be renounced (33). 4. The Spirit of Sacrifice to be maintained (34, 35; Mat 5:13; Mar 9:49).

The journeying continues, but we are not told the direction; and a large multitude is following. They are disposed to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the crisis of the Kingdom is at hand. They therefore keep close to Him, in order not to miss any of the expected glories and blessings. This fact is the occasion of the address. They must understand that following Him involves great deal. Like the guest in the Pharisees house (ver. 15), they have no realized what the invitation to enter the Kingdom implies.

25. Now there were going with Him, of what continued for some time. Comp, 7:11, 24:15. Elsewhere only Mar 10:1 of people assembling, but often in LXX (Gen 13:5, Gen 14:24, Gen 18:16, etc.).

26. , …. Does not hate them so far as they are opposed to Christ. The context and the parallel passages (Mat 6:24, Mat 10:37) show that the case supposed is one in which choice must be made between natural affection and loyalty to Christ. In most cases these two are not incompatible; and to hate ones parents as such would be monstrous (Mat 15:4). But Christs followers must be ready, if necessary, to act towards what is dearest to them as if it were an object of hatred. Comp. Joh 12:25. Jesus, as often, states a principle in a startling way, and leaves His hearers to find out the qualifications. Comp. 6:29, 30; Mat 19:12. The here is a comment, whether designed or not, on in ver. 20. Comp. 18:29.

. Not merely his carnal desires, but his life (9:24, 12:23); all his worldly interests and affections, including life itself. Nec tamen sufficit nostra relinquere, nisi relinquamus et nos (Greg. Mag. Hom. 32.). So that is (9:23) carried to the uttermost.

. The emphasis is on , not on , which is enclitic. He may be following Me in some sense, but he is no disciple of Mine. Would any merely human teacher venture to make such claims? Syr-Sin. omits v. 27.

27. . Comp. 9:23; Mat 10:38, Mat 10:16:24; Mar 8:34. Only here and Joh 19:17 is used of the cross; here figuratively, there literally. Carrying his own cross would be a familiar picture to many of Christs hearers. Hundreds had been crucified in Galilee for rebellion under Judas the Gaulonite (a.d. 6). See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 102.

In Late Gk. seems to be more common than , when the carrying is figurative. LXX of 2Ki 18:14; Job 21:3. It is specially common in the later versions of Aq. Sym. and Theod. All three have it Isa 40:11, 66:12; Jer 10:5: and both Sym. and Theod. have it Pro 9:12, Isa 63:9. But in none of these places does it occur in LXX.

28-33. Two Parables upon Counting the Cost: the Rash Builder and the Rash King. Comp. Mat 20:22; Mar 10:38. It is possible that in both parables Jesus was alluding to recent instances of such folly. It was an age of ostentatious buildng and breckless warfare. The connexion with what precedes () seems to be that becoming a disciple of Christ is at least as serious a matter as any costly or dangerous undertaking.

28. . For which of you (see on 11:5), if he wishes.

. In both parables (ver. 31) this represents long and serious consideration. The matter cannot be settled off-hand Comp. Virg. Aen. x. 159.

. Calculates ( = calculus). In class. Gk. commonly in mid. of voting. Comp. Rev 13:18: not in LXX. Neither not occur again in N.T., but is fairly common in LXX, and is very rare in Greek literature.1 In LXX occurs (1Ki 9:25); also in Aq. and Sym. See Suicer, .

29. . Not having the means to finish. For comp. Deu 32:45; 1Ki 14:15 ; 2Ch 4:5; 2Ch_2 Mac. 15:9; Dan. 3:40 (Theod.). Not elsewhere in N.T.

30. . Contemptuous: 5:21, 7:39, 13:32, where see reff. The lesson conveyed is not so much, It is better not to begin, than to begin and fail, as, It is folly to begin without much consideration.

31. . To be taken together: to engage with another king for the purpose of war. The verb. is intrans., as 1 Mac. 4:34; Mal_2 Mac. 8:23, 14:17; and often in Polyb. The more common expression is (Jos. Ant. vi. 5. 3: so also in Polyb.). Comp. confligere.

. Equipped with ten thousand, a meaning which readily flows from clad in, invested with. Comp. 1:17; Rom 15:29 ; 1Co 4:21 ; Heb 9:25; Jud 1:14. The very phrase occurs 1 Mac. 4:29.

32 . See small print on 5:36.

[] . Asks for negociations with a view to peace. The is omitted in B (? homotel.), and the meaning will then be, negociates for peace. B K P have for (perhaps from ver. 28). Comp. 19:42 and examples in Wetst. There is a remarkable parallel to this second parable Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 8.

33. This verse shows the futility of asking what the tower means, and who the king with the twenty thousand Isa_2 These details are part of the framework of the parables, and by themselves mean nothing. The parables as a whole teach that to become Christs disciple involves something which ought to be well weighed beforehand. This something was explained before, and is shown in another form here, viz. complete self-renunciation.

. Renounceth all his own belongings, the chief of which were specified ver. 26. See on 9:61 and 8:3. All disciples must be ready to renounce their possessions. Many of the first disciples were called upon actually to do so. Comp. the sarcasm of Julian : In order that they may enter more easily into the Kingdom of Heaven in the way which their wonderful law bids them, I have ordered all the money of the Church of Edessa to be seized (Ep. 43.). Note the characteristic and . Comp. 5:11, 28.

It is very forced to put a full stop a , and make two independent sentences. Such is the case therefore with all of you. Whoever renounceth not, etc.

MSS. vary much as to the order of the three words .

34, 35. The Spirit of Sacrifice. The similitude respecting salt was probably uttered more than once, and in more than one form. Comp. Mat 5:13; Mar 9:50. The salt is the self-sacrifice spoken of vv. 26, 27, 33. The figure of salt is not found in O.T., but comp. Job 6:6.

34. . The ( B L 69, Boh.) perhaps refers to previous utterances: Salt, therefore (as I have said before), is good. Nihil utilius sale et sole (Plin. H. N. xxxi. 9, 45, 102).

. The ( B L , Vulg. codd. Syr., Bede) must be preserved. But if even the salt. In Mat 5:13 there is no . Note the characteristic , and see small print on 3:9.

In LXX and N.T. is the common form, with as v.l. in good MSS. In class. Gk. prevails.

In class. Gk. is I am foolish (Eur. Med. 614); in bibl. Grk. has this meaning (Rom 1:22; Mat 5:13), being I make foolish (1Co 1:20). Mk. has . Vulg. has evanuerit; a d e infatuatum fuerit.

; Quite impossibly Tyn. and Cran. have What shall be seasoned ther with? From meaning simply prepare, came to be used of preparing and flavouring food (Col 4:6).

35. It is futile to discuss what meaning is to be given to the land and the dunghill. They do not symbolize anything. Many things which have deteriorated or become corrupt are useful as manure, or to mix with manure. Savourless salt is not even of this much use: and disciples without the spirit of self-devotion are alike it. That is the whole meaning.1 If this saying was uttered only once, me may prefer the connexion here to that in the Sermon on the Mount. Mk. so far agrees with Lk. in placing it after the Transfiguration. But all three arrangements may be right.

. The word is one of many which seem to be of a colloquial character, and are common to N.T. and the comic poets. See Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. PP. 72-76. In N.T. only here. Comp. 13:8.

. A solemn indication that attention to what has been said is needed, and will be rewarded. It is another of Christs repeated sayings. See on 8:8.

Found in Luke alone.

AV. Authorized Version.

RV. Revised Version.

Vulg. Vulgate.

Aug. Augustine.

Wetst. Wetstein.

A A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.

Syrr. Syriac.

Arm. Armenian.

om. omit.

Cod. Sinaiticus, sc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.

B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 3, etc., p. 86).

D D. Cod. Bezae, sc. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

L L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

Latt. Latin.

1 There is possibly a reference to the wording of the fourth commandment, In which son stands first among the rational creatures possessed, and ox first among the irrational (Deu 5:14). But comp. Exo 21:33.

G G. Cod. Harleianus, sc. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.

M M. Cod. Campianus, sc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

S S. Cod. Vaticanus, sc. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel.

U U. Cod. Nanianus, sc. x. In the Library of St. Marks, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel.

K K. Cod. Cyprius, sc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

X X. Cod. Monacensis, sc. ix. In the University Library at Munich. Contains 1:1-37, 2:19-3:38, 4:21-10:37, 11:1-18:43, 20:46-24:53.

Sin. Sinaitic.

Aeth. Ethiopic.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

Edersh. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

Luth. Luther.

Tyn. Tyndale.

Cov. Coverdale.

Gen. Geneva.

Wic. Wiclif.

Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).

Win. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek (the page refers to Moultons edition).

Burton. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses.

C

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sc. 5. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1:2-2:5, 2:42-3:21, 4:25-6:4, 6:37-7:16, or 17, 8:28-12:3, 19:42-20:27, 21:21-22:19, 23:25-24:7, 24:46-53.

These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T.

Boh. Bohairic.

1 The form seems to be a mere misspelling of (Tobit 14:2; 2 Mac. 8:24 A V); but it is well attested. WH. ii. App. p. 151.

1 Vocatores Suos ostendenti, ut diceret a quibus invitatus esset (Plin. N. H. xxxv. 10. 36. 89). Comp. Suet Calig. 39.; Sen. De Ira, iii. 37. 3.

R R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sc. 8. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 18-36, 39, 6:49-7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:15, 42-56, 22:71-23:11, 38-51. By a second hand 15:19-21.

Jos. Josephus.

1 Invitas tunc me, cum scis, Nasica, vocasse. Excusatum habeas me rogo: cno domi.-(Mart. ii. 79.

Beng. Bengel.

1 Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verb. 24., and Apoll. Dysc. De Adv. p. 532, 7, seem to be almost the only quotations. The Latin renderings here are ad perficiendum (f Vulg.), ad consummandum (a r), ad consummationem (e), ad perfectum (d).

2 Those who insist on explaining the king with the twenty thousand commonly make him mean Satan. But would Christ suggest that we should come to terms with Satan? To avoid this difficulty others regard the as representing God. But would Christ place the difference between the power of God and the power of man as the difference between twenty thousand and ten thousand? Contrast the ten thousand talents and the hundred pence ( Mat 18:24, Mat 18:28). See on 12:5 and 16:1.

. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, sc. viii. In the Library of the Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains 1:1-9, 19-23, 27, 28, 30-32, 36-66, 1:77-2:19, 21, 22, 33-39, 3:5-8, 11-20, 4:1, 2, 6-20, 32-43, 5:17-36, 6:21-7:6, 11-37, 39-47, 8:4-21, 25-35, 43-50, 9:1-28, 32, 33, 35, 9:41-10:18, 21-40, 11:1, 2, 3, 4, 24-30, 31, 32, 33.

1 For this savourless salt in Palestine see Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo te Jerusalem, pp. 161 ff. (quoted by Morison on Mar 9:50); also Thomson, I saw large quantities of it literally thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot of men and beasts (Land & Book, p. 381).

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

the Lament for Those Who Would Not

Luk 13:31-35; Luk 14:1-6

Our Lord was at that time in Perea, in the jurisdiction of Herod, who probably desired to get rid of Him, lest His presence should introduce political complications. Our Lord saw through and exposed his stratagem. How awful to be read by the light of divine purity! He also kept His eye on heavens dial-plate, and knew that He was immortal till His work was done.

Jerusalem was clearly indicated as the scene of His death; and the city was already so deeply dyed with martyr blood that it would hardly have been congruous for Him to suffer anywhere else. Note that pathetic wail of disappointed love. Gods brooding love desires to interpose between us and the hovering peril; but we have the awful power to neglect or reject the covering wings of the Shechinah. See Rth 2:12 and Psa 91:4.

In Luk 14:1-6 we have a specimen of Christs table-talk, which He continues through the Luk 14:24. Though He knew that He was being watched, nothing could stanch His power and love. If men care for their beasts, how much more will Christ care for men!

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

The Parable Of The Great Supper — Luk 14:1-24

And it came to pass, as He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched Him. And, behold, there was a certain man before Him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And He took him, and healed him, and let him go; 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? And they could not answer Him again to these things. And He put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when He marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Then said He also to him that bade Him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. 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. Then said He unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go 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. So that servant came, and showed 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 the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, diat my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper- Luk 14:1-24.

Once more we find our Lord invited out to dinner. In this instance, one of the chief Pharisees is His host. Whether he asked Jesus to dine with him and some of his friends because of a genuine interest in Him and His message, or whether he simply did it cut of curiosity, or in order to criticize His words and behavior, we are not told. In any case, Jesus accepted the invitation, and as usual He was soon the real Host rather than just a special guest. Wherever He went men had to recognize His superiority, although He was ever meek and lowly in heart. There was something so compelling about His words and His bearing that even His enemies had to acknowledge the authority with which He taught.

The other guests on this particular occasion consisted of a number of lawyers and Pharisees who were watching Jesus intently, eager to find something against Him. The opportunity soon came, for there was a poor, distressed man present on that Sabbath day, who was afflicted with the dropsy. To him the Lords heart went out in pity and compassion. Evidently the sick man was hopeful that the Lord would do something for him, and he was not disappointed, for Jesus turned to the other guests and asked, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? He knew their prejudices, and how they had found fault with Him on many previous occasions for freeing people from their diseases on the Sabbath. They were far more concerned about outward ceremonies than about the needs of a man, but when the Lord spoke directly to them, they did not commit themselves audibly. When they did not answer Him, Jesus, we are told, took the man and healed him and let him go. The Lord knew what was in their hearts; so turning to them He asked: 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? They would consider it quite proper and right to deliver one of their beasts from a calamity even on the Sabbath, but they would have him ignore the needs of troubled and distressed humanity. They could not answer Him as to these things.

As there was no response on the part of the baffled lawyers and Pharisees, Jesus next addressed Himself to the guests as a whole. He observed how each one sought to obtain the best places at the table. We read, And He put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when He marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. He was suggesting merely that others should do as He had done. He who was entitled to the highest place of all came from the Fathers house down to this earth. Here He took the lowest place; but in Gods due time He was given the highest place where today He sits on the right hand of the Father. It is He who teaches us these lessons of humility, and what a rebuke they are to our pride! We are always looking for recognition, and we feel hurt if we do not have it; but our Lord was ever ready to take the lowest place. Surely this should put us to shame. Next we find that the Lord not only instructed the guests, but also as He was looking about He saw the kind of persons who were present. He addressed His host and, indirectly, all the guests: Then said He also to him that bade Him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. Is not that one of the reasons we select certain guests? When we give a dinner, most of us go over the list and determine who are likely to return the compliment by inviting us to their homes when they put on a similar affair. This is the accepted procedure in the world, but it should not be practised by those who profess to follow Christ. He said, When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. This is the first resurrection-the resurrection of life when all who have died in the Lord will rise and appear before the judgment-seat, there to be rewarded according to the deeds done in the body.

It is evident that the instruction given by Jesus at that table so impressed one man that he was carried away with a holy enthusiasm which led him to exclaim, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God! That is, if the kingdom of God is the sphere where all seek the lowest place, and where the poor and disfigured are assured of a glad welcome, it must be indeed a great privilege to participate in such a wondrous fellowship.

In reply Jesus related the parable of the Great Supper to show that there are few comparatively who are willing to avail themselves of the invitation to eat bread in the kingdom of God. He told of a certain man who made a great feast, and at supper time he sent his servant to call the invited guests. But all with one consent began to make excuse. This is the way men treat the gospel invitation. The natural man has no desire for the things of God. The privilege of a place at the great supper of salvation means nothing to him. For him the feast is spread in vain. It is only when Gods Spirit works in the heart and conscience of a man that he is ready to enter and sit down at the gospel feast. When in love God spread the feast for Israel, they would not go in. It is just as true of many Gentiles today. I do not know of anything else in which men are in such agreement. They are not in agreement on political questions or on religious questions, but they do not want Christ, and do not want to submit their lives to the Saviour whom God has provided until they are convicted by the Holy Spirit of their lost, needy state.

And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go 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. Trivial excuses indeed and utterly foolish. At last came a man who felt that he had an absolutely unshakable alibi. He said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. How many men allow the wife to come between the Lord and them, and how many wives allow the husband to come between the Lord and them. So that servant came, and showed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry-Stop there! Does God become angry with men? Scripture tells us, God is angry with the wicked every day. When one deliberately spurns His Son, His heart is filled with holy indignation. God loves His Son and He desires to see men honor the Son even as they honor the Father.

Rejecting in his anger those who spurned his feast, the master bade his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. So, following the setting aside of Israel, the gospel invitation has gone out widely, but the house is not filled yet. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. It is dispensational. The message first came to the Jews, and they refused it, and then it was carried to the Gentiles. The apostle Paul says, They will hear it, but not all of them. Throughout the centuries there have been millions who have accepted the invitation, but the house is not filled yet. There is still room for more, and the invitation is extended to all who are sin-sick and sad. The master sent his servant to compel them to come in. The Servant here is the Holy Spirit. It is He alone who can compel men to come to Christ. In Matthews account of the marriage feast it is the servants who gave the invitation. They can only bid men come; they cannot compel. But here it is the Servant, not servants. He compels by convicting men of sin and impressing upon them their need of a Saviour.

Why was I made to hear Thy voice

And enter whilst theres room,

When thousands make a wretched choice

And rather starve than come?

Twas the same love that spread the feast

That gently forced me in;

Else had I still refused to taste

And perished in my sin.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Luk 14:10

I. To take the “lowest room” towards God is: (1) To be content simply to take God at His word, without asking any questions or raising any doubts, but to accept at His hand all that God graciously vouchsafes to give you-the pardon and the peace; to be a receptacle of love, a vessel into which, of His free mercy, He has poured and is pouring now, and will go on to pour for ever, the abundance of His grace. (2) Next, it is to be just what God makes you-to rest where He places you-to do what He tells you-only because He is everything and you nothing-conscious of a weakness which can only stand by leaning, and an ignorance which needs constant teaching-to be always emptying, because God is always filling.

II. How are we to take the lowest room towards man? It is quite useless to attempt to be humble with a fellow-creature, unless you are really humble with God. Do not put yourself up into the chair of judgment upon any man; but rather see yourself as you are; everybody is inferior in something-far worse than that man in some things. So your words will not grow censorious; and if you sit low enough, you will be sure to speak charitably. Sympathy is power, but there is no sympathy where there is self. Self must be destroyed to make sympathy. Do not mistake patronising for love. When you comfort sorrow, look well to it that you touch another’s grief with a reverential hand. And sin-whatever you do, never treat sin with roughness or contempt. The Pure and Holy One never did that. He dealt with the worst sinner delicately. If you ask, “How am I to go lower?” among the thousand rules I select one-exalt Christ. If Christ do but occupy His right place in your heart, you will be sure in the presence of that majesty and of that beauty to go and sit down in the lowest room.

J. Vaughan, Sermons, 1867, p. 37.

References: Luk 14:10.-T. Birkett Dover, A Lent Manual, p. 11; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 251; G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, p. 270; G. H. Wilkinson, Church of England Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 310.

Luk 14:11

This is one of the sayings which we gather from the Gospels to have been frequently in our Lord’s mouth, and this means that it had some variety of application-now graver, now lighter. In the passage which we just read, it was His comment on an exhibition of what we should call vanity. On the surface He seemed to point not so much to the spiritual fault which was at the root of the pushing for the first seats, as to its futility, to the punishment which certainly and speedily overtook. The first seat, so claimed, could only be held for a moment, till the host came. Then the guests would be sorted; to have placed himself too low would bring credit, and to have placed himself too high humiliation.

I. What our Lord said was typical. It was a parable in the sense that it was of a character He spoke. This was only a trait of it. Those who chose the chief places at the feast were the same class of persons as in other and more serious ways thrust themselves forward-“trusted in themselves and despised others.” And it was a parable, in the sense that while speaking of an outward act and of an immediate and visible reward, He was thinking of the whole view of human life, and of the objects and rewards of human endeavour of which those were a type. It was a parable of the false and of the true estimate of greatness, of the reversal of human judgments, of the blindness and littleness of human ambitions.

II. Humility is the necessary and inevitable attitude of a Christian soul-of a soul which keeps in sight the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, which knows itself a child of God, fallen, lost, yet restored and pardoned in Him. This attitude is never lost. It affects all relations. As between themselves men vary of course greatly. God has ordered human life, and all its natural motives and situations are part of His providence. He does not wish us to blind our reason, and to say that that is good which conscience and common sense tell us to be mean and bad. He makes the desire to excel, the pleasure of success, to be the springs of energy which are generally necessary to a manly and useful life. We may sometimes puzzle ourselves if we try in theory to make it clear how such judgments on others and such natural ambitions can harmonise with the spirit of perfect humility. But the honest heart solves the difficulty in action.

E. C. Wickham, Wellington College Sermons, p. 188.

Luk 14:12-14

Christ’s Counsel to His Host.

Are ordinary dinner-parties wrong, then, in the eye of Christ, our Law-giver? Does He really condemn the custom of having our friends and social equals to dine with us, and really demand that we entertain instead, if we entertain at all, only those who are conventionally below us-only the poor and destitute, the most melancholy objects, the most miserable creatures we can find?

I. With respect to the passage before us, the veiled message, the enfolded spirit of which I should like to penetrate and seize, there are those, doubtless, who will maintain that it needs no explanation, that what our Lord taught at the Pharisee’s table was just this: that His host should give up entertaining his well-to-do relatives and friends, who were able to return the compliment, and should devote himself instead to the entertainment of the “poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind,” by which he would secure a greater recompense. This, they would affirm, is what He called upon the man to do, as the best and blessedest thing; but it is not for us to do nowadays. With some other of His counsels and admonitions, it cannot be carried out by us; is not suitable or applicable to the present time. In reply to which I say, that it never was suitable or applicable, and hence could not have been intended by Christ. He never defied or contravened human nature: how could He? God created human nature, in all lands and ages, to go out after intercourse with kindred spirits, with persons of our own tastes and habits, of our own rank or order; and hence I know, and am sure, that Christ the Son of man never meant what, on a superficial glance, He seems to be meaning here. The question is one not at all of social fellowship, but of expenditure; and of the objects to which our great expenditure should be devoted. When you would lavish trouble and money, says Christ, let the lavishing be not for your own personal gratification, but for the blessing of others.

II. But the admonition of the text reaches beyond dining; it applies generally to the habit of laying out freely, profusely, unstintedly, in order to any comfort, profit, or enlargement for ourselves, and exhorts us instead to confine such laying out to generous and benevolent projects-to the work of giving pleasure, of rendering service, of communicating good, which is the very principle and Spirit of Him who, when He poured out His soul unto death, did it to bring us to God. Now this has its own peculiar and very grand recompense, says Christ, from which they who are mainly intent on expending for themselves are shut out, in the blessedness of which they can have no share. It finds its recompense in the “resurrection of the just.” Yes, in every resurrection out of evil into good condition, out of disorder and wrong into righteousness and order that is accomplished on earth, it is reward. But there is something besides, most present and near; for there is always a resurrection of the just within us, as often as we do anything with outlay, for love and goodness. It begets infallibly a revival, a fresh quickening and expansion of the spirit of love and goodness; and herein is the constantly-abiding, ever-returning recompense of those whose gracious habit it is to look not upon their own things, but upon the things of others. Their truest and best reward lies in the heavenly quality and capacity that is being daily fostered and deepened within them.

S. A. Tipple, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 280.

References: Luk 14:12-24.-T. T. Lynch, Three Months’ Ministry, p. 145. Luk 14:14.-Parker, Wednesday Evenings at Cavendish Chapel, p. 64. Luk 14:15-24.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxviii., p. 387. Luk 14:16.-H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Waterside Mission Sermons, p. 21. Luk 14:16, Luk 14:17.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 225; T. Birkett Dover, A Lent Manual, p. 16.

Luk 14:16-24

The Great Supper.

Note:-

I. The feast. This is the Gospel which God has provided for mankind, sinners. It is a feast (1) in respect of the excellence of the provision which it sets before us; (2) in respect of abundance, for the supply is inexhaustible; (3) in respect of fellowship; (4) in respect of joy.

II. The invited guests. We have received the invitation. This, therefore, is not a mere matter of antiquarian interest, or of curious exegetical importance. It concerns our own spiritual and immortal welfare; for, though the invitation is given through the instrumentality of a servant,-the preacher,-it comes from the great God Himself, and on that account it is not to be trifled with or despised.

III. Look at the reception given by those first invited to the call which had been addressed to them: “They all with one consent began to make excuse.” These excuses were all pretexts. Perhaps they deluded themselves into the belief that they were acting in good faith; but if they had gone deeper down into their hearts, they would have found that they were deceiving themselves, and putting forth as excuses things which, if they had been earnestly determined to go to the feast, would not have kept them for a moment.

IV. Those who persistently decline to come to the feast shall be for ever excluded from its enjoyment. The rejecters of Christ are themselves eternally rejected of Christ.

V. Finally, this parable reveals to us the fact, that, notwithstanding the rejection of this invitation by multitudes, God’s house shall be filled at last. Heaven shall be fully occupied with God’s redeemed people, and the saved shall not be few.

W. M. Taylor, The Parables of Our Saviour, p. 290.

References: Luk 14:16-24.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol i., p. 201; Ibid., vol. ix., p. 270; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 341; H. Calderwood, The Parables, p. 98; A. B. Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 325.

Luk 14:17

Reasons for Embracing the Gospel.

I. You believe that the Gospel is true; perhaps upon no one point are your convictions so full and clear and decided. It matters not whence this conviction has been derived; we have the fact, and here we take our stand and make our appeal. Why not embrace it? “Come; for all things are now ready.”

II. While you admit the Gospel record to be true, you at the same time approve of the entire subject-matter of its testimony. The human mind, unclouded by prejudice and unperverted by sophistry, is always in favour of the Gospel. If the Gospel is not only true, but if in all its principles and claims it is precisely what you feel it ought to be; nay, if you mean-certainly expect, sooner or later-to come upon the ground where it would put you, and be what it requires you to be,-why, we ask, in view of all that is intelligible in your convictions of the truth and reasonableness, why not embrace it?

III. Conscience, enlightened by the truth, requires you to embrace the Gospel, reproves you for not doing it, and heralds a painful retribution for refusing or neglecting to do it. Conscience may be stupid sometimes and not speak; but its voice, whenever heard, is clearly, decidedly, uniformly in favour of practical spiritual religion.

IV. You feel that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the very thing for need; that is, as you look at it carefully, study it in its different aspects, and examine closely its provisions, it is precisely adapted to all those wants which, as unsatisfied, are the causes of your disquietude and pain. You see and feel that it is the very hope your troubled spirit needs. You have no doubt that it is a good hope, a well-founded hope; why not embrace it and let your emancipated spirit go free?

E. Mason, A Pastor’s Legacy, p. 58.

Reference: Luk 14:17.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1354.

Luk 14:18

That God’s call is often disobeyed is a matter of fact, of which our consciences cannot pretend to be ignorant. But the nature of the excuses given is well worthy of our consideration.

I. One of these excuses arises from a feeling that our common work is not a matter of religion; and that therefore it is not sinful to neglect it. Idleness and vice are considered as two distinct things; and it is very common to say, and to hear it said, of such a one that he is idle, but that he is perfectly free from vice. Idleness is not vicious, perhaps, but it is certainly sinful; and to strive against it is a religious duty, because it is highly offensive to God. This is so clearly shown in the Parable of the Ten Talents, in that of the Sower and the Seed, and even in the account of the Day of Judgment, given by our Lord in the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew, that it cannot require a very long proof. In the description of the Day of Judgment, the sin for which the wicked are represented as turned into hell is only that they have done no good. It is not mentioned that they were vicious, in the common sense of the word; but they were sinful, inasmuch as they had not done what God commanded them to do.

II. Another excuse more nearly resembles the excuses made by the men in the parable: you do not attend to the call of God, because there is some other call which you like better. You complain, or rather you say to yourselves, that the work is very irksome to you, and you cannot see the use of it. It is likely enough that the work is irksome; for so corrupt is our nature that God’s will is generally irksome to us, because He is good and we are evil. But is this such an excuse as God will allow for not doing what He has commanded us? Is it not here rather that we should learn to practise our Saviour’s command, “Let a man deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me”? What is denying ourselves, but doing what we do not like, because it is the will of our Master? What is to take up our cross daily, but to find and to bear daily some hindrance in ourselves or others, which besets and would close up our path of duty? Against idleness, no less than against other sins, the Christian has the only sure means of victory. The natural evil inclination, the weak and corrupt flesh, still finds duty painful; but the regenerate spirit, born again of the Spirit of God, and sharing in its Father’s likeness, finds the will of its Father more pleasant than the flesh finds it painful; and so the will of God is done, and the man is redeemed from the bondage of sin and misery.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. ii., p. 93.

References: Luk 14:18.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x., No. 578; E. Blencowe, Sermons to a Country Congregation, vol. ix., p. 198; R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 2nd series, p. 154. Luk 14:22.-J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 1874, p. 263; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 129.

Luk 14:23

Acceptance of Religious Privileges Compulsory.

I. Consider what first of all presents itself to our thoughts-our birth into the world. Allow that this is a world of enjoyment, yet unquestionably it is a world of care and pain. Also, most men will judge that the pain on the whole exceeds the enjoyment on the whole. But whether this be so or not with most men, even if there be one man in the whole world who thinks so, that is enough for my purpose. It is enough if only there be one person to be found, who thinks sickness, disappointment, anxiety, affliction, suffering, fear, to be such grievous ills, that he had rather not have been born. If this be the sentiment only of one man, that man, it is plain, is, as regards his very existence, what the Christian is relatively to his new birth-an unwilling recipient of a gift. We are not asked whether we will choose this world, before we are born into it. We are brought under the yoke of it, whether we will or no; since we plainly cannot choose or not choose, before the power of choice is bestowed on us, this gift of a mortal nature.

II. Such is our condition as men; it is the same as Christians. For instance, we are not allowed to grow up before choosing our religion. We are baptized in infancy. Our sponsors promise for us. We find ourselves Christians; and our duty is, not to consider what we should do if we were not Christians, not to go about disputing, sifting the evidence for Christianity, weighing this side or that, but to act upon the rules given us, till we have reason to think them wrong, and to bring home to ourselves the truth of them, as we go on, by acting upon them-by their fruits on ourselves.

III. We have the remarkable facts (1) that whole households were baptized by the Apostles, which must include slaves as well as children. (2) The usage existed in the Early Church of bringing such as had the necessary gifts to ordination, without asking their consent. (3) Consider the conduct of the Church from the very first time any civil countenance was extended towards it, and you will have a fresh instance of the constraining principle of which I speak. What are national conversions, when kings submitted to the Gospel and their people followed, but going out into the highways and hedges, and compelling men to come in? And though we can conceive cases in which this urgency was unwisely, over-strongly, unseasonably, or too extensively applied, yet the principle of it is no other than that of the baptism of households mentioned in the Acts.

J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. iv., p. 52.

References: Luk 14:23.-J. Fraser, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 1; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. v., No. 227.

Luk 14:24

God’s Call to the Young.

I. God’s call, addressed to the soul of every man, is a call to him to be happy for ever; and this is the same thing as calling upon him to be holy, for holiness and happiness are one in God, and they are one also in the children of God. Holiness in God’s creatures consists in their drawing near to God and becoming like unto Him. No man hath seen God, however, at any time; but the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person man has seen; and although we now see Him no longer with our bodily eyes, yet with the story of His life and character handed down to us from those who did see and hear Him-with His Spirit ever dwelling amongst us, revealing Him to all those who desire Him-we do, for all practical purposes, see and know Him still.

II. As, then, Christ laboured all His life, beginning in His boyhood, to obey God’s special call to Him, so we can best imitate Christ by labouring all our lives to obey God’s special call to us. Now, this call is made known to us, not by a miracle, nor by a voice from heaven; but partly by the circumstances of our age and outward condition, and partly by the different faculties and dispositions of our minds. Generally, to all young persons God’s call is to improve themselves; but what particular sort of improvement He calls you to, that you may learn from the station in life in which He has placed you.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. ii., p. 86.

References: Luk 14:25, Luk 14:26.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 251; Ibid., vol. xxiv., p. 196; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. viii., p. 230. Luk 14:25-30.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxix., p. 90. Luk 14:26.-G. Dawson, The Authentic Gospel, p. 160. Luk 14:26, Luk 14:27.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 331. Luk 14:27-W. C. E. Newbolt, Counsels of Faith and Practice, p. 200. Luk 14:28-30.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 40; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1159. Luk 14:31, Luk 14:32.-Ibid. vol. xi., No. 632.

Luk 14:34

I. What is it in the spiritual life which answers to the influence of salt in the natural life? I answer: A certain deep, secret power of the Spirit of God, acting generally through the word, in the conscience, upon the intellect, the affections, the will of a man, whereby he is made and kept in a state of inward life and purity; and whereby, again, he is, among his fellowmen, with whomsoever he comes in contact a means and channel of good, of truth, of a sound state of holiness and happiness. The salt in man is the Divine part that is in him; a presence imbuing all his thoughts with God; and the salt which such men carry, the salt of the Church, is that expansive propagating power with which the truth is entrusted for God, that it may cleanse, change, save the whole earth.

II. For this holy property we are all responsible. For it is a thing greatly depending upon our use and cultivation of it. It can easily be diminished, and it can continually be increased. A very little sin, a very little carelessness, a very little worldly contact, a very little self-indulgence, a very little grieving of the Spirit of God, will impoverish it, vitiate it, neutralise it. It will lose its virtue, it will grow vapid, it will cease to be. But one true prayer, one act pleasing to God, one honouring of the Holy Ghost, will immediately quicken it, and give it a keener power. For it is very sensitive and very susceptible to all influence. The soul’s atmosphere is always affected, moment by moment.

III. It is God’s common law, that that which is best in its use, is also that which is worst in its abuse. The brine which does not cure, destroys. The same salt which fertilises the field can turn a garden into a desert. Just so it is with that mystic, hallowing, self-diffusing principle in heavenly life which is in the soul. Trifle with it, and it will go; and if it go, the emptiness will be greater than if it had never been. Shut it up, and do not use it; and by stagnation it will grow corrupt. Turn it away from the purpose for which it was implanted, and by retribution it will become your misery and your sin. Lose it, and it will be, at the last day, your heaviest condemnation. “Salt is good: but if the salt once lose his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?”

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 5th series, p. 245.

These words bring us at once, as Christian citizens, into contact with the most fearful and difficult problem of our times.

I. If there ever was a people since the first promulgation of the Gospel, who from their position, their political advantages, their commercial influence, ought to be able practically to fulfil the noble office of being the salt of the earth, it is our own nation: and in some measure I do trust we are answering to this character. Let us not conceal either side of the picture. We need encouragement as well as exhortation. To some extent we have held forth the word of truth, and are doing the work of evangelising the world. Some grains of the salt yet possess and exert their conserving and quickening power. But very many have lost their savour. In the midst of this Christian people there are large portions of the social body which are utterly without power for good, and not only so, but in themselves the subjects of moral and spiritual decay. These are the salt that has lost its savour.

II. With such salt in the physical world, the case, as our Saviour’s words go on to state, is hopeless. The mere material, once endued by God’s creative hand with vivid and salutary qualities, and having lost these qualities, no man may requicken or restore. And thus, too, it would be with mere animal life. The loss of vital power no human means can remedy. Of both of these we can say only, “The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away.” In neither case is there bestowed the gift of self-guidance, of conscious reflection and determinate action. In neither of them is there responsible free-will, able of itself to fall-able to seek His help from whom is every good gift, again to rise. But with man’s spirit; thank God, it is not so. Here, the salt may lose its savour, and be again seasoned. Here we are in a higher region of being altogether. Here God acts, according indeed to the same analogies, and consistently with the same unchangeable attributes, but by different and higher laws, belonging to the spiritual kingdom. And here it is not as in creation, where He carries on His mysterious agencies in secret alone. In the far nobler work of recreation and regeneration He condescends to accept His people as His fellow-workers. By persuasion, by preaching, by the ordinances of grace, all administered by human means, He is pleased to carry on the conversion of the souls of men, and the restoration to life and vigour of the dead and withered members of the Church.

H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. iii., p. 203.

Three times, and in three different connections, this memorable proverb is recorded in our Lord’s teaching-in each case in reference to the failure of that which was excellent and hopeful. In St. Matthew it is applied generally to the influence of His new people on the world; in St. Mark, to the danger to ourselves of the careless or selfish use of our personal influence; in St. Luke, to the conditions of sincere discipleship. But in all cases it contemplates the possible failure of religion to do its perfect work. There are temptations and mischiefs arising not of our religion itself, out of the position in which it places us and the things which it encourages in us. Let us take two or three examples.

I. “Who loved me,” says St. Paul, “and gave Himself for me.” There are hardly more affecting words in the New Testament, and they describe what must thrill through every man’s mind who believes in the Cross of Christ, just in proportion as he grasps its meaning. But it is not without reason that we are told that what should kindle his boundless devotion may be full of peril. It may touch the subtle springs of selfishness. Religious autobiography is not without warnings that the true and awful words, “What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” may be perverted into a narrow and timid care for it, worried with petty fears and scruples, or cares ignoble and degrading, because without interest in God’s great purposes without a generous trust in His wisdom and mercy, without sympathy for others.

II. Again, religion must be active; and towards the evils which are in the world it is bound to be hostile and aggressive. And yet this necessity shows us too often a religion, a very sincere and honest religion, which cannot avoid the dangers which come with activity and conflict. It sometimes seems to lose itself and its end in the energy with which it pursues its end.

III. Again, religion is a matter of the affections; and men may be led astray by their affections in religion as in other things. We must carry the remembrance of the awful saying of the text with us, not only in our hours of relaxation and enjoyment, but when we believe ourselves to be most intent and most sincere in doing our Master’s service.

Dean Church, Oxford University Herald, Dec. 16th, 1882.

References: Luk 14:34-35; D. Fraser, Metaphors of the Gospels, p. 1; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. x., p. 29. Luke 14-F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, p. 219.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 14

1. The Man with the Dropsy Healed on the Sabbath. (Luk 14:1-6)

2. The Wisdom of Humility. (Luk 14:7-11)

3. Recompensed in Resurrection. (Luk 14:12-14)

4. The Parable of the Great Supper. (Luk 14:15-24)

5. Conditions of Discipleship. (Luk 14:25-35.)

Luk 14:1-6

Again He heals on the Sabbath. In the house of a ruler, a Pharisee, they were watching Him. He had gone there to eat bread. What condescension! They were His enemies, yet He loved them. He healed the man with the dropsy. The question, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? was answered by the very power of God.

Luk 14:7-14

The parable which follows, also peculiar to Luke, emphasizes the wisdom of humility. The natural man with the pride of life as a governing principle loves self-exaltation. Abasement for him follows in judgment to come; but if man humbleth himself before God, exaltation will follow. He, the Son of Man, had humbled Himself and taken the lowest place. How great is His exaltation! Then He exhorts to seek recompense at the resurrection of the just. Here is a hint on the two resurrections, which are so clearly distinguished in Scripture. The first resurrection is the resurrection of the just and includes all the Saints of God. In that resurrection there will be a reward according to works, but no sinner can work to make himself worthy of that resurrection.

Luk 14:15-24

The parable of the great supper is distinct from the similar one in Mat 22:1-14. They were spoken at different occasions. The parable in Matthew has clearly marked dispensational aspects, such as the twofold offer to Israel, before and after the cross, the judgment upon Jerusalem and the calling of the Gentiles, etc. The primary object of the parable in Luke is also to show the unbelief of the Jews, especially the self-righteous Pharisees and the call of the publicans and harlots. God has mercifully provided the feast. The Kingdom had come nigh. All things are now ready. The Son of God had come in their midst. But the parable also looks forward to the finished work of the Cross. That work has made all things ready. The self-righteous among the Jews refused and brought their excuses. Then exactly that came to pass of which the Lord had spoken (Luk 14:12-14). The publicans and harlots, the poor, maimed, blind and lame came. They could not have the excuses of the self-righteous of the nation. The call of the Gentiles is also seen in this parable: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. The doom of the rejectors is seen in Luk 14:24. The great multitude, which followed Him then hears from His lips the conditions of true discipleship. Let no one say, as it has been said, that they are not binding today.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Chapter 7

The Sabbath Day: The Day Of Mercy

The Lord God declares by the prophet Isaiah

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it (Isa 58:13-14).

Our all-glorious Saviour made the sabbath a delight for many while he was upon the earth, and continues to make the gospel Sabbath, which the old, legal sabbath portrayed, a delight to sinners to this day.

Christ is our Sabbath; and we find delight in him. When a sinner is turned from his way, from his sin, from the pleasure of his depraved heart, and from this world to the Lord Jesus Christ, finding mercy, grace, salvation, and rest in him, he finds that Christ, in whom he rests, is a delight, a luxury, and that faith in him is an honour. Indeed, all who trust Christ, delight themselves in him, triumph over all their foes in him, and shall at last obtain the full heritage of the heavenly Canaan, called here the heritage of Jacob. For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

A Sabbath Day Miracle

During the time of our Lords earthly ministry, the sabbath day was used as a day for healing. By his example, our Saviour displayed that the Old Testament sabbath day was intended and designed by our God to portray this day of grace.

And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him (Luk 14:1). The Jews commonly held great, lavish feasts on their sabbath day. On this occasion our Lord was invited to the house of one of the chief of the Pharisees, one of the Sanhedrim, one of the primary, best known of that band of self-righteous legalists. Our Lord was not invited to the Pharisees house out of courtesy, but because these fine, law-keeping, sabbath-keeping religionists had hatched a plan to trap the Master. So they watched him.

And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy (Luk 14:2). These good, kind religious men baited their trap by setting a certain man before the Saviour who had the dropsy. Dropsy is an old term for congestive heart failure. This condition is accompanied by swelling, scanty urine, poor appetite, sluggishness, and debility. The swelling usually begins in the feet and ankles and proceeds up the legs towards the abdomen. It is fairly common among diabetics. In addition to the swelling, the bladder functions poorly, a person loses his appetite and becomes very sluggish. His swollen limbs become debilitating. After a while, it becomes obvious that he is terribly sick and will soon die, if something is not done to help him.

It is interesting that only Luke, the physician, records this miracle performed by our Lord. Perhaps he did so because in his day any man found in the condition of this man was doomed to a slow, painful death. There was no cure for him, at least no cure that could be wrought by the hands of men.

These men brought this poor, dying wretch to the Pharisees house for no other reason than to entrap the Son of God. They cared nothing for him. As religion always does, they were simply using him for their own purposes. But it is written, Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain (Psa 76:10). And their wrath soon showed forth our Saviours praise. These devils were but vassals, by whom the Lord of glory was pleased to bring a certain, chosen, dying man to him that he might show in that man the wondrous, saving power of his mercy, love and grace.

And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? (Luk 14:3) Though they never spoke a word, the Saviour answered them. He answered their thoughts. They were not merely dealing with a man. They were not attempting to trick a mere prophet. They were dealing with the God of Glory, trying to lay a trap for the omnipotent, omniscient God, and he lets them know it. The Lord Jesus knew exactly what they were up to. He asked them, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?

And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go (Luk 14:4). They held their peace, because they dared not answer. They were trapped by their own trap. They dared not say anything that might show any agreement with the Master. They could not say yes without consenting to what he was about to do. And they could not say no without denying that works of mercy were permitted on the sabbath day by Moses. Indeed, the sabbath day was designed to portray this great gospel day in which we live, this day of mercy and grace.

Once the Master had shamed these babblers into silence, he took the man with the dropsy and healed him. He who could dry up the Red Sea, calm the waves of the raging Galilee, and bring water out of a rock had no difficulty drawing a little water from this mans body. Immediately, the swollen limbs were made whole, perfectly healthy. Then he who was the real Master of Ceremonies in this Pharisees house dismissed the man from the table and company and the company of his foes; and he went home perfectly cured.

What a picture this is of our Saviours works of grace in chosen, redeemed sinners! He took him. He healed him. He let him go.

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? (Luk 14:5). Again, our Master answered the unspoken quibbles of this cruel, merciless, religious crowd that hated him, hated God, and hated men. They were obviously incensed by what he had done, incensed that a poor, dying man was made whole on the sabbath day. Yet, not one of them would allow his own ox or ass to drown on the sabbath day, if he could help it. Our Lords obvious, bold insinuation was this: You gentlemen obviously care much more for your property, for your own beasts than you do for a human being. And they could not answer him again to these things (Luk 14:6).

Other Sabbath Miracles

Did you ever notice how often our Lord chose to perform his miracles of mercy upon poor, needy souls on the sabbath day? In the gospels we are given six specific cases of cures wrought on the sabbath day. I need not remind you that man was created on the sixth day. Six is the number of man. Our Lord, by performing these six cures on the sabbath day, seems to be saying, The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath (Mar 2:27).

The case before us in Luke 14 is one. On the sabbath day our Saviour cast the devil out of a man (Luk 4:31-37). Luke 6 tells us of our Lord healing a mans withered hand on the sabbath day (Luk 6:6-11). In Luke 13 our Saviour healed a woman who had been plagued with a crippling infirmity for eighteen years (Luk 13:10-17). In John 5 we see our Saviour healing a poor, impotent man, a man who had been impotent for a long, long time (Joh 5:1-9). In John 9 our Lord heals a man born blind, again on the sabbath day (Joh 9:1-14).

There are three special, very instructive features about all of these six miracles that ought to catch our attention. First, they were all performed on the sabbath day. This day is the day of salvation. Oh, may it be for you the day of salvation. Then, you will call Christ our Sabbath and this his day of grace a delight. Second, each of these wonders was performed by Christ alone. Third, not one of these poor souls sought the Lords mercy.

In every example the Saviour was found of them that sought him not (Isa 65:1). The possessed man entreated Christ to leave him alone (Luk 4:34). The man with the withered hand did not think of cure (Luk 6:6). The infirm woman had no hope of healing (Luk 13:11). The man with the dropsy did not ask for the blessing (Luk 14:2). The impotent man did not seek Christ (Joh 5:5). It was unheard of that the eyes of a man born blind should be opened, and, therefore, he did not expect it (Joh 9:32). But the Lord of the Sabbath is not bound by men. Omnipotent grace is never withered. The arm of the Lord never waits for the will of the sinner (Rom 9:15).

The Lord Jesus Christ came into this world to save chosen sinners; and save them he will. He has redeemed them by his precious blood. He will save them by his omnipotent mercy. And he will do it without their aid, without their work, without their will, even without their desire. He does it freely!

Physicians never come to the sick until someone sends for them. Christ came to us, who sent not for him, which made him say, I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not (Isa 65:1). He came to us before we ever thought of coming to him. He sought us long before we sought him. He found us before we ever dreamed of finding him.

When the physician does come, he expects to be paid for his services, whether or not they are effectual. The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost (Luk 19:10); and he paid all the charge of his long journey.

The great Physician now is here,

The sympathizing Jesus!

He speaks the drooping heart to cheer

O hear the voice of Jesus!

Your many sins are all forgiven.

O hear the voice of Jesus!

Go on your way in peace to heaven,

And wear a crown with Jesus!

All glory to the dying Lamb!

I now believe in Jesus.

I love the blessed Saviours name,

I love the name of Jesus.

And when to that bright world above

We rise to be with Jesus,

Well sing around the throne of love,

His name, the name of Jesus!

William Hunter

Delightful Sabbath

In Isa 58:13-14 the prophet of God, with the inspired vision of prophecy, looks beyond the carnal, Jewish sabbath and sees in it a picture of Christ, who is the true Sabbath, and the blessed rest of faith in him[1]. When can we, when do we, Call the sabbath a delight. We can and do call the sabbath a delight only when we are made to experience Gods healing of our souls in Christ, only when we are brought to the blessed rest of faith in him who is our Sabbath, when we keep the sabbath of faith, ceasing from our own works and resting in Christ alone for our entire acceptance with God.

[1] This becomes obvious when we observe that Isaiahs exhortation Call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, should read, Call the sabbath a delight the Holy One of the Lord.

We need to understand that the sabbath God required the Jews to keep was only a temporary, typical ordinance, which represented Christ and our redemption by him. When the Lord God instituted sabbath keeping to the Jews in the legal dispensation, he gave two reasons for it.

First, the sabbath was to be kept as a symbol of Gods rest (Exo 20:8-11). It represented the completion of Gods creation and the satisfaction of God in his work. Though Gods work of creation has been marred by the sin and fall of our race, the sabbath day portrayed a blessed day of glorious rest called the times of restitution of all things (Act 3:21; Col 1:20; Eph 1:10), when all things shall be restored to God.

Second, the sabbath day was a constant reminder of Israels redemption out of Egypt. Hence, it was a picture of our redemption by Christ (Deu 5:15). In other words, the sabbath day, like all other aspects of the Mosaic law, was a picture prophecy of our perfect redemption by Christ. As the Jews rested on the seventh day of the week from all their works, so believers find perfect rest and peace in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Christ Our Sabbath

We can and will call the sabbath a delight only when we understand that Christ is our Sabbath. We do not observe a literal, legal sabbath day, because Christ is our Sabbath, and we rest in him. I know many who pretend to keep a literal sabbath day. Many try their best to delight in legal sabbath work. But I do not know a sabbatarian in the world who really delights in his attempts at sabbath keeping, not a single one. Every sabbatarian I know finds the yoke of their legal observance oppressive and galling. It is a spiritual flagellation they feel they must perform in order to be holy.

Sabbath keeping, like animal sacrifices, was a part of the Old Testament law. It has nothing to do with New Testament worship. I know that the sabbath day is frequently mentioned in the four gospels and the Book of Acts, during that transitional period in which the church of God passed from the Old Testament era into the New. However, it is always mentioned in connection with the Jews and Jewish worship in the temple, or in their synagogues. But it is mentioned only two times in all the Epistles (Romans through Revelation).

In Col 2:16-17 we read, Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Here the Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, forbids the observance of legal sabbath days in any form. He does so on the basis of the fact that in Christ Gods elect are entirely free from the law (Rom 7:4; Rom 10:4).

In Heb 4:3-4; Heb 4:9-11 the sabbath that remains in this gospel age is called rest. Here the Apostle shows us that all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ keep the sabbath in a spiritual way. That is to say, they and they only truly keep the sabbath by faith in him, by resting in him.

Finished Work

We can and will call the sabbath a delight when we realize that our all glorious Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Mediator, has entered into his rest; and his rest is glorious, because he has finished his work (Heb 4:10; Isa 11:10). Our Saviours rest in heaven is glorious and it is his glory. His rest shall be glory! As God rested on the seventh day, because his work of creation was finished, so the God-man our Mediator has entered into his rest in heaven, because he has made all things new for his people, having finished his work of redemption (Rom 8:34; 2Co 5:17-21; Heb 10:10-14).

Behold our exalted Saviour! Do you see him seated upon his throne in heaven? There he sits in undisturbed and undisturbable sovereign serenity! His rest is his glory (Joh 17:2; Php 2:9-11). That exalted God-man, as our divinely appointed Representative, has fulfilled all the legal sabbath requirements for us, even as he did all the other requirements of the law. Now, in heaven he is keeping an everlasting sabbath rest (Isa 53:10-12). And his rest, which is his glory, tells us that he has finished his work (Joh 17:4; Joh 19:30), the salvation of his people is certain (Heb 9:12), and all his enemies shall soon be made his footstool (Heb 10:13). There is no more work to be done. Christ did it all! And when all the work was done for us, our blessed Saviour entered into his rest. Now, all who find rest in him call that sabbath a delight!

Sabbath Rest

All who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ keep the sabbath by faith (Heb 4:3), because we have entered into his rest; and we call this blessed sabbath rest of faith in Christ a delight, the delight of our souls. We do not yet keep the sabbath perfectly, because we do not yet trust our Saviour as we should. We do not yet trust him perfectly. But we do keep the sabbath truly and sincerely by faith. Our sabbath observance is not a carnal, literal thing. We do not keep a sabbath day. God forbids that (Col 2:16-17). We keep the sabbath spiritually by faith.

Remember, the sabbath day was ordained by God in the ceremonial worship of the Jews in the Old Testament as a symbol of Gods rest after creation and as a reminder of the Jews redemption out of Egypt. The essence of sabbath observation was self-denial and consecration to God. Anything personally profitable or pleasurable was expressly forbidden (Isa 56:2; Isa 58:13; Eze 20:12; Eze 20:21). Sabbath observance was, in its essence, an unconditional, all-encompassing, self-denial. It was a renunciation of self and a dedication of ones self to God. That is exactly the way we observe the sabbath spiritually by faith in Christ, not one day in seven, but all the days of our lives. The believers life is a perpetual keeping of the sabbath!

The Lord Jesus Christ gives rest to every sinner who comes to him in faith. He says, Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Mat 11:28). Are you labouring and heavy-laden under the load of sin and guilt? Do you long for rest? In your inmost soul do you struggle hard with sin, longing to find peace with God? Will you hear what the Lord Jesus says? Come. That is: believe, trust, rely upon me. Come unto me! Not to the preacher. Not to my church. Not even to my doctrine. But Come unto me, and I will give you rest! When a sinner comes to Christ, he quits working for Gods favour, because he rests his soul upon the finished work of his Substitute (1Co 1:30-31).

Yet, this sabbath of faith involves more than a ceasing from our works and the remembrance of our redemption by Christ. It also involves, in its very essence, the consecration of our lives to our dear Saviour (Mat 11:29-30). We keep the sabbath of faith and find rest unto our souls as we wilfully, deliberately, wholeheartedly surrender to Christ as our Lord. If we would keep the sabbath, truly keep the sabbath, it will take considerably more than going to church on Sunday and reserving one day a week for religious exercises! We keep the sabbath by putting ourselves under the yoke of Christs dominion, submitting to his will in all things, learning of him what to believe, how to live, and how to honour God. As we do, we find that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. When we submit to Christs dominion, when we bow to his will, we find rest for our souls and call the sabbath a delight!

While he walked on this earth, our Lord Jesus performed so many miracles of mercy on the legal sabbath day to teach us that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath (Mar 2:27), to teach us that the dawning of the true Sabbath is the day of mercy for chosen, redeemed sinners.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

until (See Scofield “Mat 23:39”).

Lord Jehovah. Psa 118:26.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

as: Luk 7:34-36, Luk 11:37, 1Co 9:19-22

chief: Joh 3:1, Act 5:34

they: Luk 6:7, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Luk 20:20, Psa 37:32, Psa 41:6, Psa 62:4, Psa 64:5, Psa 64:6, Pro 23:7, Isa 29:20, Isa 29:21, Jer 20:10, Jer 20:11, Mar 3:2

Reciprocal: Exo 18:12 – eat bread Mat 11:19 – came Mar 3:4 – Is it Luk 7:36 – And he Joh 9:14 – General Heb 12:3 – contradiction

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

SABBATH WORKS AND WORDS

And it came to pass, as He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched Him.

Luk 14:1

Let us follow the Lord in spirit, and listen to the instruction that He gave to those who were gathered with Him at the board. Our subject calls us to notice two things in particular:

I. His Sabbath works (Luk 14:1-6).All His works may be summed up in one wordWho went about doing good (Act 10:38). And the Sabbath was no exception. As the Father does good by carrying on His works of providence, so the Son His works of grace (Joh 5:16-17). See on the present occasion. He finds a poor man in the house suffering from dropsy. Without waiting for an application for help, He anticipates the sufferers wants (Isa 65:24; Psa 59:10). He anticipates also the thoughts of the murmurers hearts (Luk 14:3; Mat 9:4; Heb 4:12-13; Rev 2:23). He performs the good deed of healing (Exo 15:26; Jer 17:14). He justifies Himself at the expense of His enemies (Luk 14:5-6; Rom 3:9). They were really annoyed with Christ, because He did good upon the Sabbath (1Jn 3:12-13; cf. Joh 10:32-33).

II. His Sabbath words (Luk 14:7-11).Like His works, they were always good. He always turned the conversation to what was important and edifying (Eph 4:29). Thus was He the faithful and true Witness (Joh 18:37). One is inclined to be silent in the presence of the wicked (Psa 39:1-2), but not so Christ. See on the present occasion how He improves the opportunity. From the feast He leads their thoughts to the gospel feast (Luk 14:16). From their taking seats at table He teaches them humility (Luk 14:8-11). Christs eye is upon us in the commonest actions (Psa 139:2). He sees us take our place at table, and remarks upon it. He bids us esteem others better than ourselves (Php 2:3; 3Jn 1:9). Pride goes before a fall (Luk 14:9; Pro 29:23). Before honour there must be humility (Luk 14:10; Pro 15:33; Pro 25:6-7).

Let us not fail to lay these things to heart. I fear that with many of us Sunday words and Sunday deeds are not what they should be. How much time is lost in idleness or foolish talking! Let us listen to the words of the Apostle, when he calls us to be followers of Christ (Eph 5:1-2; Eph 5:4; Eph 5:16).

Bishop Rowley Hill.

Illustration

All Gods people always had the institution of the Sabbath. There was first of all the patriarchal Sabbath instituted of God, which was the life of the family, and for this patriarchal or family life God instituted the seventh day as a day of rest. This was followed by the Jewish or national institution, with additional ceremonial observances. And then, last of all, followed the Christian Sunday, which included the family and the national life, and also the whole world. First, the seventh day, then the Sabbath and the ceremonial observances, and then, last of all, the Lords Day. The Sabbath, under the Jewish rgime, became almost a purely ceremonial observance; it overlapped everything, even to absurdity. So the institution of the Lords resting day had been over-larded by effete, absurd, and exacting ceremonials. Then comes our Lord and Master, and gives us very definitely the law about the Christian day of restthe Lords Day.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

IN THE CLOSING verses of the previous chapter the Lord accepted His rejection and foretold its results for Jerusalem; yet He did not cease His activities in grace nor His teachings of grace, as the opening part of this chapter shows. The Pharisees wished to use their law of the sabbath as a cord wherewith to tie up His hands of mercy and restrain them from action. He broke their rope and showed that He would at least have as much mercy on the afflicted man as they were accustomed to show to their domestic animals. His grace abounded above all their legal prejudice.

From verse Luk 14:7 Luke resumes the account of His teachings, and we do not find any further record of His works until we come to Luk 17:11. In the first place, the Lord emphasized the behaviour which should characterize those who are the recipients of grace. Fallen human nature is pushful and self-assertive, but grace can only be received as humility is manifested. The guest invited to a wedding enters the feast as a matter of bounty and not as of right or of merit, and should behave accordingly. It may be remarked that in worldly society today bold self-assertiveness would not be considered good form. We admit that, and it is a witness to the way in which Christian ideals still prevail. In pagan circles such pushfulness would be applauded, and we shall see it increasingly manifested as pagan ideals prevail.

The abasement of the self-exalted and the exaltation of the humbled is sometimes seen in this life, but it will be fully seen when the One, who in supreme measure humbled Himself, even unto the death of the cross, is highly exalted in public, and every knee bows before Him. In verse Luk 14:11 we can discern the two Adams. The first attempted to exalt himself and fell: the Last humbled Himself, and sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

In the three verses which follow we find the Lord instructing not the guest but the host. He too is to act in the spirit which befits grace. Human nature is selfish even in its benefactions, and will issue its invitations with a view to future profit. If, under the influence of grace, we think of those who have nothing to offer us, we aim at no earthly recompense. There is recompense however even for the actions of grace, but that is found in the resurrection world which lies ahead of us.

Teachings such as these moved someone to ejaculate, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. This was said very probably under the impression that entrance into the kingdom was a matter of great difficulty, and the one to eat bread there must be a particularly fortunate person. This remark led the Lord to give the parable of the great supper, in which He showed that the door into the kingdom is to be opened to all, and that if any do not enter it is their own fault. In this parable there is a prophetic element; that is, the Lord looked forward and spoke of things which have their fulfilment in the day in which we live. It is pre-eminently the parable of the Gospel.

A certain man made a great supper and bade many. The cost and labour was his; the benefit was to be conferred upon many. Those first invited were people who were already possessed of something-a piece of ground, oxen, a wife. These represent the Jews with their religious leaders in the land, who first heard the message. Taken as a whole they refused the invitation, and it was the religious privileges they already possessed that blinded them to the value of the Gospel offer.

When their refusal was reported by the servant, the master is represented as being angry. In Heb 10:28, Heb 10:29, the doing of despite unto the Spirit of grace is said to be worthy of sorer punishment than the despising of Moses law. What we have here is in keeping with that. The anger of the master did indeed mean that none of those who thus despised his invitation should taste of his supper, as verse Luk 14:24 states, yet it did not shut up his bowels of kindness. The servant was the rather bidden to go out quickly and gather in the poor and needy-those most disqualified from a human standpoint.

But these were to be gathered from the streets and lanes of the city; so they represent, we judge, the poor and afflicted and undeserving of Israel-the publicans and sinners, as contrasted with the scribes and Pharisees. The Lord Himself was now turning to these, and amongst such the work continued into the days recorded in the earlier chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Then the moment arrived when the invitation had been fully declared amongst them, and though many responded, the happy announcement was made by the servant, Yet there is room.

This led to an extension of the kindly invitation. Still the word is Go out, and now the poor derelicts of the highways and hedges, outside the bounds of the city, are to be brought in, to fill the house. This pictures the going forth of the Gospel to the Gentiles. It carries us to the end of Acts, where we have Paul saying, The salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and… they will hear it.

The parable definitely sets forth the matter from Gods side rather than mans. He makes the supper, He sends the Servant, He has His own way, and fills His house in spite of mans perversity. The Servant He sends is the Holy Spirit, for no one less than He can wield a power which is absolutely compelling. The under-servants, even so great an one as the Apostle Paul, cannot go beyond the persuading of men (see 2Co 5:11); only the Spirit of the living God can so effectually work in the hearts of men as to compel them to come in. But this, blessed be God, is what He does, and has done for each of us.

Hearing things such as these, great multitudes went with Him. Many there are who like to hear of something which is to be had for nothing. The Lord turned, and set before these the conditions of discipleship. The grace of God imposes no conditions, but the Gospel which announces that grace does conduct our feet into the path of discipleship, which can only be trodden rightly as we submit to very stringent conditions. Four are mentioned here. (1) The Master must be supreme in the affections of the disciple; so much so that all other loves must be as hatred compared with it. (2) There must be the bearing of the cross in our following of Him; that is, a readiness to accept a death sentence as from the world. (3) There must be a counting of the cost as regards our resources; a correct appraisal of all that is ours in the Christ whom we follow. (4) There must equally be a correct appraisal of the powers arrayed against us.

If we do not reckon rightly in either of these directions we shall very likely go beyond our measure, on the one hand, or be filled with fear, and compromise with the adversary, on the other. If, as verse Luk 14:33 says, we do indeed forsake all that we have, we shall be wholly cast upon the resource of the great Master whom we follow, and then the path of discipleship becomes gloriously possible for us.

Now the true disciple is salt; and salt is good. In Mat 5:1-48, we find Jesus saying, Ye are the salt of the earth (ver. 13), but He said that to disciples (ver. 1). If the disciple compromises he becomes like salt that has lost its savour, and he is fit for nothing. What a word for us! Grace has called us, and our feet have been placed in the path of discipleship. Are we complying with its solemn conditions, so that we become disciples indeed? May we indeed have ears to hear!

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

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.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

[To eat bread on the sabbath day.] The Jews’ tables were generally better spread on that day than on any others: and that, as they themselves reckoned, upon the account of religion and piety. I have spoken to this elsewhere: take here a demonstration. “Rabba Bar Rabh Houna went to the house of Rabba Bar Rabh Nachman. He set before him three measures of rich cake: to whom he, ‘How did you know of my coming?’ The other answered, ‘Is there any thing more valuable to us than the sabbath?’ ” The Gloss is; ‘We do by no means prefer thee before the sabbath: we got these things ready in honour of the sabbath, not knowing any thing of thy coming.’

“Rabba Abba bought flesh of thirteen butchers for thirteen staters, and paid them at the very hinge of the door.” The Gloss tells us, ‘That he bought of thirteen butchers, that he might be sure to taste the best: and before they could come that should bring the flesh, he had gotten his money ready for them, and paid them at the very gate, that he might hasten dinner: and all this in honour of the sabbath-day.’

R. Abhu sat upon an ivory throne, and yet blew the fire; that was towards the cooking of his dinner in honour of the sabbath. It ought not to be passed by without observation, that Christ was at such a dinner, and that in the house of a Pharisee, who doubtless was observant enough of all ceremonies of this kind.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

LET us mark in this passage, how our Lord Jesus Christ accepted the hospitality of those who were not His disciples. We read that “He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread.” We cannot reasonably suppose that this Pharisee was a friend of Christ. It is more probable that he only did what was customary for a man in his position. He saw a stranger teaching religion, whom some regarded as a prophet, and he invited Him to eat at his table. The point that most concerns us, is this, that when the invitation was given it was accepted.

If we want to know how our Lord carried Himself at a Pharisee’s table, we have only to read attentively the first twenty-four verses of this chapter. We shall find Him the same there that He was elsewhere, always about His Father’s business. We shall see Him first defending the true observance of the Sabbath-day,-then expounding to those who were bidden together with Him the nature of true humility,-then urging on His host the character of true hospitality,-and finally delivering that most apposite and striking parable,-the parable of the great supper. And all this is done in the most wise, and calm, and dignified manner. The words are all words in season. The speech is “always with grace, seasoned with salt.” (Col 4:6.) The perfection of our Lord’s conduct appears on this, as on all other occasions. He always said the right thing, at the right time, and in the right way. He never forgot, for a moment, who He was and where He was.

The example of Christ in this passage deserves the close attention of all Christians, and specially of ministers of the Gospel. It throws strong light on some most difficult points,-our intercourse with unconverted people,-the extent to which we should carry it,-the manner in which we should behave when we are with them. Our Lord has left us a pattern for our conduct in this chapter. It will be our wisdom to endeavor to walk in His steps.

We ought not to withdraw entirely from all intercourse with unconverted people. It would be cowardice and indolence to do so, even if it were possible. It would shut us out from many opportunities of doing good. But we ought to go into their society moderately, watchfully, and prayerfully, and with a firm resolution to carry our Master and our Master’s business with us. The house from which Christ is deliberately excluded is not the house at which Christians ought to receive hospitalities, and keep up intimacy.-The extent to which we should carry our intercourse with the unconverted, is a point which each believer must settle for himself. Some can go much further than others in this direction, with advantage to their company, and without injury to themselves. “Every man has his proper gift.” (1Co 7:7.) There are two questions which we should often put to ourselves, in reference to this subject. “Do I, in company, spend all my time in light and worldly conversation? Or do I endeavor to follow, however feebly, the example of Christ?” The society in which we cannot answer these questions satisfactorily, is society from which we had better withdraw.-So long as we go into company as Christ went to the Pharisee’s house, we shall take no harm.

Let us mark, secondly, in this passage, how our Lord was watched by His enemies. We read that when He went to eat bread on the Sabbath day, in the house of a Pharisee, “they watched Him.”

The circumstance here recorded, is only a type of what our Lord was constantly subjected to, all through His earthly ministry. The eyes of His enemies were continually observing Him. They watched for His halting, and waited eagerly for some word or deed on which they could lay hold and build an accusation. Yet they found none. Our blessed Lord was ever holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from evil. Perfect indeed must that life have been, in which the bitterest enemy could find no flaw, or blemish, or spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing!

He that desires to serve Christ must make up his mind to be “watched” and observed, no less than His Master. He must never forget that the eyes of the world are upon him, and that the wicked are looking narrowly at all his ways. Specially ought he to remember this when he goes into the society of the unconverted. If he makes a slip there, in word or deed, and acts inconsistently, be may rest assured it will not be forgotten.

Let us endeavor to live daily as in the sight of a holy God. So living, it will matter little how much we are “watched” by an ill-natured and malicious world. Let us exercise ourselves to have a conscience void of offence toward God and man, and to do nothing which can give occasion to the Lord’s enemies to blaspheme. The thing is possible. By the grace of God it can be done. The haters of Daniel were obliged to confess, “we shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.” (Dan 6:5.)

Let us mark, lastly, in this passage, how our Lord asserts the lawfulness of doing works of mercy on the Sabbath day. We read that he healed a man who had the dropsy on the Sabbath day, and then said to the lawyers and Pharisees, “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?” This was a home-thrust, which could not be parried. It is written, “They could not answer Him again.”

The qualification which our Lord here puts on the requirements of the fourth commandment, is evidently founded on Scripture, reason, and common sense. The Sabbath was made for man,-for his benefit, not for his injury,-for his advantage, not for his hurt. The interpretation of God’s law respecting the Sabbath was never intended to be strained so far as to interfere with charity, kindness, and the real wants of human nature. All such interpretations only defeat their own end. They require that which fallen man cannot perform, and thus bring the whole commandment into disrepute. Our Lord saw this clearly, and labored throughout His ministry to restore this precious part of God’s law to its just position.

The principle which our Lord lays down about Sabbath observance needs carefully fencing with cautions. The right to do works of necessity and mercy is fearfully abused in these latter days. Thousands of Christians appear to have thrown down the hedge, and burst the bounds entirely with respect to this holy day. They seem to forget that though our Lord repeatedly explains the requirements of the fourth commandment, He never struck it out of the law of God, or said that it was not binding on Christians at all.

Can any one say that Sunday traveling, except on very rare emergencies, is a work of mercy?-Will any one tell us that Sunday trading, Sunday dinner parties, Sunday excursion-trains on railways, Sunday deliveries of letters and newspapers, are works of mercy?-Have servants, and shop-men, and engine-drivers, and coachmen, and clerks, and porters, no souls? Do they not need rest for their bodies and time for their souls, like other men?-These are serious questions, and ought to make many people think.

Whatever others do, let us resolve to “keep the Sabbath holy.” God has a controversy with the churches about Sabbath desecration. It is a sin of which the cry goes up to heaven, and will be reckoned for one day. Let us wash our hands of this sin, and have nothing to do with it. If others are determined to rob God, and take possession of the Lord’s day for their own selfish ends, let us not be partakers in their sins.

==================

Notes-

v1.-[He went into…house…Pharisees.] Inns and places of reception for travellers were doubtless far more uncommon in our Lord’s time than they are now. The duty of entertaining strangers, in consequence, often devolved on the chief man in each village or town.

Stella thinks that one object that our Lord had in view in going to the Pharisee’s house, was to benefit the servants of the family, who had few opportunities of hearing truth. He remarks that in his own time, in Spain, servants had hardly any opportunity of hearing sermons, from the demands which their masters made upon their time on Sundays.

[To eat bread on the Sabbath day.] Lightfoot says that “the Jew’s tables were generally better spread on the Sabbath, than on any other days; and that, as they themselves reckoned, on account of religion and piety.” He proves this by quotations from Rabbinical writers.

v2.-[Before him.] Some think that the dropsical man placed himself “before Christ” in faith, hoping that he would see and heal him. Others think that he was purposely placed there by our Lord’s enemies, in order to lay a trap in our Lord’s way, and procure an occasion of accusing Him as a Sabbath-breaker.

v3.-[Answering spake.] Let it be noted here that we are told of nothing that was said, or spoken by the lawyers and Pharisees, and yet we read both here, and at Luk 14:5, that our Lord “answered.” It is plain that He answered their thoughts.

Whitby observes, “In this and all similar cases, there is an answer to some inward conception or reasoning; or to some action expressive of their sentiments concerning Him.” The same remark applies to Mat 22:1; Luk 5:22; Luk 7:39-40; Mar 14:48; Mat 11:25.

[To heal on the Sabbath day.] Let it be noted that our Lord seems frequently to have chosen the Sabbath day on purpose, as the day on which He would work miracles of mercy. See Mar 1:21; Luk 6:6; Luk 13:10; Joh 9:14.

v5.-[An ass or an ox.] Stella makes some severe remarks, in his commentary on this verse, upon the prelates of his day. He charges them with caring more about the horses and mules which drew their equipages, than about the sick, the poor, and the needy in their diocese. He observes that they were not like Job, who did not rend his garments when he lost his oxen and camels, but when his sons and his daughters died.

[Straightway.] This word is more commonly rendered “immediately.” It signifies that there was no delay about saving the life of the ox and the ass, and so there ought to be no delay about healing a sick man, or doing a work of mercy on the Sabbath day.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Luk 14:1. One of the rulers of the Pharisees. Possibly a member of the Sanhedrin, but certainly one of the influential, leading men of the party.

On the Sabbath. The Jews gave feasts on the Sabbath, the food being prepared the day previous. The custom gave rise to great abuses, though doubtless the letter of the fourth commandment was observed. A number of guests were present, mainly Pharisees (Luk 14:3; Luk 14:7).

Were watching him. The Pharisees, since that class was last spoken of, were watching if He would do or say anything which would furnish a pretext for opposing Him. The hospitality was hostile.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

PARABLES OF GRACE

THE SELFISH GUEST (Luk 14:1-14)

We pass over verses 1-6 which set forth the occasion for the first parable. The lesson from this first parable is, that if in natural things such selfishness was unbecoming, how much more on the spiritual plane? (Compare 1Pe 5:5-6; Isa 57:15.)

THE GREAT SUPPER (Luk 14:15-24)

This was spoken on the same occasion as the other and in response to the remark of Luk 14:15. Christ had spoken of reward at the resurrection of the just (Luk 14:14), for those who, in the spiritual sense, acted on the principle He had laid down. But the resurrection of the just will take place at his second coming, although that of the unjust, or unbelieving, will not occur for at least one thousand years thereafter (Joh 5:28-29; Act 24:14; 1Co 15:23; Rev 20:5-6). Those who will share in that first resurrection are described in Luk 14:21-23. The leaders of Israel are represented by those first invited to the supper (Luk 14:17-20). The common people were the next class (Luk 14:21, with the first five chapters of Acts). The Gentiles were the last (Luk 14:23, with Act 13:46; Act 28:23-28)

THE TOWER AND THE FIELD OF WAR (Luk 14:25-35)

The Savior is again on the road, and admonishes the multitudes as to the spirit of true discipleship in the two parables that follow, closing with the simile of salt. True disciples were the salt of the earth (Mat 5:13), but mere profession in that direction was as useless as salt which had lost its saltness.

THE LOST SHEEP, THE LOST COIN AND THE LOST SON (Luk 15:1-32)

The foregoing chapter deals with grace in a subjective way, acquainting us with the subjects of it and the danger of rejecting it, and adding exhortations for those who have received it. But in this we have the objective side, and behold the joy of God in bestowing it. It is fitting that these parables should have been spoken in the presence of the publicans and sinners, and to understand their teaching we should remember that they, being Israelites, were on the same ground of privilege as the Scribes and Pharisees who objected to them. Hence the form of the parables a sheep wandering from the flock, a piece of money out of a number of pieces in the house, a prodigal son gone from the parental roof. If the shepherd and the woman could be so concerned under the circumstances, was it surprising that God should care for His immortal creatures, and especially His chosen people? Separating these first two parables, the first shows the activity of the Lord under the similitude of the shepherd, and the second, that of the Holy Spirit under the similitude of the woman. In other words, men are not only guilty (Rom 3:19) as indicated by the wandering sheep, but they are by nature dead (Eph 2:1) as seen in the lifeless coin. The Son of God removes the guilt by His death and Sacrifice, and the Holy Spirit quickens the sinner. The third parable divides itself in two at Luk 15:24. The meaning of the first part is plain, that God welcomes the penitent sinner and rejoices over him. And that of the second part also, that the murmuring scribes and Pharisees are depicted by the elder brother. We thus learn that self-righteous people, like the latter, who is not seen to enter the fathers house, are in danger of excluding themselves from heaven through failure to understand and delight in salvation by grace.

QUESTIONS

1. How many parables are here treated?

2. Divide them into those subjective and objective.

3. Give the dictionary meaning of these terms.

4. Can you quote 1Pe 5:5-6?

5. What period intervenes between the two resurrections?

6. How many passages of Scripture are referred to in this lesson, and how many have you verified?

7. Distinguish the work of the two Persons of the Godhead in the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin.

8. What do we learn from the case of the prodigals elder brother?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Several particulars are here worthy of our observation and imitation.

Note, 1. The freedom of our Lord’s conversation with men: he delighted in human society, and was of a sociable temper; we do not find, that whenever he was invited to a dinner, he disdained to go, not so much for the pleasure of eating, as for the opportunity of conversing and doing good.

Note, 2. The house he goes into, and is entertained in, one of the chief Pharisees’, who were some of his chiefest enemies; a great instance of our Lord’s humanity, humility, and self-denial, in that he refused not the conversation of those whom he knew did not affect him; teaching us to love our enemies, and not to shun conversing with them, that thereby we may gain an opportunity of being reconciled to them.

Note, 3. The day when our Saviour dined publicly at the Pharisee’s house, among the lawyers and Pharisees; it was on the sabbath day.

Learn hence, that it is not simply unlawful for us to entertain our friends and neighbors with a plentiful meal on the Lord’s day; it must be acknowledged, that feasting upon any day is one of those lawful things which is difficulty managed without sin, but more especially upon that day, that it does not unfit us for the duties of the sabbath. However, our Lord’s example in going to a public dinner amongst lawyers and Pharisees evidently shows the lawfulness of feasting on that day, provided we use the same moderation in eating and drinking that he did, and improve the opportunity as a season for doing good, as he has taught us by his example.

Note, 4. How, contrary to all the laws of behavior, the decency of conversation, and the rules of hospitality, the Pharisees watched him, making their table a snare to catch him, hoping they might hear something from him, or see something in him for which they might accuse him: He entered into the house of the Pharisees to eat bread, and they watched him.

Note, 5. Our Saviour chose the sabbath day as the fittest season to work his miraculous cures in; in the Pharisee’s house he heals a man who had the dropsy, on the sabbath day. Christ would not forbear doing good, nor omit any opportunity of helping and healing the distressed though he knew his enemies the Pharisees would carp and cavil at it, calumniate and reproach him for it; it being the constant guise of hypocrites, to prefer ceremonial and ritual observation, before necessary and moral duties.

Note, 6. How our Saviour defends the lawfulness of his act in healing the diseased man, from their own act in helping a beast out of the pit on the sabbath day: as if Christ had said, “Is it lawful for you on the sabbath day to help a beast? And is it sinful for me to heal a man?”

Note, lastly, how the reason and force of our Saviour’s argument silenced the Pharisees; convincing them, no doubt, but we read nothing of their conversion: the obstinate and malicious are much harder to be wrought upon than the ignorant and scandalous; it is easier to silence such men than to satisfy them; to stop their mouths than to remove their prejudices; for obstinacy will hold the conclusion, though reason cannot maintain the premises: They could not answer him again to those things.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Luk 14:1-4. And it came to pass About this time, probably just as our Lord was finishing his journey through Herods dominions; he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees , of a certain one of the ruling Pharisees, that is, of a magistrate, or a member of the great council, called the sanhedrim. This person probably resided generally in Jerusalem, but had a country-seat in Pera; and happening to meet with Jesus while he abode there, he carried him home to dinner. The invitation, however, it appears was insidious; for we are told they watched him That is, the chief Pharisee and others of his sect, who were gathered together for this very end, watched all his words and actions, in order that they might find something to blame in them, whereby they hoped to blast his reputation as a prophet. And behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy Who, having heard that Jesus was to dine there, had got himself conveyed thither, in hopes of receiving a cure. And Jesus Answering the thoughts which he saw arising in their hearts; spake unto the lawyers The doctors of the law; and other Pharisees who were then present. Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day Can there be any thing in so benevolent an action, as healing a distempered person, inconsistent with the sacred rest required on that day? And they held their peace Not being able, with any face, to deny the lawfulness of the action, and yet being unwilling to say any thing which might seem to authorize or countenance those cures which Christ performed on sabbath days, as well as at other times, and which in general they had been well known to censure. And he took him , taking him by the hand, or laying his hand on him, he healed him and let him go , sent him away. The moment that Jesus laid his hand on the man, his complexion returned, and his body was reduced to its ordinary size; becoming, at the same time, vigorous and fit for action, as appeared by the manner in which he went out of the room. Doubtless our Lord could have accomplished this cure as well by a secret volition, and so might have cut off all matter of cavilling. But he chose rather to produce it by an action, in which there was the very least degree of bodily labour that could be, because that thus he had an opportunity of reproving the reigning superstition of the times.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

3. Jesus at a Feast: Luk 14:1-24.

The following piece allows us to follow Jesus in His domestic life and familiar conversations. It is connected with the preceding by the fact that it is with a Pharisee Jesus has to do. We are admitted to the entire scene: 1 st. The entering into the house (Luk 14:1-6); 2 d. The sitting down at table (Luk 14:7-11); 3 d. Jesus conversing with His host about the choice of his guests (Luk 14:12-14); 4 th. His relating the parable of the great supper, occasioned by the exclamation of one of the guests (Luk 14:15-24).

Holtzmann, of course, regards this frame as being to a large extent invented by Luke to receive the detached sayings of Jesus, which he found placed side by side in . This is to suppose in Luke as much genius as unscrupulousness. Weizscker, starting from the idea that the contents of this part are systematically arranged and frequently altered to meet the practical questions which were agitating the apostolic Church at the date of Luke’s composition, alleges that the whole of this chapter relates to the agapae of the primitive Church, and is intended to describe those feasts as embodiments of brotherly love and pledges of the heavenly feast; and he concludes therefrom, as from an established fact, the somewhat late origin of our Gospel. Where is the least trace of such an intention to be found?

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

XC.

DINING WITH A PHARISEE. SABBATH HEALING

AND THREE LESSONS SUGGESTED BY THE EVENT.

(Probably Pera.)

cLUKE XIV. 1-24.

c1 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, that they were watching him. [The Pharisees were an unorganized party, hence their rulers were such not by office, but by influence. Those who were members of the Sanhedrin, or who were distinguished among the rabbis, might fitly be spoken of as rulers among them. The context favors the idea that Jesus was invited for the purpose of being watched–a carrying out of the Pharisaic purpose declared at Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54. Bountiful feasts on the Sabbath day were common among the Jews; the food, however, was cooked the previous day in obedience to the precept at Exo 16:23.] 2 And behold, there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy. [The phrase “let him go” of Luk 14:4 shows that the man was not a guest, but [492] rather one who seems to have taken advantage of the freedom of an Oriental house to stand among the lookers-on. He may have been there purely from his own choice, but the evil intention with which Jesus was invited makes it highly probable that the man’s presence was no accident, but part of a deep-laid plot to entrap Jesus.] 3 And Jesus answering [replying to their unspoken thoughts, in which they were assuming that he would heal the sick man] spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not? 4 And they held their peace. [They evidently expected Jesus to act on the impulse, and were confused by his calm, deliberate question. If they declared it lawful, they defeated their plot, and if they said otherwise, they involved themselves in an argument with him in which, as experience taught them, they would be humiliated before the people. Hence, they kept silence, but their silence only justified him, since it was the duty of every lawyer to pronounce this act unlawful if it had been so.] And he took him, and healed him, and let him go. 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? 6 And they could not answer again unto these things. [Here Jesus again asserts that the Sabbath law did not forbid acts of mercy. See Phi 2:3] than thou be bidden of him, 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. [Because when ousted from the top he would find every place full except the bottom.] 10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down 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. [The words here used by our Lord teach how to avoid earthly shame and to obtain worldly honor. But they form a parable which is intended to teach the great spiritual truth that true humility leads to exaltation.] 11 For everyone that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. [This is one of our Lord’s favorite maxims ( Luk 18:14, Mat 23:12). Both man and God look upon humiliation as the just punishment of pride; but it is a pleasure to every right-minded spirit to give joy to the humble by showing him respect and honor.] 12 And he said to him also that had bidden him, When thou makest a 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. 13 But when thou makest a feast, bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: 14 and thou shalt be blessed; for they have not wherewith to recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just. [According to the Oriental mode of speech Jesus here emphatically commands one course of action by prohibiting a contrary course. But his prohibition is not to be construed strictly. He does not forbid the exercise of social hospitality, but [494] discountenances that interested form of it which seeks a return. His teaching is positive rather than negative, and should constrain us to live more for charity and less for sociability. Some think that this verse teaches that there shall be two resurrections, but the contrast is not between two times, but rather between two parties or divisions of one resurrection. If one has part in the resurrection of the just, he may expect recompense for his most trivial act. But if he be resurrected among the unjust, he need expect no reward, even for the most meritorious deeds of his whole life.] 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 language of Christ implied that God himself would feast those who feasted the poor, and this implication accorded with the Jewish notion that the kingdom of God would be ushered in with a great festival. Inspired by this thought, and feeling confident that he should have been part of the festivities, this guest exclaimed upon the anticipated blessedness.] 16 But he said unto him, A certain man made a great supper; and he bade many: 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 custom of sending a second invitation at the supper hour is a very old one ( Est 5:8, Est 6:14), and is still observed.] 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. 19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them; I pray thee have me excused. 20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. [These three excuses show: 1. That the guests had made their engagements, either for business or pleasure, without the least regard for the hour of the banquet; 2. That they set little value upon either the friendship or the feast of the one who had invited them. Moreover, the excuses progress in disrespect, for the first excuse is on [495] the ground of necessity, the second simply offers a reason, and the third is almost impudent in its bluntness. Viewing the excuses spiritually, we note that each one contains an element of newness–new field, new oxen, new wife. Thus the things of the earth seem new and sweet in comparison with the gospel invitation. Again, all the excuses are trifling, for the parable is intended to teach that men forego their rights to heaven for trifles. Again, the “sacred hate” of Luk 14:25, Luk 14:26 would have eliminated all these excuses. Possibly Paul had this parable in mind when he wrote 1Co 7:29-33. The three excuses warn us not to be hindered by 1. the love of possessions; 2. the affairs of business; 3. Our social ties.] 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. 22 And the servant said, Lord, what thou didst command is done, and yet there is room. 23 And the lord said to the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and constrain them to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I say unto you, that none of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper. [We have a preliminary or general invitation followed by three special invitations. We may regard the general invitation as given by Moses and the prophets in the ages before the feast was prepared. Then the first special one would be given by John the Baptist and Christ to the Jewish nation in the first stages of Christ’s ministry. The second special invitation was given by Christ, the twelve and the seventy, and came more especially to the poor and outcast, the publicans and sinners, because the leading men of the nation spurned the invitation. The third invitation was begun by the apostles after the Lord’s ascension and is still borne forward by those who have come after them and includes all nations. The three conditions of Jew, outcast and Gentiles are indicated by the three orders of guests: 1. The honorable citizens of the city; 2. Those who [496] frequent the streets and lanes, but are still in and out of the city; 3. Those who live without the city and are found upon the highways and in the hedgepaths of the vineyards and gardens. The second and third classes are depicted as needing to be constrained. This would be so, because they would hold themselves unworthy of the invitation. But they were to be constrained by moral and not by physical means ( Mat 14:22, 2Co 12:11, Gal 2:14). Physical constraint would have been contrary to all custom, as well as impossible to one servant. Incidentally the parable shows the roominess of heaven and the largeness of divine hospitality, so that Bengel aptly observes, “Grace, no less than nature, abhors a vacuum.”]

[FFG 492-497]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Luke Chapter 14

Some moral details are unfolded in the next chapter (14). [37] The Lord, being invited to eat with a Pharisee, vindicates the rights of grace over that which was the seal of the old covenant, judging the hypocrisy which at any rate broke the sabbath when their own interest was in question. He then shews the spirit of humility and lowliness that became man in the presence of God, and the union of this spirit with love when there was the possession of worldly advantages. By such a walk, which was indeed His own, in opposition to the spirit of the world, ones place there would be lost; the reciprocations of society would not exist: but another hour was beginning to dawn through His rejection, and which in fact was its necessary consequence-the resurrection of the just. Cast out by the world from its bosom, they should have their place apart in that which the power of God should effect. There would be a resurrection of the just. Then should they have the reward of all that they had done through love to the Lord and for His names sake. We see the force with which this allusion applies to the Lords position at that moment, ready to be put to death in this world.

And the kingdom, what would then become of it? With reference to it at that moment, the Lord gives its picture in the parable of the great supper of grace (Luk 14:16-24). Despised by the chief part of the Jews, when God invited them to come in, He then sought out the poor of the flock. But there was room in His house, and He sends out to seek the Gentiles, and bring them in by His call that went forth in efficacious power when they sought Him not. It was the activity of His grace. The Jews, as such, should have no part in it. But those who entered in must count the cost (Luk 14:25-33). All must be forsaken in this world; every link with this world must be broken. The nearer anything was to the heart, the more dangerous, the more it must be abhorred. Not that the affections are evil things; but, Christ being rejected by this world, everything that binds us to earth must be sacrificed for Him. Cost what it may, He must be followed; and one must know how to hate ones own life, and even to lose it, rather than grow lax in following the Lord. All was lost here in this life of nature. Salvation, the Saviour, eternal life, were in question. To take up ones cross, therefore, and follow Him, was the only way to be His disciples. Without this faith, it were better not to begin building; and, being conscious that the enemy is outwardly much stronger than we are, it must be ascertained whether, come what may, we dare, with settled purpose, go out to meet him by faith in Christ. Everything connected with the flesh as such must be broken with.

Moreover (Luk 14:34-35), they were called to bear a peculiar testimony, to witness to the character of God Himself, as He was rejected in Christ, of which the cross was the true measure. If the disciples were not this, they were nothing worth. They were disciples in this world for no other purpose. Has the church maintained this character? A solemn question for us all!

Footnotes for Luke Chapter 14

37: Chapters 15 and 16 present the sovereign energy of grace, its fruits, and its consequences, in contrast with all apparent earthly blessing, and Gods government on earth in Israel, and the old covenant. The fourteenth, before entering on that full revelation, shews us the place to be taken in such a world as this, in view of the distributive justice of God, of the judgment He will execute when He comes. Self-exaltation in this world leads to humiliation. Self-humiliation-taking the lowest place according to what we are, on the one side, and, on the other, to act in love-leads to exaltation on the part of Him who judges morally. After this we have set before us, the responsibility that flows from the presentation of grace; and that which it costs in a world like this. In a word, sin existing there, to exalt oneself is ministering to it; it is selfishness, and the love of the world in which it unfolds itself. One sinks morally. It is being far from God morally. When love acts, It is representing God to the men of this world. Nevertheless it is at the cost of all things that we become His disciples.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

CHAPTER 11

THE DROPSICAL MAN HEALED

Luk 14:1-6. And it came to pass that He entered into the house of a certain one of the rulers of the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread, and they were watching Him; i.e., hawk-eyes were on Him every minute, with diabolical vigilance, watching every word and act, if possible to implicate Him. If you do not stir the devil enough to concentrate on you demoniacal eyes, to watch and criticize you night and day, remember you are not much like Jesus. Satan is no fool. He always shoots at something. If he does not shoot at you, go back to the mourners-bench, and stay till the Lord makes something out of you, which Diabolus will count worth firing on. While these preachers and official laymen were hounding Jesus, incessantly charging Him with violating the Sabbath, you see here that one of the rulers of the Pharisees actually had a big festival at his house on the Sabbath, thus overtly desecrating the holy day a thing which Jesus never did. N.B. He is still in Perea, east of the Jordan.

Behold, there was a certain dropsical man before Him. And Jesus, responding, said to the theologians and Pharisees, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day or not? And they were silent. And taking him, He healed him, and sent him away. Responding to them, He said, Of which one of you shall the son or the ox fall into a pit, will he not lift him up on the Sabbath day? And they were unable to respond to these things. That rugged limestone country abounds in caves, precipices, chasms, and pits. Hence the liability of their livestock, and actually little children, falling in. All knew they would rally at once in that case, and extricate the sufferer, even on the Sabbath. Consequently those theologians, so shrewd in their exposition of the Scriptures, and those Pharisees, the official laymen of the Church, were all dumbfounded, and utterly unable to gainsay this plain, practical statement of Jesus. Nomikos, lawyer, E. V., is from nomos, law, and means a man cultured and skilled in the law of Moses, and an exegete of the O. T. Scriptures. Though here for the avowed purpose of lassoing Him by some vulnerable utterance which might drop from His lips, they are all utterly disconcerted.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Luk 14:3. Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day. When customs are good, let us keep them; but when they are burthensome and inconsistent, the Saviour refused submission to the traditions of men. Yet he condescended to assign reasons, for we should use great forbearance with misguided men On another occasion he said, My Father works, in the shining of the sun, and I work. Ye also circumcise a son on the sabbath; and if it be lawful for you to wound, why not for me to heal? You help a beast out of a pit, why may I not help this man?

Luk 14:16. A certain man made a great supper and bade many. This parable is to be understood in unison with the invitations of Isa 55:1, and with the parable of the marriage feast, Matthew 22. The gospel supper is ready in plenitude of grace and glory, and the gates of righteousness are open.

Luk 14:18. They all began to make excuse. These excuses are of three classes, all under the cover of lawful things, which comprise the three sins against which an apostle has raised his voice. 1Jn 2:16. The lust of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life. They form a climax of insults to the Majesty of heaven. The first said, he had bought a piece of ground, a tun or estate as in the Gothic, and must go and see it. The second, that, being plowing time, he must attend the training of his oxen. The third, being recently married, must receive and return the accustomed visits. And is an estate then more than heaven. Are the labours of husbandry more than the cares of the soul. Is the marriage feast to supersede the gospel supper, the bread of eternal life!

Luk 14:23. Go out into the highways and hedges. St. Paul gives us a comment here. He said to the unbelieving jews, seeing ye judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the gentiles. Act 13:46.

Compel them to come in. The word to compel, is used in Mat 14:22, and Mar 6:45, where Jesus constrained his disciples to get into the ship. So Lydia constrained Paul and Barnabas to dwell in her house. In like manner the Shunamite constrained Elisha to eat bread. The word comprises all the force of entreaty and persuasion, and ought to read here constrain, as in other places. Travellers state that it is customary with people in the east to eat under trees, and lodge under hedges, when they are not able to pay for better accommodations.

Luk 14:26. And hate not his father and mother. When our Saviour sent the twelve to preach, he said, And loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. Mat 10:37.

Luk 14:28. And counteth the cost. Men who are rash in religion often fall in the hour of temptation. We should well weigh the pleasures and the punishments of sin; we should next investigate religion in all its beauty, in its crosses, and in its vast rewards. We should consider the sanctity it requires, and the duties it imposes. We should then ask, if we break with the world, and close with Christ, whether he be able to save us. Whether he will stand by us in the day of trial, and whether he has always supported his servants in the crisis of danger. After thus counting the cost, as Caleb did, Num 13:30, we should at once nobly close with God, and break with every sin. So our Saviour has required us to do, and so St. Paul exhorts the Hebrews to do, with an astonishing force and cloud of argument. Mar 8:36. Heb 12:1-12.

REFLECTIONS.

While our Saviour was in Perea, eastward beyond Jordan, one of the chief pharisees, probably one of the sanhedrim, who were all accounted noble, invited him to dine after the worship of the synagogue was over. At which time, for the Saviours presence drew the crowd and made it a good tide, the pharisees house, as appears from the parable below, was crowded with guests. But the enmity of the sect accompanied the feast.

Among the throng about the house or the door, was a man afflicted with the dropsy, imploring a cure. On the other hand, the high sectarians watched him with an evil eye. Jesus therefore put the question frankly. Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? Their better nature said yea, but their creed said no. Therefore the lawyers were silent. Like their fathers on mount Carmel, they answered not a word. The Saviour therefore took and healed the man, amidst a cloud of envy and applause.

Among the friends that crowded this great mans house, the Saviour had noticed a decided preference of the highest seats. He therefore took occasion to say, and no doubt with all the grace that the case would admit, that it was better to wait in a lower situation till the master of the house had called them to take their seats. Honour conferred is laudable, but honour assumed is followed with contempt.

The Redeemer was a courtier at the rich mans table, but a courtier of independent character. He addressed them with a parable of the gospel supper, painted with just and impartial characters. The oracle of truth could not flatter the pride and vanity of men. He left not the parable unfinished, for the close had a strong bearing on the moral state of the guests, and on their religious connections. The good and rich man in the parable declared that none of the men who were bidden, and who had contumeliously despised the favour of their superior, should taste of his supper.

To the multitude, the poor that followed him, he was as ingenuous as to the rich. He required self-denial and sacrifice as the first step of his followers, that they should make a proper estimate of the things of time in contrast with those of eternity. That they should persevere in religion, because, if the salt of piety have once lost its savour, it is good for nothing but the dunghill.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Luk 14:1-24. A Sabbath with a Pharisee.A companion picture to Luk 13:10-17. When in Luk 6:6-11 Lk. relates the cure of the man with a withered hand (Mar 3:1-6, Mat 12:9-13) he omits the illustrative argument used by Jesus (Mat 12:11 f.); he brings it in here in a story peculiar to his gospel. Montefiore justly points out that the animals (Luk 14:5; cf. Luk 13:15) are in danger of perishing, whereas the woman and man would not have suffered by waiting till the Sabbath was past. He shows that the true argument is Deeds of charity and love should never be put off; they take precedence of and temporarily Invalidate all ritual laws and ceremonial observance of sacred days.

Luk 14:5. mg. a son is out of the question, despite good MS. authority. Rendel Harris (Sidelights on NT Research, p. 205) suggests that the original reading was hvs, pig, which was taken as a contraction of huios, son. Jesus said, Even if your pig(!) fell into a pit on the Sabbath, you would pull it out, a delightful piece of irony. Son was seen to be impossible, hence sheep, ass, ox, were all brought in as substitutes.

Luk 14:7-14. Humility and Hospitality.

Luk 14:8-10 and Luk 14:12-14 may originally have been parable stories which Lk. has turned into direct counsel to guests and hosts respectively. The chief seat was at the hosts left hand, though there may be a reference here to a dais.

Luk 14:10. Cf. Pro 25:6 f.; we are not to conclude that Jesus advocated false humility as a road to advancement; He speaks of consequence rather than purpose. J. Weiss suggests that the counsel is really that of an ascetic section of the early Church.

Luk 14:11 introduces the idea of the Messianic banquet and the judgment.

Luk 14:12-14. The lesson is that real kindness is disinterested and seeks no recompense. The recompense in the future is sure and sufficient. The tense of the verb call in Luk 14:12 is important; do not make a practice of inviting.

Luk 14:14. Most NT references to the Resurrection confine it to the just; note, however Joh 5:29, Act 24:15, Rev 20:12 f.

Luk 14:15-24. Parable of the Marriage Feast.Mat 22:1-10* is similar but not identical. Luk 14:15 (cf. Rev 19:9) serves to lead the thought from the earthly feast to the heavenly. The counsel of Luk 14:13 finds a supreme illustration in the action of God (Luk 14:21). Jesus, in Lk.s parable, is the servant who summons the guests, in Mt. He is the Kings Son in whose honour the feast is given. Nothing is here said about the destruction of the unwilling (and murderous) guests. Lk. defines the new guests more closely than Mt.; the poor, etc., of Luk 14:21 are the outcast Israelites, the publicans and sinners, those from the highways and hedges are the Gentiles. It is not Gods will that there are few who are saved.

Luk 14:23. constrain: this word need not mean more than urge (Mar 6:45); unhappily it has been used to justify religious compulsion and persecution.

Luk 14:24. you: the plural pronoun shows that Jesus, though still using the imagery of the parable, is here directly addressing the hearers.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

EATING IN THE PHARISEE’S HOUSE

(vs.1-14)

This chapter shows the heart of God in seeking man, yet also man in thorough contrast and opposition to God. One of the chief Pharisees invited the Lord Jesus to his house for a meal, evidently not out of affection, but to find occasion for criticism, for “they watched Him.” Yet the Lord did not refuse: He would genuinely seek the good of man, whether criticized or not. We may wonder if perhaps the Pharisee had invited the man with dropsy (edema) as a test case. But the Lord was not on the defensive. Lawyers and Pharisees were present, and He asked them if it was lawful to heal on the sabbath day. He knew their prejudice as to this, but they would not answer because they could find no law in scripture that would support them.

Verse 3 interestingly shows that His question was an answer to the lawyers and Pharisees — evidently an answer to their watching Him.

He healed the man before their eyes. It is evident they did not approve of this, though they said nothing, for they had no honorable or scriptural basis for their opposition. Their proud, legal thoughts would not bend to simple truth and honesty, so He “answered them” a second time, though they had said nothing. His second answer was also a question they did not answer. They knew perfectly well they would rescue immediately any animal they owned, which had fallen into a pit on the sabbath day. He had spoken in chapter 13:15 of their concern in feeding and watering their animals on the sabbath. Should they have more pity for an animal than for a human being in need or in trouble?

Then He addressed the invited guests in the Pharisee’s house as He observed them taking the most prominent places for themselves. He advised them not to assume such a place, in case this was intended by the host for a more honorable person, in which case the matter might end in the humiliation of the social climber. If this is true in the natural realm, how much more so among the saints of God! Aspiring to a high place is both unseemly and exposing oneself to the shame of humiliation.

If one takes the lowest place, however, he may be invited to go up higher, and others will give him honor (not worship, which is for God only). This led to the Lord’s announcing the serious principle that self-exaltation will end in abasement, while self- humbling will end in exaltation. The outstanding example of the first is Satan, who said, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds: I will be like the Most High” (Isa 14:14). He was answered, “Yet you shall be brought down to sheol, to the lowest depths of the pit” (v.15). The great example of self-humbling is the Lord Jesus, who humbled Himself to come down to the depths of the agony of the cross; but is now highly exalted above all the universe (Php 2:5-11).

The Lord Jesus then told the Pharisee who had invited Him that, in providing a supper, he should not call his friends, brethren, relatives or rich neighbors, but the poor, maimed, lame and blind. It would seem as though the Pharisee had in mind being in turn invited by others, for it is unlikely that the Lord would have said this if the Pharisee’s motives had been unselfish. Apparently his motives in inviting the Lord had not been honorable.

Yet is this not a searching word for us all? How often do we think of inviting to our homes those who are in deeply trying circumstances? The Lord will not fail to reward such kindness shown even in a natural way. How much more so if we show kindness in seeking to meet the needs of those spiritually poor, maimed, lame and blind? Notice the expression, “at the resurrection of the just” (v.14). Such care, in unselfish honesty, would be evidence that one is truly born again, for only believers will have part in “the resurrection of life” (Joh 5:29) or “the first resurrection” (Rev 20:6), which will bring full reward for every work of faith on the part of those who have trusted the saving grace of the Lord Jesus (v.14).

“A GREAT SUPPER”

(vs.15-24)

A guest spoke of the blessedness of one who will eat bread in the kingdom of God. He had in mind the future glory of the kingdom, but did not realize that the kingdom had a present, vital, moral form that was not appreciated by the Jews, and the invitations to that great supper were being given at that very time, for the true King was present in lowly grace, yet many were excusing themselves.

For this reason the Lord gave the parable of the man making a great supper. It is God who has provided this supper in marvelous grace, and the invited guests were the Jewish people who had many great promises in the Scriptures. In contrast to Mat 22:3-4, we are told it is “His servant” who is sent, not “servants.” In Matthew the gospel is seen as carried by people, in Luke the emphasis is on the one “servant” who is typical of the Holy Spirit of God. It is His great work to bear witness to Christ as the fulfillment of the promise of God — Christ in the perfect completion of redemption, as is beautifully indicated in the words, “all things are now ready” (v.17).

Every Israelite was invited first to the great gospel supper of the grace of God, fully prepared and freely offered. But all made excuses. One said he had bought a piece of ground, and it was necessary for him to see it. He made it clear that his property meant more to him than the friendship of the host. But the supper was at a set time: he could see his property at any time. Similarly, another had bought five yoke of oxen and excused himself because he wanted to try them out. Israel had more regard for their land and possessions than for the personal invitation of the King to eat bread in the kingdom of God. Another did not even ask to be excused, but said it was impossible for him to come because he had married a wife. What kind of a wife had he married? Was she so opposed to the host that she would not permit her husband to accept his invitation? Had Israel made such unholy associations? Gentiles today make similar excuses, and continue to incur the anger of the Master of the house, for they are insults to Him who has acted in marvelous grace and kindness toward mankind, seeking their blessing and their fellowship.

The King His servant therefore into the streets and lanes of the city to call the poor (those who cannot pay), the maimed (those who cannot work), the lame (who cannot walk) and the blind (who cannot see). This describes Israelites who by the law have found themselves exposed as desolate, guilty, helpless and blind; therefore fit subjects for the grace of God.

But even this effort did not fill the Master’s house (v.22), so the message was sent outside the city to the highways and hedges, for the gospel is not to be fenced in, but now is broadcast to welcome Gentiles, that is, the whole world. Also it is added here, “compel them to come in.” Only the Spirit of God can compel people, which He does by the sweet compulsion of God’s love, for He is the Servant in this parable.

“Servants” in Mat 22:9 are told only to invite, not to compel, for the servants are believers whom the Lord sends to proclaim the gospel of His grace. But the solemn word is given from the Master that those who were first invited would not taste of His supper. Those who claimed be looking for the kingdom would not enter it, for they despised the kindness of the King Himself.

Luk 14:25

THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP

(vs.25-35)

In the supper we have seen the grace of God freely offered and commended to everyone, but discipleship costs something. While grace is altogether without charge and saves souls eternally, yet grace produces such effects as to make one willing to sacrifice his own comfort for the Lord’s sake. This is discipleship. At a time when great crowds followed him, the Lord strongly admonished them. Some were attracted to Him for selfish reasons, who knew nothing of His grace in their hearts and consequently and were not prepared to respond to that grace. But if one was to really be His disciple, he must “hate” his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, and in fact his own life also. If this seems a stern, startling declaration, it is because of its real importance, once properly understood.

The hate here is not the vindictive hatred of 1Jn 4:20, for in that case one’s hatred of his brother proved him to be a liar when he claimed to love God. But every other relationship must give way to the disciple’s devotion to Christ. Christ must be first, or one is not a true disciple. One must bear his cross, virtually putting himself under the violent death of crucifixion, in honest self-judgment; that is, identifying himself willingly with Christ crucified. Other relationships will be rightly regarded and maintained only if the heart is undivided in true devotion to Him. For instance, an unbelieving father may accuse his son of hating him because the son is purposed to follow the Lord Jesus and refuses to worship his father’s idols. If the world thinks this of us, then we just submit to their hostile thoughts, not showing love to their idols.

The tower being built (v.18) is symbolic of Christianity. The tower is a place of observation and a place of eminence, visible for all to see; and a place of defense. Is one prepared for these things in adopting a Christian stand? It is far wiser to count the cost of building before beginning. To honestly follow Christ is no light matter. On the other hand, one should count the cost of not following Him. Indolent self-pleasing will always end in tragic disappointment. But when one begins as a disciple of the Lord, then finds no ability to continue, he will be exposed to the ridicule of the world. Certainly the resources are not natural abilities: if we are to continue, it must be Christ who is the object of our devotion, Christ in whom are the resources for every need that may arise. In other words, let the disciple check closely on himself as to whether his confidence is fully in the One he professes to follow.

Christianity is also a warfare. A king going to war is careful to first evaluate the strength of his forces in comparison to that of the enemy (v.31). Satan is a formidable foe, having sway over the whole world (1Jn 5:19). Who can stand against him? The Lord Jesus did, and He overcame the world (Joh 16:33) with all the power of Satan behind it (Heb 2:14). To be His disciple, one must count upon His strength, his confidence being fully in Him, for “this is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith” (1Jn 5:4). If in faith one fully counts upon the Lord, he is fully equipped to face the enemy. If one does not have this faith, he will make peace with the world, which will avoid conflict, but which will in effect make him an enemy of God (Jam 4:4)! Let one most carefully consider the issues!

The Lord then emphasized that one cannot be His disciple apart from forsaking all that he has. He does not mean that one should literally ignore his wife, his children or other natural responsibilities (1Ti 5:8), but to allow none of them to have a prior place. Christ must be first.

The seasoning of salt is involved in these things (v.34). Salt is good, though only in moderate quantities: if salt lost its seasoning savor, it would be useless. We are saved by grace, as the great supper has taught us, but grace must be seasoned with salt (Col 4:6). It seems that salt speaks of righteousness, which must necessarily accompany the grace of God. If this seasoning of righteousness is lacking in our discipleship, then grace is not rightly represented. Though it is entirely by virtue of the grace of God that we are saved, yet grace does not exclude righteousness, as though we could “continue in sin that grace may abound.” Certainly grace predominates, but grace is flavored by righteousness, as is indicated in Rom 5:21, “so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 5:21). Under law the demands of righteousness dominated, now grace dominates, but righteousness is not by any means discarded. In the honest recognition of these two balancing principles there will be true discipleship. Too little salt is not good, and too much salt can be offensive.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

To eat bread; to dine or to sup. This seems to have been an entertainment where there were many invited guests; as appears from allusions in Luke 14:3,7,12,15, &c. The whole conversation takes its turn from the circumstances of the occasion; the images and illustrations being drawn from entertainments and invitations to guests.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

CHAPTER 14

Ver. 1.–And it came to pass that He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees. “To do them service,” says Titus, “Christ makes Himself their friend, and, as it were, one of their household,” for “although He knew the malice of the Pharisees, yet He became their guest that He might benefit by His words and miracles those who were present, and teach them the lawfulness of healing on the Sabbath, and the respective duties of entertainers and guests.”

Ver. 2.-And behold there was a certain man before Him which had the dropsy. This man seems to have been a friend of the Pharisee, who perhaps had invited Jesus in order that He might heal him. Certainly, as S. Cyril and Euthymius say, the suiterer presented himself of his own accord to Jesus, silently pleading that he might be restored to health. But the Pharisees sought His presence for another purpose, in order that they might see whether Christ would heal him on the Sabbath day, and thus show that He was not in truth a prophet sent by that God who had sanctified the rigid observance of the seventh day.

Ver. 3.-And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees. Answering their thoughts and not their inquiry, for they had asked no question, but thought in their hearts that Christ would be acting unlawfully if He healed on the Sabbath day.

Ver. 4.-And He had took him, and touched him, and ley him go (, “when he had ouched him.” apprehensum, Vulg.) He heals by His touch the dropsical man who, from fear of the Pharisees, did not ask to be healed on account of the Sabbath, but only stood up, that when Jesus beheld him He might have compassion on him and heal him. S. Cyril.

Mystically. S. Gregory (lib. xiv. Moral.) observes: “The sick of the dropsy is healed in the Pharisee’s presence, for by the bodily infirmity of the one is expressed the mental disease, i.e. the avarice and covetousness, of the other.” “For,” says Bede, “the dropsical man represents one who is weighed down by an overflowing stream of carnal pleasures.” S. Augustine adds, “We, lightly compare one sick of the dropsy to a covetous rich man, who, the more he abounds in riches, the more ardently desires them. Avarice and covetousness, then, are very similar to the dropsy, and as this dire disease is best remedied by abstaining from drinking, so the remedy for unlawful desire is mortification, abstinence, and continence, all of which wither and drive out virtuous habits.”

Ver. 5.-And He answered them, saying, Which of you, &c. “If,” says Bede, “ye hasten on the Sabbath to pull an ox or an ass out of the pit into which he has fallen, consulting not the good of the animal, but your own avarice, how much more ought I to deliver a man who is much better than a beast?” He adds also, “they were not to violate the Sabbath by a work of covetousness, who were arguing that He did so by a work of charity.” And again, in a mystical sense, the ox and the ass represent the wise and the foolish, or the Jew oppressed by the burden of the Law and the Gentile not subject to reason. For the Lord rescues from the pit of concupiscence all who are sunk therein.”

S. Augustine also (Lib. ii., Qust. Evang.) says, “He has aptly compared the dropsical man to an animal which has fallen into a ditch (for he is troubled by water), as He compared that woman whom He loosed, to a beast which is let loose to be led to water.”

Ver. 6.-And they could not answer Him again to these things. Because they were convinced by the truth of His reasoning. Yet privately they murmured amongst themselves, and afterwards openly clamoured amongst the people. “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day,” S. Joh 9:16. Although Jesus knew this, He healed the man, and permitted their malice and obstinacy to gather force, so that the cross ordained for Him by God might be prepared for the salvation of men. “Caring nought,” says Theophylact, “for the offence given to the Pharisees” For when a great good is the result, we must not care if the foolish are offended.

Ver. 7.-And He put forth a parable to those which were bidden, i.e. He taught, under the similitude of a man seeking the highest place at a feast, that we must beware of every kind of ambition. For sin continues to be sin, although the manner of sinning be changed.

“When He marked how they chose out the chief rooms.” For as teachers of the Law, they considered themselves entitled to the highest honour, and fought for precedence as eagerly as now-a-days ladies of rank and men of small brains.

This is a kind of introduction to the parable, and indicates the occasion on which it was spoken, and the persons against whom it was directed.

Ver. 8.-When thou art bidden . . . sit not down in the highest room. For when the master of the house takes your place from you to give it to a more honourable guest, those who sit next in order will not give way to your ambition, and you will begin with shame to go down from the highest to the lowest room. Do not unduly exalt thyself, lest some one, offended by thy insolence, humble it and lay it low.

Ver. 10.-Go and sit down in the lowest room. The master of the house usually assigned to each guest his place at the table, a duty formerly discharged by the “ruler of the feast,” regard being had to each one’s age and social standing. Thus Joseph’s brethren “sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth” Gen 43:33. In this verse, Christ makes evident allusion to the saying of Solomon, “Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king,” &c. (Pro 25:6-7). Titus very justly remarks, that “a wise man, however deserving he may be of the highest place, so little affects it, as to give it up to others of his own accord. Wherefore a mind modest and content with its own lot is a great and a glorious gift.”

Then shalt thou have worship. Christ teaches that if we would acquire glory and greatness, we must fly from them and be humble; for men hate the proud and seek to humiliate them, but make much of the modest and meek; the true glory is that which is given, not that which is sought: furthermore, God has decreed by an eternal law that the humble should be exalted, but that the mighty should be put down from their seat. Wherefore, the proud, if they are wise, will humble themselves, that they may have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with them. Knowing that if they seek the most honourable places, they will excite envy, and men will strive, whether rightly or wrongly, to humiliate them.

Hear what the wise man says, “The greater thou art, the more humble thyself, and thou shalt find favour before the Lord.” (Ecclus 3:20.)

This precept of Christ, or rather this wise dogma, was recognised and taught by the Gentile philosophers. So Plutarch introduces Thales thus sharply rebuking the pride of Alexidemus, who, because he was the son of Thrasybulus had rushed from the banqueting hall at seeing others seated above him: “Fearest thou lest thy place at table shall bring thee glory or obscurity after the manner of the stars, which, as the Egyptians say, wax and wane according to the places wherein they rise or set? Thou art not so wise as the man, who, when the leader assigned him the lowest place in a chorus, said, Thou hast done well in having discovered a means of making even a position such as this honourable. For he was of opinion that a man is not distinguished by his position, but rather the position by the man.”

Honour, like the shadow cast by the body, follows him that flee from it, but flees from him that follows it.

Symbolically. Members of religious orders, according to the words of Christ, “sit down in the lowest room.” For they who have kept nothing, but given up all, even their very will, have no lower place to which they can betake themselves. Here they are at rest, for their humility is not limited, like that of other men, to this or that action, but is life-long; for it is a part of their profession which embraces their whole life.

Ver. 11.-For whosoever exalleth himself shall be abased, &c., both by God and man, often in this life, always in the life to come. This verse explains the meaning and scope of the parable. See S. Mat 23:12.

Ver. 12.-Then said He also unto him that bade Him, i.e. to the chief Pharisee mentioned in the first verse, whose hospitality Christ recompensed by the spiritual banquet of ghostly counsel and advice. This man, says the Gloss, seems to have invited his guests in order that he in turn might be entertained by them.

“Call not thy friends.” Christ counselled this as the more perfect way. He did not command it as of necessity. For it is lawful, nay, meritorious, for us to invite our friends, if it be done out of friendship and kindness. Whence Bede says, “Brethren then, and friends, and the rich are not forbidden, as though it were a crime, to entertain one another, but this, like all the other necessary intercourse among men, is shown to fail in meriting the reward of ever lasting life,” unless, as I have said, such entertainment springs from a higher motive of brotherly love or charity.

“Lest they also bid thee again.” Like worldly men are wont to do from gratitude or else avarice, for “to be hospitable to those who will make a return, is,” says S. Ambrose, “but a form of avarice.”

“And a recompence be made thee” by man, and this prove worthless and transient. If you regard this alone, you exclude the spiritual recompense from God and deprive yourself of it; if you look for both you will receive both, but both lessened, for the one lessens and as it were interferes with the other; but if you regard the divine alone, and only admit or rather bear with the human recompence because it is offered you, you will receive the divine whole and undiminished.

Ver. 13.-But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. “The maimed,” , the cripple, the mutilated, i.e. those wanting in body or mind. S. Chrysostom assigns the reason. “If ye invite the poor, God will be your debtor. For the humbler the brother is, so much the more does Christ come through him and visit us. For he who entertains a great man does it often from an interested motive or from vainglory. But thou sayest, the poor man is unclean and filthy. Wash him and make him sit with thee at table. If he has dirty garments, give him clean ones. If thou will not receive him in a quiet chamber, at least admit him where thy servants are. If thou art not willing that he should sit at meat with thee, send him a dish from thy table.”

Following this counsel, S. Gregory had often twelve beggars at his table, and therefore was rewarded by receiving Christ. Himself in the guise of a poor man. S. Louis of France also, not content with entertaining 120 beggars at his table daily, and on feast days 200, frequently waited upon them himself, and even washed their feet. In like manner acted S. Louis the Minorite, Bishop of Toulouse, following the example of his uncle S. Louis; S. Hedwig, Duchess of Poland, and her niece S. Elizabeth, the daughter of Andrew king of Hungary, who fed 900 poor every day, receiving a rich reward in divine favour and grace.

Mystically. Origen says, “He who shuns vainglory calls to a spiritual banquet the poor, that is, the ignorant, that he may enrich them; the weak, that is, those with offended consciences, that he may heal them; the lame, that is, those who have wandered from reason, that he may make their paths straight; the blind, that they may discern the truth.”

Ver. 14.-And thou shalt be blessed, for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just, when, says the Interlinear, the entertainers of the poor will enter into blessedness.

The neediness of the guests purifies the intention of the host, who expects no return from them, but acts solely out of love to God. Wherefore God, who considers that what is done to the poor is done unto Him, will grant him a bounteous reward, even the everlasting delights of the heavenly banquet, according to the promise, “and I appoint unto you . . . that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.” S. Luke xxii. 29. Hence S. Chrysostom says, “Let us be troubled not when we receive no return of a kindness, but when we do; for if we have received it, we shall receive nothing more; but if man does not repay us, God, out of love for whom we have acted, will be our recompense.”

Ver. 15.-Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God; i.e., in the resurrection of the just, of which Christ had made mention in the preceding verse. S. Cyril in the Catena, says, “This man was carnal, for he thought the reward of the saints was to be bodily.” He must therefore have been one of the Pharisees, for they believe in the resurrection, which the Sadducces deny. Act 23:8. For in heaven God feeds, satisfies, and fills (inebriat) the blessed with all delights. So the Psalmist: “I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with Thy likeness.” Psa 17:15. And again, “They shall be satisfied with the plenteousness of Thy house, and Thou shalt give them drink of Thy pleasures as out of the river.” Psa 36:8. This joy S. Augustine describes at length in his Soliloquies and Meditations.

Mystically. “He was sighing for something which was afar off, and the bread itself was lying before him. For who is that Bread of the kingdom of God but He who says, I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” S. Joh 5:51.

Ver. 16.-Then He said unto him, A certain man made a great supper. This parable is very similar to that recorded by S. Matthew. See commentary on S. Mat 22:2.

But you will ask, What was this supper? 1.Some understand by it, the incarnation of the Word of God, the preaching of His Gospel, and the redemption wrought by Him. For this is the great supper to which Christ, when He became incarnate, invited us. S. Matthew calls it a dinner. It is a dinner as regards the Church Militant; a supper with respect to the Church Triumphant. In this sense Leonidas addressed his comrades before the battle. “Let us dine, fellow-soldiers, for we shall sup in the nether (or rather the upper) world.” For the Church Militant here on earth is striving eagerly to attain the Church Triumphant in Heaven.

2. S. Cyril, in the Catena, understands the Eucharist by the supper. “The man,” he says, “is God the Father, who has prepared for us a great supper in Christ, for He has given us His own body to eat. Whence the Church makes choice of this parable for the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament.”

3. But in its literal sense, the supper is the happiness and glory of heaven. It is called a supper, because it will be given in the evening, i.e. at the end of the world, when life and its troubles are over: because, also, it will be our only and everlasting refreshment.

The great supper, says S. Gregory (Hom. 36), is the full enjoyment of eternal sweetness; for after it no guest is cast out.

A great. For nothing greater than it can be imagined, since God Himself will be our food and feast. Hence, Euthymius says, “Hereby is signified the unspeakable fruition of God, who will fulfil the utmost expectations of the blessed. For ‘eye hath not seen, nor car heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.'” 1Co 2:9.

And bade many: e.g., the whole nation of the Jews, who were the Church and the chosen people of God, and specially their rulers, who were bidden to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” S. Mat 3:2.

Ver. 17.-And sent his servants, &c., i.e., sent the Apostles after the resurrection to say that all things were ready for the heavenly feast.

Ver. 18.-And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, &c. The Scribes and Pharisees, and the chief Priests are here clearly indicated; for they, invited by Christ to the Gospel feast, made light of it, because they were so intent on their farms, i.e. their worldly possessions, that they had neither time nor inclination to think about the salvation of their souls. “God,” says S. Gregory (Hom. 36 in Evang.), “offers what ought to have been asked. Unasked, He is ready to give, what we could scarcely dare hope for. He announces that the delights of the eternal feast are ready, and with one consent they make excuse.” “They say, I pray thee, and then disdain to come. The word sounds of humility, but the action is pride.” S. Bernard rightly calls men who seek wealth, pleasure, honour and the like, lunatics. “I once” says he, “saw five men: why should I not look on them as lunatics? For the first, with swollen cheeks, was chewing the sand of the sea-shore. The second, standing by a lake of sulphur, was endeavouring to inhale the foul and noxious vapour which arose therefrom. The third, leaning over a blazing furnace, was enjoying the burning sparks which he received within his gaping jaws. The fourth, seated on a pinnacle of a temple, was drawing in with open mouth the light breezes, and if they seemed to flow less freely he fanned himself, as if in hope of inhaling the whole atmosphere. The fifth, standing aside, was laughing at the others, although himself the most deserving of ridicule, for he was busily engaged in sucking his own flesh, applying now his hands, now his arms, now one part of his body, now another to his mouth.” By these figures S. Bernard pictures the various kinds of sin. The first represents the greedy, the second the lustful, the third those prone to anger, the fourth the ambitious, and the fifth those who boast themselves over much of their possessions and are self-satisfied, who are never content, but ever thirsting for the good things of this world.

Ver. 19.-And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them, &c. Another kind of avarice is here described, viz, the desire of possessing oxen, and animals for tillage, or food, or some other purpose; for the riches of the patriarchs lay in their herds. So think Theophylact and Titus. S. Gregory, however (Hom. 36), says, “What are we to understand by the five yoke of oxen but the five senses? which are rightly called yokes, because they are double in the two sexes.”

Ver. 20.-And another said, I have married a wife, &c. What, asks S. Gregory, are we to understand by a wife but carnal gratifications? The Pharisees, like many at the present time, were ensnared by avarice and luxury. These are the thorns which choke the word of God. S. Luk 8:14.

Let us all then give heed to the warning of S. Paul, and remember that “the fashion of this world passeth away” (1Co 7:31). “For the ‘res temporalis’ consists in possession, and ‘res eterna’ in expectation,” S. Gregory (Hom. 36). Not that marriage is censured here (save so far as it interferes with the work of salvation), says S. Ambrose, but purity is held up to greater honour, for “the love of the things of this world is a fetter to (viscus est) the wings of the spirit.” Gloss.

In carnal things, desire begets satiety, and satiety disgust; but in spiritual things, satiety provokes desire. S. Gregory.

S. Augustine (serm. 33, De Verb. Domini) explains and applies somewhat differently the excuses of the invited guests:

“The piece of ground which was bought denotes government. Therefore pride is the first vice reproved.

“The five yoke of oxen are taken to be the five senses, by means of which earthly things are pursued. For the oxen till the ground; but men at a distance from faith, given up to earthly things, are occupied with carnal matters.

“‘Love not the world, therefore, neither the things that are in the world,’ for ‘the world passeth away, and the lust thereof’ 1Jo 2:15-17. Away then with wicked and vain excuses, and let us come to the supper wherewith we may be inwardly nourished. Let not the lifting up of pride hinder us, neither let lawless curiosity fright us, and turn us away from God. Let not the pleasures of the flesh keep us from the pleasure of the heart. Let us come and be filled.”

Ver. 21.-So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things, &c. We are here taught that Christ chose the outcasts and poor in place of the Priests and Pharisees who had made light of His gospel. According to that which is written, “The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” S. Matt. xxi. 31. And again, “Many that are first shall be last: and the last shall be first.” S. Mat 19:30.

For albeit that Christ preached from the commencement of His ministry both to the Pharisees and to the multitude, yet the Pharisees, as of higher rank, were the first invited; to preserve the unity of the parable; and also because Christ would have the scribes first, by reason of their position, acknowledge Him, and then be His witnesses amongst the people. But the contrary came to pass. “They,” says Euthymius, “who refused to acknowledge Him, were the chief Priests and rulers of the people, and these, who were chosen in their stead, were the humble and the outcasts of the nation.” For of a truth “God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.” 1Co 1:27.

Symbolically. S. Augustine says (serm. 34 De Verb. Dom.): Who were those that came, but the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind? Those who absented themselves were those who thought themselves rich, and robust; who, as it were, could walk well, and see clearly, the hopelessness of whose state was proportionate to their pride.

Let the beggars come to the feast at the invitation of Him who made Himself poor that we might become rich.

Let the weak come, for the physician has no need of those that are whole, but of those that are sick.

Let the lame come and say, “Order my steps in Thy word.”

Let the blind come and say, “Lighten Thou mine eyes, that I sleep not in death.”

These poor and miserable creatures teach us:

1. That none are to be despised, but that salvation in Christ is to be offered to all.

2. That it is easier for the poor to obey the gospel precepts, and therefore to be saved, than for the rich.

3. That we must despair of no one’s salvation, however wretched, blind, or perverse he may be.

Ver. 22.-And the servant said, Yet there is room. The number of the elect is not yet complete. Heaven is not yet filled with those who are to obtain salvation. Learn to imitate the zeal of this servant who rejected no one, however blind, deformed, or maimed, but busied himself in summoning and saying more and more.

Ver. 23.-And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the high-ways and hedges, &c. Go forth, without the city-without Jerusalem, and beyond Juda, and call the Gentiles to Christ.

Into the highways. “The partings of the highways” (S. Mat 22:9), i.e. into the roads which lead to all nations and to the ends of the earth.

And hedges. The hamlets and villages, which were surrounded not by walls but by hedges. Hence we are taught that the Gospel is to be preached by the Apostles and their successors, even to savage and uncivilised nations; a duty which is recognised more and more by the followers of Christ.

Hence the servant does not say, as he added of the Jews in the 22nd verse, “it is done as thou hast commanded;” because the work is not yet finished among the Gentiles; it is being done more fully from day to day, to be completed at the end or the world. “The meaning of this verse,” says Titus, “is, that after the Israelites had been gathered in, the people of the Gentiles were also to be called, i.e. men who, as being born and brought up in the country, in the highways and hedges without the city, were entirely uncivilised.” Or, as Theophylact interprets it, “The Israelites were within the city, having received the law, and having been granted a more civilised lot in life; but the Gentiles were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, and without God in the world.” (Eph 2:12.)

Compel them to come in. Many of the Gentile nations were wholly given up to idolatry and evil living. Hence they were to be compelled to salvation by the burning zeal and energy of the preacher, by miracles, even by the scourge and judgments of God sent upon them “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1Co 2:4). For “our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance.” 1Th 1:5.

“Therefore,” says Suarez, “compel them to come in, either by afflicting them with labour and sorrows, or by converting them, as it were, miraculously, by a mighty effort and powerful call.”

Ver. 24.-For I say unto you, that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper, because they made light of my invitation. So the Pharisees and the rulers of the Jews, given up to earthly enjoyments, are to be excluded from the heavenly feast because, called by Christ to accept the teaching of His gospel, they refused the invitation. “Because I have called and ye refused, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh.” Pro 1:24. Then shall they, too late, repent of their ingratitude and folly, and shall say, “What hath pride profited us, or what good hath riches with our vaunting brought us? For those things are passed away like a shadow.” Wisdom 5:8.

So far Christ had said all these things in the house of the Pharisee, whose invitation He had accepted, in order that He might instruct him and his friends. Let all those, therefore, who are followers of Christ, imitate His example, and not take part in any entertainment unless it be for the purpose of reaping spiritual fruit.

Ver. 26.-If any man come to Me, &c. That having left all (ver. 33) he may, with the Apostles and the seventy disciples, follow Me, the Master and Teacher of perfection.

All these things are of evangelical counsel, and not of precept although they may be said in a measure to extend to all Christians, inasmuch as they are bound to hate their parents, i.e. to give up the love of their friends and relations-even the love of life, if such love oppose itself to the law of Christ. Hence Maldonatus thinks this to be of precept; Jansenius, of counsel. But see S. Mat 10:37.

Suarez (lib. ii. De Concurs. Dom.) says, “to hate” signifies the same as “to love less,” in which sense it is written, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Rom 9:13.

Ver. 28.-For which of you, intending to build a tower, &c. By means of this parable Christ would teach us with what prudence we ought to test our bodily, and above all our spiritual strength, as well as such gifts of grace as we may possess, before we attempt to build the lofty tower of evangelical perfection, and declare war against ourselves our passions, our friends and the whole world; lest afterward, recoiling from so great an undertaking, we incur the loss of all our outlay, and also the reproach of having rashly commenced a building which we were unable to finish, and of having entered upon a war in which we were worsted.

“He counts the cost,” says the Gloss, “who perceives that money will have to be spent, i.e. that the heart must be weaned from corrupt desires, and the soul prepared for adversity.”

Symbolically. Salmeron (tom. vii. tract 24) says, “Christ puts forth two parables to teach the rulers of the Church that they must be skilled both in action and in contemplation, the one about building a tower, which is a symbol of contemplative life, for a tower commands an extensive prospect; the other, about engaging in war against a hostile king, which is significative of the active life.

“For those who are novices in the way of God, and are learning, as it were, the first elements of the perfect life, are called upon to battle with their enemies, and to fight against their vices and evil passions.

“By the tower therefore we may understand the religious state, which is coupled to the contemplative life.

“1. Because as a tower overtops all other buildings, so does a life of religion excel all other vocations and callings.

“2. As a tower gives grace to a city, so is the religious life an ornament to the Church.

“3. As a tower is a look-out, to discover the movements of the enemy, so in the contemplative life we look forth on the wiles of our adversary, and on the good and evil laid up in futurity.

“4. As a tower is a protection to them that dwell therein, so is a life of religion a defence against the world, the flesh and the devil, and a safe storehouse for the fruits of good works. So it is written, Son 4:4, ‘Thy neck is like the tower of David, . . . whereon hang a thousand bucklers,’ i.e. the bucklers of holy vows, holy examples, and holy observances.

“5. As every one ought to count the cost before he commences to build a tower, so a year is given a novice in order that he may make trial of his fitness for the religious life. For he whose heart is fixed on heaven looks down as from a lofty tower upon the world which lies beneath, and counts it worthless.”

So S. Chrysostom (hom. 15 ad. Pop.), says: “Just as to those who look back from the highest mountain tops, not only men and trees but even entire cities look small, and great armies seem to be creeping about like ants, so to those whose minds are uplifted by the constant contemplation of heavenly things, all human affairs, power, glory, riches, and the like, seem minute and worthless: unworthy of the greatness of the immortal soul.”

Hear also the lament of S. Gregory, when he was called from a religious order to be the Pope: “Seeking nothing, in this world, and fearing, nothing, I seemed to stand on a certain eminence, so that I thought that the promise of God, ‘I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth’ (Isa 58:14), had well-nigh been fulfilled in me. For he rides upon the high places of the earth, who despises and treads under feet all that this world counts great and glorious. But suddenly cast down from this eminence, and plunged into the whirl of temptation, I have became a prey to terror and affright, for although I fear nothing for myself, I fear much for those committed to my charge” (Lib. 1, epist. 5 and 6).

Ver. 31.-Or what king, going to make war against another king, &c. By this, says Titus, we are given to understand that we have a war to wage against the hostile powers of Satan and that law which, reigning in our members, is continually the cause of inward perturbation and strife.

So also S. Cyril: “The ten thousand of him who is going to fight with the king who has double the number, signify the simplicity of the Christian about to contend with the subtlety of the devil.” And Theophylact: “The king is sin, and devils are his satellites, who, compared to us, are considered to have greater strength.”

But S. Gregory (Hom.37) gives another interpretation. “The king that is about to come against us is Christ, who will come with a double army against a single one. For while we are scarcely prepared in deeds only, He will discomfit us at once, both in thought and deed. Let us send Him therefore an embassy; our tears, our works of mercy, and propitiatory victim.”

Ver. 32.-Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, &c. This verse gives completeness to the parable, but is not to be taken as the teaching of Christ, for we may not bargain with either the evil spirits or our vices; against these we must wage , an irreconcilable war.

This verse may however be interpreted in this way-

“He that desires to follow me perfectly in poverty and in the preaching of the gospel, must make an entire surrender of self, and give up parents, friends, and possessions, thus making them enemies.

“But if he see that he has not strength enough for this, let him make conditions of peace with them, and bind himself by the gospel precepts only, leaving for others the counsels of poverty, obedience, and the preaching of salvation. For this is that which Christ would teach, as is clear from the following verse; hence he makes mention of two armies, two leaders, and two banners, one His own, and the other that of Lucifer. Wherefore the Apostles and their successors have need to bear in mind that they are engaged in actual warfare against the devil and his angels.” S. Cyril.

Ver. 33.-So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, &c. This is the post-parable, and sums up the teaching of the parable itself. “He who refuseth to give up all, in order that he may live a life of evangelical perfection, cannot be My disciple as the Apostles were.” And again, It would he better for him who is unwilling to give up all, when persecution or necessity demand it and will not submit to the loss of possessions, family, and even life itself for the gospel’s sake, not to take My yoke upon him, rather than having begun to lead a Christian life, to fall away and apostatise from the faith. For such an one adds the sin of apostasy to that of unbelief, according to the Scripture: “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” 2Pe 2:21.

Christ here teaches us that to become a disciple is no child’s play, but a work for men, needing great gifts of grace, and much strength of purpose and much vigour of mind.

The Christians of the first three centuries, particularly those of Rome, in time of persecution, cheerfully made sacrifice of their fortunes, their liberty and their lives, for the gospel’s sake. “Few,” says Bede, “are wishing to leave all and give up earthly cares; but it is for every one who is faithful to renounce all, i.e. so to hold the things that are of the world, that he may not be held in the world.”

Hear also S. Gregory (hom. 36): I “would advise you to leave all, but I dare not. But if you are not able to give up all, be masters of your earthly possessions; let them not gain the mastery over you.”

Ver. 34.-Salt is good, but if the salt have lost his savour, &c. Salt is good as long as it retains its peculiar properties. So also ye who are my Apostles, as long as ye preserve your spiritual powers, will be useful to the world to season it with the salt of gospel faith and wisdom. But if ye lose your savour, ye will be good for nothing but to be despised and trodden under feet of men, for there is no one to season or correct you. Bede. See also Comment. on S. Mat 5:13, and S. Mar 9:50.

This parable applies not only to the Apostles, but in a measure to all Christians. For they ought, by the innocence of their lives and their good example, to season unbelievers who are, as it were, unsalted.

Ver. 35.-He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Let him hear and meditate on what I say and teach. Our Lord calls attention to the seriousness and the difficulty of the matter about which He has been teaching. See Comment. on S. Mat 13:9-13.

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

14:1 And {1} it came to pass, as he went into the house of {a} one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

(1) The law of the very sabbath ought not to hinder the offices of charity.

(a) Either one of the elders, whom they called the sanhedrin, or one of the chiefs of the synagogue: for all the Pharisees were not chief men of the synagogue Joh 7:48 ; for this word Pharisee was the name of a sect, though it appears by viewing the whole history of the matter that the Pharisees had much authority.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

4. Participants in the kingdom 14:1-24

This section contains the record of several incidents that happened when Jesus was the dinner guest of a leading Pharisee. Jesus had just announced that He would leave Jerusalem desolate (Luk 13:35). The present section justifies Jesus’ condemnation by showing that the root of Israel’s problems lay with her leaders, specifically the Pharisees. It also gives the rationale for Jesus excluding many Jews from the kingdom and admitting Gentiles (Luk 13:28-30).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The healing of a man with dropsy 14:1-6

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The setting for what follows is secondary to the attitude of the Pharisees who were present. They had already decided to do away with Jesus (Luk 11:53-54). Now the Pharisees and lawyers were watching Him like vultures waiting to pounce on their prey at the first opportunity (Luk 14:3). Views of the Sabbath were a major source of disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees (cf. Luk 6:1-5; Luk 6:11; Luk 13:10-17). Quite possibly this leading Pharisee, perhaps a member of the Sanhedrin, had set a trap for Jesus by inviting him to his house for a Sabbath meal. Jesus had already violated Sabbath traditions on at least seven different occasions (Luk 4:31-39; Luk 6:1-5; Joh 5:1-9; Luk 6:6-10; Luk 13:10-17; John 9). Table fellowship implied friendship, but clearly this was hypocritical on this occasion.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)