Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 14:1 - 14:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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.)
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 êáὶ ἰäïý 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 ãÜñ , 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 ἔìðñïóèåí áὐô . 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 ( ἐðéëáâüìåíïò ) 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 õἱüò 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 Saviour’s 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 prœferenda. The various reading ðñüâáôïí (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 (Gfrörer, 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 äåῖðíïí , 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 ( óὲ êáὶ áὐôüí , 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 ( ἄñîῃ , the lingering beginning of receding, with a feeling of shame, Meyer) to take not only one of the lower but the lowest place ( ôὸí ἔó÷ . ôüð .). “Qui semel cedere jubetur, longe removetur.” Bengel. The humble one, on the other hand, who has gone blithely and joyfully to the feast ( ðïñåõèåßò ), and contents himself there with the lowest place, receives a friendly ößëå , that urges him to come up, if not in every case to the highest seat of all, at least higher, ἀíþôåñïí , and the honor which is herewith connected even in and of itself gains yet double worth by the fact that it falls to him ἐíþðéïí 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 Agapæ 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 ἀðÝ÷åéí ôὸí ìéóèüí , 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, ôῶí äéêáßùí , 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 áὐôὸò ἔöá . At all events, this word contains a germ which is further developed in the later apostolic writings. Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. Judœorum, § 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 äéêáßùí 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.
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 God’s 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 Æsop 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 Saviour’s 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 êáôὰ ῥçôüí , 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 Martial’s poscis munera, Sexte, non amicos, and especially the remarkable words of Plato in the Phœdrus, 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.
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 one’s doing.—Nova Bibl. Tüb.:—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. Tüb.:—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; God’s 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. 108–110.
On the Pericope:—Jesus as Guest in the Pharisee’s 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 one’s 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:
Luk_14:3.—According to the reading èåñáðåῦóáé ἢ ïὔ , accepted by Tischendorf on considerations not without weight and in some measure already supported by Lachmann. The Rec. is taken from Mat_12:10.
Luk_14:5.—The fuller reading, ἀðïêñéè . ðñὸò áὐô . åἶðåí , is critically suspicious. See Lachmann and Meyer. [B. omits, Cod. Sin. inserts.]
Luk_14:5.—The widely-diffused reading õἱüò appears to us, often as it has been vindicated, on internal grounds to be rejected. See below in the Exegetical and Critical remarks. [ Õἱüò supported by A., B., 10 other uncials; ὄíïò by Cod. Sin., 3 other uncials. Õἱüò 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.]
Luk_14:6.—The áὐôῷ of the Recepta is untenable.