CRITICAL NOTES
Luke 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. Nehemiah 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 (Luke 14:2) “before Him,” and (Luke 14:4) “let Him go”—as of dismissing him from the room.
Luke 14:3. And Jesus answering.—I.e., knowing their thoughts and, replying to them, though they were unexpressed (cf. Luke 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. Luke 13:15, while if they answered in the affirmative their whole case against Jesus would fall to the ground.
Luke 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.
Luke 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. Luke 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 ownership—“one 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 accident—dropsy, and death by drowning. Pull him out.—Rather, “draw him up” (R.V.).
Luke 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.— Luke 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 Lord’s 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. Luke 13:14).
II. The sullen malice of Christ’s 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 gladness—their 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 them—they 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 Luke 14:1-6
Luke 14:1-24. Lessons from the Great Teacher.
I. In Sabbath-keeping.
II. In true humility.
III. In true hospitality.
IV. In God’s hospitality.—Taylor.
Luke 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 Lord’s Day. It is consecrated by His Spirit for the service of man, as well as for the worship of God.—Laidlaw.
Luke 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 Luke 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 Luke 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” (Colossians 4:6), and was addressed, first to the guests (Luke 14:7-10), then to the host (Luke 14:11-14), and, finally, on occasion being given (Luke 14:15), to both (Luke 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.
Luke 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.
Luke 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.
Luke 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.
Luke 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.
Luke 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 Deuteronomy 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 (Luke 13:15; Matthew 12:11), the Lord brings back those present to their own experience, and lets them feel the keen contradiction in which their blame of Christ’s 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.
Luke 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 do—exasperated them the more; they replied nothing, biding their time (cf. Matthew 12:14).—Trench.