099. Chapter 40 - Discussions in Peraea

Chapter 40 - Discussions in Peraea John 10:40-42;Luke 13:22-35;Luke 14:1-35

Bethabara

John states clearly that after the Feast of Dedication Jesus left Jerusalem to carry on a ministry in Peraea. “And he went away again beyond the Jordan into the place where John was at the first baptizing.” This location can be either the section across from Jericho or that near Bethabara about seven miles south of the Sea of Galilee. John had labored in both these sections during the early part of his ministry. The attempted interference of Herod Antipas with the ministry of Jesus shortly after this time suggests that Jesus was preaching in northern Peraea close to Tiberias, the capital of Herod’s domain. The vicious hostility of the Jerusalem Pharisees which Jesus had just faced also argues for a withdrawal farther into the provinces than near Jericho.

John’s Ministry

“And many came unto him; and they said, John indeed did no sign: but all things whatsoever John spake of this man were true” (John 10:41). The following facts concerning John’s ministry are brought out: (1) John had worked no miracles. The nature of his ministry in this respect is in striking contrast with the Old Testament prophets. It also throws into the bolder relief the tremendous, miraculous ministry of Jesus. The descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism of Jesus was miraculous and was cited by John as offering strong confirmation of Jesus’ Messiahship. The predictions John had made were by miraculous inspiration and were subject to immediate testing.

(2) John had spoken many things about Jesus. Note the contrast between I am not and I am in John’s preaching. The constant, central point of emphasis in John’s preaching was the Christ who was in the midst about to reveal Himself. He kept himself in the background; and, when questioned as to his identity, he presented himself in relation to the Christ (“the voice of one crying” ; “the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy….”)

(3) He had publicly predicted and declared many things about Jesus which still were powerfully impressed on the hearts of the people. The fulfillment of his predictions had great weight with these people; they could see now that although John had not worked any miracles, the fulfillment of his predictions proved his miraculous insight.

(4) The influence of John was still very strong, especially in this region where he had carried on his ministry.

John’s Predictions

Some of the predictions John had made were these: (1) One mightier than he would come who would bring judgment upon the wicked and would cleanse the nation, saving the righteous and destroying the sinful (Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12). This prediction had not been fulfilled in the manner the people had expected or as John himself had anticipated. But Jesus’ gracious ministry to the oppressed and His blazing condemnation of the nation’s corrupt leaders had been most effective, although He had not used the violence they had expected. Cleansing the temple before all the nation and revealing the wickedness of both Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus had given startling fulfillment of John’s predictions. (2) His ministry would be so far-reaching in its influence that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6). The growing influence of Jesus’ ministry gave promise of the fulfillment of this prediction.

(3) Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16). This mysterious promise would be remembered, but not yet understood. All the majesty and mystery of Jesus’ miraculous ministry would fill them with expectancy of its fulfillment.(4) He would baptize in fire the wicked who despised and defied God. The people would wait in keen expectation of any such campaign of destruction. Jesus Himself explained at the time of His ascension the meaning of the baptism in the Holy Spirit as He commanded the apostles to remain in Jerusalem until its fulfillment in the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them not many days hence. Jesus carefully separated the baptism in the Holy Spirit from the baptism in fire in this explanation; He did not say that the baptism in fire was to take place “not many days hence” (Acts 1:5).

(5) One was in the midst who would shortly make Himself known and who would be far greater than John (John 1:26, John 1:27). (6) Jesus was the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world. Like the Old Testament prophets John had failed to understand the content of such predictions as these, but had declared what God had revealed to him (1 Peter 1:10, 1 Peter 1:11; Matthew 11:2, Matthew 11:3). The people who heard these predictions would be the more mystified and thrilled by the ones they did not understand. They now saw the plain fulfillment of so many events John had predicted that they felt sure the rest would come to pass according to the will of God.

Luke’s Account

Luke describes this Peraean ministry in the following language: “And he went on his way through cities and villages, teaching, and journeying on unto Jerusalem” (Luke 13:22). Whether this casual mention of going up to Jerusalem is Luke’s manner of referring to the visit at the Feast of Dedication or whether he means that Jesus was gradually approaching the capital in this evangelistic campaign through Peraea, his account fits perfectly with that of John, especially if northern Peraea is the territory into which Jesus has now come. This section had not been evangelized, and Jesus seems to have been systematically visiting all the cities and villages. The campaign which ended with the feeding of the four thousand had been in the section east and immediately southeast of the Sea of Galilee. He was evidently farther south in Peraea at this later time. The Narrow Gate

“And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved?” (Luke 13:23). We cannot be sure of the identity of the questioner, whether this is friend or foe, disciple or mere listener. Nor can we tell the motive of the questioner. The exclusiveness of the Pharisees may be back of the question, but the question is one which has always stirred certain people to speculation. The verb is a present passive participle: “Are those who are being saved, few?” The fact that Jesus refused to answer the question directly may mean that it had been asked out of curiosity; if so, the request was an invasion of the realm where God rules and man is not supposed to enter. Perhaps He chose rather to discuss the question in such a way as to suggest the answer to all His hearers and at the same time stimulate the solemn sense of obligation as to the outcome. The answer which Jesus intimated is really, “Yes, many; no, few.” In light of all the billions of people who have lived in the world, only a few will attain to eternal blessedness, but there will be a vast multitude who will be saved so that in this sense there will be many. The immediate implication of His answer is that many will be disappointed; many will expect to enter, but will find themselves denied access to life. “Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able” (Luke 13:24). The narrow door emphasizes difficulty of entrance, definite manner of entrance, and few exercising the wisdom, persistence, and faith to attain life. This very sort of statement Jesus had made in the Sermon on the Mount. His declaration then had been quite definite: “Few are they that find it” (Matthew 7:14). He had described the way as “straitened” (limited, narrow) and the gate as narrow; and the way to destruction was broad and entered by a wide gate: “And many are they that enter thereby.” The verb strive to enter in is present tense — keep on striving to enter; strain every nerve in trying to enter. This does not mean that many are trying now to find the way, but are not able to succeed and secure God’s favor. Rather, those who are earnestly seeking are succeeding, but those who put off the day of salvation until it is too late shall in eternity plead for admission, but will be denied. Shall not be able speaks of an attempt to force a closed door — “will not have strength to.” The Closed Door

“When once the master of the house is risen up [decisive nature of the second coming], and hath shut to the door [awesome finality], and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us” (Luke 13:25). This little parable pictures the dreadful dilemma of those who find themselves excluded. it suggests the insolence of those who try to enter by forcing open a closed door without asking permission or even so much as giving warning to the owner. Then, when they find themselves frustrated in their attempt, they begin to knock and call out for the door to be opened.

“When once the master of the house is risen” may refer to the second coming or to the death of an individual, ending his probation on earth. The judgment abruptly ends the delusion of something for nothing, the birthright sold for a mess of pottage by one who yet hopes to slip into heaven unawares. “I know not whence ye are” is the same rejection pictured in the Sermon on the Mount: “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:23). “We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in our streets” (Luke 13:26). The basis of their claim to entrance is social fellowship with Christ and listening to His preaching. In the Sermon on the Mount the claim is made of having prophesied in His name, cast out demons, and done many mighty works. The claim may be true; Judas worked miracles, as did the other apostles, and he then became a traitor. The claim may he false; regardless, the judgment is based upon the personal character which each one has achieved. One does not gain entrance to life by good works, but by good character achieved through Christ. The basis of rejection in both passages is the failure to obey.

“There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without” (Luke 13:28). The day of judgment will set apart the wicked from the righteous; as the former are cast forth, they will see the righteous entering into the kingdom of God. The account of the rich man and Lazarus shows that this vision by those who have deprived themselves of its joys is still seen in Tartarus. Whether this is true of the final blessedness of heaven we are not told. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the progenitors of the race who are usually named among its most famous representatives, are here mentioned along with all the prophets, implying that all faithful Jews will be saved. It was most important to name these famous Jews and make evident the salvation of all righteous Jews since in the next sentence Jesus sets forth that many obedient Gentiles will be saved, while disobedient Jews will be rejected. The Open Door

“They shall come from the east and the west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:29). Gentiles are not specified; but, although many Jews were scattered over all the civilized world, the implication is that these from the north, east, south, and west are Gentiles. Critics charge that Luke, being a Greek, invented this statement and introduced it from his imagination in order to give a universal coloring to the teaching of Jesus. They find to their dismay that Matthew, a Jew by birth, writing to the Jews, makes even clearer this prediction of the salvation of obedient Gentiles and the rejection of disobedient Jews (Matthew 8:11, Matthew 8:12).

“There are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last” (Luke 13:30). This is one of the favorite sayings of Jesus (Matthew 19:30; Matthew 20:16; Mark 10:31). Jesus does not affirm that everyone who is first shall be last and last, first; but that there will be some in whom this reversal of position will be seen. Mark 10:31 makes this limitation very clear: “Many that are first shall be last.” Some of those who had been first in their opportunities of hearing and obeying shall become last by virtue of their failure to make the most of their opportunities. Many Gentiles with meager opportunities will win higher favor with God than Jews with greater opportunities which they did not sufficiently appreciate.

Herod’s Threat

“In that very hour there came certain Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee out, and go hence: for Herod would fain kill thee” (Luke 13:31). Commentators disagree as to who was the author of this threat — Herod or the Pharisees. If in collusion, what was the purpose of each? Some suppose that the Pharisees were not sent by Herod, but reported his words without consulting him, or that they reported a rumor they had heard from Herod’s court. Others think that the Pharisees invented the entire threat and that Herod had not made any hostile move toward Jesus. They would interpret that fox as referring to the inventor of the report, or the Pharisees as a group. But the Pharisees did not invent the report, for Jesus would have denounced them as liars and hypocrites. Moreover, the report fits precisely with the character and attitude of Herod, as does the epithet applied to him. Whether he had sent these Pharisees (sycophants of his court) or whether they reported of their own accord, they wanted to drive Jesus back into Judaea where He would be more directly under the authority of the Jerusalem hierarchy. It seems more likely that it was a definite effort of Herod to rid himself of another troublesome spiritual leader and to avoid committing another such murder as he had perpetrated in the case of John. The Pharisees would have been glad to join him in making public the threat of death, for it gave promise of disturbing Jesus’ ministry and of frightening His followers. It reminds one of the efforts to frighten Amos from his trenchant ministry at Bethel (Amos 7:10-17).

Defy to Herod

“Go and say to that fox, Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected” (Luke 13:32). That Jesus should have sent such a message directly to Herod is proof that the threat was from Herod and not invented by the Pharisees The epithet fox describes Herod’s character precisely — a sly, treacherous, slinking animal living by robbing and destroying others. His dealings with his own wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, with Herod Philip of Rome, his half brother whose wife, Herodias, he persuaded to come and be his consort, and with Vitellius the Roman proconsul are all illustrations of his contemptible character. The fox is very common in Palestine and its habits are well known; hence the multitude would catch instantly the boldness and penetrating character of the comparison. The Greek word fox is used here in the feminine gender. Some suppose that this gender was used to give a peculiarly contemptuous meaning to the epithet. This conclusion is uncertain since the word is more frequently feminine than masculine in its common usage. Herod was displaying the craftiness of a fox by attempting to make use of a bluff — to make a threat of death which he would not dare to execute. He had arrested John, but had feared to kill him until he was trapped by Herodias and forced to murder him. The murder of Jesus would have required much more daring. The Divine King The message Jesus sent to Herod contained the following elements: (1) Jesus cited His miraculous ministry as He had when John had sent from prison to question His ministry. “I cast out demons and perform cures — ” His ministry was wholly good and noble; Herod had no just reason for driving Him out. He would find no cause to justify the threat of death he had sent. Jesus’ miraculous ministry revealed divine power which was invincible; Herod would be unable to drive Him out. By contrast He could in an instant turn this divine power against Herod and destroy him. His miraculous ministry proved Him to be the Messiah: Herod would be unable to drive Him out or divert His followers.

(2) Jesus unfolded a definite, divine program which could not be halted or changed by such hostile threats. As sure and as invincible as God Himself is the ministry of Jesus in its nature, its time, and its results. “Today and tomorrow and the third day” have been held to mean: (a) the three years of Christ’s ministry; (b) three actual days; (c) a long time (d) a short time; (e) a definite time. The last interpretation is probably correct. The three years of Christ’s ministry are in the past, and Jesus spoke of that which was ahead. A reference to three actual days is not possible because some two months elapsed before the crucifixion, and miraculous cures were performed by Jesus during this period. A reference to the three days in the tomb could not be meant, for it would not fit with the prediction of casting out demons and performing cures. It probably means that Christ’s program is definitely laid out by God and a mere Herod cannot change it.

(3) Jesus predicted the ultimate triumph of His mission: “I am perfected.” Jesus was always morally perfect, but He became perfect in the sense of completing the work of man’s redemption, to which God had committed Him. The word made perfect is used three times in the Epistle of Hebrews in this sense of “made complete.” “For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Hebrews 2:10). “Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:8, Hebrews 5:9). By His death and resurrection Jesus became perfectly, or completely, our Savior.

(4) Jesus declared His intention of leaving Herod’s domain, but not at the present time and not because of Herod’s threats: “Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33). Jesus was following a definite course and no human interference can influence Him; in the one-two-three of God’s plan and time He would go up to Jerusalem to die.

(5) In foretelling His death in Jerusalem, Jesus expressed unfathomable pathos in the sarcasm that it would not be fitting for the Messiah to die outside of Jerusalem, since the death of the Old Testament prophets had occurred there at the hands of the unbelieving, rebellious nation. The word nevertheless is arresting. Trench holds that the meaning is “Although I must die on the third day, yet threats will not interfere with my work until then.” Plummer interprets: “Although I must go to Jerusalem, yet it is not threats that send me thither.” Nevertheless is connected with I must go on my way, and can refer either to the departure from Herod’s domain and the trip to the capital, or to the way of the cross.

Jerusalem the Murderess The stubborn and rebellious character of the Jewish nation had been shown in the slaying of one prophet after another in the holy city itself. Hence the precedent established by the Jews made it peculiarly fitting that the Messiah should face final rejection and death in the capital. “Jerusalem is the customary place for the Jews to flaunt their defiance of God and to commit the murder of His messengers, so I must die there.” Not all the prophets had been killed at Jerusalem, but almost all; John the Baptist is an example of a prophet who was not murdered in Jerusalem. This reply was a slashing attack on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who were pretending to be alarmed for the safety of Jesus lest Herod kill Him as he had killed John. “Do not be alarmed. I am in no danger here, nor from him. But I must go to your capital: and it is there, and at your hands, that I shall die” (Plummer, Commentary on Luke, p. 351).

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her own brood under her wings, and ye would not!” (Luke 13:34). This outcry is one of the most heartrending appeals that ever came from the lips of the Son of God. It is no more surprising that Jesus should have repeated this appeal in Jerusalem in the midst of the final day of His public ministry than that His love should have been so steadfast and unfailing (Matthew 23:37). Plummer holds that it is entirely improbable that Jesus should have uttered this lament twice because the words are so similar and so very striking; but Alford, Andrews, Ellicott, and Stier hold that the lament was spoken twice. Plummer admits that the settings both here and in Matthew 23:37 are so fitting that he is unable to determine on which occasion it was actually uttered, but he favors the latter. There is clear evidence, however, in the Gospel accounts that Jesus frequently repeated instruction and sayings to different audiences. This procedure is a logical and intelligent method of instruction. The manner in which this outcry arises on both occasions is strong proof of the authenticity of both accounts.

Those familiar with farm life have seen many times in the midst of a wild storm the pathetic scene of a hen desperately clucking to her brood, trying to bring them under the shelter of her wings. One or two stubborn chicks can be seen strutting around in the downpour determined to find out what the world is really like, only to fall dead amid their disobedience. That the chosen nation, set apart by God for His divine purposes, should thus defy Him seems beyond comprehension. That killeth is a feminine, present participle — she who is continually a murderess, the slayer of prophets.

Campaigning in Jerusalem

One of the central attacks of Strauss and the Tübingen school and all who have followed them has been that John falsely represents Jesus as being in Jerusalem a number of times at different feasts, and that the Synoptics show this to be false by presenting the campaigns of Jesus as concentrated in Galilee until the final Passover. But this passage in Luke, as well as Matthew 23:37, confirms the picture of Jesus’ ministry given by John. They represent Jesus as having been frequently in Jerusalem and as having repeatedly sought to win the capital back to God. Neander pointed out that thy children could not possibly refer to others than the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Strauss admitted this as the passage stands, but arbitrarily denied that it had been spoken by Jesus, and drew on his imagination to suggest that it had been copied in later from apocryphal sources. The manuscript evidence for both of these passages is so strong that Strauss merely exposes his own desperate prejudice when he tries to remove this lament from the text.

Desolate

“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Luke 13:35). The word desolate is italicized in the a.s.v. showing that the translators followed manuscripts which omitted the word. But they felt it had to be supplied to make the meaning clear. They did not italicize desolate in Matthew 23:38. The a.v. accepts the word as genuine in both passages and does not italicize them. Without the word desolate the meaning would be, “Your house is left unto you. It is no longer mine. Defend it the best way you can.’ With the word in the text the entire picture of Jerusalem, falling in blood and flames before the final attack of the Romans, rises to view. The Second Coming

“Ye shall not see me, until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” It is implied that they should not see Him until they should become repentant and rejoice at His coming, but it is not necessarily implied that all would repent and rejoice. Since such praises were heard at the triumphal entry, some refer this prediction to the enthusiastic entrance into the capital. Jesus went up to Bethany in the intervening period for the resurrection of Lazarus, but made no appearance in the capital. But this interpretation would reduce this solemn assertion of Jesus to the assurance that the Jews in Jerusalem would not see Him for some weeks. Does this prediction suggest that their house was to be left desolate for only such a brief period? This same prediction made by Jesus on the final day of His ministry certainly refers to the second coming, for the triumphal entry had already occurred. It seems that the reference here in Luke also has the second coming in the background. There is to be a future conversion of Jews. Moreover, there will be no final defiance of Christ at His second coming. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, but it will be too late for unbelievers when they face the judgment. A Pharisee Banquet This encounter with hostile Pharisees is followed in Luke’s account with a scene in the home of a Pharisee where Jesus was being entertained on a sabbath day. We cannot tell how hostile the intent of the host had been, but Luke’s statement they were watching him gives room for suspecting an attack upon Him was being sought. The furious controversy which ensued reflects the atmosphere. We naturally wonder at the frequent presence of Jesus in the homes of Pharisees, but He was probably much more often in homes of the poor. The Gospel writers are telling about events of special importance. We never read of Jesus’ refusing an invitation to share the hospitality of a home. The Pharisees were people of wealth and influence in each community. They had the largest homes where the most people could see and hear. They would have been the best situated to entertain such a group as Jesus and His apostles. But it is a question as to whether the apostles would have been included in such invitations. The Pharisees were scholarly and especially interested to hear what Jesus had to say. They were also so hostile that they either did not want Jesus in their homes or were afraid to invite Him for fear of ostracism, so that the invitations seem always to have come from Pharisees who were plotting to entrap Him. The Afflicted Man

“And behold, there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy” (Luke 14:2). The man might have been brought in as a part of a trap or have been present by chance, but the narrative indicates that he came in the hope of being healed, and his presence may have been a surprise to the Pharisees. The Pharisees delighted to show off their wealth, splendor, and learning so they permitted the banquet room to be entered by those who wanted to stand around the wall, watching and listening to the display of luxury and wisdom. That this was a sabbath day makes us wonder whether another unrecorded visit to a synagogue had occurred, with this banquet as the aftermath.

There are seven miracles of healing on the sabbath recorded, of which Luke reports four: (1) Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14, Matthew 8:15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38, Luke 4:39); (2) the withered hand (Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11); (3) the woman bowed down eighteen years (Luke 13:10-17); (4) the dropsied man (Luke 14:1-4); (5) the demoniac at Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28); (6) the paralytic at Bethesda (John 5:2-10); (7) the man born blind (John 9:1-14). These healings were the subject of fierce controversy. In some cases Jesus seems deliberately to have healed a person on the sabbath in order to correct the false teaching of the Pharisees as to the meaning of the law (John 5:10; John 9:14). In the home of this Pharisee the issue arises naturally out of the presence of a man with dropsy. The Issue

“Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?” (Luke 14:3). Jesus was answering the critical thoughts of the lawyers and the Pharisees. This question had been discussed in Galilee on a number of occasions, but Jesus is now evangelizing a new territory. The arguments He uses proved just as effective here as on the former occasions. The Pharisees were “watching” for an opening to accuse Him, and the presence of this sick man gave a specific turn to their thoughts. The man certainly was not an invited guest, received in honor at the banquet table, for Jesus criticized them for their failure to invite such (Luke 14:13). Jesus raised the question about healing on the sabbath in order to silence their criticism after He had performed the miracle. The Pharisees claimed to be the specialists of the day at answering just such questions, but they were afraid to answer this one. They did not want to give an affirmative answer, and they were afraid to give a negative one. “But they held their peace. The Miracle

“And he took him, and healed him, and let him go” (Luke 14:4). Took him indicates that he called the man out into the center of the scene so that the miracle could be seen by all. Let him go shows clearly that the man had not been an invited guest at the banquet. it does not mean that Jesus took His hands off the man, but rather that he dismissed him from the presence so that he would not have to endure further hostility and persecution. Some suppose that took him means that Jesus used touch in healing the man; if so, it was an additional help to the man’s faith. It is more probable that Jesus brought the man forth from those standing around the wall of the room and made a direct challenge to the Pharisees by His action. Jesus appealed to the conduct of the Pharisees themselves in His argument. If for selfish reasons or moved by sympathy they aided helpless animals on the sabbath, why should they criticize Him for healing this poor man when no selfish motives were involved and the immense importance of a human being over a dumb animal was self-evident? Some manuscripts have son instead of ass; the incongruity is manifest to put together son and ox, and the entire argument which Jesus at other times made upon the relative importance of a man over an animal would he destroyed. The manuscript evidence for son is weak. The Chief Seats This miracle appears to have been performed after all the guests had been seated at the banquet table and the feast was in progress. The next paragraph is based on the fact that Jesus had been observing the unseemly scramble among the guests to secure the highest place of honor. The parable was directed at “those that were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief seats” (Luke 14:7). His rebuke was direct: “When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast, sit not down in the chief seat” (Luke 14:8). This is called a parable, even though it is direct instruction as to the virtue of humility, because there is hidden meaning in the instruction given. He is not merely teaching rules of etiquette and polite behavior, but a deeper lesson in humility. Jewish custom, according to the Talmud, declares that on a couch holding three, the middle place is considered the place of greatest honor; the left, next in honor; the right, third. The Greeks were accustomed to having couches for dining to seat two, but both the Greeks and the Romans sometimes had couches seating four. It is uncertain whether there was any uniformity in Palestine at this time or what sort of arrangement prevailed. Jesus cited a marriage feast; sabbath banquets were always sumptuous, but a marriage feast was much more formal and a time when the places of honor would be sought out more eagerly. Thus it furnished the most dramatic illustration for the principle He taught. The Lowest Seat

“And then thou shalt begin with shame to take the lowest place” (Luke 14:9). The wording begin to take shows a strong contrast between the momentary exaltation which the interloper had achieved and the permanent humiliation which resulted from his presumption. The self-seeker goes from the highest to the lowest seat like a person who has tried to force his way in at the head of the line already waiting to be served in turn. Upon being ejected, he is forced to go to the foot of the line because all intermediate places are filled. The shame of his humiliation prevents him from attempting to displace any of these lesser guests seated in more modest places of honor.

Humility

“But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place; that when lie that hath bidden thee cometh, he may say to thee, Friend, go up higher” (Luke 14:10). That he may say to thee is a purpose clause in the Greek construction, but purpose clauses are frequently used in the New Testament to express result rather than purpose. The result of the man’s humble action will be an invitation to go up higher. The man should not go to the lowest seat as a scheme to secure a higher one and to get special attention when the promotion takes place. Such effrontery would be the acme of selfish glorification and the very opposite of humility. Jesus closes this parable with a principle of life which He was fond of stating: “For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled Jesus did not deliver the parable to teach mere social etiquette, but to illustrate a profound principle of life. When a person does push himself forward in the manner described, it is a revelation of his character. “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted” by those who are noble, and finally in the day of judgment by God Himself.

Hospitality

“And he said to him also that had bidden him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends...bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind” (Luke 14:12, Luke 14:13). The conduct of the guests had stirred the wrath of Jesus as He had observed their unseemly scramble for the chief seats. Jesus continually built His instruction on events that occurred from day to day. Having delivered a parable on humility to denounce the selfish guests, He added a rebuke to the host. Jesus’ criticism may have been elicited by a contemptuous attitude shown by the host and his aristocratic friends toward the man afflicted with dropsy. We cannot be sure of the motive for this second condemnation. Poor people may have been present as guests. The apostles were not wealthy, but it is highly improbable that they were invited. The motive for hospitality is the key to its genuineness. Modern salesmanship uses an elaborate dinner as the means of inveigling a customer. Inviting poor people becomes an acid test of motives. Most probably the exclusive character of all the guests led to Jesus’ attack.

Organized Approach This pointed rebuke strikes hard at the average Christian today. Who of us ever had a banquet in our home which was dedicated to the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind? We suddenly draw back in shame, realizing we fall so far short of the matchless example of Jesus that we live in a different world. Jesus is not condemning or forbidding the joyous fellowship of relatives and friends, but the pride and exclusiveness, which shuts the doors of our homes to all but a select few. With amazing generosity the American people have taxed themselves and given of their public funds to build schools, hospitals, nursing homes, old people’s homes, and similar institutions. Their response has been continuous to appeals over the radio or in door-to-door canvass for all sorts of funds to fight various diseases and rescue those afflicted with these ailments. Appalled at the enormity of the task, we have retreated into organizations of all kinds. These organized campaigns have been highly intelligent, highly effective, and highly commendable. But the need of the world continues to mount.

If our only approach to the problem is at second hand, we lose the blessings that come from personal contact. The church and the home, when they surrender such tasks completely to the general public, begin to lose their God-given opportunities of service and sources of power. We still face the instruction Jesus has given us in this passage. Occasionally we may invite some blind person or one maimed into our home, but an entire banquet in our home dedicated to the unfortunate — !? Too often the difficulty is that our hearts are hardened. We are like the priest and the Levite on the Jericho road; we are afraid we might become involved. The Home in Heaven

“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” (Luke 14:16). This remark may have arisen from the closing promise with which Jesus had ended the preceding discussion: “For thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just.” Plummer notes that the people Jesus urged them to invite into their homes are of two classes: those wanting in means — the poor; and those wanting in strength — the maimed, the lame, the blind. It is noteworthy that these are the very words Jesus uses to describe those who are called in from the streets and the lanes in the following parable when those first invited refused to come. These helpless people were unable to return the favor to their generous host so that the motive of the host was unselfish.

Jesus assures them that God does not overlook and will not forget. The words the resurrection of the just seem to refer to the double resurrection of the just to eternal life, and the wicked to eternal punishment (1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 20:5, Revelation 20:6). It may be that the phrase suggests those alone to whom the resurrection will be a blessing. Since this next parable on the rejected invitation offers a third rebuke, it may be that the person who made this remark about the coming glory of the kingdom of God was anxious to change the subject from their present faults and failures. This parable offers a third shocking rebuke to the complacent Pharisees Not everyone talking about heaven will finally enter in. The Pharisees have shut the poor out of their fellowship; they have also shut God out by rejecting His supreme invitation sent through the Messiah Himself.

Similar Parables When the Parable of the Rejected Invitation is compared to that of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14, both the similarities and the differences are striking. God’s gracious invitation to men is scorned in both parables by those most indebted to Him and accepted by less fortunate ones. But the differences are great: (1) The excuses of those who rejected are emphasized in this parable, but are implied in Matthew 22:1-46. (2) The later parable carries special warning on the eve of His death in the shameful treatment of the messengers who bring the invitation, and the swift and terrible punishment which is meted out to these evildoers. (3) The incident of the man without the wedding garment adds a striking detail to the parable of the last week. The custom in the East of sending out two invitations is seen in this parable; an early invitation was given, and then a reminder when the feast was ready: “And he sent forth his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready” (Luke 14:17). This second invitation was not sent to urge people who had rejected the first invitation, but simply to remind them as was the custom. It seems implied that they had given a casual acceptance to the first invitation; but, when it came to the point of actually coming, they rejected. They added a broken promise to their ungrateful rejection.

Excuses

Since they all acted in unison and offered such shallow excuses, a conspiracy may have arisen. Their excuses were only pretenses to hide their unwillingness to come. The first man was not under any compulsion to examine the farm immediately. He must have inspected it before he purchased it; at any rate, he could make detailed inspection at his leisure. The second man did not plead any necessity, but answered with insolence that he was on his way to prove his newly-acquired oxen. They had already been purchased; there was no need to test them at this particular time. If these two men suggested that perhaps they would come later, if it happened to please them, the third man made it quite evident he did not plan to come. These were not wicked things which intervened and led them to reject; they represent the lure of business, profit, and social pleasures. Their replies declared earthly things first, the heavenly later, perhaps, if at all. Jesus shows the fatal results of their concentration on earthly things by the swift revocation of the invitation and God’s final rejection of the ungrateful.

Unity of the Instruction

There is no contradiction between this parable and the immediately preceding instruction to invite the poor and unfortunate to their feasts. Parables are directed at limited objectives, and the effort is to teach a single, definite principle rather than cover all truth in a single parable. The poor people from the highways and lanes were not invited simply because the selected guests had rejected the invitation. The entire ministry of Jesus shows that the invitation of God was being extended to all. The first group seems to represent the religious leaders of the nation who claimed to be keeping the law and seeking after God; the second, the publicans and sinners who had not kept the law. Both groups appear to have lived in the city and seem to represent both the Jews who claimed to he religious and those who made no such claim. Both the generous attitude of Jesus toward Gentiles when they approached Him and His repeated declarations that the gospel would be for them, prevent us from drawing any contradictory conclusions from this parable. The Joyous Assembly

After the first campaign in the streets and lanes of the city, the servant in charge reported eminent success, but there were still vacant places at the grand banquet table. A second campaign sent the servants out into “the highways and hedges.” The two Greek words mean broad places and lanes, or streams (originally “the rush and flow of that which is in motion,” as we speak today of “the flow of traffic”). The third group invited from the highways and hedges pictures a campaign outside the town. Some think this represents the message of salvation offered to the heathen. “Constrain them to come in” ; the a.v. says “compel.” The messenger was not sent to use physical violence and bring them as prisoners rather than guests. The messenger was to feel the strong responsibility to persuade with all logic and love. That my house may be filled implies that this grand objective was finally accomplished.

“None of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper (Luke 14:24). This is not revenge, but divine justice. In Luke 14:23 the Lord, speaking to the servant, uses the singular number, you; in Luke 14:24, where he is still speaking to the servant, he uses the plural. Perhaps all the servants who had carried on his campaign were now assembled. Jesus may have used the plural because He was stating His conclusion to the assembly before Him. A solemn warning was issued to all present that it was a mistake to speak of the blessedness of enjoying the kingdom of God if they were rejecting God’s final invitation through His Son. The Vast Multitude

Luke observes for the second time the enormous multitudes that surrounded Jesus: “Now there went with him great multitudes” (Luke 14:25). Jesus had used obscure and difficult teaching in the Sermon in Parables during the Galilean ministry when He found vast multitudes thronging Him. The sermon had sifted the crowd so that the devout and eager who remained in spite of the difficulty of His teaching could be effectively instructed. Jesus used the same method at this juncture of His campaign in Peraea. He challenged the people present to dedicate themselves completely and without reserve to God and to the Lord’s Messiah who summoned them. The shocking manner of His challenge must have caused many to turn back to the world. The Shocking Challenge

If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). The key to this difficult verse is the clause yea, and his own life also. A true disciple must hate his own life in that he puts the kingdom of God and the blessed fellowship with God above anything that this world can offer — above even his own earthly life. He must hate his father and mother in the sense that God must come first. If it comes to a choice between continued fellowship with his father and mother and his answering the summons of God to eternal blessedness with Him, then the choice must be God. In a preceding discourse Jesus warned His followers that He had come to send a sword and to cause father and son to he parted asunder in conflict, and mother and daughter likewise. If the father and mother are godless, the young man, when he finally comes of age, may have to stand up and say to his own parents, “I am sorry it has come to this. I appreciate all you have done for me, but God is calling me and I must give Him my life, even though it forces us to part.”

Jesus issued His challenge to a mixed crowd in which many may have been curiosity seekers and others imbued with shallow ideas of halfhearted discipleship. Unless they were prepared to give up anyone or anything that separated them from God, they were not ready to follow Christ. They were being warned to count the cost of discipleship and not to imagine they could follow Him without cost. Three little parables enforce this challenge: (1) the rash builder; (2) the rash king; (3) the savorless salt. Plummer suggests the general heading “The Conditions of Discipleship,” and the following divisions: (1) the cross to be borne (Luke 14:25-27; Matthew 10:37, Matthew 10:38); (2) the cost to be counted (Luke 14:28-32); (3) all possessions to be renounced (Luke 14:33); (4) the spirit of sacrifice to be maintained (Luke 14:34, Luke 14:35; Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:49). Our Love for God This is another of the dramatic, extreme declarations with which Jesus liked to stir the crowd from their complacency and self-satisfaction, and to spur them to deeper thought and heroic action. This startling hyperbole summons all to hate father and mother and all those people with whom fellowship has been most intimate and precious. Our love for God must be in a different class from our love for any human being. Our love for God must be so great that any other love will be as different as ordinary love is from hate. In Matthew 15:4 Jesus solemnly repeats the Old Testament commandment to honor one’s father and mother. Love for every human being is repeatedly urged by Jesus, even love for our enemies. When this verse in Luke 14:1-35 is placed alongside these other passages, it is the more apparent that it is figurative language. There is a very striking contrast between the casual indifference of the bridegroom in the preceding parable and the challenge which Jesus now issues: “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come” vs. “If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not...his wife.”

Tragic Reflections

We are continually commanded by Christ to hate the evil in this world and to realize the exceeding preciousness of life. We are about to study three parables which underscore the exceeding great value of human life. Yet in this hyperbole Christ commands to “hate life also.” Not only must a person dedicate his life so completely to God that the service he can render to God outweighs even the continuance of his life in this world; he must also be prepared to meet death in the most horrible manner for Christ’s sake. “Whosoever doth not bear his own cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:27). It is a question how well the hearers understood such deep, perplexing declarations. To Peter and to the other apostles this declaration must have brought fearsome recollections of the predictions Jesus had made of His approaching crucifixion. To those in the crowd who were spiritually-minded and discerning, it would bring sorrowful reflection on the rising tide of fierce opposition and the ominous intimations of tragedy. Apparently Jesus let the crowd fathom for themselves the deeper meanings of these difficult sayings. From beyond the cross and the preaching of the full gospel at Pentecost they would look back upon these hard sayings and find confirmation for their faith and constant challenge for their living. To hate his own life, the true disciple must become “a living sacrifice.” Paul gives magnificent expression to such supreme devotion: “Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse” (Php 3:8).

Renounce All Possessions The third challenge which Jesus issued is also difficult and perplexing: “So therefore whosoever there be of you that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). If we knew exactly how much real estate, bank deposits, and similar worldly treasures Paul had found swept away from him by his persecutors when he became a Christian, we would have a vivid illustration of what Jesus was demanding. Paul does not give us any account of how much he lost in his sudden change to Christian faith; he thrusts the entire experience aside with scorn: “I do count them but refuse.” He still counted the money he earned from slow, patient labor at tent-making to be valuable, but only because it enabled him to remain alive and active in the service of Christ. After Peter became a disciple he left all and followed Jesus, but he still had a home where his wife and her mother lived and where Jesus and the apostles constantly met. Peter still had a boat, but it was no longer used by him to secure worldly gain; it belonged to Christ, even as his house and all that he had. The word renounce is a good translation; we no longer claim to be the owner of aught that we have; it all belongs to God. We will use what is necessary to keep fit for the service of Christ, but we will constantly remind ourselves that we are stewards handling what belongs to God, and one day we must give account. Men may follow Christ in some sense, but they really cannot be His disciples without complete and absolute consecration. The emphasis here is on both my and disciples; so also in Luke 14:27. Other leaders may be followed without such supreme devotion; but because of the divine character of the Son of God and His service, only when we surrender all do we become true disciples. What we do with our worldly possessions is the test of our devotion to Christ. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

“For which of you, desiring to build a tower, doth not first sit down and count the cost, whether lie have wherewith to complete it” (Luke 14:28). Jesus promised His disciples that the most impossible things would become possible by the power of God if they had faith. But Jesus also strongly emphasized that they must have common sense. Christian faith is not blind faith; it is an intelligent faith which carefully surveys the task and the difficulties. As was so often true in the parables of Jesus, the people probably knew concrete examples of such folly in actual life. The age was characterized by extravagance and recklessness. Actual incidents would have made his parables the more telling. If in the ordinary procedure of life the man of wisdom counts the cost before he begins to build, how much more in life’s highest venture? Observe the blunt language, this man, the fool! Jesus is not saying that it is better not to try at all, than to try and fail; but He points out the folly of beginning without considering the cost. One must have a shallow disregard for the divine invitation to accept it without serious consideration. Jesus set these two parables amid demands to hate one’s father and mother and his own life, and to accept calmly the prospect of crucifixion as a result of the choice to renounce all earthly possessions and become a disciple of Christ. The impact upon the casual hearers must have been terrific. The impact upon the ages has not been different.

Counting the Cost

Knowing the hearts of all He met, Jesus was able to give encouragement to the timid and hesitating, and to warn the rash and thoughtless. Here Jesus faced a crowd that needed to hear a solemn warning to the shallow and overconfident, who were taking too much for granted and failing to consider the real significance of becoming a follower of Christ. The meaning of the parable of the rash king is parallel to that of the rash builder. We are immediately in trouble if we try to allegorize the parables and are not satisfied with the fundamental principles taught. The parable of the rash king does not consider profound moral issues which might lead the king with only ten thousand men to go forth gladly to death rather than surrender the exceeding precious and noble things of life. The implication is that the issues are petty and may easily be compromised. Jesus has just urged the true disciple to hate his own life also; He is not now contradicting this challenge by urging compromise of ultimate virtue in order to preserve physical life. Those who try to allegorize the parable get into difficulty trying to identify the tower or the opposing king. If the latter is the devil, then are we to compromise and make terms with the devil? If the other king is God, then is there no more difference between the power of man and that of God than between ten and twenty thousand soldiers? These are illustrations that teach fundamental principles; we must be content with the general lesson.

Worthless Salt

“If even the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be seasoned?” (Luke 14:34). Jesus has just stated the undivided love which should lead His followers to disregard everything else that threatened their discipleship. This last comparison is a solemn warning that halfhearted discipleship is absolutely worthless. “Salt therefore is good,” but the real test as to whether it is good is not the outer appearance, but the inner power. A church which has lost its faith and its missionary passion is the most helpless and hopeless institution in the world. How many churches today have become social clubs. This is a favorite saying of Jesus (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:49, Mark 9:50; Luke 14:34, Luke 14:35). There is a terrible emphasis in “nor for the dunghill.” Many things, having lost their original merit and becoming decayed, are still valuable as fertilizer for the soil; but savorless salt has not even this value.