Luke 14

Herod employed the Pharisees to make this report, with a view to drive Jesus out of Galilee, where his long residence had given him great uneasiness; though, at the same time, the ill will he had gained by the murder of John, made him afraid to lay hands upon him. Jesus seems to have understood this somewhat in the light of a message, by his sending back an answer: Go, and tell that fox. We all know the character of the fox (both eastern and western) to be a compound of cunning and of cruelty: yet Jesus, knowing both when and where he was to suffer, could entertain no fear of the time being shortened; and therefore bids him defiance for the present, knowing that (as every prophet) he was immortal till his work was done.

Tell him, said he, that “I cast out demons to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected;” meaning, that in a few days his work would be done in Galilee, and then he must go to Jerusalem to suffer. But we find Jesus here anticipating what he afterwards repeated with tears, (ch. xix. 42—44,) the sad destruction both of Jerusalem and the Jews, which they were now hastening upon themselves by their infidelity; an event which in no pains of view could he contemplate without anxiety and pain. He was a man, and could be indifferent to no human sufferings. He was a Jew, and loved his country; nor could he, as a prophet, look forward to its unexampled miseries without agony and distress.

He was a Saviour, and saw, not only the temporal misery of which we know, but he looked into the invisible world, and saw thousands of immortal souls, perishing, each in the blackest guilt, rushing headlong into the eternal world. O Jerusalem! the blindness of thy Scribes and Pharisees, the madness of thy priests and zealots, is preparing for thee the cup of divine vengeance.—Chap. XIV. Ver. 1—14. Jesus dining on the sabbath day with a Pharisee, cures a man of the dropsy, and delivers a lecture on humility—The first remark which offers itself to our notice is, that the sabbath ought not to be considered as a fast-day; nor is it unlawful for a minister to dine with his people on a sabbath, though in present circumstances it may often be very inconvenient.

It should seem too, by ver. 8, that this was at a wedding, the festivities of which, we learn from the instance of Sampson, lasted seven days, ((Judges 14:12),) and consequently always included a sabbath. On this sabbath, it should seem, this Pharisee, who appears to have been a ruler, or magistrate, and perhaps a member of the Sanhedrim, was desirous to obtain the company of our Lord; probably induced to this by the fame of his preaching and his miracles, though others of the sect who were present, evidently sought to entrap him in his conversation. Jesus, who could read their hearts, could not be ignorant of their motives; but it is probable he might have gathered their design from their conversation, and therefore, in answer to some of their observations, put the question, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” having at the same time before him a dropsical subject, on whom he designed to exercise his miraculous power, and who might probably be one of the Pharisee’s domestics, as it is not very likely that the diseased poor would be suffered to break in upon their festivity.

Feeling, however, the weakness, either of their cause or their talents, to enter into controversy with a prophet, as our Lord was now generally considered, they remained silent; and Jesus taking hold of the man, probably to show the miserable condition he was in, immediately healed and dismissed him; observing, as he had repeatedly done before, that a man was better than an ox or an ass; and none of them would have the inhumanity to refuse assistance to a domestic animal, who had fallen accidentally into a pit on the sabbath. The Lord now turns the attention of the are a to another subject, with a view to correct two great evils, which on the present, and doubtless many other occasions, he had observed.

First, he reproves the eagerness and perhaps rudeness, with which many of them crowded toward the head of the table, that they might obtain the uppermost seats, and most honourable places, recommending an opposite conduct to his disciples. 2. He censures the principle on which the guests had been selected; the persons invited being not those who might need a feast, but those who were thought likely to return it: a principle, we believe, still acted upon pretty universally. “When (said he) thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.” As if he had said, “Let the object of thy future feasts be neither interest nor ostentation; but benevolence and charity.” O how few are the Christians who act on this principle!

This brings our Lord to his favourite topic, which was un- Pharisees hearing, and perhaps applauding our Lord’s observations on public feasts, seems to wish to carry the conversation farther on the same subject, and therefore adds, “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.”

Bread being, as we call it, ‘the staff of life,” was used by the Jews for food in general; and doubtless he meant, “Blessed are they that shall feast in the kingdom of God;” but, whether by the kingdom of God he meant the kingdom of Messiah on earth, or the enjoyments of another world, is not so clear: we believe, however, the expression was generally used by the Jews in reference to the former, and therefore forms a more pertinent introduction to our Lord’s parable, which now demands our notice. The Prophet Isaiah often represents the blessing of Messiah’s kingdom under the notion of a feast—“a feast of fat things,” and of “wine on the lees well refined.” ((Isaiah 25:6).) It is a feast also for the poor, for men are invited to partake of it, “without money and without price.” (Chap.

lv. 1.) The first invitation was given by the prophets of the Old Testament. It was repeated by the Baptist, and afterwards by the Apostles and the seventy disciples; and even by our Lord himself, the master of the feast. This was at the hour of supper, and the message ran in these terms—“Come, for all things are now ready.” But the persons invited “all with one consent began to make excuse”—such excuses as persons might be supposed to make, who have no inclination to the feast. The first said, ‘I have bought a piece of ground’—a field for instance, either for cultivation or for building; and he who seems to have been fool enough to buy it before he had seen it, is now so anxious to go to see it, that he not only loses his supper, but risks the displeasure of that great Lord by whom he had been invited.

A second, somewhat wiser, bargained for five yoke of oxen, on the condition that he should have the opportunity to prove them, and must needs fix this for the time of trial. The third has a reason still more insurmountable: he has married a wife, and therefore ‘cannot provision not be made in vain. But here a very grave inquiry presents itself—How shall we compel sinners to come in to partake of this feast? To this the Gospel and common sense give but one answer—by argument and entreaty. These are the only means which God’s messengers are allowed to employ; but he has other means, and we conceive a farther reference may be here intended to the almighty and overwhelming influences of God’s Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when that important promise to Messiah was fulfilled: “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.”

(Ps. ex. 3.) The same grace is still omnipotent, and we hope for a day wherein it shall be again poured out with the like effect. But as to coercing the consciences of men by human authority, we agree with the great and amiable Fenelon, in his “Directions for the conscience of a King.”—“Above all things, never force your subjects to change their religion. No human power can invade the impenetrable recesses of the human heart. Force can never convince men; it can only make them hypocrites….. Allow to all legal toleration, not in approving all as indifferent; but in suffering with forbearance that which God suffers, and in endeavouring to reclaim men by mild persuasion.” Before we close this exposition, it may be necessary to remark the character of the guests which are finally collected to partake of this feast; they are ‘poor, and maimed, and halt, and blind,’—a description morally explained, including every class of sinners, (Revelation 3:17); and the situations in which they are found may point to the two great objects of Missionary exertion: those in “the streets and lanes of the city,” may describe the objects of home missionary exertion; those at a distance, in “the highways and hedges,” the objects of foreign missions. Ver. 25—35. The consequences of becoming Christ’s disciple—Nothing, perhaps, creates so much dissension in families, as when any of them openly change their religion—especially if it be for the better; for, unhappily, the interests of error and of sin too often operate more forcibly on the human mind than those of virtue and religion; in consequence of which the desertion of any persons from the religion of their ancestors alarms their friends, far more than we are wont to be alarmed by a desertion from Christian truths and practice.

In these words, however, there is thought to be an allusion to the case of proselytes to the Jewish religion, concerning whom Dr. Jennings informs us, that “When proselytes were received into the Jewish Church, the bond of natural relation between them and their (heathen) kindred was considered as dissolved. (See (Psalms 45:10).) To this may be added, Tacitus, in his character of the Jews, having mentioned their custom of circumcision as adopted by proselytes, adds, ‘They then quickly learn to despise the gods, to renounce their country, and to hold their parents, children, and brethren, in the utmost contempt.” It is most certain, however, that the term hate must not be taken absolutely; (“For no man ever hated his own flesh;”

Ephes. vy. 29;) but as it is explained by St. Matthew, ((Luke 10:37),) “He that loveth his father and mother more than me, is not worthy of me.” If it be true that our attachment to objects should bear a proportion to their intrinsic excellence, then all our love to creatures should be as nothing compared to what we owe to the “supreme good—the eternal fair.” It is added, and “Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple;” in which expression is an evident allusion to the cruel death which our Lord sustained. Having himself “endured the cross, despising the shame,” ((Hebrews 12:2),) he expects all his disciples to follow his example; that is, “to go forth without the camp bearing his reproach.”

((Hebrews 13:13).): Such being what our heavenly master expects from us, let all, then, who enter upon a Christian profession, seriously “count the cost,” whether they are prepared to labour heartily in his service, or to endure the yokes and persecution for his sake, or it were better never to assume the name of Christian. To illustrate this doctrine, our Lord supposes two cases, the one of a certain lord (as we understand it) who begins to build a tower to defend his patrimony from hostile hordes, but is obliged to leave it unfinished, and therefore useless, because he wants the means of its completion; and thus he becomes subject to general contempt and ridicule. The other case is that of some potent monarch, who is assailed by a neighbouring power with a superior force, and who therefore wisely sends forth an embassy to negotiate peace before things come to an extremity.

So let every “man count the cost” before he enters his name as Christ’s disciple; and let him not lay the foundation of a Christian profession, unless he be prepared to part with all, if necessary, to complete the structure. Or, let no man engage in the Christian warfare, unless he secures on his side that power which alone is equal to the victory. It were better even to give up the contest, and compromise with the enemy, than to carry on the warfare without any just hope of succeeding. What is said in the close of this chapter with respect to salt which has lost its savour, has been already explained on (Matthew 5:13). All that is here necessary is to show its connexion with the context, which we understand thus:—If we engage in Christ’s service, it must be with all our hearts, or it avails nothing.

A heartless, wavering, undecided profession, is as insipid as salt which has lost its savour, and which is neither fit for the land, nor for the dung heap, but only to be thrown away as utterly useless and good for nothing.

Notes on the verses

Chap. XIV. Ver. 1. One of the chief Pharisees.—Campbell, “One of the rulers, who was a Pharisee.” Some think he was a member of the Sanhedrim: all agree that he was a magistrate, and a man of rank, who had probably a country house in Galilee. Ver. 2, A certain man before him which had the dropsy.—Campbell, “A man who had a dropsy stood before him.” Ver. 7. The chief rooms.—Doddridge renders it, “The chief seats;” Campbell, “The higher places.” The company were all doubtless in one room. Ver. 8. Sit not down in the highest room—Or place.—That there were among the Jews of these times many disputes about seats at banquets, we learn both from Josephus and the Rabbins; nor were these matters unattended to by the Greeks and Romans.

Similar admonitions to this of our Lord, also occur in the Rabbinical writers. Rabbi Akiba said, Go two or three seats lower than the place that belongs to thee, and sit there till they say unto thee, Go up higher; but do not take the uppermost seat, lest they say unto thee, Come down: for it is better they should say unto thee, Go up, go up, than they should say, Go down, go down. See Schoetgen.—Bagster. Ver. 13. Call the poor.—Dr. Pococke mentions, that in the East they sometimes admit the poor to their tables. In his account of an entertainment made by an Egyptian magistrate, each, when he had done eating, retired, and others in succession came, till at last the poor came, and “eat up all.” The Arabs also, when they kill a sheep, dress the whole, and call in their neighbours and the poor, till all is consumed; for they never set by meat that has been brought to table.

Thus the sequel of the parable is quite in harmony with oriental manners. Orient. Cust. No. 450, int. Ver. 17. And sent his servant at supper time.—It is customary in the East to repeat their invitations in this manner. Among the Chinese, it is said an invitation is not considered hearty unless it be three times given. Orient. Cust. No. 1271. Ver. 18. With one consent.—So Beza and Doddridge; but Campbell, “Without exception!” and Hammond, “Presently.” Ver. 23. Compel them.—After adverting to the influence of God’s grace, the Rhemish translators add, “St. Augustin also referreth this compelling to the penal laws which Catholic princes do justly use against heretics and schismatics, proving that they who are by their former profession in baptism, subject to the Catholic oo and were departed from the same after objects, may and ought to be compelled into the unity and society of the universal church again;” and that “not only by gentle means, but by just punishment also.”

As to the “just punishment” of burning heretics for their conversion we hope it is too universally exploded to be restored; and as to burning protestants from the consideration of their having been baptized, it will require both higher authority than Augustin’s, and much better logic than he makes use of, to prove it. We admit, indeed, that he was a great man, but wofully in the dark on the doctrine of toleration! a doctrine understood by few fathers, or reformers, and which Cranmer himself learned at the stake. Ver. 26. Hate—i.e. regard with less affection.