Luke 14

Luke 14:1-6

1 st. Luke 14:1-6. To accept an invitation to the house of a Pharisee, after the previous scenes, was to do an act at once of courage and kindness. The host was one of the chief of his sect. There is no proof of the existence of a hierarchy in this party; but one would naturally be formed by superiority of knowledge and talent. The interpretation of Grotius, who takes τῶνΦαρισαίων as in apposition to τῶνἀρχόντων, is inadmissible. The guests, it is said, watched Jesus. Luke 14:2 indicates the trap which had been laid for Him; and ἰδού, behold, marks the time when this unlooked-for snare is discovered to the eyes of Jesus.

The picture is taken at the moment. The word ἀποκριθείς, answering (Luke 14:3), alludes to the question implicitly contained in the sick man’s presence: “Wilt thou heal, or wilt thou not heal?” Jesus replies by a counter question, as at Luke 6:9. The silence of His adversaries betrays their bad faith. The reading ὄνος, ass, in the Sinaiticus and some MSS. (Luke 14:5), arises no doubt from the connection with βοῦς, ox, or from the similar saying, Luke 13:15. The true reading is υἱός, son: “If thy son, or even thine ox only…” In this word son, as in the expression daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16), there is revealed a deep feeling of tenderness for the sufferer. We cannot overlook a correspondence between the malady (dropsy) and the supposed accident (falling into a pit).

Comp. Luke 13:15-16, the correspondence between the halter with which the ox is fastened to the stall, and the bond by which Satan holds the sufferer in subjection. Here again we find the perfect suitableness, even in the external drapery, which characterizes the declarations of our Lord. In Matthew 12:11 this figure is applied to the curing of a man who has a withered hand. It is less happy, and is certainly inexact.

Luke 14:7-11

2 d. Luke 14:7-11. Here is the point at which the guests seat themselves at table. The recommendation contained in this passage is not, as has often been thought, a counsel of worldly prudence. Holtzmann ascribes this meaning, if not to the Lord, at least to Luke. But the very term parable (Luke 14:7) and the adage of Luk 14:11 protest against this supposition, and admit of our giving to the saying no other than a religious sense and a spiritual application; comp. Luke 18:14. In a winning and appropriate form Jesus gives the guests a lesson in humility, in the deepest sense of the word.

Every one ought in heart to take, and ever take again, the last place before God, or as St. Paul says, Philippians 2:3, to regard others as better than himself. The judgment of God will perhaps be different; but in this way we run no other risk than that of being exalted. ᾿Επέχων, fixing His attention on that habitual way of acting among the Pharisees (Luke 20:46). Ewald and Holtzmann darken counsel about the word wedding (Luke 14:8), which does not suit a simple repast like this. But Jesus in this verse is not speaking of the present repast, but of a supposed feast. The proper reading is ἀνάπεσε, not ἀνάπεσαι—this verb has no middle—or ἀνάπεσον, which has only a few authorities. In the lowest place (Luke 14:10), because in the interval all the intermediate seats had been occupied. The expression, thou shalt have glory, would be puerile, if it did not open up a glimpse of a heavenly reality.

Luke 14:12-14

3 d. Luke 14:12-14. The company is seated. Jesus, then observing that the guests in general belonged to the upper classes of society, addresses to His host a lesson on charity, which He clothes, like the preceding, in the graceful form of a recommendation of intelligent self-interest. The μήποτε, lest (Luke 14:12), carries a tone of liveliness and almost of pleasantry: “Beware of it; it is a misfortune to be avoided. For, once thou shalt have received human requital, it is all over with divine recompense.” Jesus does not mean to forbid our entertaining those whom we love. He means simply: in view of the life to come, thou canst do better still.—᾿Ανάπηροι, those who are deprived of some one sense or limb, most frequently the blind or the lame; here, where those two categories are specially mentioned, the maimed in general. In itself, the expression resurrection of the just, Luke 14:14, does not necessarily imply a distinction between two resurrections, the one of the just exclusively, the other general; it might signify merely, when the just shall rise at the inauguration of the Messianic kingdom. But as Luke 20:35 evidently proves that this distinction was in the mind of Jesus, it is natural to explain the term from this point of view (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Philippians 3:11; Revelation 20).

Luke 14:15-20

Vers. 15-20.— ῎Αρτονφάγεσθαι (fut. of φάγω) merely signifies, to be admitted to the heavenly feast. There is no allusion in the expression to the excellence of the meats which shall form this repast (Luke 14:1). Jesus replies, “Yes, blessed; and therefore beware of rejecting the blessedness at the very moment when thou art extolling its greatness.” Such is the application of the following parable. The word πολλούς, significant of numerous guests, Luke 14:16, is sufficiently justified when applied to the Jewish people alone; for this invitation includes all divine advances, at all periods of the theocracy. The last call given to the guests (Luke 14:17) relates to the ministries of John the Baptist and of Jesus Himself. It cannot be proved that it was usual to send a message at the last moment; but the hour was come, and nobody appeared. This touch brings out the ill-will of those invited; there was no possibility of their forgetting. The expression, all things are ready, describes the glorious freeness of salvation. The excuses put forth by the invited, Luke 14:18-20, are not in earnest; for, warned as they were long beforehand, they could have chosen another day for their different occupations. The choice made, which is at the bottom of those refusals, betrays itself in the uniformity of their answers. It is like a refrain (ἀπὸμῖας, understand: φωνῆς or γνώμης, Luke 14:18). They have passed the word to one another. The true reason is evidently the antipathy which they feel to him who invites them; comp. John 15:24 : “They have hated both me and my Father.”

Luke 14:21-24

Vers. 21-24. In the report which the servant gives of his mission, we may hear, as Stier so well observes, the echo of the sorrowful lamentations uttered by Jesus over the hardening of the Jews during His long nights of prayer. The anger of the master (ὀργισθείς) is the retaliation for the hatred which he discovers at the bottom of their refusals. The first supplementary invitation which he commissions his servant to give, represents the appeal addressed by Jesus to the lowest classes of Jewish society, those who are called, Luke 15:1, publicans and sinners. Πλατεῖαι, the larger streets, which widen out into squares. ῾Ρῦμαι, the small cross streets. There is no going out yet from the city. The second supplementary invitation (Luke 14:22-23) represents the calling of the Gentiles; for those to whom it is addressed are no longer inhabitants of the city. The love of God is great: it requires a multitude of guests; it will not have a seat left empty. The number of the elect is, as it were, determined beforehand by the riches of divine glory, which cannot find a complete reflection without a certain number of human beings. The invitation will therefore be continued, and consequently the history of our race prolonged, until that number be reached. Thus the divine decree is reconciled with human liberty. In comparison with the number called, there are undoubtedly few saved through the fault of the former; but nevertheless, speaking absolutely, there are very many saved. Φραγμοί, the hedges which enclose properties, and beneath which vagrants squat.

The phrase, compel them to come in, applies to people who would like to enter, but are yet kept back by a false timidity. The servant is to push them, in a manner, into the house in spite of their scruples. The object, therefore, is not to extinguish their liberty, but rather to restore them to it. For they would; but they dare not. As Luke 14:21 is the text of the first part of Acts (i.-xii., conversion of the Jews), Luke 14:22-23 are the text of the second (xiii. to the end, conversion of the Gentiles), and indeed of the whole present economy. Weizsδcker accuses Luke of having added to the original parable this distinction between two new invitations, and that in favour of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. If this saying were the only one which the evangelists put into the mouth of Jesus regarding the calling of the Gentiles, this suspicion would be conceivable. But does not the passage Luke 13:28-30 already express this idea? and is not this saying found in Matthew as well as in Luke? Comp. also Matthew 24:14; John 10:16. According to several commentators, Luke 14:24 does not belong to the parable; it is the application of it addressed by Jesus to all the guests (“I say unto you”). But the subject of the verb, I say, is evidently still the host of the parable; the pron. you designates the persons gathered round him at the time when he gives this order. Only the solemnity with which Jesus undoubtedly passed His eyes over the whole assembly, while putting this terrible threat into the mouth of the master in the parable, made them feel that at that very moment the scene described was actually passing between Him and them. The parable of the great feast related Matthew 22:1-14 has great resemblances to this; but it differs from it as remarkably. More generalized in the outset, it becomes toward the end more detailed, and takes even a somewhat complex character. It may be, as Bleek thinks, a combination of two parables originally distinct. This seems to be proved by certain touches, such as the royal dignity of the host, the destruction by his armies of the city inhabited by those first invited, and then everything relating to the man who had come in without a wedding garment. Nothing, on the contrary, could be more simple and complete than the delineation of Luke.

Luke 14:25-27

Vers. 25-27. “And there went great multitudes with Him: and He turned, and said unto them, 26. If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” Seeing those crowds, Jesus is aware that between Him and them there is a misunderstanding. The gospel, rightly apprehended, will not be the concern of the multitude. He lifts His voice to reveal this false situation: You are going up with me to Jerusalem, as if you were repairing to a feast. But do you know what it is for a man to join himself to my company? It is to abandon what is dearest and most vital (Luke 14:26), and to accept what is most painful—the cross (Luke 14:27). Coming to me (Luke 14:26) denotes outward attachment to Jesus; being my disciple, at the end of the verse, actual dependence on His person and Spirit. That the former may be changed into the latter, and that the bond between Jesus and the professor may be durable, there must be effected in him a painful breach with everything which is naturally dear to him. The word hate in this passage is often interpreted in the sense of loving less. Bleek quotes examples, which are not without force. Thus, Genesis 29:30-31. It is also the meaning of Matthew’s paraphrase (Luke 10:37), ὁφιλῶν…ὑπὲρἐμέ.

Yet it is simpler to keep the natural sense of the word hate, if it offers an admissible application. And this we find when we admit that Jesus is here regarding the well-beloved ones whom He enumerates as representatives of our natural life, that life, strictly and radically selfish, which separates us from God. Hence He adds: Yea, and his own life also; this word forms the key to the understanding of the word hate. At bottom, our own life is the only thing to be hated. Everything else is to be hated only in so far as it partakes of this principle of sin and death. According to Deuteronomy 21:18-21, when a man showed himself determinedly vicious or impious, his father and mother were to be the first to take up stones to stone him.

Jesus in this place only spiritualizes this precept. The words: Yea, and his own life also, thus remove from this hatred every notion of sin, and allow us to see in it nothing but an aversion of a purely moral kind. There are not only affections to be sacrificed, bonds to be broken; there are sufferings to be undergone in the following of Jesus. The emblem of those positive evils is the cross, that punishment the most humiliating and painful of all, which had been introduced into Israel since the Roman subjugation. Without supplying an οὐκ before ἔρχεται, we might translate: “Whosoever doth not bear…, and who nevertheless cometh after me….” But this interpretation is far from natural. Those well-disposed crowds who were following Jesus without real conversion had never imagined anything like this. Jesus sets before their very eyes these two indispensable conditions of true faith by two parables (Luke 14:28-32).

Luke 14:28-30

Vers. 28-30. The Improvident Builder.Building here is the image of the Christian life, regarded in its positive aspect: the foundation and development of the work of God in the heart and life of the believer. The tower, a lofty edifice which strikes the eye from afar, represents a mode of living distinguished from the common, and attracting general attention. New professors often regard with complaceney what distinguishes them outwardly from the world. But building costs something; and the work once begun must be finished, under penalty of being exposed to public ridicule. One should therefore have first made his estimates, and accepted the inroad upon his capital which will result from such an undertaking.

His capital is his own life, which he is called to spend, and to spend wholly in the service of his sanctification. The work of God is not seriously pursued, unless a man is daily sacrificing some part of that which constitutes the natural fortune of the human heart, particularly the affections, which are so deep, referred to, Luke 14:26.

Before, therefore, any one puts himself forward as a professor, it is all important that he should have calculated this future expenditure, and thoroughly made up his mind not to recoil from any of those sacrifices which fidelity will entail. Sitting down and counting are emblems of the serious acts of recollection and meditation which should precede a true profession. This was precisely what Jesus had done in the wilderness. But what happens when this condition is neglected? After having energetically pronounced himself, the new professor recoils step by step from the consequences of the position which he has taken up. He stops short in the sacrifice of his natural life; and this inconsistency provokes the contempt and ridicule of the world, which soon discovers that he who had separated himself from it with so much parade, is after all but one of its own. Nothing injures the gospel like those relapses, the ordinary results of hasty profession.

Luke 14:31-32

Vers. 31, 32. The Improvident Warrior.Here we have an emblem of the Christian life, regarded on its negative or polemical side. The Christian is a king, but a king engaged in a struggle, and a struggle with an enemy materially stronger than himself. Therefore, before defying him with a declaration of war by the open profession of the gospel, a man must have taken counsel with himself, and become assured that he is willing to accept the extreme consequences of this position, even to the giving up of his life if demanded; this condition is expressed Luke 14:27. Would not a little nation like the Swiss bring down ridicule on itself by declaring war with France, if it were not determined to die nobly on the field of battle? Would not Luther have acted like a fool when he affixed his theses to the church door, or burned the Papal bull, had he not first made the sacrifice of his life in the inner court of his heart?

It is heroical to engage in a struggle for a just and holy cause, but on one condition: that is, that we have accepted death beforehand as the end of the way; otherwise this declaration of war is nothing but rodomontade. The words: whether he is able, have a slight touch of irony; able to conquer, and, as under such conditions that is impossible, to die in the unequal struggle.

Luke 14:32 has been regarded either as a call to us to take account of our weakness, that we may ask the help of God (Olshausen), or a summons promptly to seek reconciliation with God (Gerlach). Both interpretations are untenable, because the hostile king challenged by the declaration of war is not God, but the prince of this world. It is therefore much rather a warning which Jesus gives to those who profess discipleship, but who have not decided to risk everything, to make their submission as early as possible to the world and its prince. Better avoid celebrating a Palm-day than end after such a demonstration with a Good Friday! Rather remain an honourable man, unknown religiously, than become what is sadder in the world, an inconsistent Christian. A warning, therefore, to those who formed the attendants of Jesus, to make their peace speedily with the Sanhedrim, if they are not resolved to follow their new Master to the cross!

Jesus drew this precept also from His own experience. He had made his reckoning in the wilderness with the prince of this world, and with life, before beginning His work publicly.

Gess rightly says: “Those two parables show with what seriousness Jesus had Himself prepared for death.”

Luke 14:33-35

Vers. 33-35. The Application of those two Parables, with a new Figure confirming it.—“So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. 34. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? 35. It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Here is the summing up of the warning which was intended to calm the unreflecting enthusiasm of those multitudes. The expression: forsaketh all that he hath, natural life, as well as all the affections and all the goods fitted to satisfy it, sums up the two conditions indicated Luke 14:26 (the giving up of enjoyment) and 27 (the acceptance of the cross). Salt (Luke 14:34) corrects the tastelessness of certain substances, and preserves others from corruption; the marvellous efficacy of this agent on materials subjected to its quickening energy is a good thing, and even good to observe (καλόν). In this twofold relation, it is the emblem of the sharp and austere savour of holiness, of the action of the gospel on the natural life, the insipidity and frivolity of which are corrected by the Divine Spirit. No more beautiful spectacle in the moral world than this action of the gospel through the instrumentality of the consistent Christian on the society around him. But if the Christian himself by his unfaithfulness destroys this holy power, no means will restore to him the savour which it was his mission to impart to the world. ᾿Αρτυθήσεται might be taken impersonally: “If there is no more salt, wherewith shall men salt (things)?” But Jesus is not here describing the evil results of Christian unfaithfulness to the world or the gospel; it is the professor himself who is concerned (Luke 14:35 : men cast it out).

The subject of the verb is therefore, ἅλας, salt itself; comp. Mark 9:50 : ἐντίνιἀρτύσετεαὐτό; “wherewith will ye season it?” Salt which has become savourless is fit for nothing; it cannot serve the soil as earth, nor pasture as dung.

It is only good to be cast out, says Luke; trodden under foot of men, says Matthew 5:13. Salt was sometimes used to cover slippery ways (Erub. f. 104. 1: Spargunt salem in clivo ne nutent (pedes). A reserved attitude towards the gospel is therefore a less critical position than an open profession followed by declension. In the moral as in the physical world, without previous heating there is no deadly chill. Jesus seems to say that the life of nature may have its usefulness in the kingdom of God, either in the form of mundane (land) respectability, or even as a life completely corrupted and depraved (dung). In the first case, indeed, it is the soil wherein the germ of the higher life may be sown; and in the second, it may at least call forth a moral reaction among those who feel indignation or disgust at the evil, and drive them to seek life from on high; while the unfaithfulness of the Christian disgusts men with the gospel itself. The expression: cast out (give over to perdition, John 15:6), forms the transition to the final call: He that hath ears…. This discourse is the basis of the famous passage, Hebrews 6:4-8. The commentators who have applied it to the rejection of the Jews have not sufficiently considered the context, and especially the introduction, Luke 14:25, which, notwithstanding Holtzmann’s contemptuous treatment, is, as we have just seen, the key of the whole piece. Matthew places the apophthegm, Luke 14:34-35, in that passage of the Sermon on the Mount where the grandeur of the Christian calling is described (Luke 14:13-16). Perhaps he was led to put it there by the analogy of the saying to the immediately following one: “Ye are the light of the world.” Mark places it, like Luke, towards the end of the Galilean ministry (Luke 9:50); and such a warning is better explained at a more advanced period. Besides, like so many other general maxims, it may perfectly well have been uttered twice.