L. Dinner with a Pharisee (14:1–24)
L. Dinner with a Pharisee (14:1–24)
Luke may have put together here a number of ‘feast’ narratives as some scholars hold. But it is not at all impossible that he is narrating what happened at one more than usually interesting meal.
1. Healing a man with dropsy (14:1–6)
Once again we have a healing on the sabbath (see on 4:31ff.). As in the case of the man with the withered hand (6:6ff.), Jesus disarmed criticism by first asking whether it was lawful to heal on the sabbath or not.
1. Neither place nor time (other than the sabbath) is indicated. Jesus’ host was an important man. The Greek may mean a ruler (perhaps a member of the Sanhedrin) who was also a member of the Pharisaic party (so RSV), or it can signify ‘a leading Pharisee’ (NEB). Either way he was an important figure. Dinner on the sabbath seems often to have been a rather special meal (the food having all been prepared beforehand) and it was common to invite guests. Jesus’ enemies were present in full force and they were watching him. Clearly they were hoping to find him doing something for which they could bring a charge against him.
2–4. It is possible that the presence of the man with dropsy was a trap set by enemies who hoped Jesus would break the law. Support for this is seen in the use of the verb ‘answering’ (apokritheis ; AV is correct, RSV has spoke to). No-one had spoken so Jesus was answering the action, or perhaps the thought of his enemies. Or the man may have entered the house looking for help so that his very presence was a mute appeal to which Jesus ‘replied’. Luke does not tell us. He simply says ‘lo, he was there’. We must, of course, bear in mind that on occasion ‘answered’ can be used in a Hebraistic sense which does little more than carry on the narrative. But it seems more likely that here Jesus was ‘answering’ the opposition of the enemy. Before he took action Jesus asked whether it was lawful to heal on the sabbath (cf. 6:9). It was an awkward question to answer. According to the rabbinic regulations it certainly was not lawful; healing could take place on the sabbath only when there was danger to life. In this case the man would probably not have died if the case had been stood over until sundown. To agree to healing under these circumstances could lead to an accusation that they were ‘soft’ on law enforcement. But on the other hand lawful might mean ‘contained in the law of Moses’. There is nothing in Scripture to forbid such healing; it was the rabbinic interpretation of Scripture that was the source of the rule. To insist publicly on this interpretation might lead to a charge of indifference to human suffering. Small wonder that they were silent. But their silence before the miracle made it more than difficult for them to complain afterwards. Jesus healed the man and dismissed him.
5–6. He proceeded to justify his action by appealing to their own procedure. It is not certain whether Jesus refers to a son (RSV) or to ‘an ass’ (RSV mg.); the MSS are divided. If we accept the latter reading, Jesus is appealing to their practice with animals. It is true that the men of Qumran at least in some cases refused to pull an animal out of a ditch on the sabbath.13 But this seems not to have been the normal Jewish custom, which was marked rather by concern for animals. I am not aware of any regulation which specifically deals with the case Jesus mentioned, though it is provided that bedding or the like should be thrown into a pit to enable an animal to scramble out on the sabbath (Shabbath 128b), and there is a discussion of how the hauling out of certain animals on the sabbath may be justified (Shabbath 117b). Jesus probably means that in the absence of a regulation a man would find some way of justifying his procedure. He would not leave an animal in a pit on a sabbath. But on the whole it seems that the textual point should be resolved in favour of son, when the meaning will be, ‘Which of you, having a son or even an ox …?’ And even the men of Qumran did not teach that a man should leave his son in a well should he chance to fall into one on the sabbath. The clear implication of all this is that deeds of mercy are in order on the sabbath. Jesus’ critics could not reply. Conceivably they might have argued that he was talking about unusual emergencies, while their objection was to a routine cure. But they may have perceived that his case was based on the fact that the sabbath was instituted for people’s good. Their emergency procedures gave testimony to this, just as did Jesus’ works of mercy.
2. Invitation to a banquet (14:7–14)
The behaviour of guests at banquets gave Jesus the opening for a lesson on humility.
7. At banquets the basic item of furniture was the couch for three, the triclinium. A number of triclinia were arranged in a U-shape round a low table. Guests reclined on their left elbows. The place of highest honour was the central position on the couch at the base of the U. The second and third places were those on the left of the principal man (i.e. reclining behind him) and on his right (i.e. reclining with the head on his bosom). After this there seems to have ranked the couch to the left (with the places as on the first couch), then that to the right of the first and so on.14 Many commentators take up Plummer’s view that we cannot be certain about seating arrangements in view of the very different customs among Jews, Greeks, Romans and others. That there was variety is probable, but there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information about Jewish custom given in rabbinic sources even though they are later than our period. Nor should we doubt that a leading Pharisee would follow Jewish rather than foreign custom. At this particular feast there was an undignified scramble for the places of highest honour and Jesus commented on it.
8–9. He began by referring to an invitation to a marriage feast. This was probably more formal than most meals, but the words apply to any banquet. Jesus pointed to a danger in the scramble. When anyone succeeds in securing a place of honour he runs the risk that a later guest will have more claim to it. Then when the host insists that he vacate his position he may find all the other places occupied, so that the only course open to him is to take the lowest place, with all the shame and loss of face implied (cf. Prov. 25:7).
10. It is better to go to the lowest place first. The way to get to the top is to start at the bottom. If a man chooses the lowest place, the only way he can go is up. R. Akiba is reported to have advised guests to take a place two or three seats lower than that to which they were entitled: ‘Better that people say to you “come up, come up,” and not say to you, “go down, go down” ’ (Leviticus Rabbah I.5). But Jesus is not giving a piece of worldly advice: he is teaching people to be genuinely humble. He reminds us that the truly humble person will finish up where he ought to be and receive the honour that is due. Godet points out that, in following Jesus’ advice, ‘we run no other risk than that of being exalted’.
11. The principle that should govern our conduct occurs a number of times in slightly different forms (18:14; Matt. 23:12; cf. Matt. 18:4; 1 Pet. 5:6). To exalt oneself means ultimate abasement. The way to true exaltation is humility.
12. Jesus has some advice for the host: he should not confine his guest-list to friends, relations and rich neighbours. If these are the only objects of his bounty he will suffer the terrible fate of receiving return invitations! In this way he will be repaid. It scarcely needs pointing out that Jesus is not forbidding normal social life. But he is emphasizing that there is no generosity in giving to people who will make a recompense.
13–14. It is otherwise with the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. Such people cannot repay their hosts. To give them a feast is an act of pure generosity. This kind of thing will be recognized at the resurrection of the just, not the conviviality that arises from celebrations among boon companions.
3. Excuses (14:15–24)
This story of a banquet emphasizes the truth that people are saved by responding to God’s invitation, not by their own effort, whereas if they are lost it is by their own fault. It is tragically possible to refuse the gracious invitation. In this parable there are resemblances to that of the great feast (Matt. 22:1–14) and some see this as a variant of that story. But the differences are as striking as the resemblances and it is better to see the two as distinct.
15. Jesus’ reference to resurrection sparked off a pious ejaculation from one of the guests: Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God! Clearly he had no doubt that he would be there, whatever the fate of others. Jesus’ parable challenges his sincerity. When the critical time came, would he really accept God’s invitation? Or would he be too busy about some activity affecting his more immediate interests?
16–17. Jesus’ story is about a man who invited many to a great banquet. It seems that they accepted the invitation; at any rate none of them is said to have declined. When the banquet was ready a slave was sent to announce the fact. In an age when people had no watches and time was fairly elastic, and when a banquet took a long time to prepare, the precaution must have been helpful to all. We see the double invitation in the Old Testament (Esth. 5:8; 6:14), while a remark in the Midrash on Lamentations shows that much later the men of Jerusalem took it very seriously: ‘None of them would attend a banquet unless he was invited twice’ (on Lam. 4:2).
18. But the prospective guests began to excuse themselves (the Greek may mean either all alike or ‘at once’). Jesus gives a sample of the kind of thing they said and begins with a man who said he had bought a field and must see it. The excuse was transparently false. No-one would buy a field without careful prior inspection. And if by any chance a man did this, there was no hurry. The field would be there tomorrow. It is plain that the man did not want to come.
19. So with the second man. He had bought five yoke (i.e. five pairs) of oxen. His I go means ‘I am going’, ‘I am on my way’, and his verb examine (dokimasai ) should probably be understood as ‘to test them’ or ‘to prove them’. No-one would buy oxen without first satisfying himself that they would do the job. And if he did, there was no hurry for his testing. The oxen would keep.
20. The third man’s excuse is certainly original. He could back it up with an appeal to Scripture, for the Old Testament envisages that a man will be at home during the first year of married life (Deut. 24:5). But that is a regulation aimed at freeing him from military service, not at isolating him from social contacts. This excuse is as transparent as the others. Marriage certainly involves new obligations, but it does not cancel out other obligations, especially things of which due notice has been given.
21. The master was angry at his slave’s report. He was clearly determined to hold his banquet at the set time and not allow the makers of excuses to disrupt his plans. So he sent his slave to the poorer quarters of the city to bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame (the very classes named in v. 13).
22–23. But the search through the city did not yield enough guests: the slave did as he was told and reported that there was still room. So his master sent him out to the highways and hedges, i.e. the major roads outside the city and the hedges alongside them in which derelicts might find shelter of a sort. It would not be as easy to find people there, since they would be spread over a greater area. The extension of the search to such unpromising fields is a way of showing that the master meant business. So does the use of the word compel (anagkason). This does not countenance the use of force: only one slave is in question and he could not bring force to bear. The use of this verse to justify persecution is illegitimate. The point is that wanderers in such places would take a lot of convincing that they were really wanted at a banquet in the city. The slave was not to take ‘no’ for an answer; the house must be filled. There is little doubt that we should see a reference to the mission of the church. God’s invitation had gone out to the people through the prophets. Now in Jesus the second invitation was given. When the religious élite refused it, the church was to bring in both those within the city (the Jews) and those outside (the Gentiles). The slave is not said to have fulfilled the commission to those outside. Bringing in the Gentiles was still future when Jesus spoke, and for that matter for the most part when Luke wrote.
24. The parable concludes with a sombre verdict on those who were first invited and who made their excuses. There would be no second chance for them. They had squandered their opportunity and would get no other. Once again we see Jesus pressing the urgency of the situation. God is gracious and will receive all who come to him, but people may not dilly-dally. Those first invited might not take up the invitation, but others would, both Jew and Gentile. God’s purpose may be resisted, but it cannot be overthrown.