The Gospel of Luke
Chapter 14
Jesus naturally attracted a good deal of interest from the religious establishment. They knew very well that He challenged them concerning their traditions and practices, but they also knew very well that He maintained a level of personal purity and piety that they could not match. He claimed a close relationship to God and certainly taught powerfully and answered serious questions with ease. Convinced that He was a threat because of His unorthodoxy, they sought to discredit Him and take away His influence with ordinary people. Against this backdrop of suspicion and jealousy, Luke records for us two different emphases in this chapter.
Reversal at a Sabbath banquet—Luke 14:1-24
Luke is explicit at the beginning of this incident. Two important facts are noted at the outset: this incident takes place on a Sabbath, and Jesus is under very careful observation in this man’s house. It seems obvious to us that the purpose of the watching is to catch Jesus in some uncleanness or sin so that He can be challenged and discredited. Another part of this situation is the presence of a man suffering from dropsy, a swelling edema that may have been caused by congestive heart failure. It is probable that the man had been specially invited and intentionally placed before Jesus to test whether He would heal on the Sabbath, which Pharisees would instantly agree was a violation of the Sabbath law.
Jesus promptly reversed the test by demanding an opinion from the assembled watchers: is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not? The answer to this question might hinge on the definition of “lawful.” Is healing listed in the law as an allowable activity? It is not. However, is healing prohibited in the law on the Sabbath? It is not. So, if the watchers dictated that healing was not authorized on the Sabbath, they would look indifferent to suffering. Their response: silence and a refusal to rise to the test. Jesus promptly touched the man and healed him instantly. Adding to the contrast, Jesus demanded whether the watchers would abandon their own sons—or even their animals—should they fall into a well on the Sabbath! Their silence continued. They failed the test and knew it.
Typical banquet “seating” would be assigned on the basis of honor and close relationship to the host. Here, the places were apparently not assigned and “an undignified scramble” ensued as people jockeyed for the places of honor. Jesus used this melee to teach about humility. At a formal banquet, those invited should not seek high honor for themselves. It is possible that someone of higher status has been invited and you would be displaced and then necessarily seated at a position much lower than your expected dignity! Instead, a guest should merely take a place that is not exalted from which he might very well be moved up. Jesus concluded this teaching with a proverbial expression about the reversal of roles.
He continued the idea of reversal as He taught about hosting a banquet. It was customary for someone to invite relatives, friends and associates of similar social standing. In turn, they would counter with a later invitation and the generosity of the feast would be repaid with similar generosity. In contrast to that, Jesus urged the people to be generous toward those who have no resources to reciprocate. These are the people who most need the benefits of a feast, but who can never repay the blessing. Jesus pointed out that those who treated the poorest sort with that kind of generosity would gain their repayment at the resurrection of the righteous, when true judgment is executed. Such a host would be honoring those who had no honor, a reversal that God would respect.
The mere mention of future resurrection and blessing seems to have called forth a comment from a guest noting the blessed status of those who will find themselves in heaven for eternity. Jesus responded to this rather innocuous comment with a parable that contained a sharp warning for those who were eating this dinner.
The story is straightforward enough, although it is unlikely that a rich man would be disdained by his invited guests to that degree. In the ancient world, an invitation would have been extended many days in advance. Finally all the preparations were concluded and the feast was ready, so the servant was sent to call the guests to dinner. However, those who were summoned chose not to attend and offered feeble and ridiculous excuses: inspection of a field, tryout of purchased oxen, a recent marriage. The host was angry and instead of serving his “friends,” he sent for the poorest to come and enjoy his hospitality. When even that failed to fill the hall, he commanded his servant to go out of town and accost passers-by and “compel” them to come to the feast. The host would certainly not hold anything for those who rejected his invitation. While Jesus did not interpret the parable to the audience, it is obvious to us that He is speaking of the Jews who were God’s chosen people, invited to participate in His life and blessing, but who rejected His invitation to the heavenly banquet. In their place, God intended to populate heaven with the outcasts, the unclean, the strangers and foreigners. He intended to compel Gentiles to be saved in the place of the covenant-related people of God. Those who were most privileged would be rejected; those who had no claim whatever on the blessings of their host would be marvelously blessed. The reversal would be complete and irrevocable.
The demand of discipleship—Luke 14:25-35
We must not overlook the fact that Jesus is traveling to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover journey. It would be very natural for large crowds to make the trip together and it is at some point in this journey that Jesus turned to the multitude to declare the serious nature of discipleship. To be a disciple was to be a whole-hearted follower, a partaker of the life of the master and not just the teachings. A disciple was a student, but also a servant; a close confidant, but also a clear subordinate. And allegiance to Jesus must be paramount—nothing else can come first, even the closest of natural relationships. The contrast must be so strong that the disciple must consider his feelings to others as hate in comparison to his loyalty to Jesus. This discipleship is a one-way journey for the entirety of life, just as if the person were being led out to execution by crucifixion.
Jesus knew very well that many are not able to sustain such commitment and might make a declaration of discipleship without realizing what it entails. He urged them to consider what it might actually mean in their lives and to determine whether they are able to devote themselves or not. He used a couple of homespun illustrations for this. A house builder who begins the job without means to finish it becomes a standing joke and a cautionary tale among his neighbors. A king in conflict with his neighbor must judge how best to thrive—whether by war or by diplomacy. Jesus finished this illustration with a pointed statement about discipleship and its true requirements. Then He issued a veiled warning about those who presumed to be disciples yet turned away from Christ’s teaching and His life. They are as useless and worthless as salt that has lost its taste. It fails to fulfill its function, yet would poison the land if thoughtlessly thrown out. The only place it can be disposed of is on the surface of the road or some other worthless location. Characteristically, Jesus called upon His hearers to focus attention on this with the goal of having them understand it.
It seems this call to serious discipleship is largely unheard and unheeded today. Many seem to think they are disciples although they know little and perform less of Jesus’ words.