Big Idea: The kingdom of God reverses our conventional ideas of who really matters.

Understanding the Text

This is the third time Luke has depicted Jesus as an invited guest at a Pharisee’s table (see also 7:36–50; 11:37–54), and on each occasion Jesus makes things uncomfortable, challenging the social conventions and the moral values of his hosts and fellow guests. In this case, the meal setting continues into 14:15–24, in which Jesus will use the motif of a special meal as the basis for a parable about the kingdom of God that picks up the theme of 14:12–14. But Jesus was equally at home in less respectable company, and the great parables of chapter 15 will be prompted by the objections that Pharisees raised to his eating with “sinners.” So the Pharisees, despite their occasional hospitality to Jesus, are finding themselves increasingly at odds with his teaching and his style of ministry.

Historical and Cultural Background

For Jesus’s relations with the Pharisees, and especially their invitations to him to eat with them, see “Historical and Cultural Background” on 11:37–54. The social importance of shared meals in ancient society is demonstrated by numerous examples in both Testaments of the Bible.1To eat together created a special bond (cf. Ps. 41:9), and whom you ate with, or whom you invited to eat with you, defined your place in society. In a society where shame and honor were central motivating factors, this mattered. Jesus’s willingness to eat with and to accept invitations from both the respectable and the disreputable, the influential and the marginalized, was one of his most striking traits. Compare with these Pharisaic meals Jesus’s meal in the house of Levi (5:29–30). It was this generous inclusiveness that aroused the disapproval of the more conventionally religious (cf. 15:1–2).

For scribal rules on Sabbath healing, see “Historical and Cultural Background” on 6:1–16.

Interpretive Insights

14:1 to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee. Literally, he is “one of the leaders of the Pharisees.” This time Jesus is moving in the highest circles. The subsequent table talk in 14:7–14 presupposes fellow guests for whom social status is important. The midday meal customarily followed the synagogue service on the Sabbath (Josephus, Life 279), using food prepared the previous day. Jesus may have been the visiting preacher that day.

he was being carefully watched. The invitation may have arisen not from simple hospitality but rather from a desire to check the orthodoxy of this new popular preacher (cf. 11:53–54; 20:20). It is possible, though Luke does not explicitly say so, that the presence of the obviously deformed man at the meal was a deliberate test case. The fact that after healing the man was “sent on his way” (14:4) indicates that he was not there as a guest.

14:2 suffering from abnormal swelling of his body. This is the NIV’s idiomatic rendering of Luke’s hydr?pikos (“dropsy, edema”), a condition in which swelling occurs from an accumulation of fluids in the body’s soft tissues. The condition itself can be uncomfortable and embarrassing, but usually it is not immediately life-threatening. However, it sometimes can be evidence of underlying heart or kidney failure.

14:3 Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not? Jesus appears to take the initiative, though the very presence of the obviously affected man at the meal may already have been an unspoken challenge (see above).

14:4 they remained silent. The question of healing on the Sabbath was not directly answered in the law of Moses, but we have already seen that scribal development of the law had by now declared it illicit (6:7; 13:14). The issue here is much the same as in those earlier incidents, and perhaps their unwillingness to make a public statement, which will be repeated here in 14:6 (“And they had nothing to say”), reflects their earlier humiliation (6:11; 13:17).

14:5 a child or an ox that falls into a well. In Matthew 12:11 the same argument is used with regard to a sheep falling into a pit, and a related argument from animal welfare in 13:15 has “your ox or donkey.” This issue of animal safety in relation to Sabbath law was discussed both among the later rabbis (who allowed a rescue [b. Shabb. 128b]) and more contemporarily at Qumran (where it was forbidden [CD 11:13–14]). Many manuscripts here have “donkey” instead of “son” (the Greek words are not dissimilar), producing a more natural pairing. But the very unexpectedness of “son” (surely no one would leave their son in a well until sunset!) suggests that it may be the original text. The argument is, as in the two previous incidents, that human welfare takes priority over Sabbath rules.

14:7 picked the places of honor at the table. In 20:46 Jesus will single this out as a typical trait of scribes: they want to be noticed and admired (cf. also 11:43). To be placed close to the host was more prestigious, and one’s place in the social pecking order was perhaps even more significant in the honor/shame culture of first-century Palestine than it is in our (supposedly) more egalitarian society. “Showing off” was not a social taboo.

he told them this parable. What Jesus says in 14:8–10 is a parable in that it depicts a specific situation from which one may draw more general conclusions. In particular, the social advice of the parable is interpreted in 14:11 in a way that suggests an application to our relationship with God rather than merely with other people on a social level.

14:8–10 When someone invites you to a wedding feast. This whole scenario could be read simply as prudential advice for social climbers: it is better to aim low and hope for promotion than to aim too high and risk loss of face (cf. Prov. 25:6–7). But human society does not usually work like that: in the real world it tends to be the assertive who are noticed and honored, whereas those who do not push themselves forward are more likely to be ignored. It is only in the kingdom of heaven that “the meek will inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). It seems more likely, therefore, that here Jesus is deliberately challenging the prevailing social system and commending an alternative scale of values in which honor is something given by God, not arrogated to oneself, and in which “Pride goes before a fall.” This is the worldview of the Magnificat, in which the proud and mighty are humiliated and the humble are elevated to honor (1:51–53). It is a world upside down.

14:11 all those who exalt themselves will be humbled. This concluding summary (which will be repeated in 18:14; see also Matt. 23:12) confirms the subversive, rather than merely prudential, interpretation of the “parable” in 14:8–10. It repeats the sense of Jesus’s maxim in 13:30: “There are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.” The kingdom of God is full of surprises.

14:12 Jesus said to his host. His host was an important person, “one of the leaders of the Pharisees.” As in 7:44–47; 11:39–52, Jesus risks the “bad manners” of embarrassing his host in front of the other guests in order to challenge conventional morality.

14:12–14 When you give a luncheon or dinner. Jesus turns from the guests’ behavior at dinner to the host’s motivation in inviting them. Normal society works on a basis of mutual obligation: the reward for hospitality is to be invited in return. The threefold repetition of “repay” emphasizes this reciprocal expectation. But God’s kingdom is one of grace, not of quid pro quo, as the following parable will illustrate (see 14:21, mentioning the same four disadvantaged groups), and we are called to follow his lead by giving to those who cannot give back. For such hospitality there is a “repayment,” but it is not in this life. There is a similar theme in 6:32–36, and compare Matthew 6:1–6, 16–18 for the contrast between earthly (human) reward and the unseen reward that God gives.

14:14 the resurrection of the righteous. Compare 20:35–36, where Jesus refers to “those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead.” Such people are “God’s children” and so are “children of the resurrection.” Resurrection is not an automatic destiny for all, but only for those who belong to God’s family and whose lifestyle has therefore shown the family resemblance.

Theological Insights

For Jesus’s rejection of a rule-based approach to Sabbath observance and his prioritizing of human welfare over scribal regulations, see on 6:1–16; 13:1–17.

This section of the Gospel highlights one of Luke’s primary interests: the apparently topsy-turvy scale of values in the kingdom of God. This is summed up in 14:11, and the message will be graphically reinforced by the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in 18:9–14. God reverses our conventional way of assessing who is important and who can be ignored, and in Luke’s Gospel Jesus appears repeatedly as the champion of the underdog, the marginalized, and powerless; he is the preacher of “good news to the poor” (4:18). It was humble shepherds who received the announcement of the Messiah’s birth, and a despised woman who left the Pharisee’s house with a blessing, and an “unclean” Samaritan who played the role of hero in one of Jesus’s parables. Examples of this “Magnificat principle” will be multiplied as we make our way through Luke’s story. The primary emphasis is on acceptance by God, on the “wrong” people being saved. But this passage reminds us also that God’s people are expected to reflect his generous values, so that the topsy-turvydom of the kingdom of God is reflected in our social relationships, even at the level of our guest lists and seating arrangements, as well as in our expectation of salvation.

Teaching the Text

There are three separate themes in this section, even though all three (and also the parable that follows in 14:15–24) are set at the same meal table. It will be helpful to describe for your congregation or audience the nature of meals as rituals of social status in the first century (see “Historical and Cultural Background” above). You might think of parallel situations today where someone might break social norms. In all three of the following themes, Jesus breaks social norms and challenges the thinking of his day. The kingdom of God turns the world’s values upside down. The poor and humble and oppressed are lifted up and the rich and powerful and influential are brought down.

1. Healing on the Sabbath (14:1–6). Much the same issues arise here as in 6:6–11; 13:10–17. See “Teaching the Text” on 6:1–16. God created the Sabbath for the good of human beings, not to control them or put oppressive burdens on them. Consider areas where we might put legalistic rules on others that are neither commands of God nor for the benefit of others. Are there aspects of our church or social life where there is a danger of regulations getting in the way of “doing good”? On the other hand, some people use their own rejection of “legalism” as an excuse to live however they want, without discerning the harm that certain behaviors bring to themselves or their Christian witness. Consider where the right balance is here. How far should we be guided by the “instinctive” impulse to “do good” (6:9) by tackling the problem first before asking theological or legal questions? Can you think of circumstances in which this might be a bad precedent?

2. Places at table (14:7–11). Some scholars speak of an honor/shame culture as being different from our own. To what degree is that true? You might suggest situations in which Jesus’s advice here might be literally applied in our culture. What are examples of when pride has gone before a fall? And are there principles here that should be applied more widely to our (and our society’s) sense of values?

3. Whom to invite (14:12–14). It is particularly helpful when teaching this section to remind listeners of the role meals played in the culture of the first century. This passage is not just about inviting your friends over for a party. Rather, meals were the arena in which social status was established and maintained. People of that day would not think of inviting the lower members of society to their banquets, since these people could give nothing in return. So Jesus is calling believers to offer the same kind of undeserved and unconditional grace that God has given us. Encourage listeners to examine their own (and others’) motivations for offering hospitality. Does 14:12 describe our typical behavior? Are there situations where 14:13 should be literally applied? Are there current examples of this happening? Consider what might be an analogous situation in your cultural context.

Illustrating the Text

Jesus put human need above religious rules.

Literature: Les Misérables, by Victor Hugo. Written in 1862, this novel by the French author Hugo (1802–85) is considered one of the greatest of that century. Few characters in great literature stand out so memorably as the dark, almost maniacal police inspector Javert, who relentlessly, legalistically pursues Jean Valjean through the years. All that Valjean has done is steal a loaf of bread to feed his family. He spends years in jail for this, growing embittered, and then manages to escape. His conversion experience is familiar and often told. Nevertheless, Javert pursues him, keeping to the letter of the law, never seeing the human component, never knowing mercy.

Humility is a primary component of great character.

Television: Keeping Up Appearances. This British television series (1990–95) features Patricia Routledge as Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced pretentiously “Bouquet”). In the absolute antithesis of this principle, Hyacinth is a working-class woman who has married a middle-class man, Richard, and becomes a hopeless snob, forever trying to impress her neighbors with money, always putting on airs, and also unwittingly making it very clear that she is not of the social standing that she pretends to be. Even watching one humorous episode of this series would render many examples of how not to be humble.

Literary Autobiography: Good People: From an Author’s Life, by Jon Hassler. In this lovely book, novelist Jon Hassler (1933–2008) talks about an encounter he had with a truly humble person, a bright, insightful boy named Jackie whom he calls “a twelve-year-old saint.” Hassler was only a few years older, and during their acquaintance Jackie contracted a fatal illness. Hassler visited him regularly, and the “sweetness of [Jackie’s] soul” stayed with him for a lifetime. Jackie remarked on the boys playing football outside his window without “a trace of envy in his voice,” and when Jackie’s brother-in-law, worried about his weight loss, often brought him a quart of ice cream, Jackie ate it, only to throw up when his brother-in-law left. Hassler writes:

God knows how many quarts of ice cream Jackie forced down and brought up again to sustain his family’s hope. I know only that the more I saw of Jackie’s self-abnegation, the more fascinating it became. Wasn’t this the sort of God-pleasing humility the church had been urging on me since the first grade? But with this difference: Jackie wasn’t being humble for God’s sake . . . he was being simply himself.2

When we give, we should do it without drawing attention to ourselves.

Quote: Extreme Righteousness: Seeing Ourselves in the Pharisees, by Tom Hovestol. Hovestol points out the ways in which modern church giving can lack humility:

Looking at Jesus’s warnings, we should evaluate our own motives with three questions:

1. Are there ways that we ‘sound trumpets’ or ‘toot our own horns’ to advertise our giving?

2. Are we in danger of drawing inaccurate conclusions about ourselves and others by our level of giving?

3. Do we give for the praise of people? . . .

Still we may practice more subtle, culturally correct methods of announcing our giving. Many churches use pledge cards to set their annual budget and conduct capital campaigns and “faith promises” to increase giving for missions. Though such giving can honor God when pledged in faith, the motive also can be mixed. For obvious reasons, some people give more when they sign their name on the dotted line. Meanwhile, many are motivated to give at year-end to save on income tax. Others give, knowing the church treasurer and others will see our amounts. . . . Perhaps the most sinister financial practice of all is to evaluate our own godliness by the level of our financial contributions.3