And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the rulers, [who was] of the Pharisees, to eat bread on [the] sabbath, that *they* were watching him.
A leading Pharisee invites Jesus to dine on the Sabbath, and every eye in the room follows Him. Was this hospitality or a trap — and why did the Lord accept it?
The chapter before ended with judgment on Jerusalem. Luke 14 works out the moral principles behind that, and it does so in a dining room.
The last chapter had closed with the setting aside of the Jew and the judgment of Jerusalem. We now have the moral principles involved set out in Luke 14. The Lord was invited to "the house of a ruler of the Pharisees" to dine on the Sabbath. If there were anything holy there, or any appreciation of grace, one might have expected it to show now. But not so. They were watching Him. They were ignorant of God, they looked for evil, they wanted evil. God was in none of their thoughts, nor His grace. Yet these were the very men who prided themselves most of all on their careful observance of the Sabbath day.
The word for that watching came from a technical background, and Luke uses it to mark a motive.
"Observation." The word behind it, and the verb that goes with it, were used in medicine for watching the symptoms of a disease, so they carry the sense of a first investigation. In astrology they were used for observing the stars. Luke's use of the verb (Luke 6:7, Luke 14:1, Luke 20:20) shows hostile intent.
Where it happened matters as much as the watching.
Another Sabbath-day incident. The place is not a synagogue, but the dinner table of one of Israel's chief religious leaders, and he a Pharisee. Luke, who alone reports this, says that "they were watching Him carefully." That tells us all we need to know about the attitude of the host and his friends towards their Guest. They were sitting at table with God manifested in flesh, yet they were so blind that they did not know it.
Knowing the motive did not change His answer to the invitation.
This chapter shows the heart of God in seeking man, yet also man in thorough contrast and opposition to God. One of the chief Pharisees invited the Lord Jesus to his house for a meal, evidently not out of affection, but to find occasion for criticism, for "they were watching Him carefully." Yet the Lord did not refuse: He would genuinely seek the good of man, whether criticized or not. We may wonder whether the Pharisee had perhaps invited the man with dropsy (edema) as a test case. But the Lord was not on the defensive.
Luke names the day for a reason. The Sabbath meant rest at the end of work — so could man ever reach that rest?
As He brought that whole era to a close, the Lord kept putting the sabbath before Israel. The question was, could man, as man, find rest with God? Could man ever enter into God's rest? We know man broke God's rest; how soon we are not told… The rest after creation had to come at the end of the six days of work, so it fell on the seventh day. Later, when God gave the legal ordinances, the sabbath became a sign of the covenant. While the Lord was here He kept cutting across the sabbath, to show that He must work, since sin was not removed. He could not rest. The sabbath was a sign of man getting rest after work, and the law showed that man kept breaking that covenant.
This verse opens a scene that runs on for another twenty-three verses.
The Lord had entered a Pharisee's house on the Sabbath day to eat bread. That Pharisee was one of the rulers, but Scripture does not record his name… He received the Lord, and most likely he had invited Him. He heard Him speak to the company. He also heard the word spoken to himself. Yet, as far as we know, he did not say one word in reply to all that fell from the lips of his guest — and that was not a little. The reader will see that everything recorded down to verse 24 took place under that roof, and no doubt in the presence and hearing of the host.
- Invitation — A ruling Pharisee opens his door on the Sabbath. One room holds both: God seeking man, and man opposing God.
- Inspection — The word behind "they were watching Him carefully" was used for tracking the symptoms of a disease. In Luke it signals hostile intent, not curiosity.
- Acceptance — He goes in knowing the motive. He came to do real good, whether criticized for it or not.
- Interruption — The Sabbath stood for rest at the end of work. Sin was not yet removed, so He had to work, not rest.
- Exposure — The meal becomes a searching address that runs to verse 24. The host hears it all and answers not a word.
And behold, there was a certain dropsical [man] before him.
Jesus is at a Sabbath dinner in a religious leader's house, and the other guests are watching Him. In front of Him stands a man swollen with disease — and the question is whether their religion has any room left for mercy.
Luke uses a medical word for the man's illness.
The Greek word points to a disease that was a build-up of water in the body. That is the well-known mark of dropsy.
The setting is not a synagogue but a private dinner table. The men there were watching their guest.
Here is another Sabbath-day incident. The place is not a synagogue. It is the dinner table of one of Israel's chief religious leaders, a Pharisee. Luke alone reports this case, and in verse 1 he says "they watched Him." That tells us all we need to know about how the host and his friends felt towards their Guest. They were sitting at table with God revealed in flesh, and they were so blind that they did not know it.
Their hospitality hid a different motive.
Neither love nor truth moved these religious leaders. Under the cover of hospitality, they were hostile. They were looking for evil, and they only proved it by their own ill-will. The man with dropsy standing there gave the Lord His opening to assert God's right to do good.
The sick man stood in plain view of everyone at the meal.
But grace will not hold back its work or hide the truth to please people. Jesus was there to make God known and to do His will. "And behold, there was a man before Him who had dropsy." No religious forms can shut out the ruin that sin has brought into the world. Our Lord was full of the good that was in His heart, and He answered their thoughts before they spoke them.
The Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel. So why was a man like this standing there on that day?
Had not the LORD said before the law, "If you will diligently listen to the voice of the LORD your God... I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, your healer" (Ex. 15:26)? Yet what was the witness of the man with dropsy before the Lord and before them?... If the sabbath was a sign between Him and them, why did it shine only to reveal such misery and suffering?
The man never asked Jesus for anything.
The man who could not be cured was the true witness to man's state. Christ answered the selfish and unbelieving anger of their hearts with His question. They were embarrassed and afraid to speak, but their will stayed unbroken. Then He took hold of the man, who had not even asked Him for help. That made the grace of God stand out all the more. He healed him and let him go.
When the experts refuse to rule on the case, the healing itself settles it.
He asks the question which was not then for the first time asked, but which they had never answered, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" But they are silent. Then He makes divine power give the answer, surely an honest one: He takes and heals him, and lets him go. God has decided.
Sin had made rest impossible — for man, and for God as well.
For man as a sinner there was no rest now, no hope of rest, no possibility of rest. And there could be no rest for God, because God could not rest where sin was. There was no sabbath for righteousness, because man had no righteousness. There was no sabbath for love, because love could not rest where judgment had to fall. Love might come in and work, but work is not rest.
One writer sees the man's swollen body as a picture of the men watching him. He offers it as a suggestion, not as a plain statement of the text.
The healing of the man with dropsy (verses 1-6) hints at the same swollen condition in the Pharisees themselves. They were puffed up with a form of knowledge of the word of God and religious observances. They needed a cure.
- Watched. The meal was a trap. The guests studied Jesus and never saw that God was at their table.
- Exposed. A sick man stood in a religious leader's house. Religious forms cannot cover the ruin sin has brought into the world.
- Unasked. The man never asked for help. That is why the healing shows grace and not reward.
- Decided. They would not answer His question, so He healed the man anyway. The act asserted God's right to do good.
- Restless. There could be no true Sabbath while sin remained. Love could not sit still, so it came in and worked.
And Jesus answering spoke unto the doctors of the law and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?
Jesus is a guest at the house of a leading Pharisee on the sabbath. A man swollen with dropsy stands in front of Him, and before anyone can accuse Him, Jesus puts the legal question to the legal experts themselves.
The verse says Jesus "responded", though nobody had spoken. One writer notes why the sabbath was the point they watched Him on, and why He raised it Himself.
They watched Him on this point because keeping the sabbath cost them nothing they wanted and stopped them from no sin. In their unchanged state it fed pride, not holiness. Here the Lord does not wait for their judgment. He takes the circumstances as they were, since He was now facing the crisis of Jerusalem's fate and His own departure from them. He puts Himself forward, for now He was seeking nothing from them, but showing them the truth, and He asks them: "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?"
What He "answered" was the unspoken verdict already forming in the room. He was not asking for information. He was replying to what they were thinking.
No religious forms can shut out the ruin that is in the world through sin. Our Lord was filled with the good that was in His heart, and He answers their thoughts before they uttered them. He speaks to the lawyers and Pharisees with the question, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?" His question was an answer to their evil judgments. It was impossible to deny it. Hardened as man was, and used to evil, he could not say that it was unlawful to heal on the Sabbath day. Yet they wished that it were so, and, as we know, they made it again and again a ground for the most serious accusation against the Lord.
He addresses the very people whose job it was to rule on questions like this. A "lawyer" here is not a courtroom advocate.
A teacher of the law, one who explained the law. The Lord said of the lawyers that they put heavy burdens on others, but did not touch those burdens themselves. In their explanations they took away the key of knowledge. They did not enter in themselves, and hindered those who were entering.
They said nothing — and the writers read that silence in two ways that fit together. One notes that Scripture gave them no ground to stand on.
He knew their prejudice about this. But they would not answer, because they could find no law in scripture that would support them.
The other notes what they were hoping to gain by keeping quiet.
Now why did they keep quiet? It was a hypocritical silence. They ought to have answered, but they wanted to catch Him. Oh, what wretched, miserable tricks these hearts of ours can play!
The dispute was not about a day. It was about turning God's own commands into a barrier against His kindness.
Once more the sabbath question comes up, and this time the Lord Himself raises it. In it they would set God against Himself, and make His statutes forbid the very benefit to men they were meant to secure. He takes this up in the house of one of their rulers, a Pharisee. He asks a question He had asked before, one they had never answered. But they are silent. Then He makes divine power give the answer, an answer no bribe can reach. God has decided.
So the question hangs unanswered. The man's need does not.
Did He wait until they would decide that question? Was the man with dropsy to bear his affliction until the lawyers and the Pharisees chose to approve his healing? The Lord took him, healed him, and let him go.
- Watched. The sabbath was the point they watched Him on. Keeping it cost them nothing, so it fed pride instead of holiness.
- Asked. He did not wait for their attack. He raised the sabbath question Himself, and that question already answered the verdicts forming in their minds.
- Silenced. The experts on the law would not reply, because no scripture backed them. Their silence was a trap, not respect.
- Answered. Where their words failed, His power spoke: He took the man, healed him, let him go. God had decided the case.
- Released. The lesson goes beyond one day. Human rules do not get to hold back God's kindness until they approve it.
But they were silent. And taking him he healed him and let him go.
Jesus is eating on the Sabbath at a leading Pharisee's house, watched by lawyers and Pharisees. A man swollen by dropsy stands in front of Him, and Jesus has just asked if the law allows healing on the Sabbath.
The refusal to answer was not thoughtfulness. One writer reads their silence as a deliberate tactic:
Now why did they hold their peace? It was a hypocritical silence. They ought to have answered, but they wanted to catch Him. Oh, what wretched, miserable tricks these hearts of ours can play!
Their silence left the question open. It did not leave the sick man waiting — and the questions this raises are pressed hard:
Did He wait till they would decide that question? Was the man with dropsy to bear his affliction till the lawyers and the Pharisees chose to approve his healing? The Lord took him, healed him, and let him go… There is positive instruction in it for us all. We learn that human regulations cannot hold back the outflow of divine grace. Whenever the need arises, it is the right time for God to meet it, if it pleases Him.
Since no one would answer with words, the answer came another way. The healing itself is treated as a ruling that cannot be bought or argued with:
He asks the question which was not then for the first time asked, but which they had never answered, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" But they are silent. Then He makes divine power give the answer, surely an answer that no bribe had bought: He takes and heals him, and lets him go. God has decided.
Luke records no plea from the sick man. One commentator notes that omission and finds purpose in it:
The incurably sick man was the true testimony to man's state. Christ answers the selfish and unbelieving bitterness of their hearts by His question. They were embarrassed and afraid to speak; but their will remained unbroken. And He laid hold of the man, who had not even appealed to Him — so that the grace of God might appear all the more — healed him, and let him go.
(Correct link: William Kelly)
The day was not an accident. The Sabbath stands for rest, and the presence of a diseased man in that room exposes why rest was impossible:
In this chapter we have a case of misery brought out in the man who had the dropsy… There was no present rest, no hope of rest, no possibility of rest for man as a sinner. And there could be no rest for God, because God could not rest where sin was. There was no sabbath for righteousness, for man had no righteousness. There was no sabbath for love, for love could not rest where judgment must be exercised. Love might come in and work, but work is not rest.
The same writer states plainly what ruled the Lord here:
He would not be hindered in grace by the judgment of hypocrisy, nor take a form of piety at the expense of grace.
One man went home cured. The rest stayed ill and did not know it:
But it is plain that the heart of Israel was sick, and this very scene showed how much they needed to be healed. But they knew it not. They were hardened against the Holy One who could do them good. They were maliciously watching Him, instead of presenting themselves in their misery so that He might heal them.
Another writer finds the same picture in the disease itself:
The man with dropsy who is healed (verses 1-6) suggests the same swollen condition in the Pharisees themselves. They were puffed up with a form of knowledge of the word of God and religious observances. They needed to be cured.
- Silence. Their silence was not neutral. They kept quiet to trap Him, not to learn from Him.
- Action. Grace did not wait for their ruling. The sick man did not have to suffer until religious experts approved his cure.
- Verdict. Men would not answer in words, so divine power answered in deed. He took the man, healed him, let him go — and God had decided.
- Unasked. The man never asked, and his silence makes the grace shine brighter than any plea could.
- Rest. God can find no rest while sin and misery last, so love works instead. The men watching that work needed it most and knew it least.
And answering he said to them, Of which of you shall an ass or ox fall into a well, that he does not straightway pull him up on the sabbath day?
Jesus has just healed a sick man on a sabbath day. The lawyers and Pharisees watching Him said nothing, so He asks them about a farm animal that has fallen into a well.
Jesus does not quote a rule at them. He points to what they would do if their own animal fell into a pit. Their own habits give the answer.
The Lord healed him. Then He said to them, "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" Ought you not to have taken your answer to that question from your own ways? The Lord takes us at our own word, and exposes us out of our own mouth and our own ways.
In the previous chapter the Lord had already pointed to their sabbath care for animals. There it was feeding and watering; here the animal is stuck in a well, and the case is sharper.
Then He answers them further with a question: "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him up on the sabbath day?" (Compare Matthew 12:11.) This differs a little from His reply to the synagogue ruler in the chapter before. There it was more the need of the animal, the ordinary supply of his wants. But here it is a more urgent case. It was not simply that the animal needed water and had to be led to it.
The word "immediately" is the sting. They would not wait, debate, or consult a lawyer — not when the loss was theirs.
How easily their hypocrisy was unmasked, and how thoroughly! They would put a yoke on others that they would not bear for a moment themselves, once their own interests were at stake. … There is positive instruction in it for us all: God's grace will not be held back by human rules. Whenever there is need, it is the right time for God to meet it, if He pleases.
The comparison is not between an animal and a man only. It is between a man rescuing his own property and God relieving those He calls His own.
A man who does good to what belongs to him cannot then dispute God's right to act in love toward the suffering people He is pleased to count His own.
Everyone accepted that a trapped animal should be pulled out. The real question is whether God has any interest of His own.
Everyone knew this. And had God no interest in healing a sufferer or in saving a sinner? In practice they denied it, and they hated Him Who came to make it real.
This is not the only sabbath argument in Luke. A bigger question sits underneath it.
As He brought that whole age to a close, the Lord kept putting the sabbath before Israel. The question was, Could man, as man, find rest with God? Could man ever enter into God's rest? … While He was here, the Lord kept breaking in on the sabbath. He did this to show that sin had not been removed, so He had to work. He could not rest. The sabbath was a sign that man gets rest after his work is done, and the law showed that man kept breaking that covenant. So He presses their sin home on their consciences: He must work if they were ever to have rest.
One word here is uncertain. Some ancient copies read "a son or an ox," and others read "a donkey or an ox," which is the wording the older translations follow. The ESV reads "a son." If "son" is right, the pairing is not random:
If "son" is adopted, it would mean "if a son fell into a pit, or even an ox." But there is no word for "even." It is simply "a son or an ox." Tregelles points to Deuteronomy 5:14. There the sabbath is binding on two classes: people, headed by "son," and animals, headed by "ox." Our Lord takes the two heads, and says if either fall into a pit on the sabbath it would be rescued.
- Pit. The picture is an emergency, not routine care — an animal down a well that must come up at once.
- Self. Where their own loss was at stake, they acted at once, whatever the day. They never wore the yoke they laid on others.
- God. A man who rescues what belongs to him cannot then deny God the right to act in love toward those He counts His own.
- Rest. The sabbath meant rest after finished work. Sin was still there, so the Lord had to work for anyone to have rest.
- Silence. They had no answer. Their own habits had convicted them, and no human rule can hold back God's grace when there is need.
And they were not able to answer him to these things.
Jesus is eating at the house of a leading Pharisee, and a man swollen with dropsy stands in front of Him. He heals him on the sabbath, asks these men what they would do for their own ox fallen into a pit, and verse 6 gives their reply: silence.
The Lord's question points to what these men would do at once for an animal of their own. Their silence admits they had no rule to stand on, only a double standard.
A man seeks to do good to what belongs to him. Then he has no right to dispute God's right to act in love toward the miserable people He is pleased to count as His own.
He needed no outside witness. He held up their own behaviour.
Why did they hold their peace? It was a hypocritical silence. They ought to have answered, but they wanted to catch Him... The Lord healed him. Then He said to them, "Which of you, if a donkey or an ox of yours falls into a pit, will not pull him out at once on the sabbath day?" Should you not have found your answer in your own ways? The Lord takes us on our own showing, and exposes us out of our own mouth and our own ways.
Their silence shows the religion they were defending. It bound other people and left its owners free.
Silence still reigned among His adversaries. For "they could not," Luke remarks, "reply to these things." How easily their hypocrisy was unmasked, and how completely! They wanted to lay a burden on others. Yet where their own interests were at stake, they would not carry it for a moment... There is real teaching in it for us all. We learn that human rules cannot stop the flow of divine grace.
These men had already settled the case when their own property was at stake. What they would not allow was the same freedom in God.
He had put this case to them before. He puts it again to show that they had already decided it themselves. To make even a doubt of it was pure hypocrisy on their part. They had no doubt about it when an ox or a donkey was at stake, or anything of that value. But with God, doing good always comes first. He never tied His own hands so that He could not bless — though man would tie them if he could. They lacked sincerity; but how far from God were those who dared to argue for Him like that!
A closed mouth is not the same as a bowed heart. This is the sober warning in the verse: the Lord won the argument and lost the men.
Christ answers the selfish and unbelieving hostility of their hearts by His question. They were embarrassed and afraid to speak; but their will remained unbroken. And He took hold of the man, who had not even appealed to Him, so that the grace of God might appear all the more. He healed him and let him go... And had God no interest in healing a sufferer or in saving a sinner? In practice they denied it, and they hated Him who came to make it real.
The healed man was not the only sick person present. The saddest detail is who stayed unhealed.
But it is plain that the heart of Israel was sick, and that this very scene showed how much they needed to be healed. But they did not know it. They were hardened against the Holy One who could do them good. They watched Him with malice, instead of coming to Him in their misery so that He might heal them.
The same writer ties their silence straight to God's goodness:
"And they could not reply to these things." How good is the grace and truth of God — good beyond all answer!
- Watched. They came to catch Him, not to get help. The meal was a trap, and He came anyway.
- Asked. He met their hostile thoughts with a question. He put the case to their conscience before He acted.
- Answered by deed. He healed a man who had not even asked. His deed settled the question their silence would not settle.
- Unanswerable. Their own rescue of a fallen ox convicted them. What closed their mouths was not clever argument but goodness.
- Unbroken. Silence is not surrender. They were embarrassed, not changed. The sickest hearts in the room went home unhealed.
And he spoke a parable to those that were invited, remarking how they chose out the first places, saying to them,
Jesus is at dinner in a Pharisee's house on the Sabbath, watching His fellow guests pick out the best seats. What He sees becomes a parable — not about table manners, but about where the heart puts itself, and where God puts us instead.
Before the Lord says anything, He looks. One writer notes that pause, and how rarely we copy it:
In verse 7, He has entered the house and looked around. That is exactly where we fail. We are so much taken up with ourselves that we do not look around to see things with the eyes of the Lord. The Lord came with the heart and resources of God to give out blessing. But He also came with the eye, ear and sensitivity of God, to take in the moral character of the scene here. What does He see here? First, the guests, and they do not please Him. He saw they chose the highest places... He saw that it was pride that animated the scene under His eye.
Jesus was at dinner, not in a synagogue. A scramble for seats became a lesson that still stands:
It is beautiful and blessed to notice how our Lord turns the smallest things of daily life to everlasting account. We find this in all the Gospels, and in none more than in Luke's. Under the power of the Spirit, Luke set out to contrast the God of grace with fallen, selfish man. His aim was that a person might be saved through faith in Christ and His work, and then live in keeping with it.
The choice of seat is not a small social slip. It is what fallen nature always does, and it goes back to Adam:
It is just the place that nature likes. The world, which has no relationship with God, delights in exalting self and shutting Him out. Self gets for self what it likes and forgets God. Man is always setting up self, pushing for self, against God. He does not think so, for he says he is only using his abilities. But Adam did the same when he hid himself from God. Do we not use our abilities to please ourselves, rather than for God?... A man is naturally hurt when he is put down in a corner and despised. The flesh does not enjoy being pushed aside, but this seeking for a place is to seek for it where Christ had none.
Everyone at that table was there because someone invited them. That fact settles how they should have acted. It also settles how anyone receives from God:
Fallen human nature is pushy and self-assertive. But we can only receive grace as we show humility. The guest at a wedding comes in by the host's generosity. He has no right to be there, and he has not earned it. He should behave that way.
The seat is the host's to give. One writer shows what follows when a person leaves the placing to God:
If I am conscious of being a sinner, and therefore deserving no place, I shall take none, but wait till God gives me one... When the eye is on God like this, self is forgotten. If not, I am thinking about the slights I receive, and neither faith nor grace is at work... When God gives me a place, it is a place of power and nearness to Himself. But when a man takes a place for himself, it is a place of weakness and separation from God, because self is the object.
Jesus was the opposite of what He had just watched. Kelly also applies the warning to Israel: God had invited the nation, and it had taken the top seat:
Everyone wants to lift himself up. The law does not stop that; it can only condemn... But Christ here brings in the light of God's grace — divine love in an evil world, set against human selfishness. But "when you are invited," says He who was Himself the perfect Pattern of love and humility... Certainly it would be so with Israel themselves. They had had the outward call of God, they had chosen the chief seats, and now they were going to lose all place and nation. Jesus was in the fullest contrast with them. He went down to the lowest place. He took it in love for God's glory. And there is One who will certainly say for Him, Give this man place.
- Watched. Jesus looks around the room before He speaks; what He sees in the seat-choosing is pride, and He names it.
- Exposed. Grabbing a place is Adam's instinct in small form — self getting for self, and forgetting God.
- Invited. Every guest is there by the host's generosity, not by right; we receive grace only where there is humility.
- Deferred. Leave the seating to the One who invited you; a place God gives means nearness to Him, a place you take means distance.
- Reversed. Jesus took the lowest place Himself, in love for God's glory — and One will yet give Him His place.
When thou art invited by any one to a wedding, do not lay thyself down in the first place at table, lest perhaps a more honourable than thou be invited by him,
At a Pharisee's table, Jesus watches the guests pick out the best seats. He answers with a parable about where to sit at a wedding feast. The question is not about manners. Who decides what place you get? And what happens if you take one for yourself?
The Lord is not correcting table manners. He is naming an instinct that belongs to human nature itself.
The chief seat is just the place that nature likes. The world, which has no relationship with God, loves to exalt self and shut Him out. Self gets for self what it likes and forgets God. Man is always setting up self, pushing for self, against God. He does not think so; he says he is only using his abilities. Adam did the same, to hide himself from God. Do we not use our abilities to please ourselves instead of for God? A man is naturally hurt when he is put down in a corner and despised.
Jesus gives the guests a reason, not just a rule. Someone more honoured may be on the host's list.
Then He spoke to the guests in the Pharisee's house, as He watched them take the best places for themselves. He told them not to take such a place. The host may have meant it for someone more honoured, and the social climber could end up humiliated. If this is true in ordinary life, how much more among the saints of God! Reaching for a high place is unfitting, and it exposes you to the shame of humiliation.
The whole scene assumes someone else invited you. A guest who seats himself has forgotten how he came to be there at all.
Self, and the pleasing of self, governed them, for they chose the chief seats for themselves. There, as anywhere else they were guests, such behaviour was very improper. It was favour, or grace, which moved the host to invite them. It was their place, then, to let him appoint to each one his seat. If they would take a seat, let them take the lowest, leaving it to the one who had invited them to give them a better. That was the conduct suitable for those who were subjects of grace.
The two ways of getting a place are not equal in value. One comes with nearness to the giver; the other leaves you holding something you took.
The point of this parable comes out in verses 8-11. It turns the heart to the Master, to "him who invited you." If I know I am a sinner, and so deserve no place, I shall take none. I shall wait till God gives me one. Then I shall have honour indeed... The man who invited the guests knows the true worth of each one and the honour due to them. God will appoint the evangelist's place, the pastor's, the apostle's, and so on. When God gives me a place, it is one of power and nearness to Himself. When a man takes a place for himself, it is one of weakness and alienation from God, because self is the object.
Jesus was not describing something He had never done. He took the lowest place Himself, and God answered that choice.
Then comes a more positive word: "When you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place." He had done so Himself. Then, "when your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher.'" He took the form of a servant, was found in human form, humbled Himself, and became obedient to death, even death on a cross. "Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name" (Phil. 2:9)... They are universal principles of God: the one true of Christ and of all who are Christ's, as the other is of the spirit of man.
Kelly reads the warning as more than personal. The men listening belonged to a nation that had God's outward call and had taken the best seat for itself.
Certainly it would be so with Israel themselves. They had had the outward call of God, they had chosen the chief seats, and now they were going to lose all place and nation. Jesus was in the fullest contrast with them. He went down to the lowest place; He took it in love for God's glory; and certainly there is One who will say for Him, Give this man place.
- Invited. You are at the table by favour, not by right — the host chose you before you chose a seat.
- Instinct. Nature reaches for the best place. Self "gets for self what it likes and forgets God," and it feels the sting when pushed aside.
- Shame. A seat you take yourself is not safe. A more honoured guest may arrive, and the host moves you down in front of everyone.
- Appointment. God assigns every real place — evangelist, pastor, apostle. A place He gives brings you near Him; a place you grab leaves you far off.
- Pattern. Christ took the lowest place Himself, and God exalted Him above every name. The rule that cost Israel its chief seat still holds for every guest.
and he who invited thee and him come and say to thee, Give place to this [man], and then thou begin with shame to take the last place.
The setting is a meal at the house of a leading Pharisee, a strict religious teacher, and Jesus watches the guests claim the best seats for themselves. His warning turns on one embarrassing moment. The host arrives with a more honoured guest, so the man who took the seat has to move — in front of everyone.
The whole parable rests on the fact that someone else owns the table. Commentators read the pull of the verse as a pull away from self and toward the one who issued the invitation.
The point of this parable comes out in verses 8-11. It turns the heart to the Master, to the one who invited you. If I know I am a sinner, and therefore deserve no place, I will take none. I will wait until God gives me one. I will have honour indeed, when God gives me a place... The man who invited the guests has the right estimate of each and the honour due to them. God will appoint the evangelist's place, the pastor's, the apostle's, and so on. When God gives me a place, it is one of power and nearness to Himself. But when a man takes a place for himself, it is one of weakness and separation from God, because self is the object.
Choosing the first place is not a rare failing of a few dinner guests. One writer traces it back to Adam.
It is just the place that nature likes. The world, which has no relations with God, delights in exalting self and shutting Him out. Self gets for self what it likes, and forgets God. Man is always setting up self, pushing for self against God. He does not think so, because he says he is only using his abilities. But so did Adam, to hide himself from God... A man is naturally hurt when he is put down in a corner and despised. Human nature does not like being pushed aside. But this seeking for a place is seeking it where Christ had none.
The verse does not threaten punishment. It simply describes what climbing costs when the climb is reversed in front of witnesses.
He advised the guests not to take such a place. The host may have meant it for a more honourable person. In that case the matter might end in the humiliation of the social climber. If this is true in the natural realm, how much more so among the saints of God! Reaching for a high place is improper, and it opens you to the shame of being brought low.
Every guest at that table was there by the host's kindness.
Self, and the pleasing of self, governed them, for they chose out for themselves the chief seats... It was favour, or grace, which moved the host to invite them. It was their place, then, to let him appoint to each one his seat... That was the conduct suitable for those who were subjects of grace. And if in natural things that was fitting, how much more is that suited for the subjects of divine grace?
Jesus spoke this while sitting in that room. Writers point out that He was describing His own habit, and the exact reverse of Adam's.
They chose the best seats. This was Adam. This was that desire to be something, which long ago grafted itself onto the heart of man... Adam was nothing — a creature of the dust — and he sought to be everything. Jesus was everything, but emptied Himself of all. He became a Man, and in that form humbled Himself in every way. In the person He took and the station in life He filled, He always took the lowest place. He did the same in the testimony He bore about Himself, and in the way He kept His glory hidden.
The picture also reaches past one dinner party to a whole nation.
Certainly it would be so with Israel themselves. They had had the outward call of God, they had chosen the chief seats, and now they were going to lose all place and nation. Jesus was in the fullest contrast with them. He went down to the lowest place. He took it in love for God's glory. And certainly there is One who will say for Him, "Give this man place." Clearly, though, it urges every heart, and especially those who heed the call of God.
One writer reads the same words forward, to proud rulers still to come.
They will raise their proud heads in defiance of God... He will say "Give this Man place," and the once-lowly Man of sorrows will appear in majesty and take His Kingdom.
- Host — The one who invited you keeps the right to seat you; he alone knows the honour due to each guest.
- Grace — You are at the table by favour, never by merit, so choosing your own rank contradicts how you got in.
- Self — Reaching for the first place is Adam's old instinct, disguised as only using your abilities.
- Shame — The host can move you in front of everyone; a seat God gives brings nearness to Him instead of exposure.
- Christ — He took the lowest place Himself, and God will yet call Him forward to appear in majesty and take His Kingdom.
But when thou hast been invited, go and put thyself down in the last place, that when he who has invited thee comes, he may say to thee, Friend, go up higher then shalt thou have honour before all that are lying at table with thee;
At the Pharisee's table Jesus watched the guests pick out the best seats for themselves. His answer sounds like ordinary table manners until you ask who is doing the seating. Why should a guest choose the lowest place? And does the promise of "Friend, move up higher" turn humility into a tactic?
The scene exposes something that runs through the whole room, host and guests alike.
In verses 7-12 of this chapter the Lord exposes man. The invited guest and the inviting host were both marked by the same feature: self-seeking. This has been the character of man from the very first, and it will mark man as such to the very end.
The particular form it took at that table was a craving for status, and it has not changed.
Man is fallen under sin and Satan, and that gives occasion for grace and its ways, as God was then displaying in Christ. This tests the heart, which by nature seeks its own things — honour or power, ease or pleasure, and money as the means of pleasing self, whatever direction it takes. Here it was present honour that men wanted, and it is as true now as then. The true Light, coming into the world, laid every man bare.
The weight of the verse rests on the words "your host." A seat you take is not a seat he gave you.
The point of this parable is seen in verses 8-11: it points the heart to the Master, to "the one who invited you." If I know I am a sinner, and so deserve no place, I will take none. I will wait till God gives me one. I will have honour indeed when God gives me a place… The man who invited the guests knows the right measure of each one and the honour due to them. God will appoint the evangelist's place, the pastor's, the apostle's, and every other. When God gives me a place, it is one of power and nearness to Himself. But when a man takes a place for himself, it is one of weakness and alienation from God, because self is the object.
And no guest had earned his invitation in the first place.
It was favour, or grace, that moved the host to invite them. So it was their place to let him give each one his seat. If they were going to take a seat, let them take the lowest, and leave it to the one who invited them to give them a better one… And if that was right in ordinary things, how much more does it suit those who are the subjects of God's grace?
Jesus was not handing out advice He had never followed.
Then comes a more positive word: "When you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place" — He had done so Himself — "so that when your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher.'" He took the form of a servant. He was found in appearance as a man. He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name (Phil. 2:9)… The first Adam tried to exalt himself, but only fell through the deceit of Satan. The Second Man humbled Himself, and God has set Him above all rule, and power, and might.
Once He took the low seat and no voice called Him higher. That silence left Him within reach of a woman outside the door.
So when the Lord entered the house He took the lowest seat at the feast, just inside the door… and no friendly voice said to Him, "Friend, move up higher." He stayed where He reclined — just inside the door. And just outside the door stood a woman, bowed and broken by her sin… If He had sat at the head of the table at the Pharisee's right hand, her courage would have failed her in the doorway. She would probably not have reached Him that day. But He was so near her… So the Pharisee's scorn put the Saviour within reach of the sinner.
Taking a low place as a technique, or out of bare duty, will not hold.
Simply knowing what is right, as a matter of law, can never last. A thing may be very right, but there is no staying power in pursuing it. Merely doing what you know to be right gives no power to subdue the flesh… What lasts is the sense that we are nothing and that God is everything… When God is the object, the low place here is enough. He Himself carries me on. Whatever it may be, if the mind and affections are on Him, what was hard at first is no effort as I go on.
What may or may not happen at a dinner is guaranteed with God.
He turns to the guests to press on them the wisdom of humility. Even in the world the man that exalts himself is often abased: but with God this is the constant rule. Man's way is that of self-exaltation: he cannot trust God nor see himself aright; he must be abased for blessing or abased in judgment. How the Speaker here in His own Person illustrates the contrast between God and man. How far He had come down!
- Invited. You are at the table by favour, not by merit — which is why the seating is not yours to arrange.
- Seated. The host knows the right measure of every guest. God appoints every place of service, and a place He gives is nearness to Himself.
- Taken. A seat grabbed for yourself is weakness and distance from God, because self, not He, is the object.
- Followed. Christ took the lowest place first. At one table His low seat put Him within a sinner's reach.
- Honoured. Real honour is the honour God gives — and God gave the One who took the lowest place the name above every name.
for every one that exalts himself shall be abased, and he that abases himself shall be exalted.
Jesus was at a Sabbath meal in the house of a leading Pharisee. He watched the guests pick out the best seats for themselves, and closed His parable with this saying. Is He teaching table manners? Or is He stating a fixed law of God's dealings with every person.
What Jesus saw at that table He recognised as something in everyone.
The Lord put forward "a parable to those who were invited, when He noticed how they chose the places of honor." People who feel no need themselves block good to others. But there is more: everyone wants to exalt himself. The law does not stop this: it can only condemn... They sought for themselves; they sought the best.
One writer traces the instinct back to its source, and finds it older than the Pharisees.
They chose the chief seats. This was Adam. This was that desire to be something which long ago grafted itself onto the heart of man. Jesus could not but be grieved. From the beginning until now, He has been the full contradiction of this. And He will be so right down to the death of the cross.
Every guest was there because the host invited him. That settles who decides where he sits.
Self, and the pleasing of self, governed them, for they chose out for themselves the chief seats... It was favour, or grace, that moved the host to invite them. It was their place, then, to let him appoint each one his seat. If they were going to take a seat, let them take the lowest, leaving it to the one who had invited them to give them a better. That was the conduct that suited those who were the objects of grace. And if that was fitting in natural things, how much more does it suit those who are the objects of divine grace?
Taking the low seat is not a clever move to get noticed. It comes from an honest view of what we deserve, and leaves the outcome with God.
The point of this parable refers the heart to the Master, to "him who invited you." If I know I am a sinner, and so deserve no place, I shall take none. I will wait until God gives me one... When the eye is on God like this, self is forgotten. If not, I am thinking about the slights I receive, and neither faith nor grace is at work... When God gives me a place, it is one of power and nearness to Himself. But when a man takes a place for himself, it is one of weakness and distance from God, because self is the object.
The world half-knows the first half of this verse. What makes it a word from God is that He applies it without exception.
He turns to the guests to press on them the wisdom of humility. Even in the world the man who exalts himself is often brought low: but with God this is the constant rule. Man's way is that of self-exaltation: he cannot trust God or see himself rightly. He must be brought low for blessing, or brought low in judgment.
The One saying this had already done it. Both halves of the verse have a person attached to them.
"When you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place" — He had done so Himself... He took the form of a servant and was found in human form. He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name."... These are universal principles of God: one is true of Christ and of all who are Christ's, as the other is of the spirit of man. The first Adam sought to exalt himself, but only fell through the deceit of Satan. The Second Man humbled Himself and is set above all rule and authority and power.
Notice who does the lifting in the second half of the verse. The lines below quote Philippians 2:9 from an older translation.
"HE humbled Himself," but — you will notice — not "He exalted Himself." No, "GOD supremely exalted Him." Nor should we pass over that little word "also." "Therefore God also supremely exalted Him." In the Greek it stands in a very emphatic position. It seems to contrast God's thoughts of His Son with man's treatment of Him.
- Invited. Everyone at the table is there by the host's favour, so no guest has the right to assign his own seat.
- Grasping. Choosing the best place is the old instinct of Adam: the desire to be something. It is in everyone, not just Pharisees.
- Lowered. Whoever pushes himself up will come down. With God this is the constant rule: He brings a man low for blessing, or low in judgment.
- Waiting. Take no place. Wait for God to give one. The place He gives means power and nearness; a place you seize means weakness and distance.
- Lifted. Christ humbled Himself to the cross and God exalted Him — He never lifted Himself, and neither do we.
And he said also to him that had invited him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsfolk, nor rich neighbours, lest it may be they also should invite thee in return, and a recompense be made thee.
Jesus is eating in the house of a leading Pharisee, and He turns from the guests to the host who invited Him. The question shifts from where you sit to whom you invite — and behind that lies the motive.
The scene has two halves. Commentators note that the same fault runs through both.
In verses 7-12 of this chapter the Lord exposes man. The invited guest and the inviting host were both marked by the same feature: self-seeking. This has been the character of man from the very first, and it will characterise man as such to the very end.
What He asks of the host is not natural kindness. It is a love that natural kindness cannot produce.
Then we find, further, it is not a question only of guests but of a host: He has a word for every man. God looks for love in this world, and this, too, apart from nature. His love is not for one's friends or family alone; it is not on this principle at all… What marks a witness for Christ is something supernatural. There is no testimony to His name in natural kindness or family affection alone. But where there is love with no human motive and no hope of return, there is a testimony to Him. This is just what God is doing now in the gospel, and we are called to be imitators of God.
The first word names a meal earlier in the day. Older translations call the second one "supper".
A meal taken in the morning… but late enough for friends to be invited. Luke 11:37-38. Used for a marriage feast in Matthew 22:2, 4, perhaps as late as noon: it is distinguished from "supper" in Luke 14:12.
The hope of being invited back is the sting. Some read the warning as aimed at the man hosting Jesus that day.
It would seem the Pharisee had in mind being invited back by others. The Lord would hardly have said this if the Pharisee's motives had been unselfish. It seems his motives in inviting the Lord had not been honourable.
One writer draws comfort from the fact that Christ could not be pleased there.
Now He looked at the host, but there was no relief for Him there. Selfishness in another form shows itself to Him. The Pharisee did not ask the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind to his feast. His rich neighbours sat on his right hand and on his left… It is very happy that Christ cannot be pleased with your world. What would your Lord Jesus be to you if He could put up with such a world? If Christ could have found sympathy with man's world as pictured here, you and I should never have been saved.
Inviting people who can invite you back is a trade. The Lord presses a different principle.
In His words to the man who invited Him into his house, the Lord is stressing the motives that should have marked such a person. In doing so He is expressing the character of God Himself. In Romans 4 we read, "to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." The very words the Lord spoke to this man show what an invitation according to the mind of God is like. It looks for no merit in the person invited and no return from him. It is for the welcome of someone truly in need.
Giving up the return invitation does not mean losing the reward. It means receiving it later, from Someone else.
So He takes them all out of the world again, to the time when they shall meet God, and makes that a present guide for action. They must not act on the principle of getting a reward here. They must wait for the time when they meet the Lord. The servants do not receive their wages until the Master of the house returns. This is not a question of salvation, but of reward for service.
The command is not limited to banquets. It asks for a door held open to people who bring nothing back.
Let our hearts then go out to welcome the despised and suffering here below. Let us show "the kindness of God" to poor, crippled, lame, blind. And all the more, to win their ear through the heart, so they hear of Him who alone can take away the guilt and power of sin for eternity.
- Exposed — the same self-seeking marks the guest picking his seat and the host picking his guest list.
- Motive — the hope of being invited back turns hospitality into an investment.
- Grace — an invitation shaped by God's mind looks for no merit in the guest and no repayment. That is the difference between wages owed and a gift given.
- Witness — kindness to friends and family proves nothing. Love with no human motive testifies to Christ.
- Recompense — the reward is real, but it comes later, when the Lord returns. This is reward for service, not salvation.
But when thou makest a feast, call poor, crippled, lame, blind
Jesus is eating in the house of a leading Pharisee. He turns from advising the guests to advising His host. His question is uncomfortable: when we do good, do we expect something back?
The earlier verses dealt with where a guest should sit. Now the Lord turns to the host and asks what drives the invitation itself.
In the three verses which follow we find the Lord instructing not the guest but the host. He too is to act in the spirit which suits grace. Human nature is selfish even in its kindnesses, and will issue its invitations with a view to future profit.
Jesus names four groups who have nothing to pay their host back with. Love that expects no return is what marks a witness.
God looks for love in this world, and this, too, apart from nature. His love is not for one's friends or family alone; it is not on this principle at all... A witness for Christ is marked by what is supernatural. Merely natural kindness or family affection is no testimony to His name. But where there is love without a human motive or any hope of return, there is a testimony to Him. It is exactly what God is doing now in the gospel, and we are called to be imitators of God. It is not meant to be only in making a feast or a supper. Grace should stamp its character on all our Christian life.
The same pattern shapes how God deals with us. These verses describe the gospel itself, not just hospitality.
Verses 12, 13, 14 show the unique character of the gospel. They stamp the proclamation clearly as coming from God. God does not need repayment. His grace comes out to those who are not only unable to earn it but quite unable to give anything to secure it.
Each term in the list marks a different inability, and together they describe every one of us.
The poor cannot pay, the maimed cannot work, the lame must be brought, and the blind are helpless without a guide. Not one of them is self-sufficient; they are dependent people. Every man and woman on earth comes into this category. The difference is that some have not discovered it, and others are too proud to own it.
So the guest list is not about income. It names the kind of person grace reaches.
Grace has no attraction for those who are rich in their own imagined spiritual wealth. It has no concern with them either, we may add. It is only for wretched, helpless, and needy souls. For grace, itself a gift, delights to give, to make the poor rich, the helpless strong and the empty full.
The Pharisee's table had the wrong names on it. The One sitting at it works on the opposite principle.
The Pharisee did not ask the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind to his feast. His rich neighbours sat on his right hand and on his left. Here the heart of Christ tells itself out in calling those who cannot repay Him... If Christ could have found sympathy with man's world as pictured here, you and I would never have been saved.
The reward is real. But it does not come in this life.
He takes them all out of the world again, to the time when they will meet God, and makes it a present guide for action. They must not act on the principle of getting reward here. They must wait for the time when they are to meet the Lord. The servants do not receive their wages until the Master of the house returns. This is not a question of salvation, but of reward for service.
That resurrection is not for everyone.
Our text speaks of the resurrection of life. None can share in it but those who are just by the grace of God — justified, no doubt, but also just... It is clear too that only the resurrection of the just allows for reward. For the unjust there can only be righteous retribution.
The crown has its place, but not at the start.
The service of love is never influenced by reward. Reward is not set before the soul as the motive for doing anything. But when we find difficulties in the path of service, then the crown is set before us to encourage us to go on.
- Host, not guest — the Lord turns from where guests sit to who gets invited. Kindness aimed at future profit is still selfishness.
- Grace — inviting those who cannot pay you back is God's own method in the gospel. It should mark all of Christian life, not just meals.
- Reach — poor, crippled, lame, blind: cannot pay, cannot work, cannot walk, cannot see. The list covers everyone who has stopped pretending otherwise.
- Christ — He lived this out, calling those who could bring Him nothing. If He had preferred the rich table, none of us would be saved.
- Result — God settles the account at the resurrection of the just. That is reward for service, not salvation. The crown steadies the servant; it is not his motive.
and thou shalt be blessed; for they have not [the means] to recompense thee; for it shall be recompensed thee in the resurrection of the just.
The words come at a dinner table. Jesus has just told His host whom to invite next time: not friends and rich neighbours who can return the favour, but people with nothing to give back. His promise reaches past this life, to a resurrection He calls "of the just."
Jesus is speaking to the man who invited Him, and the instruction exposes how ordinary generosity works.
Here we find the Lord instructing not the guest but the host. He too is to act in the spirit which suits grace. Human nature is selfish even in its giving, and will issue its invitations with a view to future profit. If, under the influence of grace, we think of those who have nothing to offer us, we aim at no earthly repayment.
The One who gave the rule had already lived by it. He could find nothing to approve in the room He sat in.
Now He looked at the host, but there was no relief for Him there. Selfishness in another form shows itself to Him. The Pharisee did not ask the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind to his feast. His rich neighbours sat on his right hand and on his left. Here the heart of Christ tells itself out in calling those who cannot repay Him. It is a very happy thing that your world cannot please Christ. What would your Lord Jesus be to you if He could put up with such a world? If Christ could have found sympathy with man's world as pictured here, you and I would never have been saved. He acted on directly opposite principles.
The guests' inability to repay is not a drawback. It secures the blessing, because it moves the settling of accounts out of this world.
He takes them all out of the world again, to the time when they will meet God, and makes it a present guide for action. They must not act on the principle of getting reward here. They must wait for the time when they are to meet the Lord. The servants do not receive their wages until the Master of the house returns. This is not a question of salvation, but of reward for service.
Jesus does not say "at the resurrection." He narrows it, and the wording carries weight.
The Lord speaks here of a special resurrection, in which the unjust have no part. Not that these too do not come out from their graves; for indeed they must rise for judgment. But our text speaks of the resurrection of life. Only those who are just by the grace of God can share in it — justified, no doubt, but also just... Other Scriptures prove that these two resurrections differ in time as clearly as they differ in character. More than a thousand years separate the one from the other... It is clear also that only the resurrection of the just allows of recompense. For the unjust there can be only righteous retribution.
Scripture elsewhere speaks of both groups rising. Here Jesus names only one.
There is a resurrection of the unjust. When the Apostle Paul spoke before Felix in Acts 24, he said he believed in the resurrection of both the just and the unjust. But the Lord Jesus was lifting the consciences of His disciples to what was good and of value before God. So He spoke of the resurrection of the just alone.
Living this way costs a person standing. The promise answers that cost — and it fit the Speaker's own position that week.
Such a walk was His own, and it stands against the spirit of the world. Anyone who walked that way would lose his place in the world, and the give-and-take of society would end. But another hour was beginning to dawn through His rejection... the resurrection of the just. Cast out by the world from its bosom, they would have their place apart in what the power of God would bring about... We see the force with which this points to the Lord's position at that moment, ready to be put to death in this world.
The behaviour Jesus describes does more than earn a reward. It shows where a person already belongs.
How often do we think of inviting to our homes those who are in deeply trying circumstances? The Lord will not fail to reward such kindness shown even in a natural way... Such care, in unselfish honesty, would show that a person is truly born again. Only believers will have part in "the resurrection of life."
- Invite — the rule speaks to the host, not the guest: choose people who have nothing to hand back.
- Empty-handed — guests who cannot repay leave the account open with God instead of settling it at the door.
- Deferred — the wages come when the Master returns. The question is reward for service, not salvation.
- Just — Jesus names one resurrection, because only that one allows reward. The unjust rise to judgment.
- Evidence — unselfish kindness shows that a person already belongs to the resurrection of life.