By Johann Peter Lange
Edited by Rev. Marcus Dods
THE HISTORICAL DELINEATION OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE TIME OF JESUS APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING AMID THE PERSECUTIONS OF HIS MORTAL ENEMIES.
SECTION XXVI
the entertainment in the
Pharisee's house. the man with
the dropsy. observations
addressed by Christ to his
fellow-guests
(Luk 14:1-24)
About this time Jesus was again
invited to one of those
entertainments which were
repeatedly prepared for Him in
houses of the Pharisees, and
which in the evangelical
narrative we might designate
collectively as being the
Perilous Entertainments. One of
the most eminent of the Pharisee
party invited Him on the
Sabbath-day to be his guest. We
might feel surprised at meeting
with such an invitation at a
time when the separation of
feeling between Jesus and the
Pharisees had already gone so
far. We might conjecture, that
the tradition which Luke
followed had shifted the story
out of its original connection
with occurrences of a similar
kind. But we must not overlook
the fact, that the Pharisees
allowed themselves to go to
great lengths in sham acts of
friendliness to Jesus, for the
purpose of compassing the end of
their hostility. This is shown
us in the preceding occurrence,
in which they affected to be
desirous of saving His life.
Moreover, there are
circumstances in the narrative
which indicate that it belongs
to a later time, as the sequel
will show.
In giving Him this invitation,
provision had been also made
beforehand for laying a snare
for the guest. Care had been
taken to secure the presence
there of a man afflicted with
dropsy. The patient himself can
hardly have been aware what a
shameful misuse it was proposed
to make of him. Probably the
hope had been suggested to him
that Jesus would heal him, and
he had in all honesty resigned
himself to the anticipation. But
the Pharisees may have had more
than one reason for bringing the
man thither. In the first place,
his illness was a form of
disease presenting especial
difficulty, and which more than
many others resisted all
curative processes which wrought
through the imagination.1 They
might hope, either that Jesus
would not venture Himself upon
dealing with the case, or else
that perhaps He might fail. In
either case, means was provided
for His humiliation. Next, if
Jesus undertook the case and
effected the cure, then they had
gained new vantage-ground for
charging Him with heretical
conduct in respect to the
Sabbath. First of all they
placed the dropsical man in such
a situation that Jesus could not
overlook him.2
Jesus proceeded in actual fact
to heal the man; a proof that
the patient was himself honestly
disposed towards Him and was
susceptible of faith. The
restoration, however, He
prefaced with some observations
of a similar character to those
which He made use of when on the
Sabbath-day He cured the man
with the withered hand in the
synagogue.3 There is no
difficulty presented by the
fact, that at different times,
in different neighbourhoods,
Jesus is represented as making
use of similar observations in
relation to similar cases, any
more than there is in the
supposition, that in the
transmission of the account, one
narrative of this kind may have
received some tincture of
colouring from another of a
similar kind. Nevertheless, the
treatment of the subject in the
present instance has its
distinctive character. He does
not ask them, as He did on that
previous occasion, Is it lawful
to do good on the Sabbath-day?
but more directly, Is it lawful
to heal on the Sabbath-day? And
then, He does not first put
forward the example which is to
justify His procedure, but
forthwith proceeds to the cure
and lets the justification
follow. The example also is
itself different. At the first
of the three cures wrought on
the Sabbath-day which are
recorded by the synoptic Gospels
(Mat 12:11), attention was
directed to the fact that one
would surely draw out of a tank
a sheep which had fallen in.4 At
the second (Luk 13:15), the case
was alleged that even on the
Sabbath any one would lead away
an ox or an ass to watering. But
here the assertion is more
comprehensive: There was no one
among them (says Christ), who,
if his ass,5 or even his ox,
were fallen into a tank on the
Sabbath-day, would not at once
draw it out again. The Lord’s
treatment of the subject is thus
in every respect more
categorical, more
home-thrusting, than in the
earlier cases.
As soon as Jesus had healed the
man with the dropsy, He sent him
away. His gainsayers had already
through their silence forfeited
the right of turning the
occasion to account in the way
that they would have liked to
do.
After this, Jesus went further
in endeavouring to influence for
good the guests who were around
Him. He sought to show them, in
three parables, how ill they
themselves stood in relation to
the kingdom of God. The two
first parables He presented in
the simple form of exhortation;
whence, in truth, it has come to
pass that some have mistaken the
parabolic element in them in its
entire meaning; nay, more, some
have even discovered in the
first a small lesson of good
manners, which individual
critics have then been disposed
to find as itself a violation of
good manners;6 whilst in the
second some have discerned
nothing more than a commendation
of beneficence somewhat
hyperbolically expressed.
‘He spake to them that were
invited’ (says Luke) ‘a parable,
because he observed how much
they looked out for the highest
places at the table. When thou
art invited by any man to a
feast, He said, do not sit down
in the first place, lest it
befall thee, that one higher in
rank than thou has been invited,
and the entertainer comes and
says to thee, Give up to this
man your place, and thou then
beginnest’ (mortified and vexed)
‘with shame to take the lowest
place. But when thou art
invited, go and sit down rather
in the lowest place; that when
he that invited thee comes
thither, he may say to thee,
Friend, move up higher! That
will bring thee honour before
all who sit at table with thee.’
The Jews were too well
acquainted with the method of
their Rabbins in teaching by
parable, for the guests to be
likely to find in this
table-talk of Jesus an
unseasonable lesson in manners.7
Also, such a view of its meaning
is contradicted by its
conclusion: ‘For every one who
exalts himself shall be humbled,
and he who humbles himself shall
be exalted.’ Neither can it be
taken as if Jesus meant in His
exhortation merely to give a
graphic illustration of the apophthegm found at the close.
Rather this apophthegm forms the
general rule, under which the
particular object fell which He
wished under a parabolic dress
to impress upon them. Now what
could this have been? These
Pharisees were just the very
persons who, as Jehovah’s
guests, had taken the highest
seats. This they showed plainly
even by their behaviour to Him.
He therefore gives them to
understand, that it might
perhaps come to pass that the
Master of the entertainment
might direct them to quit the
higher seats for the lowest, and
that another man who had
modestly seated himself low down
would be recognized as the
intimate friend of the Master of
the house, and be made to move
high above them, to the first of
those seats which they had
themselves occupied. This was
the admonition with which Jesus
presented His guests.
In this same region of thought
moved the second parabolic
admonition, which He addressed
to the entertainer himself.
‘When, thou makest a dinner or a
supper, invite not thy friends,
nor thy brethren; neither thy
kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours.
For they will invite thee in
return, and thus feasted back,
thou wilt have got in full thy
recompense. But invite rather
the poor, the maimed, the lame,
the blind: then thou shalt be
blessed, for they cannot
recompense thee; for thou shalt
be recompensed at the
resurrection of the just’ (shall
receive the return feast there).
This table-discourse also is
justified in point of courtesy
(against several critics) by the
consideration that the common
feeling of the company present
would without doubt at once
recognize its parabolic
character. The Pharisees invited
only kindred spirits to feast
with them; that is, it was to
them alone that they addressed
their favour, their
friendliness, their hospitality.
And for this they were, of
course, asked back again and
entertained in the same way;
they received equal politeness,
friendliness, hospitality. But
thereby the real kingdom of love
was for them vanished; for
beyond the borders of this
mutual entertaining their love
and generosity did not pass;
rather, for the poor folks
outside, there was only their
hatred or their contempt. On the
other hand, within their own
strictly fenced kingdom of love,
there wrought ever more and more
only selfish calculation, the
conventional quest of
recompense. But it was most
especially in their management
of the affairs of the kingdom of
God, as dispensers of the
theocratic promises, that the
Pharisees conducted themselves
as such selfish entertainers,
and it is no doubt to this that
the parabolic discourse before
us most definitely points. They
invited men to participate in
the blessings of the theocracy,
in the promises of Jehovah. But
what men? None but their friends
and their kinsfolk, like-minded
pharisaical Jews, or perhaps
also their rich neighbours,
distinguished proselytes. None
but these alone should have part
in the kingdom of God. The poor,
on the contrary, publicans,
Samaritans, and heathens, they
had no wish to see at this
entertainment. But what,
according to the word of Christ,
shall be the consequence of this
narrow-heartedness? Because they
renounce the great kingdom of
love for the little society of
mutual pharisaical friendship
and gossipship, they shall also
have no part in the rich banquet
of love, which shall be
celebrated at the resurrection
of the just, in the new kingdom
of heaven. They will lose all
feeling for enjoying the great
feast of grace and men’s
salvation, and likewise all
prospect of being admitted to
its enjoyment.
One of the company now gave a
very plain indication that he
had well perceived that the
admonitory discourse of Jesus
had reference to the kingdom of
God; for when mention was made
of the banquet at the
resurrection of the just, he
exclaimed, ‘Blessed is he who
shall eat bread in the kingdom
of God.’8
This exclamation led our Lord to
deliver a parable, bearing the
proper garb of a parable, in
which He shows to the company
present how greatly they were in
danger of losing the very
blessedness which they so highly
extolled; namely, the parable of
the invited guests who slighted
the precious banquet, and who
were in consequence replaced by
poor people got together from
all quarters; which we have
considered above.
The Pharisee had invited Jesus
to his house with a sinister
purpose. Thereby he had already
discovered how little disposed
he would be to comply with the
great invitation which, in
return, Jesus was giving him to
the banquet of New Testament
life. And yet, how gladly would
Christ have brought both him and
his partners at the table to
just reflection, and have seen
them appear among His guests!
But the reason why the Pharisees
were about to reject Christ’s
entertainment, as the third
parable indicated, lay in the
fact, that according to the
first parable, they raised
themselves in their overweening
pride above Christ, and seated
themselves high in the
theocracy; and that, according
to the second, they raised
themselves in their unloving
selfishness above the heathen,
and would fain keep the kingdom
of heaven exclusively to
themselves.
───♦───
Notes
|
|
1) See Stier, iv. 68 2) Ἥν ἔμπροσθεν αἰτοῦ. 3) Matt. xii. 9 seqq. (Mark iii.; Luke vi.) Compare also Luke xiii. 15. 4) As only Matthew mentions this feature, as also he on the first only of the three narratives states Jesus’ question under the form, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbathday? we might feel tempted to assume, that in his account elements of the third sure had blended themselves with the first. [But is not this a quite gratuitous assumption of inaccuracy in the Evangelist?—ED.] 5) Lachmann prefers the reading υἱός. If this is to be fitted into the connection, we must find a father’s emphasis in the following paradoxical combination : Who is there of you who would not draw his son, yea, or even his ox, out of the tank on the Sabbath-day? [Alford also reads υἱός. See his note in loc, —ED.] 6) See De Wette, Comm. zu Luk. p. 76; Gfrörer, d. h. Saye, p. 265, Ebrard undertakes the defence of our Lord’s discourse in the second parable by observing, that the entertainer was deserving to be applauded by Jesus, since Jesus Himself did not belong to His friends, brethren, &c. But applying it thus, we must suppose, in opposition to the connection, that this chief Pharisee meant well by Jesus; not to urge further, that this view takes us away from the parabolical meaning of the discourse. 7) [Greswell (Expos, of the Parables, i. 92) quotes from Jerome the following words: ʻFamiliare est Syris, et maxime Palæstinis ad omnem sermonem suum parabolas jungere.ʼ And so Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. on Matt. xiii. 1) says, ‘The Jewish books abound everywhere with these figures,—the nation inclining by a kind of natural genius to this kind of rhetoric.’— ED.] 8) Stier (iv. 79) thinks that in this exclamation he finds a good deal which speaks in disfavour of the man s state of mind. But we cannot fail to perceive that the form in which he expresses himself does not authorize us to infer a pharisaical and carnal assurance on his part, in reference to a future participation in God s kingdom.
|