Albert Barnes Commentary Luke 14

It came to pass. It so happened or occurred.

As he went, etc. It is probable that he was invited to go, being in the neighbourhood (Luke 14:12); and it is also probable that the Pharisee invited him for the purpose of getting him to say something that would involve him in difficulty.

One of the chief Pharisees. One of the Pharisees who were rulers, or members of the great council or the Sanhedrin. (See Barnes on Matthew 5:22).

It does not mean that he was the head of the sect of the Pharisees, but one of those who happened to be a member of the Sanhedrin. He was therefore a man of influence and reputation.

To eat bread. To dine. To partake of the hospitality of his house.

On the Sabbath day. It may seem strange that our Saviour should have gone to dine with a man who was a stranger on the Sabbath; but we are to remember:

1. That he was travelling, having no home of his own, and that it was no more improper to go there than to any other place.
2. That he did not go there for the purpose of feasting and amusement, but to do good.
3. That as several of that class of persons were together, it gave him an opportunity to address them on the subject of religion and to reprove their vices.

If, therefore, the example of Jesus should be pleaded to authorize accepting an invitation to dine on the Sabbath, it should be pleaded just as it was. If we can go just as he did, it is right.

If, when away from home, we go to do good, and if we make it an occasion to discourse on the subject of religion and to persuade people to repent, then it is not improper.

Further than this we cannot plead the example of Christ. And surely this should be the last instance in the world to be adduced to justify dinner parties and scenes of riot and gluttony on the Sabbath.

They watched him. They malignantly fixed their eyes on him, to see if he did anything they could seize upon to accuse him.

A certain man before him. In what way he came there we do not know. He might have been one of the Pharisee's family, or might have been placed there by the Pharisees to see whether he would heal him. This last supposition is not improbable, since it is said in Luke 14:1 that they watched him.

The dropsy. A disease produced by the accumulation of water in various parts of the body; very distressing, and commonly incurable.

Jesus, answering. To answer, in the Scriptures, does not always imply, as it does for us, that anything had been said before. It often means merely to begin or to take up a subject, or, as here, to remark on the case that was present.

Is it lawful, etc. He knew that they were watching him. If he healed the man at once, they would accuse him. He therefore proposed the question to them, and when it was asked, they could not say that it was not lawful.

They held their peace. They were silent. They could not say it was not lawful, for the law did not forbid it. If it had, they would have said it. Here was the time for them to make objections if they had any, and not after the man was healed; and as they made no objection then, they could not with consistency afterward. They were therefore effectually silenced and confounded by the Saviour.

He took him. Took hold of the man, or perhaps took him aside into another room. By taking hold of him, or touching him, he showed that the power of healing went forth from himself.

Which of you, and so on. In this way Jesus refuted the notion of the Pharisees. If it was lawful to save an ox on the Sabbath, it was also to save the life of a man. To this the Jews had nothing to answer.