Charles Ellicott Commentary Luke 14

Into the house of one of the chief Pharisees.—Better, of the rulers of the Pharisees. The meaning of the phrase is probably more definite than that suggested by the English. The man was either a “ruler” in the same sense as Nicodemus (John 3:1), or the rich young man in Luke 18:18—i.e., a member of the Sanhedrin (which seems most likely)—or else occupied a high position in the lay-hierarchy (if the phrase may be allowed) which had developed itself in the organisation of Pharisaism.

To eat bread on the Sabbath day.—Sabbath feasts were then, as at a later time, part of the social life of the Jews, and were often—subject, of course, to the condition that the food was cold—occasions of great luxury and display. Augustine speaks of them as including dancing and song, and the “Sabbath luxury” of the Jews became a proverb. On the motives of the Pharisee—probably half respect and half curiosity—see Notes on Luke 7:36.

A certain man before him which had the dropsy.—This is the only miracle of the kind recorded in the Gospels. The term which St. Luke uses is strictly technical (hydropikos), and we may fairly see in the narrative another illustration of his professional character. He, more than others, had been led to specific inquiries as to the nature of the diseases which our Lord had healed. (See Introduction.) The man may have been an invited guest, or the feast may have been one of the semi-public ones in which the richer Pharisees displayed their hospitality.

To the lawyers.—See Note on Matthew 22:35. The teaching of our Lord is identical in substance, and nearly so in form, with that in Luke 6:6-11, Matthew 12:9–14, Mark 3:1–6. Here, however, it will be noticed, our Lord takes the initiative in the controversy, whereas before the scribes and Pharisees had asked Him the question. Possibly some report of what had then transpired had reached the ears of those who were now present, and caused them to be silent both before and after the question.

And he took him.—Better, he laid hold on him. The healing was, in this instance, effected by actual contact.

Which of you shall have an ass or an ox . . .—The line of thought is almost identical with that of Luke 13:15. Here, as there, the outward features of Jewish life are the same as they had been in Exodus 20:17, and Isaiah 1:3. The “ox and the ass” are the beasts which common men use and value. The horse belongs to conquerors and kings.

This is said with reference to the received text. Many of the best manuscripts, however, read, “Which of you shall have a son, or an ox . . .?” On the whole, this reading seems likely to be the true one. The familiar combination of the ox and the ass would naturally lead a transcriber to substitute ῠνος (ass) for ὑιός (son). There would be nothing to tempt anyone to a change in the opposite direction.

Fallen into a pit.—Literally, into a well, as in John 4:6-11, but the word was applied also, as in Revelation 9:1-2, to “wells without water”—i.e., as here, to “pits.”

And will not straightway pull him out.—The words appeal to the common action and natural impulse of men, but the casuistry of the Pharisees had, as a matter of fact, given a different answer. Food might be let down to the ox or ass, but no effort to pull him out was to be made until the Sabbath rest was over.