Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Luke 14

Since this is the fourth time Luke records a controversy over the Sabbath (v.1), it is obvious that this was a major issue between Jesus and the religious leaders (cf. 6:1–5, 6:11; 13:10–17). The host was one of the “ruling” Pharisees, possibly a member of the Sanhedrin. Luke pictures the Pharisees as watchdogs of the faith as they waited for some theological flaw to appear in Jesus’ teaching (vv.1–3; cf. 5:17; 6:7). The man who enters the scene was possibly planted there to test Jesus. “Dropsy” (see ZPEB, 2:134) may have popularly been considered a curse for sin (Numbers 5:11–27). As in 6:9, Jesus took the initiative with a question designed to shift the burden of proof to the opposition (v.3). During the silence of the “Pharisees and experts in the law,” Jesus met the man’s need. His condition could have waited another day, but Jesus was concerned to establish a principle. This may be why he dismissed the man without including him further in the conversation.

Since this is the fourth time Luke records a controversy over the Sabbath (v.1), it is obvious that this was a major issue between Jesus and the religious leaders (cf. 6:1–5, 6:11; 13:10–17). The host was one of the “ruling” Pharisees, possibly a member of the Sanhedrin. Luke pictures the Pharisees as watchdogs of the faith as they waited for some theological flaw to appear in Jesus’ teaching (vv.1–3; cf. 5:17; 6:7). The man who enters the scene was possibly planted there to test Jesus. “Dropsy” (see ZPEB, 2:134) may have popularly been considered a curse for sin (Numbers 5:11–27). As in 6:9, Jesus took the initiative with a question designed to shift the burden of proof to the opposition (v.3). During the silence of the “Pharisees and experts in the law,” Jesus met the man’s need. His condition could have waited another day, but Jesus was concerned to establish a principle. This may be why he dismissed the man without including him further in the conversation.

Since this is the fourth time Luke records a controversy over the Sabbath (v.1), it is obvious that this was a major issue between Jesus and the religious leaders (cf. 6:1–5, 6:11; 13:10–17). The host was one of the “ruling” Pharisees, possibly a member of the Sanhedrin. Luke pictures the Pharisees as watchdogs of the faith as they waited for some theological flaw to appear in Jesus’ teaching (vv.1–3; cf. 5:17; 6:7). The man who enters the scene was possibly planted there to test Jesus. “Dropsy” (see ZPEB, 2:134) may have popularly been considered a curse for sin (Numbers 5:11–27). As in 6:9, Jesus took the initiative with a question designed to shift the burden of proof to the opposition (v.3). During the silence of the “Pharisees and experts in the law,” Jesus met the man’s need. His condition could have waited another day, but Jesus was concerned to establish a principle. This may be why he dismissed the man without including him further in the conversation.

Since this is the fourth time Luke records a controversy over the Sabbath (v.1), it is obvious that this was a major issue between Jesus and the religious leaders (cf. 6:1–5, 6:11; 13:10–17). The host was one of the “ruling” Pharisees, possibly a member of the Sanhedrin. Luke pictures the Pharisees as watchdogs of the faith as they waited for some theological flaw to appear in Jesus’ teaching (vv.1–3; cf. 5:17; 6:7). The man who enters the scene was possibly planted there to test Jesus. “Dropsy” (see ZPEB, 2:134) may have popularly been considered a curse for sin (Numbers 5:11–27). As in 6:9, Jesus took the initiative with a question designed to shift the burden of proof to the opposition (v.3). During the silence of the “Pharisees and experts in the law,” Jesus met the man’s need. His condition could have waited another day, but Jesus was concerned to establish a principle. This may be why he dismissed the man without including him further in the conversation.

Jesus now turns to the Pharisees and draws them into his illustration (cf. 11:5, 11; 12:25; 14:28). “Immediately” stresses the urgency of meeting the need, a pointed reference back to the man with dropsy. The principle exampled in the case of a beast is fully in accord with the OT and rabbinic law. In the face of this, the silence of Jesus’ opponents was no longer by choice but of necessity; they “had nothing to say.”