The Preacher's Homiletical Commentary
Luke 14:15-24
CRITICAL NOTES
Luke 14:15. Blessed is he.—The recompense at the resurrection of the just (Luke 14:14) suggested to this guest a great banquet in the kingdom of the Messiah at which the faithful Israelite would sit down in company with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob (cf. Luke 13:28). He extols the greatness of the privilege. Christ warns him and the others, in the parable that follows, that the privilege will by no means be so generally recognised or embraced by the Jewish people as was commonly thought. There seems to be nothing especially vapid or affected in the exclamation of this guest. Eat bread.—See on Luke 14:1.
Luke 14:16. A certain man.—The giver of the feast represents God. A great supper.—“The kingdom of God, the feast of fat things in Isaiah 25:6; completed in the marriage supper of the Lamb, but fully prepared when the glad tidings of the gospel were proclaimed” (Alford). Bade many.—I.e., the Jewish nation, especially the religiously-minded among them—rulers, Pharisees, and doctors of the law—those enjoying highest religious privileges. The invitation was given through Moses and the prophets.
Luke 14:17. Sent his servant.—As was usual in the East (cf. Matthew 22:3). If the servant is to be identified with any one historical person, it can only be with Christ Himself; but John the Baptist, the Apostles, and others after them, delivered a message like this. All things.—“All” is not in the original, but may fairly be inserted, as it is implied in the sense of the passage.
Luke 14:18. And they all.—The underlying idea is that but few of the Pharisaic class responded to Christ’s invitation. One consent.—“Consent” is also inserted by the translators; it might have been equally well rendered, “with one voice.” All are worldly-minded, though each has his different preoccupation, and expresses himself differently in asking to be excused. All, by alleging excuses, admit that they feel they are under a kind of obligation which they choose to set aside. Go and see it.—Rather, “go out [into the country] and see it” (R.V.). I must needs go.—The reply is still a courteous one, the excuse being pressure of business.
Luke 14:19. I go to prove them.—No necessity alleged, but simply the fact that he is going; he has made plans which he will not alter. Still, he feels that some excuse is needed for his conduct.
Luke 14:20. I cannot come.—Abrupt refusal, without any attempt at excuse. His “I cannot” is equivalent to “I do not want.” According to the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:5) a newly married man was free for a year from military service; but exemption from the hardships of war is a very different thing from slighting the claims of friendship. “Commentators usually dwell upon the weakness of the excuses offered. So far from that the first two reasons are very plausible, and the last very strong. And why? They seem to have been purposely made as strong as such reasons ordinarily are, in order to show that no reasons of any kind will be admitted as valid by the heavenly Inviter, who enjoins us first (i.e., above all) to seek His kingdom and righteousness, and allows of no plea for neglecting that duty” (Bloomfield).
Luke 14:21. Go out quickly.—No time is lost, either in the parable or in fact, in finding fresh guests. Streets and lanes of the city.—The city still, among the Jews. The poor, etc.—Publicans, sinners, and harlots; lost sheep of the house of Israel. The guests at the banquet correspond to those described in Luke 14:13.
Luke 14:22. Yet there is room.—“Both nature and grace abhor a vacuum” (Bengel).
Luke 14:23. Highways and hedges.—Outside the city; this refers to the calling of the Gentiles. Compel them.—By moral suasion: had physical force been permitted, why should those who had first refused have been left to themselves? The word “compel” no doubt refers, in the first instance, to the circumstances of the parable: the time was short, the banquet could not be deferred, and the master was anxious for every seat to be occupied. Of course it has its spiritual counterpart in the earnestness with which zealous servants of Christ will press the claims of the kingdom of God (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2).
Luke 14:24. For I say unto you.—Here Christ speaks in His own person, half continuing the parable and half expounding it. For “you” is in the plural, while in the parable the master has been giving commands and directions to one of his servants.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Luke 14:15
The Feast Refused.—Pious sentiment is cheap, and many a man who has little other religion has his mouth full of beautiful speeches about the desireableness of heaven. Jesus seems to have detected the false ring in this seemingly devout aspiration, and therefore to have met it with this story of the refused feast, which warns the speaker and others to be sure that they are not excusing themselves from a banquet for which they profess to long.
I. The preparation of, and invitations to, the feast.—The use of this emblem to denote spiritual blessings is rooted in Old-Testament prophecy (Isaiah 25:6; Isaiah 55:1). It is a “great” feast, both in regard of the rich and satisfying food and of the ample room. It provides “enough for each, enough for all, enough for evermore”; it meets all the hunger and need of the soul. The preparation of the feast, and the invitations, cover a long time—the whole past ages of Israel’s history, during which law, and sacrifice, and prophecy, had been aiming to make men ready for receiving the kingdom, and had been summoning them to partake of its blessings. A second invitation was given in the preaching of John the Baptist, of our Lord Himself, and of the apostles during His life. The fact of a more pressing summons being sent at the moment of readiness marks the solemn significance of the hour at which He was speaking. His coming makes “all things ready,” and is the critical moment to which all the ages have been tending. Present decision was called for, and not pious platitudes. We, too, have to learn the awful importance of the present moment, and to beware of losing the awakening consciousness of that in smooth generalities about any future. How we behave to God’s invitation, that peals in our ears to-day, settles how we shall fare in the future.
II. The astonishing unanimity of refusal.—In ordinary life people would scramble for invitations to such a grand feast, especially if a great man gave it. But the improbability of the incident is the very point of it. “They all with one consent.” This is the miserable strangeness of the fate of God’s invitations to the highest good. No others are treated so. Mark the increasing rudeness of the speakers. The first pleads a “must needs”; the second merely states his intention—“I go”; the third bluntly says, “I cannot,” and omits the courtesy of asking to be excused. The true lesson from all three is, that innocent and right things keep men away from the gospel feast, and that, however different the objects which are preferred to it, the spirit which prefers them is the same. These excuses do not cover all the reasons—which are excuses only, and not reasons—for refusing the feast. But they suggest that by far the most common is some form or other of preferring the poor delights of time and sense, and they prepare the way for the stringent requirements, in Luke 14:26, of giving up all to be a disciple. There was no real incompatibility between the true enjoyment of farm, merchandise, or wife, and accepting the invitation; nor is there any between discipleship and the fullest use and truest enjoyment of earthly good; but the incompatibility is made by our false estimate of these. Because we put them first, therefore they shut us out from the feast. Put it first, and it does not shut us out from them.
III. The needy who do not refuse.—Note—
1. The action of the giver of the feast. His settled purpose that some shall partake of it is not to be foiled. God’s provision shall not be wasted, and if it be refused by some foolish souls who prefer husks to bread, and leeks and garlic to manna, the tables shall not stand without guests. The Divine mercy is not to be thwarted, but, with persistent variation of direction, works on to its end undiscouraged. True, the structure of the parable required the second invitation to appear as an afterthought; but that does not detract from the wonderful representation it gives of the inexhaustible patience and unwearied, continuous invitation of the master of the feast.
2. The success of the second invitation. The recipients are still in the “city.” They are the same classes as Jesus had just bid His hearers ask to their feasts (Luke 14:13). They have no farm or oxen to see after. In the historical application they represent the “publicans and harlots,” the outcast classes who hung on to the theocracy, but, though Jews by descent, were scouted by the class to whom Jesus was speaking. In the wider reference they are the people who know their own needs, and have found themselves to be hungry and poor, having infinite need of salvation, and nothing of their own to win it with. “Yet there is room.” How that hints of the boundless spaces in the festal halls, of the ample provision for all!
IV. The invitation extended and made more urgent.—The vagrants who house in the fields and under the hedges are further down in misery than the poor in the city. Historically they represent the Gentiles outside the polity of Israel, and it is in accordance with the spirit of St. Luke’s gospel that this transference of the offer of salvation to them should have been recorded by him. But the representation embodies the great truth of which that transference was but an exemplification; namely, the destination of the gospel for all, and its special mission to the lowest. The increase in urgency corresponds to the distance from the banquet and the degradation of the invited. First the message was a simple “Come”; then it was to be a “Bring” them in; and now it is, “Constrain them.” The pleading earnestness increases with the need and the sense of unfitness for so great an honour. Complacent indifference, which made sure of a right to eat bread in the kingdom, and would give up nothing for it, was left alone; but poor wretches, who could scarcely believe that the feast was meant for them, were prayed with much entreaty to receive the gift. How grand and wonderful a view of the Divine longing to bestow blessings lies in that word, given as the motive of the host’s command, “that my house may be filled!” God cannot be satisfied with empty spaces at His table. He does not rest till all the ample spaces are crowded with “the great multitude, which no man can number,” so all-embracing is His love, so strong His desire to impart the bread, enough and to spare, which He has prepared for all the hungry. Historically, the closing threat foretells the exclusion of the Israel of that day as a whole from the feast, but it does not necessarily imply that individuals who separated themselves from the mass, and changed refusal into acceptance, should be debarred access to it. No threatenings are unconditional, and no refusal need be final. Acceptance is always possible, and no refusal need be final.—Maclaren.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luke 14:15
Luke 14:15. “Blessed is he that shall eat bread.”—This guest seems to have formed an erroneous idea of the nature of the kingdom of God:
1. He evidently regarded it as affording privilege, rather than as imposing obligations.
2. He thought that, as a Pharisee and an Israelite, he was sure of entrance into it.
3. He thought of that kingdom as belonging to the future, and as having little bearing upon present conduct. The sentimental guest flattered himself that he appreciated the good things of the kingdom; and Christ, knowing how apt men are to deceive themselves in such matters, went on to show him how little reliance is to be placed on the interest in things Divine which he and others took credit for.—Bruce.
An Unexceptionable Remark.—As a saying, the guest’s remark was unexceptionable. But as he uttered it, it was only a mere pious remark. He was not a true disciple of Jesus, and had probably no intention of becoming one, so he was one who would never eat bread in the kingdom of God, since he was determined not to accept the invitation to the marriage-supper of the Lamb.—Hastings.
“Blessed is he.”—The words sound like those of Balaam, “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his”. (Numbers 23:10), a wish only to be safe and happy at last, while rejecting all present invitation to turn to God and live.
Feeble Excuses.—
I. The spiritual provision.—It is abundant, gracious, glorious.
II. The wide invitation.—There is room for many. Many must come.
III. The feeble excuses.—
1. Worldliness of spirit.
2. Absorption in commercial pursuits.
3. Relative obligations.
IV. The angry host.—Displeased because His generosity is not appreciated. Because He has given the strongest proof of His goodness. His displeasure is irreconcileable.—Stevenson.
Excuses.—They are typical excuses.—
1. Cares of wealth.
2. Pursuit of wealth.
3. Attractions of earthly ties.
II. None of them is a good reason for refusal.
III. In each case what caused refusal was nothing wrong in itself.
The Invitation Refused.—The power of mental pre-occupation in producing indifference or aversion to the doctrine of the kingdom Jesus illustrates in a popular manner in the parable of the Great Supper. The forms of preoccupation therein mentioned are such as are most suited to parabolic narration—such, namely, as arise from the business and pleasures of ordinary life. They are not the only forms, or even the most important, or such as beset the class of men represented at the dinner-table when the parable was spoken. The pre-occupations of the wise and learned were of a more dignified and respectable character.—Bruce.
Near the Kingdom, but Not In It.—Christ spoke the parable to point out the difference between being invited to enter the kingdom and being in it, and to show that the invitation will only aggravate the doom of those who refuse to comply with it. He intends to teach the Jews, and through them to teach us, that those who are near the kingdom may in the end come short of it—that those who stand high in spiritual privileges may be excluded—may exclude themselves—from the kingdom of God.—Arnot.
The Gracious Character of the Kingdom.—The parable teaches that the kingdom of heaven is not for the full, but for the hungry. Everything in it is significant of grace:
1. The selection of a feast as an emblem of the blessings promised implies that they are a free gift from God.
2. The behaviour of those invited first—being full, they despise the Divine gift.
3. Those who are empty and destitute value it.
4. The avowed motive of the repeated invitations—that the house may be filled.—Bruce.
Luke 14:16. “A great supper.”—The kingdom of heaven
(1) Satisfies those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.
2. It brings joys beyond compare.
3. It brings all who believe into holy fellowship with each other.
A Fit Emblem.—The blessings of salvation are in Scripture fitly compared to a feast—
I. Because of their rich variety and abundance.
II. Their suitableness to our spiritual wants.
III. The high satisfaction and enjoyment which they yield.
“Many.”—I.e., the whole Jewish people—by the Baptist, by His apostles, by His disciples, and by Himself.
Luke 14:17. “His servant.”—The office of summoning the world to enter the kingdom of God is one, and the commission to all those who hold it is the same; hence, but one servant is spoken of. This unity of teaching and preaching is the holy inheritance of the Church from her one Lord.
“For all things are now ready.”—A suggestion of the splendid abundance of the feast prepared.
The Nominally Religious.—It is implied that these men had tacitly, or in some other well-understood way, accepted the first invitation. They gave no intimation that they intended to decline—they gave the provider of the feast reason to expect their presence. They were, therefore, representatives of those who were nominally, but not really, the people of God. They were within the reach of privileges which they did not value, and were understood to be well-disposed towards God, until their true character was revealed by their being asked to make a decisive choice between God and the world.
Luke 14:18. Worldliness of Spirit.—The temper of these self-excusers is threefold; the excuses themselves are threefold; their spirit is one. The first alleges a necessity—he must go and see his land; the second not so much as this, only his own plan and purpose; the third not so much as either of these, but rudely asserts, I cannot (i.e., I will not) come. All are detained by worldliness, in however varied forms.—Alford.
Innocent, but Fatal.—Land—oxen—a wife;—all innocent; perhaps all needful; all certainly fatal. They loved them too much, or the gospel too little. Their love for them was perhaps not excessive; it might have been but little; but, at all events, their love for the gospel was less. Or their love for the gospel might have been great, very great; but their love of the world was greater. Still, it all came to one and the same end for God will not have a divided heart. It is the choice of the two which is presented at all times. To have married a wife was provided for in the law as a sufficient plea not to go forth to war; but the gospel is higher in its requirements. “He that loveth wife or children more than Me, is not worthy of Me.”—Williams.
Ever-Recurring Forms of Danger.—It may be observed that in describing the reception which the gospel would meet with, our Lord mentions the very things which He notices in speaking of the old world and of Sodom. He omits all mentions of their great crimes, but chooses out, for their resemblance to the last day, points innocent in themselves, but of an absorbing worldly nature. In the days of Lot, which are likened to the end of the world, “they bought and sold” (chap. Luke 17:28)—as here the excuse is, “I have bought oxen, and I go to prove them.” In the former, “they planted, they builded”—as here the plea is, “I have bought a field; I must needs go to see it.” Again, in the days of Noah and of Lot “they married and gave in marriage”—and the gospel in the parable is rejected, because “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.” The same things, therefore, are true of the days of the Son of Man, as appears from Scripture; whether we speak of Christ’s final coming, or of the Christian dispensation generally.—Burgon.
The Thorns which choke the Word.—The three excuses answer to the three things which are said to “choke the Word” in the parable of the Sower (Luke 8:14)—“the care of this world,” “the deceitfulness of riches,” and “the pleasures of this life.”
Different Degrees of Contumacy.—One may trace here a rising scale of contumacy:
1. The first of these guests would be very glad to come, if only it were possible, if there was not a constraining necessity keeping him away.
2. The second alleges no such constraining necessity, but is simply going upon sufficient reason on another errand.
3. The third has engagements of his own, and declares outright, “I cannot come.”—Trench.
Hindrances to Faith and Obedience.
I. “The lust of the eye and the pride of life” too often detain men from Christ.
II. In some cases the business and cares of life have the same effect.
III. In other cases it is the pleasure of the world that is a hindrance.
The Excuses Frivolous.—These various excuses are all frivolous; they simply veil a disinclination to come to the feast. For all these persons had been informed of the coming feast, and could have chosen another day for attending to the various concerns which they now plead as excuses.
Luke 14:18. Spiritual Possessions, Occupations, and Joys.—All these excuses had been anticipated and refuted by our Lord’s teaching that there is another field for which we ought to sell all and buy it (Matthew 13:44)—another plough to be followed (Luke 9:62); and now He teaches that there is another marriage-feast to be preferred before all earthly nuptials—a marriage-feast in which the soul is not only a guest, but is espoused as a bride to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2).—Wordsworth.
“With one consent.”—One motive inspired them all: indifference towards, or dislike of, him who had invited them.
“To make excuse.”—By so doing they acknowledge their obligation to appear at the feast. In like manner comparatively few of those who lead irreligious lives repudiate religious obligations, however poor the excuses may be which they bring forward to excuse their neglect of them.
“Have me excused.”—“Me.” Whatever may be the case with others, who can and ought to come, I am obliged to ask thee to excuse me.
Luke 14:20. “A wife.”—Marriage—the closest and most sacred of all ties—here stands for all earthly ties; just as oxen and land stand for all worldly goods and possessions whatsoever. “Surely he takes the text in too large a sense, that, because it says ‘a man shall leave all and cleave to his wife,’ therefore he shall leave God. It is but the father and mother on earth, and not the Father of heaven, that for her we may forsake” (Feltham).
“I cannot come.”—“The persons mentioned before excused themselves civilly. This man bluntly declares ‘he cannot come.’ Some damn themselves in a rude and brutal, others in a civil, well-bred manner” (Quesnel).
His language is all the more brusque because he is assured that he has a more plausible and adequate reason for refusing the invitation than others.
Luke 14:21. Angry.—The dislike or hatred which lay beneath the excuses calls forth anger on the part of the master. Cf. 2 Samuel 22:27: “With the froward Thou wilt show Thyself unsavoury.”
“Streets and lanes.”—Still within the city, so that by the class here summoned we are to understand the outcast classes among the Jews, as distinguished from the Pharisees and scribes to whom the invitation was naturally first addressed, and who had as a class rejected it.
“The maimed, the halt, and the blind.”—“The maimed,” whom no woman would marry (Luke 14:20); “the halt,” who could not follow the plough (Luke 14:19); “the blind,” who could not see fields or anything else (Luke 14:18).—Bengel.
Luke 14:22. “Yet there is room.”—
1. A word of encouragement to those who desire, but have not ventured to come in.
2. A summons to fresh zeal on the part of those charged with the duty of bringing in guests.
Luke 14:23. Unlikely Guests.
I. The guests, brought in from the highways, and hedges, and lanes, may in the first intention, represent the spiritually-neglected Jewish populace, as opposed to the self-satisfied scribes and Pharisees.
II. The principle involved is; the kingdom and its blessings are for the hungry anywhere and everywhere; there is plenty of room, and I will have my house full.
III. The probable application is: privileged Israel self-excluded by her indifference; unprivileged heathendom rendered eligible by destitution.—Bruce.
Luke 14:23. “Highways and hedges.”—Those in the heathen world needing, and many of them longing for, salvation.
As Luke 14:21 is the subject of the first part of the Acts of the Apostles (chaps. 1–12, the conversion of the Jews), so Luke 14:22 contain that of the second part (chap. 13 to the end, the conversion of the heathen).—Godet.
The Need for Haste.—The time was short, and the master of the house could not wait; therefore he bade his servant urge these new guests to fill the house without delay.
“Compel.”—Use so much zeal and importunity that they may feel constrained to come in (2 Timothy 4:2).
Force and Persuasion.—The two kinds of compulsion are illustrated in the history of St. Paul. Saul as a persecutor compelled men and women to return to or to remain in the Jewish fold; as a servant of Christ he strove to urge and persuade his hearers to enter the Christian fold.
Timidity Overcome.—The poor out casts would doubtless naturally be timid about entering the rich man’s house; they would scarcely dare to accept the invitation. A friendly compulsion is necessary in their case. Those really unwilling to come—the guests first invited—are not compelled to attend the feast.
Inducements to Accept the Invitation.—Inducements to persuade acceptance of the gospel invitation:
1. Your naturally miserable and perishing condition.
2. The consideration that “all things are now ready.”
3. That many guests have entered.
4. That “yet there is room.”
5. That rejection of the invitation now means exclusion from the feast of heavenly glory hereafter.
“Filled.”—The great love of God desires a multitude of guests; not a seat that is prepared is to be allowed to remain vacant. The number of the elect is proportioned beforehand to the riches of the Divine glory, and this can only find complete reflection in a certain number of human beings. The invitation will therefore last, and consequently the history of our race will be prolonged, until that number is reached. Thus it is that the Divine decree is reconciled with human liberty. The number of those saved is, comparatively to the number of those called, small, no doubt; nevertheless, in itself, the number of the saved is great.—Godet.
“That my house may be filled.”—He has so made provision that He must have people that eat, drink, and are merry, though He should make them out of stones.—Luther.
Spiritual Wretchedness not a Ground of Safety.—However, let it be well observed that to be in a spiritually wretched state does not confer a favour, or imply safety. These men were saved, not because they were spiritually very low, but although they were spiritually very low; they were saved, although the chief of sinners, because Christ invited them and they came at His call. The more moral, and more privileged, who were first invited, would have been as welcome and as safe if they had come.—Arnot.
Luke 14:24. “For I say unto you.”—In matter of form these words belong to the parable, but no doubt the look and manner of Jesus, as He put this threat in the mouth of the host whose invitation had been so indifferently treated by the guests first summoned, made those present feel that He and they were the type of persons really meant.
“My supper.”—Our Lord half passes from the parable and speaks words which seem to express His own decision rather than that of the giver of the feast. By so doing He warns His hearers of the risk they were running in rejecting Him—they were acting like those who had excluded themselves from the feast. “My supper, to which I not only invite you, but which I, as the Son, with the Father, have Myself prepared for you!”