LUKE 14: OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND

Luke 14:1-6 Nolland says, “Although the setting and important details are quite different, the argument in Luke 14:1-6 is...broadly equivalent to that in Matthew 12:9-14. A Sabbath meal in the home of a leading Pharisee is yet more provocative than the synagogue as a setting for healing (Lk 14:1). And this time Jesus initiates the confrontation by putting the question of the lawfulness of Sabbath healing (Lk. 14:3). Now, rather than a sheep, we have an ass or an ox (or possibly a son or an ox – the text is slightly uncertain) (Lk 14:5). Either could...echo Deuteronomy 5:14.”

Luke 14:3 One glaring omission committed by the Pharisees was in purposely ignoring the Old Testament teachings on the subject. As Fitzmyer explains, “The attitude presupposed by Jesus in that second question reflects Deut 22:4, the Mosaic injunction to help a brother whose ox or ass falls by the way.”

Luke 14:3-13 As Ellis says, “The churchmen display a thoroughly false standard of values. Not only are they hard-hearted toward the sick man (ff. 3f.) but both guests (v. 7) and host (v. 12) are status-seekers and social climbers. The principles (vv. 5, 10, 13) that Jesus enunciates were known and approved by all. The sting of his words is their utter candor...He undresses their concealed and half-forgotten motives and lays them naked on the dinner table. Most embarrassingly, he applies the principles to the churchmen's relation to God.”

Luke 14:6 “Conscious of modernity's anthropocentrism, Christians are noticing Jesus' background assertion that God attends to the death of each sparrow (Matt. 10:29). And they are noticing that Jesus rightly presumes that even his theological opponents will not dare to deny that it is good to break the Sabbath in order to rescue a sheep or an ox from a pit (Matt. 12:11; Luke 14:5).” (Greenway)“

Craddock notes, “It is significant that following the Jerusalem conference, which Luke reports in Acts 15, the Gentile churches are asked to show deference to Judaism only in matters of idolatry, unchastity and foods (Acts 15:20). No mention is made of the Sabbath. Either the matter had already been settled, or it was not a critical issue, or it was left to the convictions of different Christian communities to observe or not observe the Sabbath...One suspects, however, in Luke's time and place, that...Sabbath observance still generated a great deal of tension.”

As a result of such actions and teachings of Jesus, “the extreme (and potentially legalistic) forms of refraining from work that prevailed under the law are softened and set within the context of God's new redemptive work...Given this NT modification we are left with a picture of the sabbath as a day of doing good as well as a day of worship and cessation from ordinary work.” (DBI)

Luke 14:8-10 Soards notes a parallel between this teaching and Proverbs 25:6-7.And Pao and Schnabel similarly feel that Luke was thus “adapting sapiential advice for court etiquette to a banquet setting.”

Luke 14:11 “God acknowledges the 'humble,' and he judges those who seek honorable status. Jesus' aphorism alludes to Ezek. 21:26 ('Exalt that which is low, abase that which is high...'). The source of honor...in God's kingdom is derived not from the social order described by affluent friends, siblings, relatives, or rich neighbors (cf. 14:12), but from the judgment of God...” (Pao and Schnabel)

Luke 14:12-14 This advice to invite to dinner those who cannot repay you comes from Proverbs 22:9.

Luke 14:15-24 Pao and Schnabel have much to say regarding the OT background of this teaching of Christ. Here are just a few of their thoughts:

“It has been suggested that the excuses of the invited guests as described in 14:18-20 allude to Deut. 20.”

“The excuse of the third guest in 14:20...has been said o recall Deut. 20:5-7; 24:5...recognizing the status of newlyweds.”

“The suggested links with Deut. 20 depend in a large measure on the question whether Luke's central section corresponds to the contents and themes of Deut. 1-26. If this is indeed the case, then the parable of the Great Supper can be interpreted in terms of protesting and challenging abuses of Deuteronomy's theology and ethic of election...”

“Another question relates to 'the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame' (14:21) who are invited instead of the original, evidently wealthy and respectable guests. Some have suggested a link with Lev. 21:17-23, where such people are described as being unqualified for and therefore excluded from priestly service, even if they were Levites...”

“Some commentators relate the list of the disadvantaged to the OT tradition of Yahweh's mercy for the downtrodden, the oppressed, the ill, and the weak...with reference to Isa. 35:5-6a: 'Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy').”

“Traditions in the OT of the eschatological banquet help us to understand the parable. Note, for example, Isa. 25:6-10...Granted that the OT tradition of the eschatological banquet scene reverberates through the parable, one cannot preclude the possibility that Gentiles might be included...”

Luke 14:17 Interestingly, in the story two invitations to the banquet are sent out. Porter quotes Creed as writing, “It was a recognized custom to send a servant to repeat the invitation at the appointed time; cf. Est. 6:14.” In addition, according to Edersheim, there is an ancient Jewish commentary on Lamentations 4:2 which stated that the custom in Jerusalem was to only attend a feast if the invitation was repeated.

Luke 14:20 One of the excuses made for not attending a banquet is that the person invited says he has just gotten married. It is just possible, according to Tilden, that that newlywed is citing quite out of context Deuteronomy 24:5, which teaches that one in his situation should not begin a new business venture or join the army.

Luke 14:26-27 poses a problem for many readers since it talks about hating your family. But this should not cause difficulties if one realizes that the words love and hate in OT vernacular really imply love more and love less, respectively. See passages such as Genesis 29:31ff and Deuteronomy 21:15ff, etc. F.F. Bruce says that “it is natural for men and women to make what provision they can for their nearest and dearest. Jesus' emphasis lay rather on the necessity of treating the kingdom of God as nearer and dearer still. Because of the natural resistance on the part of his hearers to accepting this necessity with literal seriousness, he insisted on it in the most arresting and challenging language at his command.”

Pao and Schnabel note: “The first part of this stipulation alludes to the commandment: 'Honor your father and mother' (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Some scholars argue that 14:26 constitutes the annulment of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue.., while others point out that this is unlikely in light of 16:17 and that the rabbis were well aware of the fact that the Torah sometimes presented conflicting claims, a situation that did not entail a 'deconstruction of Torah but the subordination of one commandment to another (Allison..). Jesus' requirement has been explained as echoing Deut. 33:9, where Levi's devotion to the Torah is highlighted...Levi is reported to have said of his father and mother, 'I regard them not,' because 'he ignored hid kin,and did not acknowledge his children; for they observed your word, and kept your covenant.' The fact that Deut. 33:9 is quoted in Jewish texts suggests that Jesus' stipulation does not contradict Torah...”

Luke 14:28-32 This wise advice about carefully considering your actions first before proceeding is paralleled in Proverbs 24:6.

Lane points out: “This story emphasizes that the unfinished tower draws a crowd of curious onlookers who turn into those who mock and jeer. In the Genesis event [11:1-9] the erection of the tower starts out as a project, part of whose aim is to mock God. But the roles are reversed, and God turns in derision upon the people and confuses their language. Here the spectators become the deriders.”