Luke 14:1 - 6
One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully. 2 And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy. 3 And Jesus responded to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?” 4 But they remained silent. Then he took him and healed him and sent him away. 5 And he said to them, “Which of you, having a son[a] or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?” 6 And they could not reply to these things.
1. What does ruler of the Pharisees mean?
ReplyDelete2. Did the Pharisees bring in the man who had dropsy?
3. Why didn't they have a reply?
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2017/05/mark-31-12-another-time-jesus-went-into.html
ReplyDeleteThe questions of:
- whether Jesus was breaking the Sabbath Laws (He was not breaking God's Law, but was the Mishna - the traditions of the elders).
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-1.htm says:
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
----
How came the dropsical man there?
Possibly he had simply strayed in to look on at the feast, as the freedom of manners then would permit him to do. The absence of any hint that he came hoping for a cure, and of any trace of faith on his part, or of speech to him on Christ’s, joined with his immediate dismissal after his cure, rather favours the supposition that he had been put as the bait of the trap, on the calculation that the sight of him would move Jesus to heal him. The setters of the snare were ‘watching’ whether it would work, and Jesus ‘answered’ their thoughts, which were, doubtless, visible in their eyes. His answer has three stages-a question which is an assertion, the cure, and another affirming question. All three are met with sulky silence, which speaks more than words would have done. The first question takes the ‘lawyers’ on their own ground, and in effect asserts that to heal did not break the Sabbath. Jesus challenges denial of the lawfulness of it, and the silence of the Pharisees confesses that they dare not deny.
The second question turns from the legal to a broader consideration. The spontaneous workings of the heart are not to be dammed back by ceremonial laws. The listeners were self-condemned, and their obstinate silence proves that the arrow had struck deep.
-----
One of the chief Pharisees - One of the Pharisees who were "rulers," or members of the great council or the Sanhedrin. See the notes at 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.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-2.htm says:
ReplyDeleteThe dropsy - A disease produced by the accumulation of water in various parts of the body; very distressing, and commonly incurable.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-3.htm:
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 passed had reached the ears of those who were now present, and caused them to be silent both before and after the question.
----
Is it lawful ... - 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.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-4.htm:
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.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-14-commentary says:
ReplyDeletePharisees were a strict, legalistic, religious party that arose after Jewish exiles returned from Babylon. They called for a separation from paganism and a return to a strict adherence to the Old Testament law. The Pharisees had no interest in politics (unlike the Sadducees and the Zealots), nor were they mystics (unlike the Essenes). In contrast to the Sadducees, who were mostly wealthy priests or Levites, the Pharisees were laymen, and generally came from the middle class. They were very popular and highly respected among the masses during the time of Christ. Jewish historian Josephus records that there were about 6,000 at the time of Herod the Great. Because of their popularity, the Sadducees usually had to submit to their decisions or else evoke the wrath of the people (Josephus Antiquities 18.1.4).
JESUS' SEVEN SABBATH MIRACLES
1. Jesus sends a demon out of a man Lk 4:31-37+ Mk 1:21-28
2. Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law Lk 4:38-39+ Mt 8:14-15 Mk 1:29-31
3. Jesus heals a lame man by the pool of Bethesda Jn 5:1-18
4. Jesus heals a man with a "withered" hand Lk 6:6-11+ Mt 12:9-14 Mk 3:1-6
5. Jesus restores a crippled woman Lk 13:10-17+
6. Jesus heals a man with dropsy (edema) Lk 14:1-6+
7. Jesus heals a man born blind Jn 9:1-16
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-14-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteMacArthur discussing the man's dropsy explains that "The rabbis viewed such a condition, however, as God’s judgment for immorality, or as uncleanness due to the body’s failure to eliminate (Lev. 15:1-3-note). Thus in their view this man was both immoral and ritually unclean. Since no Pharisee would have tolerated such a defiled person at the meal, they obviously planned to use him for a sinister purpose. And they were fairly sure that based on His pattern Jesus, seeing his dropsy, would do what they wanted."
Bock has a note related to what the Jews thought about dropsy - Lev. Rab. 15.2 on 13:2 comments on Job 28:25: “Man is evenly balanced, half of him is water, and the other half is blood. When he is deserving, the water does not exceed the blood, nor does the blood exceed the water; but when he sins, it sometimes happens that the water gains over the blood and then he becomes a sufferer from dropsy; at other times the blood gains over the water and he then becomes leprous”; Van Der Loos 1965: 505. (Ed: As a medical doctor I can attest they were wrong on both accounts!) Some rabbis argued that dropsy resulted from sexual offenses (b. Šab. 33a) or from intentionally failing to have bowel movements (b. Ber. 25a) (for Greek examples, see Van Der Loos 1965: 506). The tradition is late, but it does show that dropsy was often viewed as God’s judgment, either for sin or uncleanness.
Not every writer assumes the worse about the Pharisees for Lenski questions whether they brought the man in to test Jesus, explaining that "Trench draws attention to the fact that feasts such as the present one were semi-public. Outsiders could enter, stand, or sit, and watch what was going on. So the woman mentioned in Lk 7:37-note came in after the dinner was in progress, and this man apparently before it started, for Jesus presently found him right before him."
MacArthur - Ministering to a sick person was by no means a violation of any Old Testament regulation concerning the Sabbath (cf. Matt. 12:7). Rabbinic attachments, however, prohibited anyone from treating a sick person on the Sabbath unless that person was in imminent danger of death if left untreated until the next day. To do so, the rabbis taught, would constitute work and hence be a violation of the required Sabbath rest. Even matters of life and death were subject to their cruel, inflexible, and ridiculous man-made restrictions.
Guzik - Jesus never broke the commandments of God, but He often offended man’s traditions that surrounded and extended the commandments of God. The commandments of God are enough, and we should never make the traditions of man – even good traditions – equal to the commandments of God (Mark 7:8-9).
Sometimes matters of right and wrong can get very complicated, as they had here concerning "lawful" Sabbath activities. Jesus cut through all the complications with a simple appeal to love.
Is your faith in gridlock (like the Pharisees) because of overlapping and conflicting regulations that hardly seem to make sense? With each action ask yourself—what does love require?
Love will always respect God's rules (the Ten Commandments, for example) and will always serve people's best interests. Often a simple appeal to love will cut through the fog and clarify a plan of action.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-14-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteJesus could have said, “Come back after sundown. It's only a few hours from now. And then I’ll heal you." This would have avoid a confrontation with the Pharisees. But He didn’t do that. He cured the man and confronted His critics.
Steven Cole - Jesus was very confrontational! If you hang out with Him for very long, you’ll find that He confronts your sin. He does it out of love for a good reason: Jesus confronts our sin so that we will inherit rewards for all eternity.
Technical note - Some manuscripts read “donkey” instead of “son,” but the evidence is clearly in favor of “son” as the original reading.
There are far more characteristics of hypocrites than those listed here, but note these five from our text:
(1) Hypocrites study the Word for ammunition against others, but they don’t apply it to themselves.
(2) Hypocrites target and try to bring down anyone who confronts their sin with the Word.
(3) Hypocrites care more about their manmade rules than about people being right before God in their hearts.
(4) Hypocrites bend the rules for their own purposes, but they apply them rigidly to others.
(5) Hypocrites often ignore overwhelming evidence in order to persist in their sin.
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. What does ruler of the Pharisees mean?
A member of the ruling console of the Sanhedrin. They ruled on situations concerning Jewish law, sort of like what pastors and elders do today. Although, in those days, people listened to them more.
2. Did the Pharisees bring in the man who had dropsy?
We don't know. The man could have been planted, or he could have come in hoping that Jesus would heal him. It was common for people who were not invited to come and observe these meals (but not sit at the table).
3. Why didn't they have a reply?
It's hard to say, because the Pharisees were divided on Jesus. It's possible that they were deeply considering what Jesus was saying and withholding judgement. It was probably more likely that they were, in their minds, letting Jesus dig His own grave.