CHAPTER 14
Luke 14.1 One Sabbath, Jesus went into the house of one of the leading Pharisees to eat, and they were watching him closely. – The evangelist mentions neither the place nor the date. The scene likely took place in a different region than the episode recounted at the end of chapter 13. In the house of one of the leading Pharisees. This expression should not be taken too literally, as the Pharisees, as a party, had no official leaders. It simply means that the host was one of the influential men of the sect. There is no particular reason to consider him a synagogue leader, or even a member of the Sanhedrin (Grotius). to eat his meal, The Savior had entered the Pharisees' house at their formal invitation. One Sabbath dayThis temporal circumstance is important for the rest of the narrative. (See verse 3 ff.) It fits perfectly with the custom, always carefully observed by the Jews, of celebrating Saturday with more elaborate and lavish meals, to which they invite their relatives, friends, and even strangers. the poorSee Tobit 2:5; Nehemiah 8:9-12. “It is forbidden to fast on the Sabbath. On the contrary, people are obliged to take pleasure in food and drink. Conviviality is more important on the Sabbath than on other days,” Maimonides, Sabbath, ch. 30. “Welcome the Sabbath with a hearty appetite: let your table be laden with fish, meat, and abundant wine. Let the seats be soft and adorned with splendid cushions; let elegance shine through in the way the table is set.” “Such were the recommendations of the Rabbis, and they were taken so seriously that the holy joy of the Sabbath often degenerated into excesses of every kind, as we learn not only from the Church Fathers (cf. St. John Chrysostom of Lazaro, Hom. 1; St. Augustine Enarrat. 2 in Ps. 32, 2; Serm. 9, 3), but also from the pagans themselves, Plutarch for example, who takes the opportunity to mock the Jews.” They were watching him. The entire assembly was thus preoccupied with observing the words and actions of the Savior. This demonstrates the spirit in which the invitation had taken place. (cf. 6:7; 20:20; Mark 3:2; Psalm 36:32). But, «Although he knew the malice of the Pharisees, the Lord nevertheless made himself their guest, to be of some benefit, through his miracles and his words, to all who were present,» St. Cyril, Cat. D. Thom. The love of Jesus never tired.
Luke 14.2 And there before him stood a man suffering from dropsy. The narrative is full of colorful details. Some time before the meal began (cf. v. 7), a man suffering from dropsy, a disease that is always serious and often incurable (note the technical term; it is not found elsewhere in the New Testament), suddenly appeared before Jesus. He was certainly not a guest. Perhaps, as has been conjectured, he had been brought there by the Pharisees as a living trap for the Savior. But, as Maldonat rightly observes, it seems that in this case, "the evangelist would not have passed over this in silence, since he did not conceal the fact that the Pharisees had their eyes fixed on the Lord to observe him." We therefore believe it more likely that the sick man, taking advantage of the lax customs of the East, had slipped into the house of his own accord with the hope of being healed. In any case, the trap, if it existed, was promptly foiled by Our Lord.
Luke 14.3 Jesus, speaking up, said to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, «Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?» 4 And they remained silent. He, taking the man by the hand, healed him and sent him away. – Jesus will answer the most secret thoughts of his adversaries. Previously, in 6:9, we saw the Savior take the initiative in a similar situation and confound the Pharisees with this simple question. The result here was the same: They remained silent, Daring neither to speak nor to move, Jesus, completely justified by such silence (for if the act he was contemplating had been illegal, were not these teachers in Israel, publicly consulted, obligated to warn him?), himself answers his question in a practical way: gently taking the sick man by the hand, he healed him. Let us admire the narrative, which is no less swift than the events themselves.
Luke 14.5 Then, addressing them, he said: «Which of you, if his donkey or ox falls into a well, "Doesn't he remove it immediately on the Sabbath day?"» – Having performed the miracle, Our Lord justifies his actions with irrefutable reasoning, which we have already encountered in substance in the first Gospel, 12:11 (see the commentary), concerning a healing of the same kind. Cf. also Luke 13:15. He appeals to their own way of doing things and shows the contradiction they fall into when, on the one hand, they so acrimoniously reproach him for the healings he performs on the Sabbath, while, on the other hand, they do not hesitate, on those same days, to undertake heavy labor to pull their donkey or ox out of a ditch or cistern when it has fallen in. – Ancient exegetes, drawing a parallel between this miracle and the healing recounted earlier (13:15) by St. Luke, have astutely noted the aptness with which Jesus modifies his demonstrations to better fit them with the external circumstances. «Our Lord very aptly compares the dropsical person to an animal that has fallen into a well, such a disease arising from an excess of humors; similarly, speaking of the woman who had been bent over for eighteen years and whom he had delivered, he compares her to an animal that is untied to be led to the watering place.» St. Augustine, Quaest. Evangel. 2, 29.
Luke 14.6 And to that they knew only how to reply.– Earlier, in verse 4, the Pharisees had remained silent because they had not «wanted» to answer; now their silence is forced and stems from embarrassment. What response could they have given to Jesus’ striking demonstration? It was in this way that Our Lord was gradually freeing the Sabbath institution from the petty observances under which an unintelligent tradition was half-stifling it.
Luke 14.7 Then, noticing the eagerness of the guests to choose the best seats, Jesus told them this parable: Earlier, Our Lord had spoken to the entire assembly; now he intends to give special instruction to the guests, on the occasion of an abuse he will point out again later (20:46), and which the evangelist recounts here in vivid terms. The picture of these wretched little maneuvers presents itself to the reader. They were to be repeated frequently, as can be judged by this strange anecdote from the Talmud, which vividly depicts the arrogant pretensions of the rabbinical party. One day, when King Alexander Jannaeus was hosting a dinner for several Persian satraps, Simeon ben Shetach was among the guests. No sooner had he entered the banquet hall than the Rabbi went straight to sit between the king and queen, in the place of honor. And, when he was reproached for this arrogant intrusion: Is it not written in the book of Jesus, son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 15:5), he replied without hesitation: «Exalt wisdom, and she will exalt you and make you sit among princes?» Such was the extent of the infatuation of the Jewish theologians of that time: the Savior's teachings thus came at a most opportune time to cure this other form of dropsy, the dropsy of the heart. Having observed, Jesus is observed by his adversaries (cf. v. 1); but he too observes: only, he does so out of charity, while their manifest aim was malice. – We take the word parable in a broad sense. cf. the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Maldonat supposes without reason that Our Lord would have placed here a true parable, omitted by St. Luke, and of which only the moral would have remained.
Luke 14.8 «When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, lest there be a man more distinguished than you.” 9 and let not the one who invited you both come and say to you: Give him the seat and then let you not begin in confusion to occupy the last place. – The use of the second person singular in lines 8-10 gives the apostrophe a great deal of life and warmth. At a wedding, That is to say, at a wedding feast. With what delicacy the good Master delivers his lesson! He seems to make no direct allusion to what was happening before his eyes. Don't take first place. The middle seat on each three-person dining couch was considered the most honorable, and the central couch was reserved for the principal guests. The one who invited you : ellipsis in the Hebrew style. – The scene is admirably described: we see the characters moving, we hear their words; I think I can see the proud guest who, red-faced and completely disconcerted, goes from the first place to the last, to the far end of the bed.
Luke 14.10 But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when the one who invited you comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up higher.' Then it will be an honor for you in the presence of the other guests.– New picturesque details, but to recommend conduct quite contrary to that of verse 8, and to point out the advantages of modesty. See similar advice in Book of Proverbs, 25, 6 and 7, and in the Talmud, Vajikra Rabba, f. 164, 4. In this way It indicates less the goal than the result, for Our Lord Jesus Christ clearly did not intend to teach here a practice of mere worldly politeness, based on selfish motives—that is, to replace coarse vanity with a more refined pride. His thought goes further than his words, and, beneath this amiable form, he conceals a profound lesson. humility, as the general statement in v. 11 proves.
Luke 14.11 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. – For whoever rises… We find this same solemn adage elsewhere (18:14; Matthew 23:12). It corresponds to a providential decree whose faithful execution is proven by experience. Even paganism had glimpsed its truth; witness this apt remark that escaped Aesop one day when he was asked what the occupation of the gods was: "To humble the proud, to exalt the humble." And men, precisely because they are all proud, love, like God, to exalt the humble and humble the proud.
Luke 14.12 He also said to the one who had invited him, «When you give a dinner or a supper, do not invite your friends, your brothers, your relatives, or rich neighbors, lest they invite you in turn and repay you for what they have received from you. – He also said : new transitional formula. See v. 7. – Dinner or supper. The first of these two nouns refers to the morning meal, or breakfast; the second, the evening meal, dinner. Don't invite your friends…Our Lord mentions four categories of people who are usually invited to the meals of the rich. First he places friends, those brothers whom one has chosen for oneself, as the Arab poet says; then come brothers by nature, then relatives in general, and finally neighbors. It is likely that it is only upon these last that the epithet falls rich. However, many exegetes connect it to the four preceding nouns, and this is at least true in thought. – Lest they invite you… These words contain the motive for the Savior's recommendation. Alas. They express a fear that the world hardly knows, since it is more fashionable than ever to invite in order to be invited back (on the ancient custom of returning a meal for a meal, see Xenophon, Symposium 1, 15). But then one has received one's reward. Cf. 6:24; Matthew 6:2, 5, 16. Cf. also Martial's verse:
«"You are asking for burdens, Sextus, not friends.". St. Ambrose wrote similarly: «"Being generous to those who reciprocate is a sign of avarice.".
Luke 14.13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, 14 And you will be glad that they cannot repay you, for it will be repaid to you. the resurrection righteous people.» – But introduces a striking contrast. – To the four categories of rich people and friends whom one invites in the hope of obtaining some favor in return, Jesus opposes four categories of unfortunate people from whom one can expect nothing here below, except perhaps some feeling or word of gratitude (the cripples Similarly, in verse 21. But, on the other hand, what a beautiful reward will be received from the one who does not lose sight of a simple glass of water given in His name. Therefore, Our Lord, with visible emphasis, proclaims blessed whoever makes himself worthy of obtaining it. – The expression has the resurrection righteous people corresponds to the resurrection life from St. John 5:29 (cf. Psalm 1:5), and refers to the eternal joys of heaven. – It hardly needs to be noted that this counsel of Jesus is presented, like several others, in a paradoxical form, in the manner of the East, and that one would fall into strange exaggerations if one wanted to practice it literally, in an absolute way, as several kinds of zealots have done. “Jesus leaves in their place the invitations that arise from natural and civil duties. He prescribes better ones, but does not completely remove humanitarian obligations,” says an ancient commentator. The Savior's aim is not to disrupt social relations, but to establish charity Instead of selfishness, remind your family of the plight of the poor. "Do not invite..." in verse 12 therefore means: "Do not only invite... but also..." Moreover, the Mosaic Law already strongly urged the rich to invite the poor in certain specific circumstances. Cf. Deuteronomy 12:5-12; 14:28-29; 15:11; 26:11-13; Nehemiah 8:10. The Talmud speaks in the same vein: “Rabbi Simeon stated this: He who rejoices on feast days without giving God his due portion is envious. Satan hates him, accuses him, condemns him to death, and inflicts great torments upon him. Giving God his portion brings happiness.” the poor"as much as each person can," Sohar Genes, f. 8, col. 29. The pagans themselves understood this truth: "For someone to be generous, I want him to give to his friends, but by friends I mean the poor“I am not speaking of those who give abundantly to those who can give abundantly in return,” Pliny, Ep. 9, 30. “To our feasts, we should invite not our friends, but the poor and the wretched: if they cannot reward us, they will invoke blessings upon us with their prayers.” Plato, Phaedrus 233. Cf. Cicero, De Officio 1.15; Dio Chrysostom 1.252.
Luke 14.15 One of those who were at the table with him, having heard these words, said to Jesus, «Blessed is the one who will share in the banquet in the kingdom of God.» – One of those who were at the table…The occasion for the parable is quickly indicated by this brief historical introduction. – The exclamation Blessed is he who… It was quite naturally connected to Jesus' last words (cf. v. 14): she added the well-known metaphor that compares the eternal happiness of heaven to a joyous feast. See 23:29; Matthew 8:11; Revelation 19:9. Did it spring spontaneously from a pious and sincere heart? Or was it merely a clever expedient to divert the conversation from a subject that must have been unpleasant for most of those present? It is rather difficult to determine this with certainty. Even the ancient exegetes disagreed on this point: today opinions are divided in the same way, and while some, taking offense at the words of the intervenor, regard them almost as a platitude (Farrar), or believe them to be completely out of place (Stier), others see in them a mark of joyful enthusiasm (Olshausen) and lively sympathy for Jesus (Trench). Outwardly, nothing shows that they were dictated by hypocrisy; but distrust is quite permissible when it comes to the relations of the Pharisaic sect with Our Lord.
Luke 14.16 Jesus said to him, «A man gave a great banquet and invited many people. Regarding the non-identity of this parable with the one we read in chapter 22 of St. Matthew, verses 1 and following, see the commentary on St. Matthew. Undoubtedly, both represent the kingdom of heaven under the emblem of a feast to which a great number of people are invited, and from which many irreverently abstain. But, regardless of the circumstances of time and place, which certainly differ, "the parallelism ends there. In St. Matthew, the feast is given by a king; the invitations are rejected with disdain, which constitutes an act of rebellion, consummated by the murder of the servants, but is soon punished by the death of the rebels; the good and the bad are gathered in the banquet hall, and, finally, one of the guests is shown the door… because he has not put on a wedding garment." Here, on the contrary, it is a private individual who provides the meal; the invitations are declined with some appearance of respect, so as to denote indifference rather than open antagonism; the punishment consists only in the exclusion of the first guests…; there is not the slightest trace of an incident analogous to that of the host without wedding garments.« – In any case, Jesus was neither distracted nor disturbed by the exclamation of this guest. On the contrary, he seized the opportunity to give the entire assembly a third lesson, drawn, like the two preceding ones, from the circumstances of the moment. A man. «This man is God the Father, according to how images are formed in the likeness of reality.» – There is a visible emphasis in the adjectives «great, many,» which highlight the richness of the feast, the multitude of guests, that is to say, on the one hand, the munificence with which God will treat his chosen ones, and on the other, the infinite goodness that leads him to offer salvation to all humankind. But, directly and according to the context, the «many» called first are the leaders of the Jewish theocracy (cf. St. Cyril, in Cat. St. Thom.); the «great feast» to which they are invited represents the kingdom of the Messiah, the Christian Church, either here below or in its eternal consummation.
Luke 14.17 At mealtime, he sent his servant to tell the guests: Come, for everything is now ready. We have already mentioned elsewhere (Gospel according to St. Matthew, p. 241) the Eastern custom of issuing, at least on important occasions, several consecutive invitations. The last one takes place at the very moment of the feast, in a very urgent manner. “Come, for the meal is ready!” cry the servants of the one who offers the meal in Syrian cities, at the door of the guests. Here, the servant is none other than Our Lord Jesus Christ, who deigned to take the form of a servant out of love for us (Philippians 2:7). We can also associate with him St. John the Baptist and the Apostles, since together they form a kind of moral whole; but it is above all his divine person that is at issue, for he proclaimed with incomparable authority and zeal: everything is already ready.
Luke 14.18 And all of them, unanimously, began to apologize. The first one said to him: I have bought some land and I need to go and see it, please excuse me. – The divine narrator is clearly emphasizing «unanimously» and «all»; for it is striking to see all the guests excuse themselves, that is, abstain, and it is no less astonishing that they all do so with one voice, as if by agreement. – Jesus Christ points out, by way of example, three of the excuses that were given. The first consisted of the recent purchase of an estate, or even, according to the ordinary meaning of the word in Greek. earth, of a simple field, which the buyer wanted to visit as soon as possible: not that he would have bought it without it, but he was eager to enter it as its master for the first time, to walk through it with all joy what a new owner feels when he contemplates a building for which he has longed and which he has often only been able to obtain by triumphing over a thousand difficulties.
Luke 14.19 The second one said: I bought five pairs of oxen and I'm going to try them out, please excuse me. – Second excuse: Doesn't such an important purchase warrant an immediate verification of its value? Therefore, I cannot attend your meal.
Luke 14.20 Another said: I have just gotten married and that is why I cannot go. If the excuses previously given stemmed from an exaggerated love for worldly goods, the third arose from the lust of the flesh, "which hinders many people," adds St. Augustine, in Sermon 33. It is noteworthy that the one who utters this excuse displays a more arrogant tone than the other two guests, as St. Gregory noted in Homage 36 in Gospels: "He who, because of a country house or a plow ox, refuses to participate in the banquet of his host mixes a few words of politeness with his refusal. For, when he says I beg you, Modesty resonates in his voice.» Yes, at least in his voice, although by refusing to come, he showed contempt in his action. The second man, however, was more at ease than the first, for, while apologizing, he simply said: “I am leaving,” without indicating that he was acting out of a real or supposed necessity (v. 18, it is necessary that…). As for the third man, he simply said, without the slightest polite formula to soften his refusal: I cannot go ; Read: I don't want to go. After all, if Jewish Law (Deuteronomy 24:5) exempted newlyweds from military service, why wouldn't they have been exempt from attending a feast? Cf. this remark made by Croesus to prevent his son from attending the grand official hunt that had such a fatal outcome for him: "Don't speak to me again about my son; I cannot send him with you. Newly married, he is now preoccupied only with his love affairs..." (Herodotus, 1:36). A German exegete, Herberger, naively suggested that the three guests in the parable represented, in the Savior's intention, the three Jewish sects of that time: "the Essenes devoted to agriculture, the Pharisees like violent and proud bulls, the carnal Sadducees." There is more truth in this couplet by Hildebert: "The country house, the oxen, the wife excluded the called from the banquet. The world, worries, the flesh close heaven to the reborn (baptized).".
Luke 14.21 The servant returned and reported these things to his master. Then the angry head of the household said to his servant, “Go quickly to the streets and lanes of the city and bring here.” the poor, the cripples, the blind and the lame. When he learned all these things, the "head of the family," as he is now called, felt righteous anger. Undoubtedly, the excuses he had been given were plausible to a certain extent: none, at least, was directly wrong; but they were so late, arriving only at mealtime. And besides, didn't they all consist of worldly concerns, which should have given way to the spiritual concerns at issue in our parable? There was a real impudence in offering them; they could not be received without affront. Nevertheless, after an initial outburst of irritation, the head of the family seems to forget the insulters, thinking only of how to quickly find other guests. His decision is soon made: Go quickly to the squares…, he said to his servant; time is short, since everything is ready (v. 17). He sent him to the squares and also into the streets, into the narrow streets of the East, through which a rider can often only pass with great difficulty. The word of the city This is important for understanding the parable, because it shows that the Lord will again take from among Israel the guests destined to replace the unworthy ones: "the city" metaphorically represents the Jewish theocracy. However, instead of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the scribes and priests who refused to come, he now calls the poor, the cripples, the blind and the lame, which represent the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the tax collectors and the fishermen and the whole people. Apart from a slight inversion in the last words, the enumeration here is the same as in v. 13, as if Our Lord wanted to show us a completely heavenly realization of the advice he had given previously.
Luke 14.22 The servant said, "Master, it has been done as you commanded, and there is still room.". 23 The master said to the servant: Go along the paths and hedges and those you find, force them to enter, so that my house may be filled. – We have just seen the anger of the offended host give way to a feeling of profound goodwill; but now this kindness, for it is kindness divine, manifests itself in a truly incomparable form. After some interval, the faithful and intelligent servant hurries to his master and tells him in a few words how he carried out his orders. But, he adds, not without emphasis, there is still room. What must be done to fill the gaps? The answer to this unspoken question is not long in coming: From now on, do not limit yourself to walking the city streets, but go on the roads that lead from outside to the city, even go on the modest "paths that run alongside the hedges of the countryside" (Reuss) and bring along, willingly or unwillingly, all those you meet, force them to enterThis time, everyone agrees, it is no longer about the Jews, but about the Gentiles, to whom the Savior here most kindly predicts their conversion to ChristianityThey form the third class of guests in our parable. “Force them” obviously contains no call to external violence. The co-action the father speaks of is that which Cicero (ad Din. 5, 6) defines so well: “Preach the word. Persuade in due time and earnestly. Argue, plead, and rebuke with all patience and doctrine.” Cf. Luke 24:29; Acts 16:15. It is that which St. Paul recommends to Timothy: “Move someone with reasons, arguments, even with repeated prayers.” It is that to which the Church alludes in this beautiful prayer: “You who are favorable to us, compel our rebellious wills to turn to you.” Whatever Protestants may say, Catholics know no other. This is akin to the command to pluck out one's eye or cut off one's hand (Matthew 5, 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your body to perish. not all of it be thrown into GehennaThese are not words of Jesus to be taken literally. Forced baptisms, like bodily mutilation, are mortal sins against the justifying grace in our souls. We have another example in verse 27, where Jesus asks us to "hate" our closest family and even our own lives: yet we must preserve our lives and love our loved ones, so this is another case where the literal meaning is contrary to what should be understood. This way of expressing himself aims to make an impression, to ensure that a teaching is remembered whose true meaning contradicts the literal one.
Luke 14.24 For I tell you, none of these men who were invited will taste my feast.» – A terrible conclusion. The words I'm telling you This has led some commentators to believe that Jesus uttered it in his own name, addressing the entire assembly, since the dialogue up to that point had only taken place between the head of the household and a single servant. But it is more likely that this final sentence should be considered as still part of the parable. This is evident from the expression of my feast, according to which the figurative host seems to be always present. Moreover, the plural "you" is explained by the presence either of the other servants or of the new guests. But the sentence still fell squarely on the Pharisees who were then surrounding Our Lord.
Luke 14.25 As a large crowd was walking with him, he turned around and said to them: – Another historical preamble, serving as an introduction to a new episode of the final great journey. After the preceding scene, Jesus resumed his journey towards Jerusalem. Large crowds thronged behind him, undoubtedly composed largely of pilgrims also heading to the capital for the upcoming feast. Outwardly, all these people were deeply devoted to him; but he knew, he who knew the secrets of hearts, how superficial, in most of them, the affection for his divine person was, so that a slight gust of wind would suffice to transform this fickle crowd. And yet the hour was decisive, for they were on the eve of his Passion: it was therefore essential that all know the price at which one truly becomes and remains a disciple of Christ. This is why he spoke to them in forceful terms, like that minister who, in perilous times, asked each of his officials: «Are you ready to sacrifice your life?» He turned around and said to them, is a quaint detail.
Luke 14.26 «If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. – It is certainly something to come to Jesus, to follow Jesus, as these good people did; but Our Lord was little concerned, especially then, with having mere traveling companions, however much attachment they might otherwise show him. To outward adherence, he rightly wanted inward adherence, the only true one, and he indicates its conditions: difficult conditions, since they are summed up in the most complete self-denial and in the sacrifice courageously accepted. And doesn't hate… The Savior names the beings who are dearest to man, a father, a mother, a wife, children, brothers, sisters, and, although nature and God make it our duty to love them tenderly, he commands us to hate them, under pain of not being Christians; moreover, to this already so astonishing enumeration, he adds a word which makes it even more astonishing: and even his own life ; He wants us to hate ourselves. But we understand that he is not speaking of absolute hatred. It is a bold way of telling us that we must be prepared to detest, if necessary, the things we hold most dear, should they be an obstacle to Christian perfection. See Matthew 10:37 and the commentary of St. Jerome. But what language, despite this restriction! How striking it must have been, in its paradoxical form, to all those who surrounded Jesus at that time. And how striking it still is to all those who meditate on it seriously.
Luke 14.27 And whoever does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. – After demanding of his disciples self-denial pushed to its ultimate limits, a love before which all other love pales, Jesus points them, through a powerful image already, but one that his ignominious death would make even more expressive, to the life of harsh sacrifices and perpetual suffering that lies at the heart of Christianity: He who does not carry his cross… cf. 9:23, Matthew 10:38; 16:24. Note, in the sentence cannot be my disciple, the emphasis placed on the possessive pronoun "my". Similarly, verses 26 and 33.
Luke 14.28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, and whether he has enough to complete it? – Two admirably chosen examples will now show the enthusiastic crowd following Jesus the humiliation and dangers to which anyone who abandons the Christian faith after having professed it for some time would be exposed. The first is that of an improvident builder who begins a building and soon finds himself in the shameful impossibility of continuing it, for lack of sufficient resources. Which of you… The interrogative form and direct address give great life to the thought. If he wants to build a tower. We do not believe, despite the contrary opinion of several exegetes, that the word "tower" contains the slightest allusion to the Tower of Babel. Therefore, once a construction project has been decided upon, it is the most basic prudence to make some serious calculations to see, firstly, how much it will cost, and secondly, whether one has sufficient resources to complete it successfully. Don't sit down beforehand… a picturesque detail, intended to highlight the serious, thorough nature of the calculations. Men in a hurry remain standing: on the contrary, when one sits down to meditate on a question, one already demonstrates by this very attitude that one is determined to take all the time necessary.
Luke 14.29 For fear that, having laid the foundations of the building, he might not be able to bring it to completion and that all who see it might begin to mock him, 30 saying: This man began to build and he was unable to finish. —The reason why one should not undertake the construction of a considerable building until one has carefully assessed one's capabilities. One would become an object of public ridicule if one could not complete it entirely. Indeed, nothing is more ridiculous than "those unfinished buildings, open to every wind and every rain from heaven" (cf. Shakespeare, Henry II, Act 1, sc. 3), which the malice of the people names, and is it not somewhat their right?, the Madness of so-and-so. What small provincial town doesn't have some story like that to tell? As a German proverb says: Starting work and only thinking about it afterwards has led more than one man to great suffering. It is no different in morals and in application. Christian perfection is a splendid palace to be built (cf. 6, 47 ff.; Matt. 7, 24-27; Ephesians 2, 20-22; 1 Corinthians 3(9; 1 Peter 2:4-5). Now, says St. Gregory of Nyssa (in Cat. D. Thom.), “just as one stone is not enough to build a tower, so too it takes more than one commandment to lead the soul to perfection.” Therefore, let us carefully consider what we are capable of before becoming disciples of Jesus. What shame it would be to turn back afterward.
Luke 14.31 Or which king, if he is going to do the war To another king, does he not first sit down to deliberate whether he can, with ten thousand men, face an enemy who comes to attack him with twenty thousand? – Moreover, as the second example shows, alongside shame there is danger. The first comparison was taken from the realm of private life; this one is drawn from the conduct of an inexperienced king who foolishly committed the happiness and interests of an entire nation to an imprudent war. They complement each other, presenting the same truth from two distinct perspectives, like the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven (Matthew 13:31-33), of the hidden treasure and the pearl (Matthew 13:44-46), of the new patch used to mend worn-out garments and of new wine put into old wineskins (Matthew 9:16-17). With ten thousand men… against… twenty thousandThe struggle will therefore be in the proportion of two to one, that is to say, completely unequal, unless the first king has exceptional chances of success. It is precisely these chances that he must carefully consider before embarking on an expedition that could become disastrous. Witness Croesus, witness Amasias (2 Kings 14:8-12), witness Josiah (2 Kings 23:29 and 30). – Various exegetes, eager to know everything, to delve into the most minute details of parables to make its mystical application (see St. Matthew), they sought what might have represented numbers 10,000 and 20,000, what is the antitype of the second king, etc. They found that the 10,000 soldiers represent the Ten Commandments of the Law, that the king to whom victory seems predetermined is the emblem of God (which is strange since we would then be supposed to march into battle against him with some favorable odds), or of Satan (which is no less strange since Jesus would recommend that we capitulate to hell). Faced with these singular or contradictory ideas, we prefer to say with Corneille de Lapierre (in v. 32): "It is the very nature of a parable that there is no perfect equation between the sign and the thing signified," and, with Maldonat: "We must not curiously seek to know who this king is… for, as we have said, war… is nothing other than undertaking something arduous."
Luke 14.32 If he cannot do so, while the latter is still far away, he sends him an embassy to negotiate. peace. – If the first belligerent acknowledges that it cannot continue the war that, exposing himself to a fatal outcome, he is hastening, while there is still time—that is, before the enemy has invaded his territory—to send an embassy to negotiate peaceThe moral is easy to draw. The Christian life is a perpetual battle (cf. Matthew 12:19; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:8; Ephesians 6:11ff.; 2 Timothy 3 and 4; 4:7), and every battle involves countless difficulties, hardships, and dangers. Jesus reminds his followers of this, so that they may know what awaits them if they persist in becoming his disciples. However, it is clear that these two comparisons should not be taken too literally, for it would follow that in many circumstances one should not even attempt to lay the foundation for a Christian life, to fight the good fight of salvation; yet, as Maldonat aptly asks, “How could Christ turn us away from becoming Christians?” Here again, we are faced with paradoxical expressions, the purpose of which is to highlight the difficulties inevitably encountered by anyone who wants to be a true Christian. It is a forceful way of saying: The undertaking is arduous; but make generous efforts, and you will succeed. Otherwise, beware of spiritual bankruptcy, the total defeat of your soul—that is to say, apostasy.
Luke 14.33 Therefore, whoever among you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. These words bring us back to verses 26-27 and summarize the entire preceding lesson. They forcefully reiterate that complete self-denial is the essential condition for being a true disciple of Jesus. Note the emphasis of the words everything he owns.
Luke 14.34 Salt is good, but if salt loses its flavor, how can we give it back its taste? 35 Useless for both soil and manure, it is thrown out. Let anyone who has ears hear.» – Conclusion of this short discourse, in the form of a third image, which seems to have been dear to Our Lord, since it recurs up to three times in the Gospel passages (cf. Matt. 5:13; Mark 9:50); it is true that each time it is a new application. Here is the most probable interpretation: Whoever does not feel equal to the perfect self-denial that I preach to you would be like salt that has lost its savor, good for nothing but being thrown into the street and trampled underfoot. Salt is good. But if salt loses its properties, how can they be restored? What can be used to season it? Since it cannot be used for anything, because it cannot serve as fertilizer, either directly or indirectly, that is, mixed with manure, it is thrown into the street to get rid of it. Let he who has ears… A profound final reflection spoken by Jesus on many occasions. Reflect. Decide. See if you are willing to become my disciples.
