§36 Doing Good on the Sabbath (Luke 14:1–6)
This episode is part of a section unique to Luke (14:1–24); the section is loosely tied together by the setting of Jesus being invited to the house of a Pharisee. The episode is the fourth and final episode in which controversy over Sabbath laws emerges. Previously Jesus has been accused of breaking the Sabbath by doing what the Pharisees regarded as work, such as picking grain to eat (6:1–5) or healing someone (6:6–11; 13:10–17). This time the controversy revolves around the question of healing on the Sabbath, an activity that was viewed as work (i.e., practicing medicine).
Apparently Jesus was invited to have dinner following a Sabbath service at the local synagogue. The dinner was held in the house of a prominent Pharisee (lit. “one of the rulers of the Pharisees”), which could possibly mean that this Pharisee was a member of the Sanhedrin (Marshall, p. 578; Ellis, p. 193). If he were a member of the Sanhedrin (see 22:66), then the story’s setting would have to be close to Jerusalem where the Sanhedrin convened and where (or nearby) its members lived.
The direction the story will take is hinted at in the last part of v. 1: he was being carefully watched. Jesus was being observed closely to see if he would do anything unlawful, such as heal someone on the Sabbath. In view of this it has been suggested that the man suffering from dropsy (see note below) was a “plant,” a person asked to the house as part of the Pharisees’ attempt to put Jesus to the test. This may be the case, but the fact that after healing the sick man Jesus sent him away would suggest that he had not been one of the invited guests. In any case, the Pharisees are afforded the opportunity for which they had been seeking. Jesus, knowing that he was being watched carefully and knowing what was in the minds of his critics, put a question to the Pharisees and experts in the law. Jesus does not ask if work is permitted on the Sabbath, but if healing is permitted. His critics, however, do not offer an answer (vv. 4, 6). Implicit in this question is the recognition that ultimately it is God alone who heals. If God is willing to heal someone on the Sabbath, then who were the Pharisees to object? Present also is the idea, expressed explicitly in 6:5, that Jesus is “Lord of the Sabbath” and can act as God’s anointed representative.
Jesus then takes the man, heals him, and sends him away. What reaction to this the Pharisees had we are not told. Jesus himself, however, pursues the matter further by putting a second question to them, a question which recalls 13:15 (the saying about helping one’s ox or donkey on the Sabbath). The answer to this question (unlike the first one) is more readily apparent, even to his opponents. They would quite naturally rescue a son or an ox (see note below) that happened to fall into a well on a Sabbath. Such a rescue operation would in most cases involve far more work than any healing involves for Jesus. Moreover, such a rescue is very much the same idea as healing, for in both cases one’s health is endangered and the rescue/healing removes the danger. The implication of the question is unmistakable and apparently was perceived by Jesus’ critics, for they had nothing to say. The fact that they could offer no answer at this point answers in part the first question (v. 3). The logic of the passage runs thus: Is it legal to heal on the Sabbath? Yes, it is legal to do so (see 13:15; Marshall, p. 558), since the rescue of a son or ox on the Sabbath is always permitted.
14:2 / The man suffering from dropsy would have swollen arms and legs. The swelling is caused by excessive fluids in various parts of the body (not just arms and legs) and, as Fitzmyer (p. 1041) remarks, “is usually symptomatic of more serious problems.” Marshall (p. 579) comments that dropsy was regarded by some rabbis as resulting from immorality.
14:3 / experts in the law: Lit. “lawyers,” who were legal experts on the law of Moses. See note on 5:21 above.
14:5 / a son or an ox: A variety of textual readings of this verse is found in the manuscript tradition. Some mss. read “donkey and ox” (or “ox and donkey”) or “sheep and ox.” These variant readings are likely due to 13:15 (“ox and donkey”) and to the strangeness of linking “son” with “ox.” Had Jesus said “donkey or ox” then his implied argument would be: If you are concerned enough to rescue a dumb animal on the Sabbath, then surely you should have as much concern for a fellow human being (see commentary on 13:10–17 above). However, by referring to a “son” (which is most likely the original reading) the argument is somewhat different and would run as follows: If you are concerned to rescue your own son (or even an ox) on the Sabbath, then surely there is nothing wrong with rescuing the son of someone else. By way of contrast, it is interesting to note that the members of the desert community of Qumran applied the Sabbath laws so strictly that they believed that it was wrong to “assist a beast in giving birth on the Sabbath day,” much less to pull it out of a pit (Fitzmyer, p. 1040; see CD 11.13–17).