Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 20:1

And it came to pass, [that] on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon [him] with the elders,

Luk 20:1-8. Sudden Question of the Priests and Scribes.

1. on one of those days ] ‘Those’ is omitted in , B, D, L, Q.

By careful comparison of the Evangelists we find that after the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, our Lord was received in the Temple by the children probably those engaged in the Choral Service of the Temple with shouts of Hosanna, which again called forth the embittered rebuke of the priests. These rebukes He silenced by a reference to Psa 8:2. Then came the message brought to Him by Andrew and Philip from the Greek enquirers (supposed by some to have been sent by Abgarus V., King of Edessa), and the Voice from Heaven. After this he retired privately from the Temple, and bivouacked ( ) for the night on the Mount of Olives (Joh 12:20-25; Mat 21:17). Next morning Monday in Passion Week occurred the incident of the Fruitless Figtree (Mat 21:18-19), and it was after this that our Lord entered the Temple. This Monday in Passion week may be called a Day of Parables, since on it were uttered the Parables of the Two Sons (Mat 21:28-32); the Rebellious Husbandmen (Luk 20:9-16); the Rejected Cornerstone (Luk 20:17-18); and the Marriage of the King’s Son (Mat 22:1-14).

preached the gospel ] euangelizomenou, Luk 3:18, Luk 4:43, &c. This beautiful word is almost confined to St Luke, who uses it twenty-five times, and St Paul, who uses it twenty times.

the chief priests and the scribes ] The chief priests were the heads of the twenty-four courses. It was probably the humble triumph of Palm Sunday, and the intense excitement produced in the city ( ) by the arrival of Jesus (Mat 21:10), which first awoke the active jealousy of the chief priests of Jerusalem, who were wealthy Sadducees in alliance with the Herodians, and who had hitherto despised Jesus as only a ‘Prophet of Nazareth.’ From this period of the narrative, the hostility of the Pharisees, as such, is much less marked. Indeed they would have sympathised with the cleansing of the Temple, which involved a terrible reflexion on the greed and neglect of the hierarchic party.

came upon him ] The word implies a sudden and hostile demonstration (Act 23:27; Act 4:1; Act 6:12). They thus surrounded Him while He was walking in the Temple (Mar 11:27).

with the elders ] There were probably three great sections of the Sanhedrin: 1, Priests; 2 , Scribes and Rabbis (Sopherim, Tanaim, &c.); and 3, Levites. Derenbourg, Pal. ch. 6:

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

See this passage explained in the notes at Mat 21:23-27.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

CHAPTER XX.

The question concerning the authority of Christ, and the

baptism of John, 1-8.

The parable of the vine-yard let out to wicked husbandmen, 9-18.

The chief priests and scribes are offended, and lay snares for

him, 19, 20.

The question about tribute, 21-26.

The question about the resurrection of the dead, and our Lord’s

answer, 27-40.

How Christ is the son of David, 41-44.

He warns his disciples against the hypocrisy of the scribes,

whose condemnation he points out, 45-47.

NOTES ON CHAP. XX.

Verse 1. One of those days] Supposed to have been one of the four last days of his life, mentioned Lu 19:47, probably Tuesday before the passover.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

We have along the history of the gospel observed, that the scribes and Pharisees took all advantages imaginable against our Saviour: failing in all their acts, they now come to question his authority, which seemeth not so much to have respect to his preaching, as to his act in casting of the buyers and sellers out of the temple; for as to preaching, they seem, by the history of Scripture, to have given a great liberty, especially if any had the repute of a prophet.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And it came to pass, that on one of those days,…. According to the account of the Evangelist Mark, it must be the second day, or two days after his public entrance into Jerusalem; for on the evening of the day he made his entry, he went out to Bethany with his disciples; the next morning, as he returned from thence, he cursed the barren fig tree; and when he came to the temple cast out the buyers and sellers; at evening he went out again, either to Bethany, or the Mount of Olives; and the next morning, as he and his disciples returned, the fig tree was observed to be dried up; and when they were come to Jerusalem, as he was walking in the temple, he was attacked by the sanhedrim, and had the following discourse with them:

as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the Gospel; for he taught them by preaching that, and which he did most clearly, faithfully, and publicly, being abundantly anointed and qualified for it, and sent to do it.

The chief priests, and the Scribes, came upon him, with the elders. The whole sanhedrim being purposely convened together, came upon him in a body; and it may be suddenly, and at an unawares, and came open mouthed against him, and attacked him with great warmth and vehemency.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Christ’s Enemies Nonplussed.

      1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,   2 And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?   3 And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:   4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?   5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?   6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.   7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.   8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

      In this passage of story nothing is added here to what we had in the other evangelists; but only in the first verse, where we are told,

      I. That he was now teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel. Note, Christ was a preacher of his own gospel. He not only purchased the salvation for us, but published it to us, which is a great confirmation of the truth of the gospel, and gives abundant encouragement to us to receive it, for it is a sign that the heart of Christ was much upon it, to have it received. This likewise puts an honour upon the preachers of the gospel, and upon their office and work, how much soever they are despised by a vain world. It puts an honour upon the popular preachers of the gospel; Christ condescended to the capacities of the people in preaching the gospel, and taught them. And observe, when he was preaching the gospel to the people he had this interruption given him. Note, Satan and his agents do all they can to hinder the preaching of the gospel to the people, for nothing weakens the interest of Satan’s kingdom more.

      II. That his enemies are here said to come upon him—epestesan. The word is used only here, and it intimates,

      1. That they thought to surprise him with this question; they came upon him suddenly, hoping to catch him unprovided with an answer, as if this were not a thing he had himself thought of.

      2. That they thought to frighten him with this question. They came upon him in a body, with violence. But how could he be terrified with the wrath of men, when it was in his own power to restrain it, and make it turn to his praise? From this story itself we may learn, (1.) That it is not to be thought strange, if even that which is evident to a demonstration be disputed, and called in question, as a doubtful thing, by those that shut their eyes against the light. Christ’s miracles plainly showed by what authority he did these things, and sealed his commission; and yet this is that which is here arraigned. (2.) Those that question Christ’s authority, if they be but catechized themselves in the plainest and most evident principles of religion, will have their folly made manifest unto all men. Christ answered these priests and scribes with a question concerning the baptism of John, a plain question, which the meanest of the common people could answer: Was it from heaven or of men? They all knew it was from heaven; there was nothing in it that had an earthly relish or tendency, but it was all heavenly and divine. And this question gravelled them, and ran them aground, and served to shame them before the people. (3.) It is not strange if those that are governed by reputation and secular interest imprison the plainest truths, and smother and stifle the strongest convictions, as these priests and scribes did, who, to save their credit, would not own that John’s baptism was from heaven, and had no other reason why they did not say it was of men but because they feared the people. What good can be expected from men of such a spirit? (4.) Those that bury the knowledge they have are justly denied further knowledge. It was just with Christ to refuse to give an account of his authority to them that knew the baptism of John to be from heaven and would not believe in him, nor own their knowledge, Luk 20:7; Luk 20:8.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

On one of the days ( ). Luke’s favourite way of indicating time. It was the last day of the temple teaching (Tuesday). Lu 20:1-19 is to be compared with Mark 11:27; Matt 21:23-46.

There came upon him (). Second aorist active indicative, ingressive aorist of , old and common verb, stood up against him, with the notion of sudden appearance. These leaders (cf. 19:47) had determined to attack Jesus on this morning, both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes), a formal delegation from the Sanhedrin.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED V. 1-8

1) “And it came to pass,” (kai egeneto) “And it happened,” occurred or came to be.

2) “That one of those days,” (en mia. ton hemeron) “in one of those ‘days,” after He had cleansed the temple for the second time, Luk 20:19; Luk 20:45-46.

3) “As he taught the people in the temple,” (didaskontos autou ton laon en to hiero) “While he was teaching the people in the temple,” Mat 21:23; Mar 11:27.

4) “And preached the gospel,” (kai euangelizomenou) “And proclaiming the gospel,” Luk 24:47; the good news of redemption, Luk 19:10. Luke uses this term which means “evangelized” twenty four times, and Paul used it twenty times, Rom 1:16.

5) “The chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,” (epestesan hoi archiereis kai hoi grammateis sun tois presbuterois) “There came upon him, by former collusion and plot, the administrative priests, or the Sanhedrin, and the scribes, in consort with the elders,” Mat 21:23. They came for entrapment purposes, or ulterior motives, Mar 11:27; Their motives are indicated Luk 19:47. They came suddenly in an hostile manner.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk. 20:1. One of those days.Rather, one of the days (R.V.). Preached the gospel.Lit. evangelised. This beautiful word is almost confined to St. Luke, who uses it twenty-four times, and St. Paul, who uses it twenty times. Chief priests, etc.Thus all classes of the Sanhedrim were represented. This was a formal and official message sent to make Jesus declare Himself as a Divinely commissioned prophet, in which case the Sanhedrim had power to take cognisance of His proceedings as a professed teacher. Came upon Him.The phrase perhaps has reference to the suddenness and hostility of the action taken. The motives of Christs enemies are disclosed in chap. Luk. 19:47.

Luk. 20:2. By what authority?I.e., by what kind of authority; it was not that of a rabbi, or priest, or magistrate, for Christ held none of these offices. These things.Probably special reference is made to the cleansing of the Temple, as well as to the acceptance of the popular homage, and the triumphal entrance into Jerusalem.

Luk. 20:4. The baptism of John.I.e., the whole mission and teaching of John, of which the baptism was the central point. If they acknowledged that Johns mission was from heaven, they had an answer to their own question, for John had borne witness to Jesus as the Messiah, and as having received the Holy Spirit.

Luk. 20:5. They reasoned, etc.We would understand that they went apart and discussed the matter among themselves. Believed.Gave credit to his testimony concerning Me.

Luk. 20:6. Stone.The word is an emphatic one, and is used only here; it means to stone to death.

Luk. 20:7. They could not tell.Rather, they knew not (R.V.). Their reply was, virtually, not We do not know, but We do not wish to say; and to this inward thought Christ replies, Neither tell I you. Their incompetence to decide in the case of John disqualified them for judging in the case of Jesus.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Luk. 20:1-8

The Question of Authority.The question put by the chief priests and scribes as to the authority which Jesus exercised was not altogether an unreasonable one. They were the guardians of the religion of Israel, and of the institutions which had been founded by Divine sanction for the preservation of that religion. Had they been single-minded and upright men, with minds open to truth, their question might have been met by Jesus in a very different way. As it was, they were under the influence of a twofold prejudice, which incapacitated them for acting as judges of Christs claims.

I. They refused to recognise any authority as genuine which did not emanate from themselves.They regarded the office of the priesthood, of which they were ministers, as of supreme authority; and since Christ did not belong to the tribe of Levi, they failed to see that He had any right to assume exceptional power, or to set aside that which they exercised. They committed the mistake of over-looking the fact that the authority of the priestly office is secondary and derived, and therefore subordinate to the Living Word of God. Even under the Old Testament dispensation it had been evident, time after time, that authoritative declarations of the Divine will were not given exclusively through members of the priestly caste. Most of the prophets belonged to other tribes than that of Levi, and their authority was accepted by both priests and people. Yet the fact that Jesus had no official positionthat He neither belonged to a priestly family nor was accredited as a teacher by any one of the rabbinical schoolswas virtually taken by the priests and scribes as a proof that He was usurping functions to which He had no right, in teaching men and in laying down rules for their guidance in spiritual things. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we find an indication of the extent to which this question troubled the minds of Jews who had accepted Christ. There the writer asserts that Jesus is a priest of an order far older than that of Levi, and superior to ita priest in the same sense as Melchizedek, whom even Abraham recognised as of higher rank than himself.

II. They were blind to the ample proofs Jesus had already given of His Divine authority.This fact it is that causes us instinctively to regard the question as uncalled-for and impertinent. Christ had now been for more than two years a prominent figure in Jewish society, and we are astonished that His greatness had not impressed all beholders. The people who heard Him speak declared that He spoke with authority, and not as the scribes; but their rulers were too much under the influence of prejudice to form the same opinion. In the life and work of Christ abundant proof had been given, to those who had eyes to see, of His heavenly commission.

1. In the nature of His teaching. His intimate acquaintance with human nature, His exalted conceptions of the requirements of Gods law, His unerring statements of the relations which man should sustain towards God and towards his brethren, and His stern condemnation of all falsehood and hypocrisy, should have convinced His hearers of His right to the authority He claimed. The truth of His teaching was so apparent that no rank with which man might have invested Him would have added weight to His words.
2. In the holiness of His life. His conduct and actions were open to the scrutiny of all, and He could ask, without fear of a reply, Which of you convinceth Me of sin? A Divine holiness and a Divine compassion were manifested by Him. He thought of those whom the world forgot; He had pity on those who were ignorant and out of the way; the poor and outcast were the objects of His care: every hour of His life was devoted to ministrations on behalf of others. By these marks, as well as by His zeal for the honour of God, might the priests and scribes have perceived His consecration to the office of Redeemer of men.
3. In His miracles. Day after day He had displayed a mysterious power in overcoming ills that affect humanity. He had healed the sick, cleansed lepers, given sight to the blind, and raised the dead. A few days before, in the presence of a great assembly, He had performed the most wonderful of all His mighty works in recalling Lazarus from the grave. None contested the authenticity of these miracles; even the chief priests and scribes did not refuse to believe that He had performed them. Yet they failed to see that the works of Christ supplied the answer to the question they put to Himthat no one could have wrought these works unless God had been with Him. In all ages ecclesiastical prejudices have blinded men to the worth and significance of the teaching and of the holy lives and works of men who have not drawn their authority from the Church. Instead of frank acknowledgment of good work done, there are often curious and impertinent inquiries as to the validity of the orders such men have possessed. Such miserable prejudices find a sufficient reproof in the refusal of Christ to give any formal justification of His right to teach the ignorant, and show compassion to the miserable.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk. 20:1-8

I. A rebellious question (Luk. 20:1-20).

II. A malicious question (Luk. 20:21-26).

III. A scoffers question (Luk. 20:27-38).

IV. Our Lords question (Luk. 20:39-47).W. Taylor.

Luk. 20:1. Came upon Him.This deputation marks a deliberate and formal inquiry on the part of the Sanhedrim.

I. It consisted of men who were entitled, from their office and rank, to institute careful investigation into the authority of all teachers of religion.

II. But of men who were prejudiced against Jesus.

III. It came at far too late a period.Jesus had now been at least two years before the publichad performed many indubitable miracles, and had been accepted as a teacher by multitudes in all parts of the land.

Luk. 20:2. By what authority?A twofold question.

I. Does Thy power proceed from God?
II. What messenger of God consecrated Thee to this activity?The reply of Jesus, requiring them to make up their mind as to the claims of John the Baptist, is, therefore, most pertinent to the second of these questions.

Luk. 20:3. I also will ask you.The Divine method of judgment.

I. Sinners are made to pass judgment on themselves.

II. Are reduced to silence in the presence of their Lord.

Luk. 20:4. The baptism of John, etc.The question

(1) revealed that it was in no truth-loving temper of mind that the rulers had interrogated Jesus as to His authority, and
(2) it contained an answer to their question. If they accepted the mission of His forerunner as Divine, they were bound to accept His as of the same character; if they repudiated the Baptist, they virtually declared their own incompetency to judge spiritual things.

Luk. 20:5-6. They reasoned with themselves.The bad faith of the rulers of the people was manifested clearly by their present conduct.

1. They were more anxious to escape the dilemma in which the question of Christ placed them than to return a truthful answer.
2. They professed doubt as to Johns Divine mission, though they had virtually pronounced against it by refusing to believe in him.
3. They were not ashamed to admit to themselves that they were animated by fear of the people rather than by fear of Godthat they followed the dictates of carnal policy, while professing to be zealous for the interests of true religion.

Luk. 20:7. They could not tell.They confessed their incompetency to decide on the authority of a prophet: Christ, therefore, declined to accept them as judges of His claims.

Luk. 20:8. Neither tell I you.Now both are silent; but He, because, on good grounds, He will not speak; they because they, through their own fault, cannot speak. And among the people present as witnesses there is no one who could seriously doubt which of the two parties leaves the field victorious.Van Oosterzee.

The Indignation of Jesus.The words of Jesus are animated both by indignation and contempt. If you declare yourselves incompetent to judge of the claims of John, much more are you incompetent to judge of my claims. They had admitted failure as leaders of the people: Christ proceeds to brand them, in the parable that follows, as faithless and rebellious.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Butlers Comments

SECTION 1

Revelation and God (Luk. 20:1-8)

20 One day, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching 20 the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up 2and said to him, Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority. 3He answered them, I also will ask you a question; now tell me, 4Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? 5And they discussed it with one another, saying, If we say, From heaven, he will say, Why did you not believe him? 6But if we say, From men, all the people will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet. 7So they answered that they did not know whence it was. sAnd Jesus said to them, Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Luk. 20:1-4 Summons: Lukes chapter 20 documents part of the longest day recorded in the entire ministry of Jesus. Matthew gives more of the details of this Tuesday in Jerusalem than any of the other evangelists; almost one-sixth of Matthews whole Gospel is taken up in recording this day. It is in Mat. 26:1-2 we come to the end of Tuesday when Jesus says, . . . after two days the Passover is coming, or, . . . day after tomorrow the Passover is coming. Consider the following list of events which took place on this Tuesday:

a.

Jesus Authority Challenged (Mat. 21:23-27; Mar. 11:27-33; Luk. 20:1-8)

b.

The Parable of the Two Sons (Mat. 21:28-32; Mar. 12:1 a)

c.

The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mat. 21:33-46; Mar. 12:1 b Mar. 12:12; Luk. 20:9-19)

d.

The Parable of the Marriage of the Kings Son (Mat. 22:14)

e.

Catch Question About Giving Tribute to Caesar (Mat. 22:15-22; Mar. 12:13-17; Luk. 20:20-26)

f.

Catch Question About the Resurrection (Mat. 22:23-33; Mar. 12:18-27; Luk. 20:27-39)

g.

Catch Question About the Greatest Commandment (Mat. 22:34-40; Mar. 12:28-34; Luk. 20:40)

h.

Christs Questions About Davids Lord (Mat. 22:41-46; Mar. 12:35-37; Luk. 20:41-44)

i.

Warning to His disciples (Mat. 23:1-12; Mar. 12:38-40; Luk. 20:45-47)

j.

Sevenfold warning to the Pharisees (Mat. 23:13-36)

k.

Lamenting over Jerusalem (Mat. 23:37-39)

l.

Commending a Poor Widows Gift (Mar. 12:41-44; Luk. 21:1-4)

m.

Reflecting About the Coming of the Greeks (Joh. 12:20-36)

n.

The Sinful Unbelief of the Jews (Joh. 12:37-43)

o.

Jesus Summarizes His Own Message and Mission (Joh. 12:44-50)

p.

Discourse on the Destruction of Jerusalem (Mat. 24:1-34; Mar. 13:1-30; Luk. 21:5-32)

q.

Discourse on the End of the World (Mat. 24:35-51; Mar. 13:31-37; Luk. 21:33-36)

r.

More about the End of the World and Judgment (Mat. 25:1-46)

s.

General statements as to His death (Mat. 26:1-2; Mar. 14:1; Luk. 21:37-38; Joh. 13:1)

The physical and, especially, the emotional stress of such a day was no doubt exhausting to even a strong person like Jesus. It was a day when the political and religious leadership of the nation threw at Him all the pressure and craftiness they could muster to trap Him in some mistake by which they might turn the multitudes against Him. It was a day when the weight of His knowledge of the terrible future of His people pressed heaviest upon His heart. It was a day when the exasperating ignorance of His own disciples had to be patiently dealt with again. It was a day when He was vividly reminded of His vicarious atonement for the sins of the whole world when the Greeks sought Him. It was an emotionally charged and intellectually exhausting day.
The day started with an official summons by the chief priests, scribes and elders that He should produce some credentials for the authority He had assumed the day before in driving money-changers and merchants out of the Temple! Furthermore, He is challenged to give reason why He should have acquired such a massive following of people praising Him as the Son of David, etc. This challenge of Jesus authority is not an honest one. As the religious leaders of the nation they were obligated to honestly challenge any desecration of the Temple or violation of the laws of Moses. But Jesus had done neither. The chief priests and scribes were the guilty ones. The timing of this challenge from the authorities betrays the fact that it was not an honest effort to protect the sanctity of Gods house but a scheme to discredit Jesus motivated by envy and hatred. Jesus had cleansed the Temple three years earlier (Joh. 2:13-22) and for three years had been demonstrating His authority (by miracles and fulfilling prophecies) to do so. There had been three full years of publicly demonstrated authority by which they should have accepted Him as Lord of the Templeif the authorities had been asking an honest question, they had the answer. There was, in fact, no need for the question to be asked!

The real reason for the challenge was the way in which Jesus righteous actions had intimidated and humiliated these so-called guardians of the faith in the eye of the public. They could not defend their exploitation of the house of God and to cover up they tried to turn the attack upon Jesus. Jesus put the onus right back upon them by recalling their ridicule and defiance of John the Baptist. They had rejected the baptism of John and thus rejected for themselves the counsel of God (Luk. 7:30). In a master stroke Jesus exposed their dishonesty by answering, I also will ask you a question; Now tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?

Luk. 20:5-8 Silenced: These rulers immediately recognized they were on the horns of a dilemma. That, in itself, betrayed them as hypocrites. They knew how they should answer, but were grasping for a way to hide their dishonesty. If they answered: Johns baptism was from God. . . . they acknowledged the revelatory nature of Johns message and condemned themselves as opposing Gods testimony through John the Baptist that Jesus was the Messiah. If they answered Johns baptism was not from God. . . . they alienated the populace which had acclaimed John a prophet of God. So, they said, We do not know. But that answer did not solve their dilemmait only exposed their guilt. Their answer was really a confession that they were in opposition to Johns message and mission. If they could have proved John the Baptist was not from God they would have declared it. To stand there in the presence of the righteous Jesus, with all their knowledge (they had investigated the ministry of John the Baptist many times, Joh. 1:19 ff; Joh. 3:25 ff,; Mat. 3:7 ff.; Luk. 7:24-35), and say they did not know showed them to be either the dumbest people in Israel or the most blatant liars!

Jesus specifically asked these rulers about Johns authority for immersing (baptizing) people rather than Johns teaching because of the uniqueness of the act of immersing people in water unto repentance for the forgiveness of sin (Mar. 1:4; Luk. 3:3). There could be no quibbling or hedging with this question. Baptism was a concrete, vivid impressive act. No one could say, What teaching? Immersion of the entire individual in water for the remission of sins was doctrinally innovative. The law of Moses proscribed animal sacrifices for atonement. The issue was crucialwhat right had John the Baptist to add to the Old Testament law such a commandment for the remission of sins? He had the right only if his commission came directly by revelation from God! The Jews knew nothing of the practice of baptism as John initiated it (see our discussion in Luk. 3:1-6). The only logical and honest conclusion was either to accept Johns ministry and message as a divine revelation from God or prove John to be an imposter. These rulers refused to take a stand either way and thus proved themselves to be imposters.

They were dishonest about John; they were dishonest with Jesus. Jesus refused to declare Himself to men incapable of honesty. What good would it have done? Jesus refused to declare Himself to these men because:

a.

This approach (letting the logic of His challenge about John speak for itself) lets the crowds see more clearly the hypocrisy and dis honesty of their leaders. The multitudes could not hope to save themselves until the stranglehold of these rulers over their thinking was broken.

b.

Jesus had already forced them to answer their own question. John the Baptist had testified Jesus was the Messiah. They would not dis credit John (could not), so they actually were forced to admit Jesus had authority to cleanse the Temple and teach what He taught.

c.

They were not asking for information, but for evil purposesthey did not deserve to have the truth just to pervert it and use it for wickedness. If they were blind to the evidence of Johns credentials, they would be blind to Jesus credentials. It was wilfull blindness and dishonestyJesus treated it as suchit was useless for Him to do otherwise.

Jesus proceeds to teach three parables in which He condemns their methods and their motives. These parables focus on the disobedience of the Jewish religious leaders. Only one of the parables is recorded by Lukethe parable of the wicked husbandmen, Luk. 20:9-19. The other two, the parable of the two sons and the parable of the kings marriage feast for his son are recorded in Matthews account only (Mat. 21:28-32 and Mat. 22:1-14).

Appleburys Comments

The Authority of Jesus Challenged
Scripture

Luk. 20:1-8 And it came to pass, on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief priests and the scribes with the elders; 2 and they spake, saying unto him, Tell us: By what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? 3 And he answered and said unto them, I also will ask you a question; and tell me: 4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? 5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why did ye not believe him? 6 But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. 7 And they answered, that they knew not whence it was. 8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Comments

as He was teaching the people.Jesus authority was challenged on one of those days when He was teaching in the temple. His whole ministry consisted in teaching, preaching, and performing signs to prove that He spoke the message of the heavenly Father. Jesus taught the people. It is one thing to teach a lesson where the concern is primarily with the content, but another thing to teach a lesson to people. People were always in the mind of the Master as He taught them the lessons about repentance and righteous living. He taught them how to escape from Satans clutches and how to serve Godlessons that also need to be taught today.

and preaching the gospel.It is probably wrong to make too great a distinction between teaching and preaching. Jesus was a Preacher who taught the people. He taught crowds and He taught small groups; when He had the opportunity, He took time to teach one person, Teaching was the process by which He sought to get people to turn back to God.

The expression preaching the gospelone word in Greekgives us our word Evangelize. It was the process of making people aware of the good news of salvation through Christ. It takes the whole story of the Bible to do this, not just a part of it.

The term proclaim or preach is used many times in the New Testament. It had to do with the spreading of the good news (Luk. 4:18). It does not suggest a difference in content, but the manner in which the good news was heralded by the gospel preacher.

All of these terms are brought together in one verse (Mat. 9:35) which tells of Jesus teaching in the synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing all manner of disease.

there came unto him the chief priests.The enemy was always present, seeking to find an excuse to condemn Jesus. Priests, scribes, eldersall these should have been helping Jesus in His mission of teaching the peoplewere doing everything within their power to destroy Him.

By what authority.They had two questions: (1) By what right are you doing these things and (2) Who gave you this right? Matthew says that He had just been cleansing the temple and healing a blind man (Mat. 21:4). It was difficult to condemn Him before the people for such work as that. Once before they had tried to discredit His miracles by saying that He performed them by the power of Beelzebub, but their effort was a miserable failure. Now they ask about these things, vaguely suggesting that He had done something wrong. They couldnt bring themselves to join the people who praised God for the glorious things He was doing for them.

I also will ask you a question.They had expected Him to answer as He had done on many occasions that God had given Him the right to perform miracles and teach the people. They could have twisted such an answer and brought the charge of blasphemy as they had so often done (Joh. 5:17-18). But He saw through their hypocrisy. He asked them a question that forced them to answer their own.

The baptism of John.Was Johns authority to baptize from heaven or from men? They discussed it and saw that if they should say from heaven, He would say, Why, then, didnt you believe him? John had declared that Jesus was the Lamb of God; that He was the Son of God; and that He was the one to baptize in the Holy Spirit (Joh. 1:19-34). Why didnt they believe him? For a possible answer, see Joh. 11:48.

On the other hand, if they should say that John baptized on human authority, they would have to answer to the people who believed that John was a prophet. They were not willing to risk being stoned by the people. No, they couldnt say about Johns authority.

And Jesus said to them.Neither am I telling you by what right I am doing these things. There was no need to, for they had been forced by their own reasoning to admit that His authority was from God, just as Johns was.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XX.

(1-8) And it came to pass.See Notes on Mat. 21:23-27; Mar. 11:27-33.

And preached the gospel.The Greek verb (to evangelise) is one specially characteristic of St. Luke. Neither St. Mark nor St. John use it at all; St. Matthew once only (Mat. 11:5), in a passive sense; St. Luke ten times in the Gospel, fifteen times in the Acts. So in the Epistles, neither St. John nor St. James use it; St. Peter once; St. Paul twenty times. It, too, was clearly one of the words which the two friends and fellow-workers had in common.

Came upon him.The Greek word, like the English, expresses something of a sudden, and, it might be, concerted movement.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 20

BY WHAT AUTHORITY? ( Luk 20:1-8 )

20:1-8 One day, while Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple and telling them the good news, the chief priests and scribes with the elders came up and said to him, “Tell us, by what authority do you do these things? Or, who is it who gives you this authority?” He said to them, “I, too, will ask you for a statement. Tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” They discussed it with each other. “If,” they said to each other, “we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe in him?’ But, if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” So they answered that they did not know where it was from. Jesus said to them, “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

This chapter describes what is usually called the Day of Questions. It was a day when the Jewish authorities, in all their different sections, came to Jesus with question after question designed to trap him, and when, in his wisdom, he answered them in such a way as routed them and left them speechless.

The first question was put by the chief priests, the scribes and the elders. The chief priests were a body of men composed of ex-High Priests and of members of the families from which the High Priests were drawn. The phrase describes the religious aristocracy of the Temple. The three sets of men–chief priests, scribes and elders–were the component parts of the Sanhedrin, the supreme council and governing body of the Jews; and we may well take it that this was a question concocted by the Sanhedrin with a view to formulating a charge against Jesus.

No wonder they asked him by what authority he did these things! To ride into Jerusalem as he did and then to take the law into his own hands and cleanse the Temple, required some explanation. To the orthodox Jews of the day, Jesus’ calm assumption of authority was an amazing thing. No Rabbi ever delivered a judgment or made a statement without giving his authorities. He would say, “There is a teaching that . . .” Or he would say, “This was confirmed by Rabbi So and So when he said . . .” But none would have claimed the utterly independent authority with which Jesus moved among men. What they wanted was that Jesus should say bluntly and directly that he was the Messiah and the Son of God. Then they would have a ready-made charge of blasphemy and could arrest him on the spot. But he would not give that answer, for his hour was not yet come.

The reply of Jesus is sometimes described as a clever debating answer, used simply to score a point. But it is far more than that. He asked them to answer the question, “Was the authority of John the Baptist human or divine?” The point is that their answer to Jesus’ question would answer their own question. Every one knew how John had regarded Jesus and how he had considered himself only the fore-runner of the one who was the Messiah. If they agreed that John’s authority was divine then they had also to agree that Jesus was the Messiah, because John had said so. If they denied it, the people would rise,, against them. Jesus’ answer in fact asks the question, “Tell me–where do you yourself think I got my authority?” He did not need to answer their question if they answered his.

To face the truth may confront a man with a sore and difficult situation; but to refuse to face it confronts him with a tangle out of which there is no escape. The emissaries of the Pharisees refused to face the truth, and they had to withdraw frustrated and discredited with the crowd.

A PARABLE WHICH WAS A CONDEMNATION ( Luk 20:9-18 )

20:9-18 Jesus began to speak this parable to the people. “A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants, and went away for a long time. At the proper time he despatched a servant to the tenants so that they might give him his share of the fruit of the vineyard. The tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He went on to send another servant. They beat him, too, and maltreated him, and sent him away empty-handed. He went on to send a third. This one they wounded and threw out. The owner of the vineyard said, ‘What am I to do? I will send my beloved son. It may be they will respect him.’ When the tenants saw him they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him so that the inheritance will be ours.’ And they flung him out of the vineyard and killed him. What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and he will destroy these tenants, and will give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “God forbid!” He looked at them and said, “What, then, is this which stands written–‘The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner? Everyone who falls against that stone will be shattered; but if it falls on anyone it will wipe him out as the wind blows the chaff away.'”

This is a parable whose meaning is crystal clear. The vineyard stands for the nation of Israel (compare Isa 5:1-7). The tenants are the rulers of Israel into whose hands the nation was entrusted. The messengers are the prophets who were disregarded, persecuted and killed. The son is Jesus himself. And the doom is that the place which Israel should have occupied is to be given to others.

The story itself is the kind of thing which could and did happen. Judaea in the time of Jesus was in the throes of economic trouble and labour unrest. There was many an absentee landlord who let out his lands in just such a way. The rent was seldom paid in money. It was either a fixed amount of produce, irrespective of the success or failure of the harvest, or it was a percentage of the crop, whatever it might be.

In its teaching this is one of the richest of the parables. It tells us certain things about man.

(i) It tells us of human privilege. The tenants did not make the vineyard. They entered into possession of it. The owner did not stand over them with a whip. He went away and left them to work in their own way.

(ii) It tells us of human sin. The sin of the tenants was that they refused to give the owner his due and wished to control what it was his sole right to control. Sin consists in the failure to give God his proper place and in usurping the power which should be his.

(iii) It tells of human responsibility. For long enough the tenants were left to their own devices; but the day of reckoning came. Soon or late a man is called upon to give account for that which was committed to his charge.

The parable tells us certain things about God.

(i) It tells us of the patience of God. The owner did not strike at the first sign of rebellion on the part of the tenants. He gave them chance after chance to do the right thing. There is nothing so wonderful as the patience of God. If any man had created the world he would have taken his hand, and, in exasperated despair, he would have wiped it out long ago.

(ii) It tells us of the judgment of God. The tenants thought they could presume on the patience of the master and get away with it. But God has not abdicated. However much a man may seem to get away with it, the day of reckoning comes. As the Romans put it, “Justice holds the scales with an even and a scrupulous balance and in the end she will prevail.”

The parable tells us something about Jesus.

(i) It tells us that he knew what was coming. He did not come to Jerusalem hugging a dream that even yet he might escape the cross. Open eyed and unafraid, he went on. When Achilles, the great Greek hero, was warned by the prophetess Cassandra that, if he went out to battle, he would surely die, he answered, “Nevertheless I am for going on.” For Jesus there was to be no turning back.

(ii) It tells us that he never doubted Gods ultimate triumph. Beyond the power of wicked men stood the undefeatable majesty of God. Wickedness may seem for a time to prevail, but it cannot in the end escape its punishment.

Careless seems the great Avenger, history’s pages but record

One death grapple in the darkness, ‘twixt old systems and

the Word;

Truth for ever on the scaffold, Wrong for ever on the throne,

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

(iii) It lays down most unmistakably his claim to be the Son of God. Deliberately he removes himself from the succession of the prophets. They were servants; he is the Son. In this parable he made a claim that none could fail to see to be God’s Chosen King.

The quotation about the stone which the builders rejected comes from Psa 118:22-23. It was a favourite quotation in the early church as a description of the death and resurrection of Jesus. (compare Act 4:11; 1Pe 2:7.)

CAESAR AND GOD ( Luk 20:19-26 )

20:19-26 The scribes and chief priests tried to lay hands on Jesus at that very hour; and they feared the people, for they realized that he spoke this parable to them. They watched for an opportunity, and they despatched spies, who pretended that they were genuinely concerned about the right thing to do, so that they might fasten on what he said and be able to hand him over to the power and the authority of the governor. They asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and you are no respecter of persons. Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar? Or not?” He saw their subtle deception and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription is on it?” They said, “Caesar’s.” “Well then,” he said to them, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” There was nothing in this statement that they could fasten on to in the presence of the people. They were amazed at his answer, and had nothing to say.

Here the emissaries of the Sanhedrin returned to the attack. They suborned men to go to Jesus and ask a question as if it was really troubling their consciences. The tribute to be paid to Caesar was a poll-tax of one denarius, about 4 pence, per year. Every man from 14 to 65 and every women from 12 to 65 had to pay that simply for the privilege of existing. This tribute was a burning question in Palestine and had been the cause of more than one rebellion. It was not the merely financial question which was at stake. The tribute was not regarded as a heavy imposition and was in fact no real burden at all. The issue at stake was this–the fanatical Jews claimed that they had no king but God and held that it was wrong to pay tribute to anyone other than him. The question was a religious question, for which many were willing to die.

So, then, these emissaries of the Sanhedrin attempted to impale Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. If he said that the tribute should not be paid, they would at once report him to Pilate and arrest would follow as surely as the night the day. If he said that it should be paid, he would alienate many of his supporters, especially the Galilaeans, whose support was so strong.

Jesus answered them on their own grounds. He asked to be shown a denarius. Now, in the ancient world the sign of kingship was the issue of currency. For instance, the Maccabees had immediately issued their own currency whenever Jerusalem was freed from the Syrians. Further, it was universally admitted that to have the right to issue currency carried with it the right to impose taxation. If a man had the right to put his image and superscription on a coin, ipso facto he had acquired the right to impose taxation. So Jesus said, “If you accept Caesar’s currency and use it, you are bound to accept Caesar’s right to impose taxes”; “but,” he went on, “there is a domain in which Caesar’s writ does not run and which belongs wholly to God.”

(i) If a man lives in a state and enjoys all its privileges, he cannot divorce himself from it. The more honest a man is, the better citizen he will be. There should be no better and no more conscientious citizens of any state than its Christians; and one of the tragedies of modern life is that Christians do not sufficiently take their part in the government of the state. If they abandon their responsibilities and leave materialistic politicians to govern, Christians cannot justifiably complain about what is done or not done.

(ii) Nonetheless, it remains true that in the life of the Christian God has the last word and not the state. The voice of conscience is louder than the voice of any man-made laws. The Christian is at once the servant and the conscience of the state. Just because he is the best of citizens, he will refuse to do what a Christian citizen cannot do. He will at one and the same time fear God and honour the king.

THE SADDUCEES’ QUESTION ( Luk 20:27-40 )

20:27-40 Some of the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, came to Jesus and asked him, “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that, if a man’s married brother dies without leaving any children, his brother must take his wife and raise up descendants for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife and died childless. The second and the third also took her; and in the same way the whole seven left no children and died. Later the wife died, too. Whose wife will she be at the resurrection, for the seven had her to wife?” Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are married. But those who are deemed worthy to obtain that age and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are married, for they cannot die any more, for they are like angels and they are sons of God, for they are the sons of the resurrection. That the dead are raised even Moses indicated in the passage about the bush, when he called the Lord, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to him.” Some of the scribes said, “Teacher, you have spoken well”; and they no longer dared to ask him any question.

When the emissaries of the Sanhedrin had been finally silenced, the Sadducees appeared on the scene. The whole point of their question depends on two things.

(i) It depends upon the levirate law of marriage ( Deu 25:5). According to that law if a man died childless, his brother must marry the widow and beget children to carry on the line. It is far from likely that it was operative in the time of Jesus, but it was included in the Mosaic regulations and therefore the Sadducees regarded it as binding.

(ii) It depends upon the beliefs of the Sadducees. Sadducees and Pharisees are often mentioned together but in beliefs they were poles apart.

(a) The Pharisees were entirely a religious body. They had no political ambitions and were content with any government which allowed them to carry out the ceremonial law. The Sadducees were few but very wealthy. The priests and the aristocrats were nearly all Sadducees. They were the governing class; and they were largely collaborationist with Rome, being unwilling to risk losing their wealth, their comfort and their place.

(b) The Pharisees accepted the scriptures plus all the thousand detailed regulations and rules of the oral and ceremonial law, such as the Sabbath law and the laws about hand washing. The Sadducees accepted only the written law of the Old Testament; and in the Old Testament they stressed only the law of Moses and set no store on the prophetic books.

(c) The Pharisees believed in the resurrection from the dead and in angels and spirits. The Sadducees held that there was no resurrection from the dead and that there were no angels or spirits.

(d) The Pharisees believed in fate; and that a man’s life was planned and ordered by God. The Sadducees believed in unrestricted free-will.

(e) The Pharisees believed in and hoped for the coming of the Messiah; the Sadducees did not. For them the coming of the Messiah would have been a disturbance of their carefully ordered lives.

The Sadducees, then, came with this question about who would be the husband in heaven of the woman who was married to seven different men. They regarded such a question as the kind of thing that made belief in the resurrection of the body ridiculous. Jesus gave them an answer which has a permanently valid truth in it. He said that we must not think of heaven in terms of this earth. Life there will be quite different, because we will be quite different. It would save a mass of misdirected ingenuity, and not a little heartbreak, if we ceased to speculate on what heaven is like and left things to the love of God.

Jesus went further. As we have said, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They declared they could not believe in it because there was no information about it, still less any proof of it, in the books of the law which Moses was held to have written. So far no Rabbi had been able to meet them on that ground; but Jesus did. He pointed out that Moses himself had heard God say, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” ( Exo 3:1-6), and that it was impossible that God should be the God of the dead. Therefore Abraham and Isaac and Jacob must be still alive. Therefore there was such a thing as the resurrection of the body. No wonder the scribes declared it to be a good answer, for Jesus had met the Sadducees on their own ground and defeated them.

It may well be that we find this an arid passage. It deals with burning questions of the time by means of arguments which a Rabbi would find completely convincing but which are not convincing to the modern mind. But out of this very aridity there emerges a great truth for anyone who teaches or who wishes to commend Christianity to his fellows. Jesus used arguments that the people he was arguing with could understand. He talked to them in their own language; he met them on their own ground; and that is precisely why the common people heard him gladly.

Sometimes, when one reads religious and theological books, one feels that all this may be true but it would be quite impossible to present it to the non-theologically minded man who, after all, is in an overwhelming majority. Jesus used language and arguments which people could and did understand; he met people with their own vocabulary, on their own ground, and with their own ideas. We will be far better teachers of Christianity and far better witnesses for Christ when we learn to do the same.

THE WARNINGS OF JESUS ( Luk 20:41-44 )

20:41-44 Jesus said to them, “How does David say that the Christ is his son? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, ‘The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.’ So David calls him Lord, and how can he be his son?”

It is worth while taking this little passage by itself for it is very difficult to understand. The most popular title of the Messiah was Son of David. That is what the blind man at Jericho called Jesus ( Luk 18:38-39), and that is how the crowds addressed him at his entry into Jerusalem ( Mat 21:9). Here Jesus seems to cast doubts on the validity of that title. The quotation is from Psa 110:1. In Jesus’ time all the Psalms were attributed to David and this one was taken to refer to the Messiah. In it David says that he heard God speak to his Anointed One and tell him to sit at his right hand until his enemies became his footstool; and in it David calls the Messiah My Lord. How can the Messiah be at once David’s son and David’s Lord?

Jesus was doing here what he so often tried to do, trying to correct the popular idea of the Messiah which was that under him the golden age would come and Israel would become the greatest nation in the world. It was a dream of political power. How was that to happen? There were many ideas about it but the popular one was that some great descendant of David would come to be invincible captain and king. So then the title Son of David was inextricably mixed up with world dominion, with military prowess and with material conquest.

Really what Jesus was saying here was, “You think of the coming Messiah as Son of David; so he is; but he is far more. He is Lord.” He was telling men that they must revise their ideas of what Son of David meant. They must abandon these fantastic dreams of world power and visualize the Messiah as Lord of the hearts and lives of men. He was implicitly blaming them for having too little an idea of God. It is always man’s tendency to make God in his own image, and thereby to miss his full majesty.

THE LOVE OF HONOUR AMONG MEN ( Luk 20:45-47 )

20:45-47 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, “Beware of the scribes who like to walk about in long robes, and who love greetings in the market places, and the chief seats in synagogues, and the top place at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and pretend to offer long prayers. These will receive the greater condemnation.”

The honours which the scribes and Rabbis expected to receive were quite extraordinary. They had rules of precedence all carefully drawn up. In the college the most learned Rabbi took precedence; at a banquet, the oldest. It is on record that two Rabbis came in, after walking on the street, grieved and bewildered because more than one person had greeted them with, “May your peace be great,” without adding, “My masters!” They claimed to rank even above parents. They said, “Let your esteem for your friend border on your esteem for your teacher, and let your respect for your teacher border on your reverence for God.” “Respect for a teacher should exceed respect for a father, for both father and son owe respect to a teacher.” “If a man’s father and teacher have lost anything, the teacher’s loss has the precedence, for a man’s father only brought him into this world; his teacher, who taught him wisdom, brought him into the life of the world to come…. If a man’s father and teacher are carrying burdens, he must first help his teacher, and afterwards his father. If his father and teacher are in captivity, he must first ransom his teacher, and afterwards his father.” Such claims are almost incredible; it was not good for a man to make them; it was still less good for him to have them conceded. But it was claims like that the scribes and Rabbis made.

Jesus also accused the scribes of devouring widows’ houses. A Rabbi was legally bound to teach for nothing. All Rabbis were supposed to have trades and to support themselves by the work of their hands, while their teaching was given free. That sounds very noble but it was deliberately taught that to support a Rabbi was an act of the greatest piety. “Whoever,” they said, “puts part of his income into the purse of the wise is counted worthy of a seat in the heavenly academy.” “Whosoever harbours a disciple of the wise in his house is counted as if he offered a daily sacrifice.” “Let thy house be a place of resort to wise men.” It is by no means extraordinary that impressionable women were the legitimate prey of the less scrupulous and more comfort-loving rabbis. At their worst, they did devour widows’ houses.

The whole unhealthy business shocked and revolted Jesus. It was all the worse because these men knew so much better and held so responsible a place within the life of the community. God will always condemn the man who uses a position of trust to further his own ends and to pander to his own comfort.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

‘And it came about that, on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel, there came on him the chief priests and the scribes with the elders,’

So one day while He was teaching in the Temple, and preaching the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God, the members of the Sanhedrin approached Him. The chief priests were the leading authorities in the Temple including the High Priest himself, the temple Treasurer, the leaders of the priestly courses, ex-High Priests, and their blood relations. The Scribes mainly represented Pharisaic opinion, although there were some Scribes of the Sadducees. The elders were the wealthy laymen from aristocratic families.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

SECTION 7 God’s Only Beloved Son (19:29-21:38).

Throughout Luke the glory, and power, and uniqueness of Jesus has been revealed, and especially His uniqueness in His relationship with God. And now the central idea of this Section is that Jesus has come as God’s only and unique Son (Luk 20:13). He reveals His authority in His ride into Jerusalem (Luk 19:29-40), in His cleansing of the Temple (Luk 19:45-46), in His decisive teaching (Luk 19:47 to Luk 20:8; Luk 20:19 to Luk 21:4), by His direct claim in the parable of the wicked tenants (the wicked husbandmen – Luk 20:9-18), and in His final prophecies concerning the future of Jerusalem and the world (Luk 21:5-38), all of which reveal that He is God’s Chosen One.

In chapter 19 Luke puts all this together in such a way as to emphasise Jesus’ glory even more strongly.

Twice he stresses that Jesus is entering as ‘the Lord’ Who has the right to commandeer His means of travel as He will (Luk 19:31; Luk 19:34, compare Luk 20:41-44).

He reveals that He is proclaimed in terms of ‘the King Who has come in the name of the Lord’ (Luk 19:38) Whose entry is such that if men were silent the very stones would cry out (Luk 19:40).

Then he portrays Him as the Prophet Who is prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem because it has not responded to His coming (Luk 19:41).

And finally he reveals why this is necessary by depicting Jesus as entering the Temple and clearing ‘His House’ of unscrupulous traders, calling it ‘a Den of Robbers’ (Luk 19:45), when it was intended by Him to be a House of Prayer.

The full significance of all this is brought out in the way that Luke presents the material, for the events themselves were partly veiled, and at the time were not all fully understood.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Rides Into Jerusalem, And Reveals Himself As God’s Only Son, Which Finally Results in His Description of His Triumphant Return (19:29-21:38).

The Section may be analysed as follows:

a After initial preparations Jesus rides into Jerusalem in triumph on a colt revealing Himself as the Messianic King. If the people had not welcomed Him the very stones would have cried out (Luk 19:29-40).

b Jesus weeps over a Jerusalem which will be desolated, thus revealing Himself as the Messianic Judge. Not one stone will be left upon another (Luk 19:41-44).

c Jesus enters the Temple, in which Israel trusts, revealing Himself as its Lord, and as God’s Cleanser, of the Temple, as a warning against the unworthiness of the chief priests, who have forfeited their authority, and of the state of their Temple which is subject to condemnation as a Den of Robbers, thus revealing Himself as the Messianic Purger (Luk 19:45-46).

d The chief priests and scribes and elders seek to destroy Jesus but could not, revealing that they lack any real authority (Luk 19:47-48).

e Jesus is challenged as to His authority and reveals their inability to judge levels of authority, because they are fearful of being stoned (Luk 20:1-8).

f The parable of the vineyard – Jesus is revealed as the only Son and the Head Cornerstone, the One in supreme authority. He is the Great Cornerstone on which His people will be established, but on which His antagonists will stumble (Luk 20:9-18).

e Jesus challenges His questioners use of Caesar’s image, and reveals that their authority comes only from Caesar (Luk 20:19-26).

d The Sadducees seek to undermine Jesus’ teaching, but could not, and have to admit His authority (Luk 20:27-40).

c Jesus as David’s Lord, the Messiah, Who has come with authority from God, is contrasted with the unworthiness of the Scribes who claim that authority and yet desolate others, for they will receive the greater condemnation in that they have forfeited their authority. They in turn are contrasted with the poor widow (Luk 20:41 to Luk 21:4).

b Jerusalem is to be desolated. Not one stone will be left upon another (Luk 21:5-7).

a After initial preparations Jesus will come back in triumph to the world (Luk 21:8-36).

“But you, watch at every season, making supplication, that you may prevail to escape all these things that will come about, and to stand before the Son of man” (Luk 21:36).

Note that the section commences in ‘a’ with the ride in triumph into Jerusalem and in the parallel it ends in the return in triumph to the world. In ‘b’ Jesus weeps over Jerusalem, not one stone will be left on another and in the parallel Jerusalem is to be devastated, and not one stone left on another. In ‘c’ Jesus as God’s Messiah cleanses the Temple as an indication of the unworthiness of the Jewish leaders, and in the parallel He demonstrates that David had declared Him to be the Messiah, and that the Scribes are unworthy. In ‘d’ the Jewish leadership conspire to destroy Jesus but could not, and in the parallel they seek to undermine His teaching, but could not. In ‘e’ Jesus is challenged concerning His authority, and in the parallel He challenges whose authority the leaders are under. In ‘f’ He reveals His unique sonship and the unworthiness of the present Jewish leadership.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Is Challenged By The Sanhedrin Members As To His Authority (19:47-20:8).

This challenge came at the beginning of this week in which Jesus was constantly tested out, and in each case His replies were more than sufficient to deal with the matters brought against Him, so that there soon came a time when they dared not ask Him any more questions. This first challenge was as to His authority for doing ‘the things’ that He does. Probably largely in mind by ‘the thongs’ was the incident of the cleansing of the Temple, but it also included his miracles and His apparent occasional disregard for the Sabbath. Their purpose in coming there was deliberately in order to show Him up before all the people, for they knew that if they were to be able to do with Him what they wanted, it was first necessary to get the support of the people. So their first aim was to demonstrate to the crowds that in fact He had no authority.

Their question seemed reasonable. There was no doubt that He was claiming some special kind of authority, and that He had caused some disruption in the Temple, and it was after all their genuine responsibility to check the credentials of any who claimed such religious authority, and they were also responsible for public order, especially in the Temple. Yet the fact is that they had had plenty of opportunity for questioning Him and weighing Him up before this, and even now they could have spoken with Him in private and discussed matters reasonably. But the truth was that they had taken on an attitude of extreme belligerence. For the way in which Jesus now dealt with them demonstrated that He saw their challenge as hostile, not as neutral.

That their approach was over more than just His actions in the Temple comes out in the strength of the deputation. His act in the Temple could have been dealt with by the Temple police. It was His whole activity that was in question and the ‘hidden’ claims that He was thus making.

Analysis.

a He was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to destroy Him (Luk 19:47).

b They could not find what they might do, for the people all hung on Him, listening (Luk 19:48).

c And it came about that, on one of the days, as He was teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel, there came on Him the chief priests and the scribes with the elders, and they spoke, saying to Him, “Tell us, by what authority do you do these things? or who is he who gave you this authority?” (Luk 20:1-2).

d He answered and said to them, “I also will ask you a question, and you tell me, The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?” (Luk 20:3-4).

c And they reasoned with themselves, saying, “If we shall say, From heaven, he will say, Why did you not believe him? But if we shall say, From men, all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet” (Luk 20:5-6).

b They answered, that they knew not whence it was (Luk 20:7).

a And Jesus said to them, “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things” (Luk 20:8).

Note that in ‘a’ the leaders of Israel acting in God’s name (they come officially together) but on their own authority were determined to destroy Him, while in the parallel Jesus refused to divulge His authority which was from that same God, on the grounds that they had revealed their incapacity to judge it. In ‘b’ they were baffled as to what to do before the people, and in the parallel they were baffled in seeking to answer Jesus’ question. In ‘c’ they questioned His authority, and in the parallel they reasoned unsuccessfully concerning John’s authority. Centrally in ‘d’ came the crunch question about the source of John’s authority.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Preaches In The Temple (19:47-21:38).

Having driven the traders out of the Temple in His prophetic zeal Jesus then revealed the greatness of His great courage by returning daily to that same Temple in order to teach the people. As the traders, who would quickly have returned, watched with baleful eyes, and the Temple police stood by alert for trouble, Jesus boldly entered the Temple again, and ignoring both, proceeded to address the crowds gathered there. Indeed the great crowds that gathered to Him would make it seem to the authorities as though He had almost taken over the Temple, apart from the Sanctuary itself.

And perhaps that was how He intended it to be seen. Having driven out the traders He has now taken possession of it in the name of the Lord, for its genuine purpose, that of proclaiming the word of God within it (a theme of Luke/Acts) and of prayer. In the coming months and years this will be one of its purposes until at length it will be finally rejected because it had rejected Him (see Luk 19:47. Luk 20:1; Luk 21:37-38; Luk 24:53; Act 2:46; Act 3:1; Act 3:8; Act 4:1; Act 5:20-21; Act 5:25; Act 5:42). While it continued as the hub of the Jewish religion, it also became for a time the source from which light could go out from the Jews to the world (Isa 2:2-4).

But whereas the authorities wanted to arrest Him they did not dare make a move in public, because He was too popular. They were forced to recognise that any move against Him could only result in tumult, and that that would then bring down on them the wrath of their Roman overlords. Thus they turned to a new tactic, and got together to decide how they might discredit Him in the eyes of the people. They knew that if they could only do that, then they could take Him. This therefore resulted in a number of challenges which are found in what follows. These included the challenge as to His authority for behaving as He did (Luk 20:1-8), the challenge as to whether it was right to give tribute to Caesar (Luk 20:20-26) , and the challenge concerning the truth of the resurrection (Luk 20:27-38).

In dealing with these Jesus not only showed them up as being hypocritical and incompetent, but went on to denounce them and their fellow leaders by means of a parable which demonstrated their connection with the villainy of those who in the past had persecuted those sent from God (Luk 20:9-18). Within this parable at the same time He revealed His own uniqueness as God’s only Son. Then once their challenges were exhausted He riposted with a quotation from Scripture concerning His Messiahship (Luk 20:41-44), following it up with a further attack on the Scribes (Luk 20:45-47) and a contrasting of them with an impoverished widow whose godly giving aroused His admiration (Luk 21:1-4). This was then followed by His description to His disciples of the future destruction of the Temple, along with prophecies concerning the future, which ended up with the promise of His return in glory (Luk 21:5-36). And during all this period He continued teaching daily to the crowds in the Temple (Luk 21:37-38).

In all these episodes Luke was calling, at least to some extent, on Marcan material, but altered so as to suit the points that he was trying to get over, and in terms of other information received. This was, however done without altering their essential message. It all begins with an attack on His authority.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Prophecy of His Rejection Luk 20:1-19 contains a prophecy of Jesus being rejected by the Jews as Jesus quotes Psa 118:22.

Psa 118:22, “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.”

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Jewish Leaders Question the Authority of Jesus Luk 20:1-8

2. The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers Luk 20:9-19

Luk 20:1-8 The Jewish Leaders Question the Authority of Jesus ( Mat 21:23-27 , Mar 11:27-33 ) In Luk 20:1-8 the Jewish leaders question the authority of Jesus at a teacher of the Jews.

Luk 20:4 Comments We find a similar phrase “of men” in Gal 1:1, “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)”

Luk 20:9-19 The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers ( Mat 21:33-46 , Mar 12:1-12 ) In Luk 20:9-19 we have the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers. This parable is addressed to the people in order to help them see the wickedness of the Jewish leaders; for the final verse of this passage says that the chief priests and scribes knew that He has spoken this parable against them (Luk 20:19).

Luk 20:19 “for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them” – Comments – Note that the meaning was hidden (Mat 13:10-15). Yet they could tell that what Jesus spoke was against them.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Witnesses of Jesus Justifying Him as the Saviour of the World (God the Father’s Justification of Jesus) Luk 4:31 to Luk 21:38 contains the testimony of Jesus’ public ministry, as He justifies Himself as the Saviour of the world. In this major section Jesus demonstrates His divine authority over man, over the Law, and over creation itself, until finally He reveals Himself to His three close disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration as God manifested in the flesh. Jesus is the Saviour over every area of man’s life and over creation itself, a role that can only be identified with God Himself. This was the revelation that Peter had when he said that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the Living God. Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:50 begins with His rejection in His hometown of Nazareth and this section culminates in Luk 9:50 with Peter’s confession and testimony of Jesus as the Anointed One sent from God. In summary, this section of material is a collection of narratives that testifies to Jesus’ authority over every aspect of humanity to be called the Christ, or the Saviour of the world.

Luke presents Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world that was presently under the authority of Roman rule. He was writing to a Roman official who was able to exercise his authority over men. Thus, Luke was able to contrast Jesus’ divine authority and power to that of the Roman rule. Jesus rightfully held the title as the Saviour of the world because of the fact that He had authority over mankind as well as the rest of God’s creation. Someone who saves and delivers a person does it because he has the authority and power over that which oppresses the person.

In a similar way, Matthew portrays Jesus Christ as the Messiah who fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as the King of the Jews supports His claim as the Messiah. John gives us the testimony of God the Father, who says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. John uses the additional testimonies of John the Baptist, of His miracles, of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and of Jesus Himself to support this claim. Mark testifies of the many miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ by emphasizing the preaching of the Gospel as the way in which these miracles take place.

This major section of the public ministry of Jesus Christ can be subdivided into His prophetic testimonies. In Luk 4:31 to Luk 6:49 Jesus testifies of true justification in the Kingdom of God. In Luk 7:1 to Luk 8:21 Jesus testifies of His doctrine. In Luk 8:22 to Luk 10:37 Jesus testifies of divine service in the Kingdom of God as He sets His face towards Jerusalem. In Luk 10:38 to Luk 17:10 Jesus testifies of perseverance in the Kingdom of God as He travels towards Jerusalem. Finally, in Luk 17:11 to Luk 21:38 Jesus teaches on glorification in the Kingdom of God.

The Two-Fold Structure in Luke of Doing/Teaching As Reflected in the Prologue to the Book of Acts – The prologue to the book of Acts serves as a brief summary and outline of the Gospel of Luke. In Act 1:1 the writer makes a clear reference to the Gospel of Luke, as a companion book to the book of Acts, by telling us that this “former treatise” was about “all that Jesus began to do and to teach.” If we examine the Gospel of Luke we can find two major divisions in the narrative material of Jesus’ earthly ministry leading up to His Passion. In Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:50 we have the testimony of His Galilean Ministry in which Jesus did many wonderful miracles to reveal His divine authority as the Christ, the Son of God. This passage emphasized the works that Jesus did to testify of Himself as the Saviour of the world. The emphasis then shifts beginning in Luk 9:51 to Luk 21:38 as it focuses upon Jesus teaching and preparing His disciples to do the work of the Kingdom of God. Thus, Luk 4:14 to Luk 21:38 can be divided into this two-fold emphasis of Jesus’ works and His teachings. [186]

[186] We can also see this two-fold aspect of doing and teaching in the Gospel of Matthew, as Jesus always demonstrated the work of the ministry before teaching it in one of His five major discourses. The narrative material preceding his discourses serves as a demonstration of what He then taught. For example, in Matthew 8:1 to 9:38, Jesus performed nine miracles before teaching His disciples in Matthew 10:1-42 and sending them out to perform these same types of miracles. In Matthew 11:1 to 12:50 this Gospel records examples of how people reacted to the preaching of the Gospel before Jesus teaches on this same subject in the parables of Matthew 13:1-52. We see examples of how Jesus handled offences in Matthew 13:53 to 17:27 before He teaches on this subject in Matthew 18:1-35. Jesus also prepares for His departure in Matthew 19:1 to 25:46 before teaching on His second coming in Matthew 24-25.

Jesus’ Public Ministry One observation that can be made about Jesus’ Galilean ministry and his lengthy travel narrative to Jerusalem is that He attempts to visit every city and village in Israel that will receive Him. He even sends out His disciples in order to reach them all. But why is such an effort made to preach the Gospel to all of Israel during Jesus’ earthly ministry? Part of the answer lies in the fact that Jesus wanted everyone to have the opportunity to hear and believe. For those who rejected Him, they now will stand before God on the great Judgment Day without an excuse for their sinful lifestyles. Jesus wanted everyone to have the opportunity to believe and be saved. This seemed to be His passion throughout His Public Ministry. Another aspect of the answer is the impending outpouring of the Holy Ghost and the sending out of the Twelve to the uttermost parts of the earth. Jesus understood the necessity to first preach the Gospel to all of Israel before sending out the apostles to other cities and nations.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Glorification: Jesus Testifies on the Kingdom of God (Passing thru Samaria and Galilee) – In Luk 17:11 to Luk 21:38 Jesus testifies about the Kingdom of God as He passes through Samaria and Galilee towards Jerusalem. This part of the journey will take Jesus into the Temple to teach the people for the last time. At this time the emphasis of Jesus’ teachings focuses on eschatology, or His Second Coming and the Kingdom of God.

He first enters a village and heals ten lepers (Luk 17:11-19) and is able to teach His disciples about thankfulness. He then responds to a question by the Pharisees and teaches about the coming of the Kingdom of God and tells them the importance of watchfulness (Luk 17:20-37). Jesus followed this teaching with the Parable of the Persistent Widow in order to explain to them how to persevere in faith while awaiting His Second Coming (Luk 18:1-8). To the self-righteous Jesus taught on humility using the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luk 18:9-14). Jesus then blesses the children who are brought to Him in order to teach on childlikeness (Luk 18:15-17). When a rich young ruler asks Jesus about inheriting eternal life, Jesus teaches him and those with Him on the dangers of riches and covetousness (Luk 18:18-30). Thus, each one of these stories tell us virtues that we are to pursue as children of the Kingdom of God awaiting His Second Coming. Jesus concludes this teaching session with a prediction to His twelve disciples about His pending death (Luk 18:31-34). After healing a blind man (Luk 18:35-43), dining with Zacchaeus (Luk 19:1-10), and teaching of faithfulness in the Kingdom of God (Luk 19:11-27), Jesus gives three prophecies concerning His arrival in Jerusalem (Luk 19:28-47), His rejection (Luk 20:1-19), and His exaltation (Luk 20:20-47). This major division closes with an eschatological discourse (Luk 21:1-38).

Here is a proposed outline:

A. Narrative: Jesus Teachings (Thru Samaria & Galilee) Luk 17:11 to Luk 19:27

B. Discourse: Jesus Instructs (Into Jerusalem) Luk 19:28 to Luk 21:38

Luk 17:11 to Luk 19:27

Narrative: Jesus Teaches on the Kingdom of God in Samaria and Galilee As Jesus makes His way to Jerusalem through Samaria and Galilee, He turns His focus upon the Kingdom of God.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Healing of the Ten Lepers (Thankfulness) Luk 17:11-19

2. Jesus Instructs Disciples on Second Coming Luk 17:20-37

3. Jesus Instructs Disciples on Prayer Luk 18:1-8

4. Corrects Pharisees on Humility Luk 18:9-14

5. Jesus Instructs Disciples on Childlikeness Luk 18:15-17

6. Jesus Teaches Disciples on Covetousness Luk 18:18-30

7. Jesus Predicts His Death Luk 18:31-34

8. Jesus Heals a Blind Man Luk 18:35-43

9. Jesus Dines with Zacchaeus Luk 19:1-10

10. Jesus Teaches on the Faithfulness in the Kingdom Luk 19:11-27

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Discourse: Jesus Instructs (Into Jerusalem) – In Luk 19:28 to Luk 21:38 Jesus enters Jerusalem. This part of the journey will take Jesus into the Temple to teach the people for the last time. At this time the emphasis of Jesus’ teachings focuses on eschatology, or His Second Coming.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Prophecy of His Arrival Luk 19:28-48

2. Prophecy of His Rejection Luk 20:1-19

3. Prophecy of His Exaltation Luk 20:20 to Luk 21:4

4. Eschatological Discourse Luk 21:5-38

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Authority of Jesus.

The challenge of the Jewish leaders:

v. 1. And it came to pass that on one of those days, as He taught the people in the Temple, and preached the Gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon Him with the elders,

v. 2. and spake unto Him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest Thou these things, or who is he that gave Thee this authority?

On one of those days, the last days before the great Passion, on Tuesday of Holy Week. See Luk 21:23-27; Mar 11:27-33. Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple after His custom, the content of His preaching being summarized by Luke as preaching the Gospel, the good news of salvation. To the very last Christ’s great concern was for the eternal welfare of the people entrusted to His ministry, and there was no greater benefit that He could give them than that of the message of redemption, the sweet and comforting proclamation of the forgiveness of all their sins through His labor of love. But Jesus was disturbed in this occupation by the leaders of the Jews. They came upon Him, stood over against Him. It is not so much the suddenness of the coming as the deliberateness and solemnity of their appearance that is brought out by the word. It denotes the official character of their coming, for they came, chief priests, scribes, elders, either authorized representatives of the great Jewish council, or the Sanhedrin in a body. They wanted Jesus to be impressed at once with the importance of their embassy. They demanded an explanation from the Lord, for He acted with such definite authority and power, in the matter of cleansing the Temple as well as in His preaching in the Temple, that they bristled with resentment. They wanted to know who it was that had given Him such power. It was in no way a humble request for truth, otherwise they would have been remarkably dense. With all the great miracles happening before their eyes and with the overwhelming power of the preaching of Christ as evidence before them, they knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that His authority was divine. But they had hardened their own hearts, and they now challenged Him before the people, to hurt His prestige, if possible.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Luk 20:1-8

Question of the priests and scribes as to the nature of the authority under which Jesus was acting.

Luk 20:1, Luk 20:2

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel. We are now in the midst of the so-called Passion week. Probably the events related in this chapter took place on the Tuesday. The first day of the week, Palm Sunday, was the day of the public entry into the city. The purification of the temple took place on the Monday, on which day also the barren fig tree was cursed. We are now considering the events of the Tuesday. The Greek word is especially a Pauline word; we find it rarely used save in his writings, and of course in those of St. Luke. St. Paul uses it twenty times, and St. Luke twenty-five. The chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, and spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? This appears to have been a formal deputation from the supreme council of the Sanhedrim The three classes here specified represented probably the three great sections of the Sanhedrin

(1) priests,

(2) scribes and rabbis,

(3) Levites.

These came upon him evidently with hostile intent, and surrounded him as he was walking in the temple. The jealous anger of the rulers of the Jews had been lately specially excited by the triumphant entry on Palm Sunday, and by the stir and commotion which the presence of Jesus had occasioned in the holy city. And in the last two or three days Jesus had evidently claimed especial power in the temple. He had publicly driven out the money-changers and vendors of sacrificial victims who plied their calling in the sacred courts. He had, in addition, forbade the carrying vessels across the temple (Mar 11:16), and had allowed the children in the temple, probably those attached to its choir, to shout “Hosanna!” to him as the Messiah. From the point of view of the Sanhedrin, such a question might well have been looked for. His interlocutors made quite sure that Jesus, in reply, would claim having received a Divine commission. Had he made openly such a formal claim in reply to their question, then he would have been cited before the supreme court to give an account of himself and his commission. Then, as they thought, would have been their opportunity to convict him out of his own mouth of blasphemy.

Luk 20:3-6

And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men! And they reasoned with themselves saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. The reply of Jesus was one of strange wisdom. HeJesusas was well known, had been introduced to the people by this very John. If the Sanhedrin acknowledged John the Baptist as a divinely accredited messenger, then surely they could not question the claims of one borne special witness to by him, brought forward and introduced to public notice by him! If, on the other hand, the Sanhedrin refused to acknowledge the authority of John as a Heaven-sent messenger, which would have been the course they would have preferred, then the popularity and influence of the Sanhedrin would have been sorely imperilled, for the people generally held firmly that John the Baptist was really a prophet of the Lord. They even fearedas we read, “All the people will stone us”personal violence on the part of the people whose favour they so zealously courted.

Luk 20:7

And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. The reply of Jesus, which so perplexed the Sanhedrin, really inflicted a grave blow to their prestige, thus compelling the grave doctors of the Law, who claimed the right of deciding all momentous questions, to decline to pronounce a judgment on so grave a question as “the position of the Baptist,” that mighty preacher who had so stirred and roused Israel and who had with his life paid the forfeit of his boldness in rebuking crime in high places, thereby no doubt enormously enlarging his already vast popularity with the people.

Luk 20:8

And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. Jesus, on hearing their plea of ignorance, now contemptuously declines to answer the Sanhedrists’ question in the direct way they desired, but at once proceeds to speak a parable which unmistakably contains the reply.

Luk 20:9-19

Parable of the wicked husbandmen in the vineyard, and the simile of the corner-stone.

Luk 20:9

A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen. Under a very thin parabolic veil, Jesus foretells the awful tragedy of the next few days. He adopts a well-known imagery, and seems to say, “Listen to Isaiah’s well-known story of the vineyard, the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, which is the house of Israel. I will expand it a little, that I may show you how it stands with you as regards this matter of ‘authority,’ that we may see whether you have as much respect for the ascertained will of God as ye pretend, so that ye should be sure to submit to me if only ye were satisfied that I was an accredited Messenger of God” (Professor Bruce). For a long time. Representing the nearly two thousand years of Jewish history.

Luk 20:10-12

He sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard. After the pains and care bestowed upon the vineyard, that is, after the many mighty works done in Israel’s behalf, the Lord of hosts looked for fruits of gratitude and fidelity in some proportion to the mighty favours which it had received from him. The people were intended to be the example to, and the educators of, the world, and, instead of carrying out these high functions, they lived the poor selfish life so sadly depicted in the long story contained in the historical and prophetical books. “He looked that it [his vineyard] should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes” (Isa 5:2). But the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. These represent the prophets, those faithful servants of the Lord, whose toils and trials and fate are painted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11.) in such glowing and eloquent language. And again he sent. In Luk 20:11 and Luk 20:12, , literally, “he added to send another”a Hebraism. This shows St. Luke here based his account on a Hebrew (Aramaic) original. Professor Bruce well puts the thoughts which possessed the wicked husbandmen thus: “When the servants came for fruit, they were simply surprised. ‘Fruit! did you say? We have occupied the position of vine-dressers, and have duly drawn our wages: what more do you want?’ Such was the actual fact in regard to the spiritual heads of Israel. They were men who never thought of fruit, but only of the honour and privilege of being entrusted with the keeping of the vineyard. They were triflers, men utterly devoid of earnestness, and the practical purpose of the property committed to their charge they habitually forgot. Generally speaking, they had utterly lost sight of the end of Israel’s calling.” Their anger flamed forth when accredited messengers of the Lord visited them and reminded them of their forgotten duties; they vented their furious wrath by persecuting some and killing others of these faithful men.

Luk 20:13

Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do! I will send my beloved son. The guilt of the husbandmen who acted as vine-dressers here reached its highest measure. The words represented here by Jesus as spoken by God, possess the deepest doctrinal value. They, under the thin veil of the parable-story, answer the question of the Sanhedrim (Luk 20:2), “By what authority doest thou these things?” The deliberative words, “What shall I do?” recall the Divine dialogue alluded to in Gem. Luk 1:26. St. Luke here represents the Father as calling the Son, “my Beloved.“ St. Mark adds that he was an only Son. Such sayings as this, and the remarkable prayer of Mat 11:25-27, are a clear indication of the Christology of the synoptists. Their estimate of the Person of the blessed Son in no wise differed from that given us by St. John at much greater length and with fuller details.

Luk 20:14

But when the husbandmen saw him; they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. The husbandmen are represented as knowing the son and heir. Nor can we resist the conclusion that some at least of those grave learned men who sat in the Sanhedrim as priests or scribes well knew who the Speaker of the awful words claimed to be, and, in resisting him and seeking his destruction, were deliberately sinning against the voice of their own hearts.

Luk 20:15, Luk 20:16

So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. The parable-story of itself was an improbable one. The conduct of the husbandmen, the long patience of the owner of the vineyard, his last act in sending his beloved and only son, all this makes up a history without a parallel in human experience. Yet this is an exact sketch of what did actually take place in the eventful story of Israel! What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. Again a hint of a solemn deliberation in heaven, a prophetic picture of the future of the Jewish race fulfilled with terrible exactness. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid! Well understood they the Speaker’s meaning here. He foreshadowed, in no veiled language, the utter ruin of the Jewish polity. When they heard this, forgetting to be scornful, they exclaimed, in deprecation of the ominous and terrible prediction, ! which we render accurately, though not literally, “God forbid!”

Luk 20:17, Luk 20:18

And he beheld them, and said, What is this then thai; is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. In spite of the deprecating expression, the severity of the tone of Jesus increases in his next words, when, looking at them with grave anger (), he proceeds to speak of himself under the figure of the rejected stone. Quoting a well-known psalm (Psa 118:22), and using the imagery of Isa 8:14, Isa 8:15 and Dan 2:44, he describes his fortunes under the imago of a corner-stonethat stone which forms the junction between the two most prominent walls of a building, and which is always laid with peculiar care and attention. In Luk 2:34 of our Gospel Simeon refers to the same well-known prophetic saying. The husbandmen who had just been described as vine-dressers are now described as builders, and the murdered son is reproduced under the image of a corner, stone tossed aside as useless. In the first part of the picture, the earthly humiliation of Messiah is portrayed when the stone is laid in the earth. In the second, the stone falling from the top of the building represents the crushing of all earthly opposition by Messiah in his glory. Woe to the builders, then, who had scornfully rejected him

Luk 20:19

And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them. Again the Sanhedrim take counsel. They long to arrest him on some capital charge; but they dared not, for the people, joined by the Passover pilgrims, had exalted him to the rank of a hero. Not a few evidently looked on him at that period as King Messiah, But the feeling of the great council was intensely bitter. They felt their power and influence was slipping away from them. These last parables were scarcely veiled attacks on them. In the last spoken words he had calmly announced that he was to die, and their hands were to carry out the bloody work. And then, in the simile of the corner-stone, he, in no ambiguous terms, told them that in killing him they will not be done with him, for that in the end they will be utterly crushed by his power.

Luk 20:20-26

The question of the tribute money.

Luk 20:20

And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take held of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. In their intense hatred, conscious that the populace were on the whole in sympathy with Jesus, the Sanhedrim, to carry out their design on his life, determined to avail themselves of the hated Roman military police. Their hope henceforward is to substantiate a charge of treason against him. This was, in those troublous times, when insurrection against the detested Gentile rule was ever being plotted, a comparatively easy matter. The incident of the tribute money, which immediately follows, was part of this new departure in the Sanhedrin policy respecting the murder they so longed to see carried out.

Luk 20:21, Luk 20:22

And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? SS. Matthew and Mark both tell us that in this plot the Herodians were united with the Pharisees (and Sanhedrin). The great Nazareth Reformer was equally hateful to both these hostile parties; hence their union in this matter. It was a well and skilfully laid question. This “tribute” was a capitation taxa denarius a head assessed on the whole population, the publicans who farmed it being answerable for it to the Roman treasury. As a direct personal tax it was most unpopular, and was looked on by scrupulous legalists and the more zealous Jews as involving a greater humiliation than the ordinary import or export customs dues. It occasioned at times popular tumults, as in the case of Judas of Galilee (Act 5:37). If Jesus answered the question in the affirmative “Yes, it is lawful for the Jews to give this tribute to Caesar,” then the Pharisees would use this decision of his as a means of undermining his credit with the zealous populace. “See, after all,” they would say, “this pretended Messiah of yours is but a poor-hearted traitor. Think of King Messiah paying tribute to a Gentile.“ If, on the other hand, the Master had said such payment of tribute was unlawful, then the Herodians, who were watching him, hoping for some such expression of opinion, would at once have denounced him to their Roman friends as One who taught the peopleonly too ready to listen to such teachinglessons of sedition. In the latter case Pilate and the officials of Rome would have taken good care that the Galilaean Master had troubled the Sanhedrin no more.

Luk 20:24

Show me a penny; literally, a denarius, a coin of the value of 7.5 d., but really representing a larger sum in our money. It seems probable, from the language of Mar 12:15, Mar 12:16, that his interrogators had to borrow the Roman coin in question from some of the neighbouring money-changers. These Jews would scarcely carry any but Jewish coins in their girdles. That the Roman denarius, however, was evidently a coin in common circulation in those days, we gather from the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar’s. “On one side would be the once beautiful but now depraved features of Tiberius; the title ‘Pontifex Maximus’ was probably inscribed on the obverse” (Farrar).

Luk 20:25

And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s. As regarded the immediate issues the Lord’s answer was in the affirmative: “Yes, it is lawful under the present circumstances to pay this tribute.” The Roman money current in the land, bearing the image and title of the Caesar, bore perpetual witness to the fact that the rule of Rome was established and acknowledged by the Jewish people and their rulers. It was a well-known and acknowledged saying, that “he whose coin is current is king of the land.” So the great Jewish rabbi Maimonides, centuries after, wrote, “Ubi-cunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolae regem istum pro Domino agnoscunt.” The tribute imposed by the recognized sovereign ought certainly to be paid as a just debt; nor would this payment at all interfere with the people’s discharging their duties God-ward. The tithes, tribute to the temple, the offerings enjoined by the Law they revered,these ancient witnesses to the Divine sovereignty in Israel might and ought still to be rendered, as well as the higher obligations to the invisible King, such as faith, love, and obedience. Tribute to the Caesar, then, the acknowledged sovereign, in no way interfered with tribute to God. What belonged to Caesar should be given to him, and what belonged to God ought to be rendered likewise to him. Godet, in a long and able note, adds that Jesus would teach the turbulent Jewish people that the way to regain their theocratic independence was not to violate the duty of submission to Caesar by a revolutionary shaking off of his yoke, but to return to the faithful fulfilment of all duties toward God, “To render to God what is God’s was the way for the people of God to obtain a new David instead of Caesar as their Lord. To the Pharisees and Zealots, ‘Render unto Caesar;’ to the Herodians, ‘Render unto God.'” Well caught the great Christian teachers their Master’s thought here in all their teaching respecting an institution such as slavery, in their injunctions concerning rigid and unswerving loyalty to established authority. So St. Paul: “Be subject to the powers not only from fear of punishment, but also for conscience’ sake” (Rom 13:1 and 1 Timothy).

Luk 20:27-40

The scornful question of the Sadducees bearing on the doctrine of the resurrection, and the Lord‘s reply.

Luk 20:27, Luk 20:28

Then came to him certain of the Saddducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. This is the only occasion related in the Gospels where our Lord comes in direct conflict with the Sadducees. They were a small but very wealthy and powerful sect. The high priests at this period and their families seem to have belonged generally to this party. They acknowledged as Divine the books of Moses, but refused to see in them any proof of the resurrection, or indeed of life after death. To the prophets and the other books they only attached subordinate importance. Supercilious worldliness, and a quiet indifference to all spiritual things, characterized them at this period. They come, comparatively speaking, little in contact with Jesus during his earthly ministry. While the Pharisee hated the Galilaean Master, the Sadducee professed to look on him rather with contempt. The question here seems to have been put with supercilious scorn. SS. Matthew and Mark preface the Lord’s answer with a few words of grave rebuke, exposing the questioners’ utter ignorance of the deep things involved in their query.

Luk 20:29-33

There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. The question here put to the Master was a well-known materialistic objection to the resurrection, and had on several occasions Been asked by these shallow Epicureansas the Talmud calls themto the great rabbis of the schools of the Pharisees. Their usual answer was that the woman in question would be the wife of the first husband.

Luk 20:34-36

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more. How different are the few rare pictures which our Master draws of the heaven-life to those painted by the great founders and teachers of other world-wide religions! In his world beyond the grave, while he tells us of a continuing existence, of varied and ever-increasing activity, in contradistinction to the Nirvana of Buddha, in these pictures of Jesus the sensual paradise of Mohammed, for instance, finds no place. Marriage is, according to our Lord’s teaching, but a temporary expedient to preserve the human race, to which death would soon put an end. But in the world to come there will be no death and no marriage. We may assume from his words here that the difference between the sexes will have ceased to exist. They are equal unto the angels. Equal with the angels in being immortal; no death; no marriage. Jesus in this place asserts that angels have a body, but are exempt from any difference of sex. The angels are here introduced because our Lord was speaking with Sadducees, who (Act 23:8) denied the existence of these glorious beings. He wished to set the seal of his teaching on the deeply interesting question of the existence of angels.

Luk 20:37, Luk 20:38

Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush. You Sadducees, in your own arbitrary fashion, set aside the authority of the prophets and all sacred books save the Pentateuch; well, I will argue with you on your own, comparatively speaking, narrow groundthe books of Moses. Even he, Moses, is singularly clear and definite in his teaching on this point of the resurrection, though you pretend he is not. You are acquainted with the well-known section in Exodus termed ‘the Bush :’ what read you there?” When he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living; more accurately rendered, not a God of dead beings, but of lividly beings. The meaning of the Lord’s argument is, “God would never have called himself the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, if these patriarchs, after their short lives, had become mere crumbling dust. God cannot be the God of a being who does not exist.” So Josephuswho, however, no doubt drew his argument from these words of Christ, for this strong and conclusive argument from the Pentateuch for the immortality of man does not appear to have occurred to rabbis before the time of our Lordso Josephus writes: “They who die for God’s sake live unto God as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the patriarchs.” The expression, “at the bush,” should be rendered “in the Bush,” that is, in that division of Exodus so named. So the Jews termed 2Sa 1:1-27. and following verses “the Bow;” Eze 1:1-28. and following section, “the Chariot.”

Luk 20:39, Luk 20:40

Then certain of the scribes answering, said, Master, thou hast well said. And after that they durst not ask him any question at all. “This prompt and sublime answer filled with admiration the scribes, who had so often sought this decisive word in Hoses without finding it; they cannot restrain themselves from testifying their joyful surprise. Aware from this time forth that every snare laid for him will be the occasion for a glorious manifestation of his wisdom, they give up this method of attack” (Godet).

Luk 20:41-44

The question rejecting Christ‘s being David‘s Son.

Luk 20:41

And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David’s Son? St. Matthew gives us more details of what went before the following saying of Jesus in which he asserts the Divinity of Messiah. Jesus asked the Pharisees, “What think ye of Christ? whose Son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord,” etc.? (Mat 22:42-44). This is one of the most remarkable sayings of our Lord reported by the synoptists; in it he distinctly claims for himself Divinity, participation in omnipotence. Unmistakably, lately, under the thinnest veil of parable, Jesus had told the people that he was Messiah For instance, his words in the parable of the “wicked husbandmen;” in the parable of “the pounds;” in his late acts in the templedriving out the sellers and buyers, allowing the children in the temple to welcome him with Messianic salutation, receiving as Messiah the welcome of the Passover pilgrims and others on Palm Sunday as he entered Jerusalem. In his later parables, too, he had with startling clearness predicted his approaching violent death. Now, Jesus was aware that the capital charge which would be brought against him would be blasphemy, that he had called himself, not only the Messiah, but Divine, the Son of God (Joh 5:18; Joh 10:33; Mat 26:65). He was desirous, then, before the end came, to show from an acknowledged Messianic psalm that if he was Messiahand unquestionably a large proportion of the people received him as suchhe was also Divine. The words of the psalm (110.) indisputably show this, viz. that the coming Messiah was Divine. This, he pointed out to them, was the old faith, the doctrine taught in their own inspired Scriptures. But this was not the doctrine of the Jews in the time of our Lord. They, like the Ebionites in early Christian days, expected for their Messiah a mere “beloved Man.“ It is most noticeable that the Messianic claim of Jesus, although not, of course, conceded by the scribes, was never protested against by them. That would have been glaringly unpopular. So many of the people, we know, were persuaded of the truth of these pretensions; Jesus had evidently the greatest difficulty to stay the people’s enthusiasm in his favour. What the scribes persistently repelled, and in the end condemned him for, was his assertion of Divinity. In this passage he shows from their own Scriptures that whoever was Messiah must be Divine. He spoke over and over again as Messiah; he acted with the power and in the authority of Messiah; he allowed himself on several public occasions to be saluted as such: who would venture, then, to question that he was fully conscious of his Divinity? This conclusion is drawn, not from St. John, but exclusively from the recitals of the three synoptists.

Luk 20:42

And David himself saith in the Book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand. The Hebrew runs thus: “Jehovah said to my Lord (Adonai).“ The Eternal is represented as speaking to Davids Lord, who is also David’s Son (this appears clearer in St. Matthew’s account, Mat 22:41-46). The Eternal addresses this Person as One raised to sit by him, that is, as a Participator in his all-power, and yet this one is also David’s Son! The scribes are asked to explain this mystery; alone this can be done by referring to the golden chain of Hebrew Messianic prophecy; no scribe in the days of our Lord would do this. Such passages as Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7; Mic 5:2; and Mal 3:1, give a complete and exhaustive answer to the question of Jesus.

Luk 20:44

David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his Son? That Jesus was the acknowledged descendant of David during his earthly ministry, is indisputable; we need but refer to the cries of the populace on Palm Sunday, the words of the woman of Canaan, of blind Bartimaeus, and others. History bears its witness to the same fact. The Emperor Domitian, it is well known, summoned the kinsmen of Jesus, the sons of Jude, his so-called brother, to Rome as “the sons of David,”

Luk 20:45-47

St. Luke‘s brief summary of the Lord‘s denunciation of the scribes and others.

Luk 20:45, Luk 20:46

Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, Beware of the scribes. Here, in St. Matthew, follows the great denunciation of the Sanhedrist authorities with the other rabbis, Pharisees, and public teachers and leaders of the people. It fills the whole of the twenty-third chapter of the First Gospel. The details would be scarcely interesting to St. Luke’s Gentile readers, so be thus briefly summarizes them. Which desire to walk in long robes. “With special conspicuousness of fringes (Num 15:38-40). ‘The supreme tribunal,’ said R. Nachman, ‘will duly punish hypocrites who wrap their talliths round them to appear, what they are not, true Pharisees ‘” (Farrar).

Luk 20:47

Which devour widows’ houses. Josephus specially alludes to the influence which certain of the Pharisees had acquired over women as directors of the conscience. For a show; rather, in pretence. “Their hypocrisy was so notorious that even the Talmud records the warning given by Alexander Jannaeus to his wife on his deathbed against painted Pharisees. And in their seven classes of Pharisees, the Talmudic writers place ‘Shechemites,‘ Pharisees from self-interest; ‘Stumblers,‘ so mock-humble that they will not raise their feet from the ground; ‘Bleeders,‘ so mock-modest that, because they will not raise their eyes, they run against walls, etc. Thus the Jewish writers themselves depict the Pharisees as the Tartuffes of antiquity” (Farrar). Shall receive greater damnation; rather, judgment. The translators of our beautiful English version are most unhappy in their usual rendering of .

HOMILETICS

Verse 19ch. 21:38

The last working day.

It is Tuesday, the last of the Lord’s working days; for Wednesday and the early part of Thursday were spent apparently in the quiet of his Bethany home. A busy, trying day, crowded with events in which we see the Son of God enduring against himself the contradiction of sinners. Let us gather up a part of its teaching. When, in the early morning, Christ entered the outer courts of the temple, he encountered a deputation of persons secretly commissioned by the Pharisees to entrap him into admissions which might be used against him (Luk 21:19, Luk 21:20). The deputation consisted (Mat 22:16) of some of the more prominent scholars of the rabbis, and some politicians who were attached to the Herodian dynasty. For so it often isa common hatred will unite those whose positions, mental or moral, are antagonistic. This has been frequently exemplified in religious and religio-political movements. The emissaries of priest and politician, thus leagued together, submit their question with ceremonious politeness (Luk 21:21, Luk 21:22). He to whom they speak knows what is in man (Luk 21:23). And, demanding the penny, with the coin held before them he returns the famous sentence on which so much has been spoken and written, which has been rendered the catchword of heated ecclesiastical controversy (Luk 21:24), “Whose image and superscription hath this penny?” It is the image and superscription of the proud Tiberius. “Then,” is the reply, “if you use his coin, give back to him what is his due, and to God, whose is the image and superscription on the human soul, give back what is God’s” (Luk 21:25). The confusion of the spies is complete. “They marvelled at his answer, and held their peace” (Luk 21:26). As the day passes, another deputation appears on the scene. This time the Sadducees (Luk 21:27) measure the sword of their wit against the Witness for God. The Sadducee mind, cold, cynical, cavilling, pronouncing all earnestness fanaticism, with no definite views as to a life beyond the present, but willing enough to toy over the subjectfaith and the things of faith being only a matter to be talked abouthas its representative in all ages. And it has some trafficking with Christ. It has its problems, its questions, its discussions. Behold an illustration of their kind in the problem submitted as to the seven brothers (Luk 21:28-33). A more foolish issue than that raised it is scarcely possible to conceive, and it might have been treated with contemptuous silence. But truth may be taught even though the occasion of the teaching is unworthy. And, by the incident related, a weighty, suggestive instruction is elicited, one which gives, as by a lightning flash, not only a glimpse into the invisible, but a discernment of the spirit of the old Mosaic economy. First of all, disabusing the thought of his hearers of their carnal conceptions of the resurrection-life (Luk 21:34-36), he reminds them (Luk 21:37) of the character which, by their own admission, belonged to God; of the great covenant word which Moses uttered when he called the Eternal “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Could they conceive him (Luk 21:38) the God of mere empty names? Does not the word imply that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not mere dust and ashes, but still living persons, heart to heart with him? It is not wonderful that the quickness and keenness of the reply, and the light which it shed on human destiny, impressed all who were present; so that the multitude hearing were astonished at his doctrine, and from the admiring crowd (Mat 22:23) came the approbation, echoed (verse 39) by certain of the scribes, “Master, thou hast well said.” But not yet does the temptation cease. A jurist, or student of the Law, accustomed to hair-splitting distinctions and controversies over mere pin-points, exclaims, “Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?” (Mat 22:35). In the school to which he belonged, the precepts of the moral and ceremonial law were reckoned to be more than six hundred, although the great Rabbi Hillel reminded his pupils that, after all, the word, “Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God,” is the essence of the Law, the rest being only commentary. “Which commandment,” asks this lawyer, “is the greatest, Master? What sayest thou?” Let us thank the tempting jurist whose question evoked the golden wisdom of the emphatic enforcement of the two sentences to which all obedience returns and from which all worthy conduct departsthe first commandment bidding us love God with all the heart, and the second, which is like to it, bidding us love our neighbour as ourselves (Mat 22:37-40). Pharisee, Sadducee, and scribe have all been defeated in their trial of Jesus. It is his turn to try them. He will not let them go until he has shown them the slowness of their minds, and left with them a question to be afterwards inwardly digested. He puts the query, “What think ye of Christ?” (Mat 22:42). And when they answer, “He is the Son of David,” he reminds them (verses 41-44) of the language of the psalmist, implying that there is another than the merely filial relation: “If David call him Lord, how is he then his Son?” Who can abide the thrusts of Jesus? No more questions are asked. No; and pointing to his discomfited tormentors, he preaches the terrible denunciation epitomized in verses 45-47, given at fuller length in the eight crushing woes of Mat 23:1-39. It is a scene that beggars descriptionthe grandest moment in the ministry of Christ, the Prophet and King. The evangelist, guided, perhaps, by the sense of fitness to that scene, represents the tone of the speech as changing, at the close of the commination, from indignation hot and strong to the moaning, saddened cry of a heart breaking with griefthe cry, already considered, over impenitent, hard-hearted Jerusalem. So the Lord moves towards the gate of the temple. It is on his way thither that he observes (Luk 21:1-4) the action of the poor widow, who cast into one of the chests which were placed in the temple courts her poor little all. How calm was the soul which, even in the heat of that day of temptation, could pause, observe, and speak of a deed apparently so insignificant I It is observable that the last word of Christ in the temple should be one concerning the love and the love-offering, which are better than formal sacrifices. Ever to be remembered, too, is the sentence, “He looked up, and saw the gifts cast into the treasury.” The gifts that men and women furtively cast, thinking that none will observe the meanness, or the ostentatiously cast money expecting that all will applaud the munificence, he sees. He is always looking to the treasury; he estimates the real value of the offering. What is the principle of the commendation? “One coin,” says an old Father, “out of a little is better than a treasure out of much; for it is not considered how much is given, but how much remains behind” “He went out and departed from the temple.” It is the “Ichabod,” the departing of the glory Thirty-five years the holy and beautiful house was left desolate: the (Mat 23:6) as to the great costly stones was fulfilled. The ploughshare of a fearful retribution was driven through Israel’s palace as through Israel itself, the quitting of the temple by the Son of God was the beginning of the end. Thenceforth it was the whited sepulchre, beautiful in appearance, but within full of the dead bones of religion and all spiritual uncleanness. Lo! the house is left to these Pharisees desolate. As the closing feature of that great Tuesday, we behold Christ and his apostles seated on the slope of Olivet. The golden radiance of the setting sun is flung over the glorious city. The pinnacles of the temple, the palaces, and massive buildings and endless houses of the Jews are, one by one, bathed in the gorgeous reflection. There, in the vale below, are Gethsemane and the Kedron, and around are the well-known features of the landscape so dear to the Israelite. It is with this prospect full in his view that Jesus gives the instruction as to the end of the age in those mysterious intimations in which the downfall of the city of the great King is so blended with other and greater catastrophes that it is difficult to distinguish what relates specially to the one and what relates specially to the others. Oh how urgent the exhortation to vigilance! How real and solemn for all the injunction “to pray always, that we may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man” (Mat 23:36)!

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Luk 20:1-8

The great Teacher’s silence.

The refusal of Jesus Christ to answer the question proposed to him demands explanation and suggests remark.

I. THE DIFFICULTY WE FIND IN HIS SILENCE. Had not the Sanhedrin a right to ask this of him? It was a legally constituted body, and one of its functions was to guide the people of the land by determining who was to be received as a true Teacher from God. John had recognized their right to formally interrogate him (Joh 1:19-27). As Jesus was claiming and exercising authority (Luk 19:45), it seems natural and right that this council of the nation should send a deputation to ask the question in the text; and, if that be so, it seems only right that our Lord should give them a formal and explicit answer. Why did he not?

II. ITS EXPLANATION. There was:

1. A formal justification. The Sanhedrin had not yet declared its mind on the great Prophet who had been before the public, and in regard to whom an official decision might well be demanded. Jesus Christ, as a Jew, had a right to ask this question concerning one whose ministry commenced before his own, and had already been concluded. If they were unwilling or unable to pronounce a judgment, they ruled themselves unfit or incompetent to do what they undertook to do. As the event proved, they declined to say, and their refusal justified Jesus in withdrawing his own case from a tribunal which confessed its own incompetence. But there was also:

2. A moral ground on which our Lord might base his action. The Sanhedrin was not solicitous to guide the people in the ways of truth and righteousness; they wanted to entrap their enemy (see Luk 19:47). Their aim was not holy, but unholy; not patriotic, but malevolent. They were not seeking the public good, but their own personal advantage; they desired to crush a rival, and so to maintain their own position of authority. Such an object as this deserved no regard; it was one not to be respected, but to be defeated; and our Lord, with Divine wisdom, adopted a course which cut the ground completely from beneath their feet.

III. ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO OURSELVES. Jesus Christ will not always answer our questions. Whether or not he will do so depends on the spirit in which he is approached by us.

1. Mere curiosity has nothing to expect of him (see Luk 13:23, Luk 13:24; Act 1:6, Act 1:7).

2. Unmeaning and unspiritual utterance makes no way with him (see Luk 14:15). The formalities and proprieties of religious language fall on his ear, but they do not touch his heart or move his hand.

3. Malevolent activity can look for nothing but defeat from his wisdom and his power (see text and following verses of this chapter).

4. Presumption will be turned away unrewarded. To see the Father as he is in himself is an impossible and impracticable desire; our wisdom is to understand him as he is revealed in his Son (Joh 14:8, Joh 14:9). We may not ask of Christ those things which are beyond the range of our powers.

5. Impatience must be postponed, and must wait the fitter time (Joh 16:12). Christ will sometimes, perhaps often, be silent when we would that he should speak to us. But there is

IV. ONE CONDITION UNDER WHICH HE WILL SPEAK TO US. Practical, spiritual earnestness will draw down his blessing, will command his gracious and life-giving word. If we earnestly and perseveringly seek our own spiritual well-being or that of others, we shall not fail to hear him say, “According to your faith be it unto you.”C.

Luk 20:16

Deprecation and doom.

We may regard

I. THE FORCE OF THESE WORDS AS ORIGINALLY APPLIED. The people who listened to this parable:

1. Deprecated a guilt in which they were to be partakers. “God forbid,” said they, “that we should do such shameful things as these, that we should be in any way involved in such crimes as these! Whosesoever hands may be dyed with the blood of the Husbandman’s Son, ours shall be stainless.” Yet were they moving on to the last and worst enormity, and already were they doing their best to bring about the guilty consummation.

2. Deprecated a doom to which they were descending. “God forbid,” said they,” that we should be subjected to the Divine wrath, and that we should lose that place of privilege we have so long enjoyed! May Heaven avert from us the calamity of having to yield to another nation or kingdom the post of honor, the place of privilege, which our fathers handed down to us!” But they were then pursuing the course which led inevitably to this very doom. If they only walked on in the path along which they were then hurrying, they were bound to reach that “miserable” end.

II. ITS APPLICATION TO OUR OWN HEARTS AND LIVES.

1. We may be supposing ourselves incapable of wrong-doing the seeds of which are already sown in our heart. Hazael proved to have “dog” enough in him to do the worst things he shuddered at when he spoke (2Ki 8:13). David discovered that he was capable of a selfishness which he was condemning to death in another (2Sa 12:5-7). These Jews shrank from an action which was described to them, as a thing too base for them to commit; and yet they were in the very act of committing it. We little know what possibilities of evil are within us; we cannot estimate aright our own capacity for wrong-doing. Probably every man has in his heart something of which sin may lay hold in some dark hour, and by which he may conceivably be led down to guilt and shame. The declension and fall of those who once stood among the worthiest and the most honored speaks to us in earnest tones of the possible wandering of our own souls from God and goodness. Even Paul realized this stern possibility, and acted upon it (1Co 9:27). The histories of the erring and ruined souls of men who once seemed beyond the reach of wrong and crime, but who became entangled in their meshes and were slain by them, call upon us to be

(1) watchful with a constant vigilance, and

(2) prayerful with an unflagging earnestness, lest we too fall under the power of temptation (Mat 26:41).

2. We may be supposing ourselves safe from a doom which lies straight in front of us. How many a youth imagines himself secure from a degradation and a darkness toward which he has, in the sight of God, already set his foot! How many a man considers himself safe from a low and dishonorable level, when he is already on the slope that leads down to it I What if we could see the goal to which the path we tread is tending! “God forbid,” we say, “that this should be our destiny!” and all the while our face is turned in that direction. There is “an earnest need for prayer” that God would show us what is the way in which we are walking; that, if we are in the wrong road, he would “apprehend” us even as he apprehended his chosen messenger (Php 3:12), and turn our feet into the way of his testimonies (Psa 139:23, Psa 139:24).C.

Luk 20:17

The rejection and exaltation of Christ.

We look at

I. THE REJECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. Its strangeness.

1. From an evidential point of view. How came the builders to reject that valuable Stone? How was it that all the miracles of Jesus, so wonderful, so beneficent, so simple, and so credible as they were; that the life of Jesus, so holy and so beautiful, so gracious and so winning as it was; that the truth spoken by Jesus, so profound, so original, so lofty, so satisfying to the deepest wants of man as it was;how came it to pass that all this left him the “despised and rejected of men”?

2. From a providential point of view. How do we account for it that there should have been such a long and complicated preparation for the coming of the Messiah of the Jews, and of the Redeemer of mankind, and that he should fail to be recognized when he came? Does not all that Divine arrangement of Law and ritual and prophecy, of privilege and discipline, seem to have been attended with failure? Of what use was all that elaborate preparation, when the people of God rejected the Son of God? when he to whom everything pointed, and of whom everything foretold, was not welcomed and honored, but denounced as a deceiver and slain as a criminal?

II. CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ACCOUNT FOR IT; or which, if they do not account for it, lessen our surprise concerning it.

1. As to the evidential difficulty. We need not wonder that the very strongest evidence failed to convince those who were unconvinced. What evidence can prevail against bigotry (or prejudice) and selfishness combined? Our knowledge and experience of mankind must have abundantly proved that either of these can repel the clearest and weightiest proofs; much more can both of them. And surely prejudice and self-interest never found a firmer seat than they found in the minds of the “chief priests and the scribes” who led the opposition to our Lord.

2. As to the providential difficulty. We must take into our consideration

(1) the fact that God’s dealings with our race include such apparent failures as this, and oblige us to wait the issue before we judge;

(2) the fact that the long preparation of Israel was by no means wholly an apparent failure. There is evidence of much fulfillment of prophecy; there is the valuable contribution of all that is contained in Old Testament Scripture, which is a rich and precious heritage to the human race; and there is, above all, the formation of a pure and reverent people, distinguished from and raised above all surrounding nations in the supreme element of moral character, which supplied the human material for the first great missionary epoch. Moreover, the very rejection of Jesus Christ has played to be the beginning and foundation of ultimate success, and of a success far deeper and larger than any contemporary and national triumph would have been. It has led up to

III. HIS EXALTATION.

1. Notwithstanding his humiliation. That Stone was rejected indeed; that Teacher was silenced, that Prophet slain, that cause covered with infamy; those hopes, cherished by a few disciples, were laid in the tomb and covered from sight; yet, notwithstanding all that apparent defeat and discomfiture, that “Stone has become the Head of the corner,” that Teacher the great Teacher of Divine wisdom, that Prophet the acknowledged Savior of mankind, that cause the kingdom of God upon earth.

2. ,is the reward of his humiliation. “Wherefore also God hath highly exalted him” (Php 2:6-11; Heb 2:9, Heb 2:10).

3. As the result of his humiliation. “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.” The cross has been the great loadstone which has been attracting the world. It is to a crucified Savior, once slain for our sins, dying in mercy toward our race, that we are drawn in faith and love. It is he “who loved us, and gave himself for us” unto such shame and sorrow and deathit is he whom we rejoice to make the Friend of our heart and the Sovereign of our life.

1. Learn the place of privilege. It is well for us that we stand where we do standat a point in time where we can recognize the Corner-stone. The mountain is best seen afar off, the city or the sea is best seen from above, the character of the generation is best understood after some interval of time. We know Jesus Christ better than we should have done had we lived when he was the Stone rejected of the builders. We could not be better placed than we are by the providence of God for understanding him and rejoicing in his worth.

2. Know the day of opportunity. Recognizing the true character of that once-slighted “Stone,” knowing Jesus Christ as we know him now, it is for us to accept him without delay as our personal Redeemer, and to commend him, with all devotedness, to the estimation and trust of all beholders.C.

Luk 20:18

Contact and conflict with Christ.

There is one thing which, as a stone or rock, Christ is willing and waiting to be to us; there is that also which, in spite of his own desire concerning us, we may compel him to be to us.

I. THE ROCK ON WHICH WE MAY BUILD.

1. Christ desires to be as the Corner-stone or Foundation-stone on which the whole structure of our character and of our destiny is resting.

2. If we exercise a living faith in him, we shall find him to be all this to us.

(1) Building on him, our confidence in the forgiving love of God will be well grounded and our peace of mind will be secure;

(2) building on him, our character will be strong and saintly, our life will be useful and noble;

(3) resting on him, our souls will be sustained in hours of trial;

(4) abiding in him, we shall have peace at the last.

II. THE ROCK AGAINST WHICH WE ARE BRUISED OR EVEN BROKEN, We cannot come, in any sense or degree, into conflict with Christ without being injured by the act.

1. To turn from him is to deprive ourselves of the best; it is to rob ourselves of the highest motives to rectitude and spiritual worth, of the deepest springs of goodness and of beauty, of the heavenliest influences that can breathe upon the soul, of the purest and most elevating joys that can fill the heart, of the noblest activities that can occupy and crown our life.

2. To reject him, whether by deliberate and determined refusal or by a foolish and guilty procrastination, is to do conscious wrong to ourselves; it is to injure our conscience, to weaken our will, to suffer constant spiritual deterioration, to be moving along that downward slope which ends in darkness of mind and in self-despair,

3. To disobey the commandments of Christ is to come into collision with those laws of God which are also laws of our spiritual nature, any and every infraction of which is attended with inward and serious injury; e.g. to hate our brother without a cause, to look with lustful eye, to love our own life rather than the cause of God and righteousness,this is to suffer harm and damage to the spirit.

4. To work against Christ and his gospel is to be constructing that which will be destroyed, is to be delving and building on the sand with the tide coming in which will wash everything away. In no way can we take up an attitude of resistance to Jesus Christ without “wronging our own soul;” it may be by a cruel renunciation of all that is best, or it may be by incurring the judgment which must fall and does tan upon folly and sin.

III. THE ROCK WHICH MAY CRUSH US IN ITS FALL. “On whomsoever it shall fall,” etc. The snow-drift and the glacier are magnificent objects on which to gaze; but how terrible is the descending, destructive avalanche! It is simply inevitable that the brightest light should cast the deepest shade; that fullest privilege and most abounding opportunity should, in the case of the guilty, end in deepest condemnation and severest penalty (Joh 3:19; Heb 6:4-8; Php 3:18, Php 3:19). “When God arises to judgment,” when the rock of Divine dissatisfaction falls, when the “wrath of the Lamb” is revealed, then must there be made known what God intends by “everlasting destruction from his presence.” All that is meant by that we do not know: we may well resolve that, by timely penitence and loving faith, we will never learn by the teaching of our own experience.C.

Luk 20:19-26

The sacred and the secular. There are three preliminary truths which may be gathered before considering the proper subject of the text.

1. The worthlessness of heartless praise. What value do we suppose Jesus Christ attached to the eulogium here pronounced (Luk 20:2)? How worthless to him now are the epithets which are uttered or the praises which are sung by lips that are not sincere?

2. The evil end of a false attitude toward Christ. The attitude of hostility which his enemies had definitely taken up led them to resort

(1) to shameful deceit (Luk 20:20), and

(2) to a malign conspiracy against the one Teacher who could and would have led them into the kingdom of God.

3. The final discomfiture of guilt. (Luk 20:26.) It is silenced and ashamed. Respecting the principal subject before us, we should consider

I. TWO NOTIONS THAT FIND NO COUNTENANCE IN OUR LORD‘S REPLY,

1. When Jesus answered, “Render unto Caesar,” etc., he did not mean to say that the spheres of the secular and the sacred lie so apart that we cannot serve God while we are serving the state. Let none say, “Politics are politics, and religion is religion.” That is a thoroughly unchristian sentiment. If we ought to “eat and drink,“ if we ought to do everything to the glory of God, it is certain that we ought to vote at elections, to speak at meetings, to exercise our political privileges, and to discharge our civil duties, be they humble or high, to the glory of God, it is certain that we ought to vote at elections, to speak Christ as truly and as acceptably in the magistrates’ court, or in the lobby of the House of Commons, as he can be in the school or the sanctuary.

2. Nor did Christ mean to say that these spheres are so apart that a man cannot be serving the state while he is engaged in the direct service of God; for, indeed, there is no way by which we render so true and great a service to the whole body politic as when we are engaged in planting Divine truth in the minds and hearts of men; then are we sowing the seeds of peace, of industry, of sobriety, of every national virtue, of a real and lasting prosperity.

3. Nor yet that there are no occasions whatever when we may act in opposition to the state. Our Lord encouraged his apostles in their refusal to obey an unrighteous mandate (Act 5:28, Act 5:29).

II. THE LEADING TRUTH WHICH CHRIST‘S WORDS CONTAIN, Viz. that our obligation to God does not conflict with our ordinary allegiance to the civil power. If the latter should enjoin apostasy, or blasphemy, or positive immorality, then disobedience would become a duty, and might rise into heroism, as it has often done. But ordinarily, we can serve God and be loyal citizens at the same time, and this none the less that the rulers whom we serve are Mohammedans or pagans. To be orderly and law-abiding under the rule of an infidel is as far as possible from being unchristian. On the contrary, it is decidedly Christian (see 1Ti 2:2; Rom 3:1-7). Indeed, service rendered to “the froward” has a virtue not possessed by service to “the good and gentle.” and faithful citizenship “in a strange land” may be a more valuable and acceptable service than in a Christian country. Our duty, in the light of Christ’s teaching, is not that of discovering conscientious objections to the support of the civil government; it is rather that of rendering a hearty obedience to the Divine will, and also of conforming in all loyalty to the requirements of human law.C.

Luk 20:27-38

Foundations of Christian hope.

On what foundation do we build our hope for the future? Not now on any philosophical deductions; these, may have a certain measure of strength to some minds, but they are not firm enough to carry such a weight as the hope of immortality. We build on the Word that cannot be brokenon the promise of Jesus Christ. Our future depends upon the will of our Divine Creator, on the purpose of our God, and only he who came from God can tell us what that purpose is. Here, as elsewhere, we have

I. THE FIRM GROUND OF CHRISTIAN PROMISE. Our Lord tells us, from his own knowledge, that there is a future for the sons of men. And he indicates some features of this future.

1. Our life will be one of perfect purity. There is to be nothing of the grosser element that enters into our social relations here (Luk 20:35). Great founders of great faiths have promised to their disciples a paradise of enjoyment of a lower kind. Christ leads us to hope for a life from which everything that is sensual will be removed. Love will remain, but it will be spiritual, angelic, absolutely pure.

2. It will be a life without end, and therefore without decay. “Neither can they die any more” (Luk 20:36). How blessed the life that knows no fear of interruption, of dissolution, of sudden cessation, and, more particularly, that is free from the haunting consciousness of passing on to a time when faculty must fade, or the sadder sense of decline already commenced or even hastening to its end! What will it be to live a life that becomes ever brighter and fuller as the periods of celestial service pass away!

3. It will be a life of highest honor and elevation. “They are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luk 20:36). “Now are we the sons of God,” and when the future life is disclosed our sonship will mean yet more to usit will be life on a loftier plane, in a deeper and fuller sense; we shall be nearer to God, and more like him in our faculty and in our spirit and our character.

II. THE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF CHRIST‘S INFERENCE. To be “the God of Abraham,” he argued, meant to be the God of a living soul; he whose God was the living God was a living man in the fullest sense. For God to be our God includes everything we need. The living God is the God of living men; the loving God of loving men; the blessed God of happy men; the holy God of holy men. All the highest good for which we long in our noblest hours is guaranteed to us in that “the everlasting God, the righteous and the faithful and the loving, One, is our God.

1. The heritage of the future is not promised unconditionally; there are “those accounted worthy to obtain” it; therefore there are those who are not worthy, and who will miss it.

2. The condition that is implied is that of a living personal connection with God himself. Those who can truly claim him as “their God” may confidently look forward to an eternal home in his presence and in his service. To us, to whom he has revealed himself in his Son, this means a living union with Jesus Christ our Savior. To know him, to live unto him, to abide in him,this is life eternal.C.

Luk 20:40-44

The lowliness and the greatness of Jesus Christ.

This is the subject of these verses; but they are suggestive of minor truths. We have

I. A PROOF OF UTTER FALSITY. (Luk 20:40.) How came these men to be afraid to ask questions of Christ? Others did not shrink from him, or fear to ask things of him. The children were not afraid of him; nor were “the strangers”those not of Israel: nor were the women who waited on him and learned of him; nor the simple-hearted and genuine inquirers. It was only the men who sought his overthrow, because they dreaded his exposure; it was only those who shrank from his heart-searching gaze and his truth-telling words, that dared not approach him and ask questions of him. No man however ignorant, no child however young, need shrink from the Lord of love, from asking of him what he needs; it is only the false who are afraid.

II. THE TIME FOR AGGRESSIVE ACTION. The successful general may act long on the defensive, but he waits and looks for the moment of attack. Jesus bore long with the questionings of his enemies, but the time had come for him to ask something of them. We may well bear long with the enemies of Christ, but the hour comes when we must bear down upon them with convincing and humbling power.

III. THE OCCASIONAL DUTY OF PUTTING MEN INTO A DIFFICULTY. On this occasion our Lord placed his hearers in a difficulty from which he did not offer to extricate them. His prophetic function was to enlighten, to liberate, to relieve. But here was an occasion when he best served men by placing them in a difficulty from which they found no escape. Such service may be rare for a Christian teacher, but it does occur. There are times when we cannot render a man a better service than that of humbling him, of showing him that there are mysteries in presence of which he is a little child.

IV. THE WISDOM OF FURTHER INQUIRY. These Pharisees imagined that they knew everything about the Scriptures that could be known. They were learned, but they were unwise; they had a large verbal and literal acquaintance with their sacred books, but they had missed their deepest meaning. They had not inquired humbly, intelligently, reverently enough. How much more is there in our New Testament than we have yet found! What depth of wisdom in the words of Christi What enlightenment in the letters of his apostles! Though we may not have missed our Way so grievously as the scribes had done, yet may there be very much of Divine truth we have not yet discovered, which patient and devout inquiry will disclose.

V. THE LOWLINESS AND THE GREATNESS OF JESUS CHRIST. He is the Son of David, and he is also his Lord. We understand that better than the most advanced and enlightened of his disciples could at that point. “As concerning the flesh” he was “born of a woman, made under Law;” yet is he “exalted to be a Prince and a Savior;” Son of man and Son of God. Only thus could he be what he came to be:

1. Our Mediator between God and man.

2. Our Divine Savior, in whom we put our trust and find mercy unto eternal life; our Divine Friend, of whose perfect sympathy we can be assured; our rightful Lord, to whom we can bring the offering of our hearts and lives.C.

Luk 20:45-47

Character and precept, etc.

These verses suggest five truths of practical importance.

I. THAT CHARACTER IS OF MORE CONSEQUENCE THAN PRECEPT. “Beware of the scribes;” they “sit in Moses’ seat, and teach things that you should do” (Mat 23:2); but their conduct is such that they are to be avoided rather than sought after. Beware of the bad man, though he be a good teacher; the influence of his life will be stronger than the effect of his doctrine; the one will do more harm than the other will do good. In a religious teacher, character is the principal thing; if that be unsound, proceed no further; seek some one else, one that you can respect, one that will raise you by the purity of his heart and the beauty of his behavior.

II. THAT UNGODLY MEN FALL INTO A FOOLISHNESS THE DEPTH OF WHICH THEY DO NOT SUSPECT. How childish and even contemptible it is for men to find gratification in such display on their own part and in such obsequiousness on the part of others as is here described (Luk 20:46)! To sink to such vanity is wholly unworthy of a man who fears God, and who professes to find his hope and his heritage in him and in his service. They who thus let themselves down do not know how poor and small is the spirit they cherish and the behavior in which they indulge; they do not suspect that, in the estimate of wisdom, it is at the very bottom of the scale of manliness.

III. THAT FAMILIARITY WITH DIVINE TRUTH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION OF THE WORST OFFENCES. The scribes themselves, familiar with every letter of the Law, could descend to heartless misappropriation in conjunction with a despicable hypocrisy (Luk 20:47). Guilt and condemnation could go no further than this. It is solemnizing thought that we may have the clearest view of the goodness and the righteousness of God, and yet may be very far on the road to perdition. Paul felt the solemnity of this thought (1Co 9:27). It is well that the children of privilege and the preachers of righteousness should take this truth to heart and test their own integrity.

IV. THAT THE AFFECTATION OF PIETY IS A SERIOUS AGGRAVATION OF GUILT. The “making long prayers” entailed a “greater condemnation.” Infinitely offensive to the Pure and Holy One must be the use of his Name and the affectation of devotedness to his service as a mere means of selfish acquisition. The fraud which wears the garb of piety is the ugliest guilt that shows its face to heaven. If men will be transgressors, let them, for their own sake, forbear to weight their wrong-doing with a simulated piety. The converse of this thought may well be added; for it is truth on the positive side, viz.

V. THAT DEVOUT BENEVOLENCE IS GOODNESS AT ITS BEST. TO serve our fellow-men because we love Christ, their Lord and ours, and because we believe that he would have us succor them in their need, is to do the right thing under the purest and worthiest prompting; it is goodness at its best.C.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR

Luk 20:1-19

Christ’s collision with the Sanhedrin.

We have studied Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his cleansing of the temple. And now we have to notice the interruptions to which he was subjected as he improved his last days of ministration in the temple-court. He had exercised authority in God’s house, he was also teaching with authority the people; hence the Jewish rulers came, demanding from him the sign of his authority to do so. As with many still, there is great demand for signs, certificates, orders. In these circumstances Jesus throws them back on John the Baptist, and asks if they had made out his authority. This so “cornered” them that they decline giving an opinion, and Jesus consequently is warranted in declining to tell them by what authority he takes the course he does. Now, here it is to be noticed

I. THE MINISTRY OF JESUS WAS BOUND UP HISTORICALLY WITH THE CLAIMS OF JOHN. It was to the Baptist he went for baptism. It was when being baptized by John that he received the gifts of the opened heaven, descending dove, and assurance of Sonship. It was from John he received the first start in securing disciples, when the Baptist pointed to him and said, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!” How natural, therefore, that Jesus should take the chief priests back to John! It was no able manoeuvre on the Master’s part, but simple historic defense. “John recognized my authority and misssion; he set his seal upon them. Should this not satisfy you? And surely this course taken by our Lord has deep significance. If ever one in this world might have stoood in his own individual right an said “My work and teaching are surely self-evidently Divine,” he was the Man; but no, he takes his questions along the historic line, and shows how he stands on prophetic ground, as successor of the last of the prophets. It was the recognition of the prophetical succession rather than any independent assumption.

II. FEAR OF MAN WILL INCAPACITATE MEN FOR THE SIMPLEST ACT OF JUDGMENT. What Jesus asks these rulers to decide is whether John the Baptist, in introducing baptism, was taking a Heaven-inspired course or not. “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?” Instead of facing the question like men, they fenced with it. They saw clearly that in either case their answer would put them in a difficulty. If they said that John’s baptism was from heaven, Jesus would immediately say, “Why then believed ye him not?” but if they declared it was a mere human innovation, they would come into such collision with the people as to run the risk of being stoned. In fear of man they decline judgment. Now it is instructive here to notice that such temporizers never can be martyrs. They have no notion of dying for their conviction about John. Why should they be stoned? They prefer being silent on the whole subject. As long as we fear man more than God, as long as we value man’s esteem more than truth, we are unfit for judgment. We only become impartial when we are ready to take truth with all its consequences upon us.

III. THE INCOMPETENT DO NOT DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS JUDGES. These rulers have demonstrated their utter incompetency to undertake any decision upon a prophet’s claims. They are consequently treated by Jesus as undeserving of the position of judges. It were well if this rule were faithfully observed. Men are treated often as if they had the judicial spirit, capacity, and temper, when they are simply man-fearing partisans. It is lost time putting such people in the judgment-seat. Better far to spend the time in teaching the common people, as the Master did, than in trying to convince the partisans who interrupt good work and do none themselves.

IV. BY A PARABLE OF JUDGMENT HE REVEALS TO THESE PARTISANS THEIR DANGER. The vineyard indicates the theocratic people, the husbandmen the men who exercised government among them, and the naturally expected fruit was the loyalty and spiritual service which prophets called for hut seldom secured for their Master in heaven. Instead of rendering the fruits, the rulers of the Jewish people subjected the line of prophets to increasing indignities. Last of all, the only Son is sent; but, instead of reverencing him and yielding to Divine demands, they cast him out of the Jewish Church and kill him. How clearly does Jesus thus claim Sonship to God, and indicate his approaching and dreadful doom! The result of this murder of God’s Son is to be the transference of the theocracy from the Jews to other husbandmen. The chief priests and scribes are to be supplanted by apostles; and Judaism to give place to Christianity. Seeing that the parable was spoken against them, they cry, “God forbid!” but Jesus clinches his argument by apt quotation from their own Scriptures. He asks, “Is not the stone rejected of the builders to become the head of the corner? And will not all who collide with it be either broken or ground to powder?” In this way he claims to be the test of men, and his rejection to be fatal and final.R.M.E.

Luk 20:20-40

Christ supreme in debate.

We have seen in the last section how our Lord told a parable whose bearing was unmistakably against the Jewish rulers. They are determined, in consequence, to so entrap him in discussion as, if possible, to bring him within the grasp of the Roman governor. But in entering the doubtful field of debate with a base purpose such as this, it was, as the sequel shows, only to be vanquished. Jesus proves more than a match for the two batches of artful men who try to entrap him. Let us look at the victories separately, and then at Jesus remaining Master of the field.

I. HIS VICTORY OVER THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY. (Luk 20:21-26.) This party was composed mainly of Pharisees. They corresponded to the modern revolutionary party in settled or conquered states. They were constantly fomenting sedition, plotting against the Roman power, the sworn enemies of Caesar. They come, then, with their difficulty about tribute. But notice:

1. Their real tribute to Christ‘s character in their pretended flattery. (Luk 20:21.) They own to his face that he was too brave to make distinctions among men or to accept their persons. In other words, their testimony clearly is that, like God his Father, Jesus was “no respecter of persons.” No one is fit to be a teacher of truth who panders to men’s tastes or respects their persons. Only the impartial mood and mind can deal with truth truthfully. In the hollow flattery of the Pharisees we find rich testimony to the excellency of Jesus.

2. Notice their scruple about paying tribute. (Luk 20:22.) The law of the nation might possibly be made to teach the duty of being tributary to none. It was this they wished to elicit from him, and so hand him over to the governor as seditious. They wished a pretext for revolution, and if he furnished them with one and perished for it, so much the better, they imagined. The baseness of the plot is evident. Their hearts are hostile to Caesar, but they are ready to become “informers” against him for the sake of getting rid of him.

3. Notice how simply he secured a victory. Showing them at once that he knew their designs, he asks them to show him a penny. In his poverty he hardly possessed at this time a spare penny to point his teaching. Having got the penny, he asks about the image on the currency, and receiving for answer that it was Caesar’s, he simply instructs them to give both Caesar and God their due. Caesar has his domain, as the currency shows. He regulates the outward relations of men, their barter and their citizenship, and by his laws he makes them keep the peace. But beyond this civil sphere, there is the moral and the religious, where God alone is King. Let God get his rights as well as Caesar, and all shall be well. These words of Christ sounded the death-knell of the Jewish theocracy. They point out two mutually independent spheres. They call upon men to be at once loyal citizens and real saints. We may do our duty by the state, while at the same time we are conscious citizens of heaven, and serve our unseen Master in all things.

II. HIS VICTORY OVER THE SADDUCEES. (Luk 20:27-38.) The Pharisees having been confounded by his subtle power, he is next beset by the rival party, the party of sceptical and worldly tendencies. They have given over another world as a no-man’s land, the region of undoubted difficulty and puzzle. Especially do they think it impossible to settle the complicated relations into which men and women enter here in any hereafter. Accordingly they state a case where, by direction of the Mosaic Law, a poor woman became successively the wife of seven brothers. In the other life, ask they, whose wife shall she be? Christ’s answer is again triumphant through its simplicity. In the immortal life to which resurrection leads there shall be no marrying or giving in marriage. All shall be like. the angels. No distinction in sex shall continue. All are to be “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Revised Version). The complicated earthly relations shall give place to the simplicity of sonship. God’s family shall embrace all others. His Fatherhood shall absorb all the descending affections which on earth illustrate feebly his surpassing love, and our sonship to him will embrace all the ascending affection which his descending love demands. The Simplicity of a holy family, in which God is Father and all are brethren, and the angels are our highborn elder brethren, will take the place of those complex relationships which sometimes sweeten and sometimes sadden human love. But, in addition, our Lord renders Sadducceism ridiculous by showing from the Scriptures these sceptics revered that the patriarchs had not ceased to be, but were still living in the bosom of God. For God, in claiming from the burning bush to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed the reality of life beyond death. It was a demonstration of the resurrection. The patriarchs must have been living worshippers when God was still their God, and this life unto him demands for its perfection the resurrection. The plenitude of life is guaranteed in the continued and worshipful life beyond the grave. In this simple and perfect fashion Jesus silences the Sadducees.

III. HE REMAINS COMPLETE MASTER OF THE FIELD. (Luk 20:39, Luk 20:40.) They are beaten in the field of debate. Jesus is Victor. There is no question now which they can ask him. All is over on the plane of intellectual and moral argument. Not even a Parthian arrow can be shot against him. But treachery and brute force remain, and they can have him betrayed and crucified whom they cannot refute. Resort to weapons like these is always proof of weakness. Victory has always been really with the persecuted party. Persecution on the part of any cause or organization demonstrates its inherent weakness. Hence we hail the Christ in the temple as the supreme Master and Conqueror of men. The very men who put unholy hands upon him must have felt that they were doing the coward’s part after ignominious defeat. The weapons of our warfare should always be spiritual; with carnal weapons we only confess defeat and court everlasting shame.R.M.E.

Luk 20:40 Luk 21:4

Vindications and judgments.

We saw on the last occasion how Christ had vanquished all who had tried with him the fortunes of debate. And now we find him putting a pertinent question to them about himself, and effectually puzzling them. Not, of course, that he had this in view in presenting it. His purpose was always a clear and pure one; it was, as Godet suggests, to vindicate beforehand those claims to Divine Sonship on the ground of which they are so shortly to condemn him to death.

I. CONSIDER CHRIST AS DAVID‘S SON AND LORD (Verses 41-45.) It is clear from the Gospels and from the Targums that the Messiah wanted by the Jews was not necessarily to be Divine. It was a temporal prince, a military Messiah, they longed for; and no Divinity was needful to play the role of “conquering hero” which they desired. A merely human Messiah would have suited them admirably. When they got one, therefore, who claimed to be Divine, they condemned him for blasphemy, and never stopped until they had made away with him by crucifixion. Our Lord’s question in the temple was to arouse them to a sense of Messiah’s proper claims. This suggests:

1. How prone we are to be satisfied with mere human saviours. The Jews wanted a Messiah to collect armies, to deliver them from Roman bondage, and to give them all good situations in the new kingdom. They wanted nothing that a clever leader could not do for them. And there are plenty of people whose only desired salvation is from hunger and thirst and discomfort of a physical kind. They have no real longing after deliverance from sin and covetousness and discontent. Their one thought is to find somebody who can help them on a bit.

2. David‘s royal line produced a Prince who was also David‘s Lord. Now, it is plain from the psalm (110.) which Jesus quotes that David realized in the Messiah his present Lord. He ruled over David, and was recognized by David as his Lord. When we add to this the fact that David was the greatest monarch of his time, we see that the only interpretation of this Lordship is the Divinity of Messiah. This Messiah is made by the Most High to sit at his right hand until his enemies are made his footstool. The whole picture involves and implies Christ’s Divinity. Now, if these scribes and Pharisees had acted honestly, they would have said, “Here is a point which escaped us; this Lordship over David is a claim which the sonship does not cover; there must be more in the Messiahship than we suspect; we must reconsider our attitude towards Jesus, and do him justice.” But instead of this, they deliberately ignored the difficulty, and went on with their persecution of the Divine Messiah. Now, this is surely to show us that we need a Divine Savior, for the salvation must be from the power and guilt of sin. We need a Savior who will be our Lord; to whom we not only owe allegiance, but give it cheerfully. It is a Divine Lord of the ages, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the infinite Majesty, whom we need to give us the emancipation which can alone profit our souls.

II. CONSIDER CHRIST‘S CONDEMNATION OF THE SCRIBES. (Verses 45-47.) Seeing how they reject the scriptural evidence of his claims, Jesus proceeds to warn his disciples against them. He knows them thoroughly. And:

1. He charges them with skilfully manufacturing a religious reputation. They wore peculiar garments; the man-milliners of the day had been brought into requisition. They welcomed recognition from the people in the markets; they took, as their right, the highest seats in the synagogue and the chief rooms at social feasts. They manufactured such a reputation as secured them abundant honor.

2. They traded upon their reputation. Widows got their advice and intercession, and paid them well for giving it. In fact, our Lord charges them with devouring widows’ houses in their greed. Instead of the widows inspiring pity, they seemed eligible because defenceless victims.

3. Their condemnation shall be proportionally great. Professions which are traded upon will ultimately procure a deeper condemnation. How needful that the genuineness of our profession should be tested! If it is for God’s dear sake, and not for the sake of worldly advantage, it will stand the test at last.

III. CONSIDER CHRIST‘S ECOMNIUM, UPON THE POOR WIDOW. (Luk 21:1-4) Sitting over against the treasury our Lord saw both rich and poor depositing their gifts. Some of the rich gave largely out of their abundance, and Jesus noted doubtless the proportion. But one poor widow came along, and she deposited in the temple-chest a single farthing. It was little, but it was her all. Behind her sackcloth Jesus discerned the biggest heart in all the company. Now, we are taught by this circumstance:

1. That all our gifts are deposited in sight of Christ. As Divine Savior he sits, so to speak, over against every treasury, and notes what the people deposit there. There is no such thing as secret giving so far as Jesus is concerned. We may give so that the right hand knows not what the left is giving, but Jesus knows all the same.

2. It is the heart which determines the character of our liberality. It is not the quantity of money, but the quality of the act, which is important. A farthing from a widow is more in the sight of God than thousands from a millionaire. Hence we ought to examine ourselves, and see clearly what our motives may be.

3. Hence it is possible even for the poorest to be liberal. It is this which we require to have driven home. When poor as well as rich give with large-heartedness, the Church’s “golden age” shall come, It is to this that our Lord would lead us.R.M.E.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Luk 20:1-8 . See on Mat 21:23-27 ; Mar 11:27-33 . Luke follows Mark with some abbreviation, and with some material peculiar to himself, as also in the further portions of this chapter.

] (without , see the critical remarks) is, as Luk 5:17 , Luk 8:22 , an approximate statement of the date; the days in question are meant, to wit, of the stay in Jerusalem. Schleiermacher is arbitrary in seeing here the beginning of a special document.

] came upon . The idea of suddenness and unexpectedness is not of itself contained in the word, and needed to be expressed (as Luk 21:34 ; Isocr. viii. 41; Philo Flacc. p. 981 C, al . in Loesner), or at least suggested by the context (comp. on Luk 2:9 ).

Luk 20:2 . ] introduces a more definite idea of the point of the question.

Luk 20:3 . ] is the simple and : I will ask you, and tell me (what I shall ask you). Then follows the question itself.

.] they reckoned, they considered . Only here in the New Testament, frequently in the classical writers.

Luk 20:6 . . ] a later form of the tradition. The word is not elsewhere retained. Comp. in Josephus, , Exo 17:4 . It denotes the stoning down .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

B. Controversial Discourses against His Enemies.

Luke 20

1. The Closing Controversy with the Pharisees and the Chief of the People concerning the Authority of Jesus (Luk 20:1-19)

(In part parallel with Mat 21:23-27; Mat 21:33-46; Mar 11:27-33; Mar 12:1-12.)

1And it came to pass, that on one of those1 days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests [the priests2] and the scribes came upon him with the elders, 2And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? 3And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one3 thing, and answer me: 4The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? 5And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we 6shall say, From heaven, he will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and [om., and] if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded [are convinced]that John was a prophet. 7And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. 8And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. 9Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain [om., certain4] man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country 10[went abroad] for a long time. And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. 11And again he sent [lit., he added to send5] another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated [treated] him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 12And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. 14But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come [om., come6], let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.And when they heard it, they said, God forbid [Let it not be, ]. 17And he beheld [looked upon] them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same [this] is become the head of the corner? (Psa 118:22.) 18Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken [dashed to pieces]; but [and] on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 19And the chief priests and the scribes7 the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk 20:1. On one of those days.General designation of the point of time, as about the same at which the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and the temple-cleansing had taken place. From the comparison with Matthew and Mark, it appears that we have particularly to understand the last Tuesday. The cursing of the fig-tree is passed over by Luke, but the image of the fig-tree of Israel itself, with beautiful leaves but without any fruit, and already in process of decay, is represented by him in a striking manner in the delineation of the last controversy of our Lord with the Israelitish fathers. Although Luke in this connection entirely passes over two chief elements: the parable of the Two Sons, Mat 21:28-32, and that of the Royal Wedding, Mat 22:1-14 (the last-named parable he apparently does not give, because he had already, Luk 14:16-24, noted down a similar one), yet we can with his help very easily sketch a vivid image of the history of this most remarkable day. Like Matthew and Mark, he also makes us acquainted with the external intercourse of our Lord with His enemies during the last days of His life, while John, who passes over the controversial discourses, relates the history of the inner life of the Master in the circle of His apostles in these last days. All which is related Luke 20. took place within the walls of the temple, while the Saviour was teaching the people there, and (a peculiar, genuinely Pauline addition of Luke) was preaching the Gospel.

Came upon Him, , comp. Luk 2:38; Act 4:1.Not the suddenness and unexpectedness, but the deliberateness and greater or less solemnity, in the appearance of these men is hereby indicated. It is a well-organized deputation, and one chosen, undoubtedly not without reflection, from the Sanhedrim, whose different elements are therein carefully represented.Although they do not say that they speak in the name of the whole council, yet in view of the well-known hostile disposition of the great majority of this towards our Lord, we may confidently presuppose this, and so far compare this embassy with a similar one which at the beginning of the public life of Jesus had been sent to John; Joh 1:19-28. Perhaps the observation of this agreement in form had even some influence on the answer of our Lord. The chief authority in Israel was undoubtedly fully entitled to institute a careful investigation respecting the authority of all teachers publicly appearing, and our Lord, inasmuch as He submits to be questioned, shows that He recognizes the theocratic dignity of the speakers, and is not disinclined to answer, at least under certain reasonable conditions, to the fulfilment of which, however, they, as soon appears, have not made up their minds. The very fact that now for the first time do they come with such a question to Jesus, after He had performed so many indubitable miracles, and after a truth-loving Nicodemus had already, two years earlier, in faith on our Lords divine mission, come to Him,even this testifies against them, and makes an almost comical impression.

Luk 20:2. Tell us.Therewith do they open the series of ensnaring questions which are laid before the Lord on this day. These controversial discourses are very especially genuine portions, because they are held so entirely in the spirit and tone of the contemporaneous Rabbinical dialectics. (Strauss.) Already, previously to this, more than one attempt had been made to take our Lord in His own words; but now it takes place in an intensified degree, with yet more deliberation, in a more refined way, and with united force. The work of enmity was at the same time a trial, since it was expected of the Messiah that He should know all things (Joh 4:25; Joh 16:30). It was natural, therefore, that they should surround Him who appeared in this exalted character with a net of fine-spun questions. In the firm hope that they should leave the field victorious, the Pharisees do not lose an instant publicly to interpellate the Lord.

By what authority.The two questions do not express the same thing in different words (De Wette), but are rather to be thus distinguished: that the first member of the interrogation is designed to elicit an explanation as to the heavenly mission; the other, , …, the statement what messenger of God has mediately consecrated Him to this activity. refers here not only to a single transaction of the Lord, the temple-cleansing (Meyer), but to the whole unfolding of His superiority and authority in the temple during the days last preceding this, something which, according to their opinion, could in no wise be legitimate.

Luk 20:4. The baptism of John.Here specially set forth as the centre and summary of His whole activity. Our Lord by no means declines the strife, and this very fact, that He answers with a counter-question, testifies of His heavenly wisdom. It must now be made manifest whether they, with their competency for questioning, were also capable of hearing the right answer, and this He could only assume of them if they showed themselves in a truth-loving character. It is not arbitrary that He answers them precisely with this counter-question; He, who had never separated His activity from that of His forerunner, could not tell them who had bestowed on Him His authority so long as they, as representatives of the people, had not definitely declared their opinion respecting John. If they recognize the divine mission of the Baptist, who had not even done miracles, they will be obliged to esteem His own even much more. If they reject the first mission, they deserve the reproach of not being competent to judge respecting the authority of Jesus. If they keep silence, then the incontestable right will belong to Him to send them also away unsatisfied. At all events, He can now wait with the utmost composure to observe what position they will take.

Luk 20:5. And they reasoned.They retire an instant, and make the matter an object not of an individual but of a common deliberation (). It is plainly to be seen in them that they have never made the question proposed an object of earnest consideration, and now, too, are only concerned about withdrawing themselves with honor from the strife. All the Synoptics direct our attention to their deliberation, which took place in the midst of the temple, amid visible suspense, and must inevitably have soon come to the ears of many. Noticeable with this is the testimony wrung from them, that among the people the belief in the prophetic character of the Baptist was spread abroad on all sides. According to Luke and Mark, they still speak of , yet undoubtedly in the sense of , as Mark writes it. Comp. Joh 7:49.Stone, , peculiar to Luke. Perhaps a later form of the tradition (Meyer), but yet quite as probably the original pregnant form in which they express the fear of which Matthew and Mark speak. Non erat populi, sacerdotes et scribas, prophetam quamlibet verum rejicientes, lapidare: sed spe etiam pervertum multitudinis studium per accidens subservit bon caus. Bengel.

Luk 20:7. That they could not tell whence.Doubly painful to them is this declaration, if we compare it with the endless , which they elsewhere, e. g., Joh 9:24-34, caused to be heard. Luke has only the indirect form of the answer, which they, without doubt, gave as briefly and indefinitely as was at all possible. But the most terrible for them is that the Lord has by this answer gained the right to the decided counter-declaration: Neither tell I you, &c.Now, both are silent: but He, because He on good grounds will not speak; they, because they through their own fault cannot speak; and among the people present as witnesses, there is no one who could seriously doubt which of the two parties leaves the field victorious.

Luk 20:9. To the people.According to Matthew and Mark, this parable is addressed to the Pharisees and elders themselves, to whom, at all events, it maintains a very definite reference, while Luke makes the Saviour speak . The two statements, however, do not contradict each other; for according to Luke, also, Luk 20:19, the scribes and Pharisees are chief persons among the hearers of our Saviour, and according to Matthew and Mark, also, He speaks in a place and in a circle which makes it a priori probable that He is heard not only by them, but also by the people. The , also, which Luke alone has, fits only in the mouth of the chief priests, who certainly perceived more quickly than many others the intention of the parable. The course of the facts appears to have been this: our Lord, after the answer, Luk 20:8, leaves the Pharisees to themselves, and turns Himself to the more receptive people, yet so that the first interrogators, who bad not immediately departed, hear His instruction also, and are forced to make the application to themselves. It is not enough for our Lord to have repelled the attack. He pursues the retreating enemy, and will have them mark how it stands with all their pretended ignorance (Mat 21:28-32). When He has in this way unmasked-their hypocrisy, He now brings also their guilt to light; and after He has put them below the most despised of the Jews (Mat 21:31), He now gives them to see how their rejection of the Messiah will lead to the bringing in of the Gentiles.

A vineyard.A favorite figure for the Israelitish people. See Isa 5:1-6; Psalms 80., and elsewhere. Comp. Lange on the parallels in Matthew and Mark, and the dissertation of Ruprecht and Stephensen in the Stud. u. Krit. 18471848.

Luk 20:10. At the season.Intimation of the period in which the proper prophetic activity began in Israel, which, as is known, was a considerable time after the founding of the Theocratic state, so that, using still the image of the parable, we may say that the fruits had had abundant time to come to maturity. The wine-press and the tower, Luke omits. That it is untenable by these two objects to understand the Mosaic law and the temple (Euthym., Theophylact, Calvin, Melanchthon, and others), appears from this: that afterwards the vineyard, undoubtedly including the wine-press and the tower, is given to the Gentiles.

A servant.Here, also, the different Evangelists do not belie their peculiarity. Matthew speaks, according to his custom, of servants and other servants, Mark and Luke individualize; the former mentions, besides the three whom Luke also has, many others, Luk 12:5; the second has none of the three servants, however severely otherwise they are maltreated, suffer death, apparently to preserve so much better the climax in the delineation of the wickedness which at last destroys the lawful heir. According to all three, the husbandmen began at once with evil, but end with acts of deeper wickedness, without out having, at the mention of any particular maltreatment, to think exclusively also of some one definite person.

Luk 20:13. What shall I do?Matthew and Mark relate the act of the supreme love; Luke brings before us the lord of the vineyard in soliloquy, in order to place the act of love in yet clearer light. His son, the beloved, will he send to the unthankful ones, not in the silent hope that they would perhaps yet reverence him, but in the well-warranted expectation that their wickedness at least would not go so far as to assail him also. Perchance, with which, even in our language, one does not of necessity express a doubt, but may express his expectation. Meyer.

Luk 20:14. When the husbandmen saw him.An evident allusion to the of the lord of the vineyard, Luk 20:13. The sight which according to his expectation was to fill them with reverence, is precisely that which awakens in their heart the most hideous plans of murder. The last touch, that the inheritance may be ours, is by no means added merely for ornament, but intimates that in the murder of the Messiah, the most shameless self-seeking revealed itself. Almost in the same way did it express itself through the mouth of Caiaphas, in the familiar votum, Joh 11:50; moreover, the coincidence with Gen 37:19-20, is striking.

Luk 20:15. Out of the vineyard.A striking prophecy of the crucifixion outside of the city. Comp. Heb 13:12-13.

Luk 20:16. He shall come.According to Matthew, they are themselves forced to pronounce the judgment, which, according to Mark and Luke, is uttered by Jesus. Perhaps the matter may be thus reconciled: that some are in this way their own judges, while others, terrified at this utterance, which was viewed as a malum omen, let the escape their lips. Even if one should assume here a little variation in the tradition, the fact would not suffer in the least thereby. The common result of all the accounts is this: that the Pharisees were confounded, and comprehended very well the meaning of our Lord.

Luk 20:17. .Here also, as often, e. g., Luk 22:61, an intimation of the piercing and eloquent look of our Lord.What is this, then?He will thereby give them to understand that if they were right in their deprecation, the prophecy of the Scripture would not be fulfilled, which yet is an absolute impossibility. Comp. Mat 26:54.

The stone.Comp. Psa 118:22-23. This psalm, which Luther esteemed so highly above many others, was probably composed in the later period of the Old Testament, when, after hinderances for long years, the temple-service in the purified sanctuary was again erected. To attribute to this jubilant hymn a direct Messianic signification is forbidden, as well by the connection as by the context; but the humiliation or exaltation, whether of Israel or of the sanctuary, which is celebrated in this passage, serves the Saviour for a type and symbol of His own. What was there originally said in another sense is fulfilled in its highest power8 at the rejection of the Messiah.

Luk 20:18. Whosoever.Instead of the continuation of the citation, This is the Lords doing, Luke has this threatening warning of our Lord, which is omitted by Tischendorf, Mat 21:44. Comp. Lange ad loc. Cadere super Christum dicuntur, qui ad eum opprimendum ruunt, non quod ipso altius conscendunt, sed quia eo usque abripit eos sua insania, ut Christum quasi e sublimi impetere conentur. Calvin.

Luk 20:19. The chief priests and the scribes sought.Comp. Mat 21:45-46. A statement which is here the more remarkable since it serves as a proof that the increasing bitterness of His enemies did not proceed from misunderstanding in reference to the discourses of our Lord, but on the contrary from the fact that they understood them only too well, and felt themselves thereby mortally wounded and outraged. The more light there was before their eyes, so much the more hatred in their hearts. We see they are in the way which at last leads to the commission of the sin against the Holy Ghost. Fear associates itself with hatred ( not oppositive, but purely copulative), but at the same time is the reason why they cannot yet immediately do all that they wish. . Comp. Luk 20:9. They see now themselves that the people were indeed the auditors, but not the chief characters of the parable. Their conscience admonishes them that mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Compare the parallel in Matthew and Mark.
2. The hard-heartedness of the enemies of Jesus is quite as conspicuously visible from their own behavior as from the parable of our Lord. Even the holiness of the temple does not withhold them from laying for Him their fatal snares. And yet more hideous does their behavior become by assuming the disguise of a deep earnestness, while they have beforehand resolved not to allow themselves to be persuaded at any price. Yet there is something tragical in the terrible blindness with which they, in the same moment at which they prove that they understand only too well the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, prepare themselves to fulfil this prophecy also, and reject the stone that shall soon crush them.
3. This whole hour in the last week of the public life of Jesus may be called a continuous temple-cleansing, in fact. What He had first done with the scourge of small cords, He now continues to do with the sword of His mouth; He sweeps the enemy away from before His face, thus also cleansing the sanctuary. The method in which He here constrains His enemies first to pass judgment on themselves and then to be dumb, is at the same time a prophecy of that which at the day of His coming shall be repeated in yet greater measure.
4. While in the parable Matthew 13 the idea of the kingdom of God stands in the foreground, on the other hand, in this, with which our Lord closes His work as Prophet and Teacher, the image of the King Himself begins to come forward ever more clearly and plainly. The manner in which He here at the same time testifies of Himself as of the Only and Beloved Son of the Father, who is distinguished from all former messengers of God by descent and rank, draws our attention to one of the points of contact between the Synoptical and the Johannean Christology.

5. Only by an entire misunderstanding in reference to the design of our Lord, would it be possible from the words: Perhaps they will reverence my son, to draw such a conclusion as that God sent His Son not with the distinct purpose that He should suffer and die, but that He on the contrary seriously expected that His Son would find a better reception than His former servants. Our Lord simply intimates what God might have been able and entitled to expect, if the Omniscient One had really been in everything like the human lord of the vineyard. therefore the terrible and almost inconceivable character of the rejection of the Messiah is yet more strongly thrown into the foreground. Calvin has already hit the mark in writing on this passage: Hc quidem cogitatio proprie in Deum non convenit, sciebat enim, quid futurum esset, nec spe melioris eventus deceptus fuit, sed usitatum est, prsertim in parabolis, ad eum transferri humanos affectus. Neque tamen hoc abs re additum est, quia volwit Christus tanquam in speculo reprsentare, quam deplorata esset illorum impietas, cujus hoc nimis certum fuit examen, contra Dei filium, qui ipsos ad sanam mentem revocaturus venerat, diabolico furore insurgere. Hic scelerum omnium cumulus fuit, filium interficere, ut regnarent quasi in orbata domo, etc. conf. Acts 4, 27, 28.

6. The work of grace performed on Israel, the enmity shown by it, and the punishment threatened against it, that the kingdom of God should be given to other nations,all this is repeated in continually greater measure again in the days of the New Covenant, since the Theocracy has become a Christocracy We may call to mind, for instance, some of the churches of Asia Minor, whose light of old stood so high upon the candlestick.
7. Whoever shall fall upon this stone, &c. The two members of this threatening sentence contain by no means, as might indeed appear at first glance, a weak tautology, but a portrayal of the different fates which the enemies of the Lord have to expect; first from the rejected and after that from the elevated corner-stone. Whoever falls upon this stone, that is the one who takes offence at the yet humiliated Saviour, to whom the rejected building-stone is a . Thereupon falls the judgment of retribution: ; for instance, as with Judas, the impenitent thief on the cross, and others. In spite of the offence taken, the Lord is elevated aloftlifted to be the corner-stone; but he now upon whom the elevated stone falls is crushed to pieces like chaff (Gr. ). In other words, when the glorified Christ comes again to judgment, the most terrible judgment comes upon His enemies. In order to understand the pregnant saying in its whole force, we must compare not only Psa 118:22-23, but also Isa 8:14-15; Isa 28:16; Dan 2:44-45. From the visible predilection with which the same image is often brought up and carried out by the Apostle Peter, in his discourses and epistles, we may perhaps draw an inference as to the deep personal impression which this declaration of our Lord, in particular, made upon the faithful disciple.

8. The hatred, the intensifying of which we have become aware of among the Pharisees, after their having understood and known the truth, discovers to us one of the depths of Satan in sinful hearts, and is surely fitted to open the eyes even of such as in well-meaning Pelagian superficiality view sin only as a weakness, exaggerated sensuality, and the like. If it has ever become plain that no faith of the heart is conceivable without the will being bowed, and that at the same time for the bowing of this will a power from above is indispensable, if even the Lords own word is to make its way to the soul; this was true with these first enemies of the truth, who are at once the type and forerunners of so many later ones.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

After the accomplishment of the temple-cleansing the Lord remained behind as Victor upon the field.After He has administered the law, He continues with the preaching of the Gospel.The apparently very necessary and yet, in truth, entirely superfluous question of the Pharisees.The use and misuse of the tongue.How in the enemies of David delineated Psalms 11 and elsewhere, the portrait of the enemies of our Lord is vividly drawn.The ever-continuing disquiet of the wicked.If the Lords enemies cannot even answer one question, how will it be when He lays a thousand questions before them? Job 9:3.The Divine mission of John is acknowledged and vindicated by our Lord, even to the end.Even yet he who does not believe and understand John, is unauthorized and incompetent to judge fittingly concerning our Lord.The untenableness of the position of those who will remain disciples of John brought to light by our Lord.Where calculations come into play, no grounds of reason can help.The insecurity of the position a tutiori.The people not seldom nearer the truth than their spiritual guides.The silence of the Lord already a beginning of the judgment.Right must after all remain right, and that will all pious hearts follow; Psalms 94.The enemies wish to have the people see Jesus defeated, our Lord makes them the witnesses of His victory and of His retribution.The parable of the Unthankful Husbandmen an echo of the song of the vineyard, Isa 5:1-7.The history of centuries told in a few minutes.Gods way and counsel with Israel misunderstood and contemned by Israel: 1. The gracious election, Luk 20:9; Luke 2. the long work of grace, Luk 20:10-11; Luke 3. the fulness of the time, Luk 20:13; Luke 4. the most hideous crime, Luk 20:14-15; Luke 5. the righteous punishment, Luk 20:16-18; Luke 6. the curse turned into blessing (the other husbandmen), Luk 20:15.The manifoldness of form, in which hatred against Divine things has of old revealed itself, and even yet continually reveals itself.The fearful climax of sin.The riches of the compassion and long suffering of God despised; Rom 2:4.The sending of the Son of God: 1. The highest; 2. the last revelation of His grace.Only when grace has reached the highest degree, can sin reveal itself in its full strength.God remits nothing of His requirements, even though His messengers are treated with augmenting unthankfulness.The Son is to be revered! Psalms 2.God forbid!What is least expected often happens first.False rest over against threatening judgments.When the light is not heeded, then may the candlestick be pushed from its place; Rev 2:5.The greater the privilege, so much the heavier the responsibility; the more defiant the madness, the deeper the fall.From our Lord the church may learn with what eye she must view the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament.The history of the Corner-stone: 1. A most ancient; 2. an ever-young history.The fully-conscious hatred against the truth.How little unbelief understood the Lord, even where it understood the meaning of His words with perfect correctness.Behold the goodness and severity of God; Rom 11:22.

Starke:Nova Bibl. Tub.:The devil cannot endure the preaching of the Gospel.How dangerous to be in offices, if one misuses them.Brentius:The ungodly are snared at last, by the righteous appointment of God, in the works of their own hands.Whoever opposes himself to the truth out of wickedness, falls from one lie into another.Hypocrites suppress the truth by unrighteousness; Rom 1:18.Osiander:They who do not give place to the truth, but are only skilled to blaspheme, are not worth disputing with.Hedinger:God uses many people and many means to correct men.Quesnel:The world may be ever very ill-disposed to hear of the punishment of the ungodly; but it comes for all that, and will be so much the more terrible.It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.Brentius:Truth breeds hatred, it is true; but it has God for its protector.Heubner:The world is against abstract truth not so hostile and full of hatred as against the concrete witnesses of the same.Gods judgments grow ever heavier.The Jewish people a monument of Divine goodness and of human unthankfulness.Christ and His enemies: 1. Typified in the Old Testament; 2. fulfilled in the New.Eylert:Gods goodness, long-suffering and severity, in the treatment of unthankful and disobedient men.Zimmermann:God and Israel.Lisco:The relation in which sin and error stand to one another.Arndt:The history of Israel the history of mankind in miniature.Al. Schweizer: The rebellious husbandmen more particularly considered: 1. In their outrageous conduct; 2. in the judgment which they suffer.W. Hofacker:The institution of Gods kingdom in the Old Testament a type worthy to be taken to heart by the children of the New Covenant.We enter: 1. Upon the theatre of rich Divine blessings; 2. upon a theatre of vile perverseness and blindness; 3. upon the judgment-place of unsparingly punishing righteousness and holiness.

Footnotes:

[1]Luk 20:1., which is wanting in B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] L., Q., and some Cursives, and has been rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles, Alford,] is perhaps only a spurious addition for the sake of precision.

[2]Luk 20:1.. The Recepta, , appears to be from the parallel [in Mark].

[3]Luk 20:3.The before of the Recepta is wanting in B., [Cod. Sin.,] L., [R.,] some Cursives, and is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles, Alford. The fact that in some MSS. it is found before and in some after , adds to the suspicion of its spuriousness.C. C. S.]

[4]Luk 20:9.The of the Recepta after is decidedly spurious.

[5][Luk 20:11The Hebrew: .C. C. S.]

[6]Luk 20:14.Rec.: , . from Matthew and Mark.

[7]Luk 20:19.More correctly: the scribes and the chief priests. The Recepta has the ordinary arrangement, according to rank, which, however, has not sufficient manuscript support. See Lachmann and Tischendorf.

[8][An arithmetical reference to the powers of roots.C. C. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

Contents

The Chief Priests and the Scribes demand of CHRIST his Authority for his Ministry. The LORD puts them to silence. He adds a Parable. In answer to a Sadducee, Jesus discourseth on the Resurrection.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?

As we are now drawing nigh the solemn scenes of CHRIST’S sufferings and death, the Evangelist relates to the Church the increasing opposition made by the sworn foes to CHRIST, against his person and doctrine. This chapter opens with telling us, that now the chief priests and scribes, with the elders, came upon him 1 in a collected body, to attack. him. Hitherto they had smothered their base designs under cover, as if they would question him for information; but now their plan for his destruction is nearly ripened, they throw off all courtesy, and imperatively demand his authority, both for his miracles and doctrines. Reader! do not overlook the folly as well as the wickedness of the question. Miracles spake for themselves. None but GOD could do the work which JESUS did. So Nicodemus wisely judged. Joh 3:2 . And every man of common sense must judge the same.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

By What Authority?

Luk 20:2

I. The Principle of Reservation. God reserves to Himself the right to restrain when He sees fit that full manifestation of Himself which some men nevertheless demand of Him. There are some men, some women, in whose heart there has frequently risen up something of this resentment: ‘Why must I live in a state of imperfect knowledge, which is the result of a limited revelation?’ And this incomplete manifestation of Himself by God for so I may call it has been felt, even where there was far too much reverence and fear, too much humility to resent the limitation of the revelation given. It is well that we should look this fact plainly in the face. It was not only unto the Scribes and the Pharisees, and the idle gaping crowd that our Lord acted upon this principle of reservation when He was here on earth, it was so with His own disciples. How plainly do their words and actions convey to us the idea of men who knew that they lay under a sense of mystery that they could not fathom! How is the great central mystery of the Incarnation, for example, ever present in His teaching, and yet who shall deny that it is ever shrouded? How guardedly He speaks of the new birth by water and the Word; how mysteriously in the Blessed Sacrament of His own Blood and Body! It is enough for them to be told that, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God’. It was enough for them to be taught that they must do this, and ‘except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you’.

II. The Revelation Sufficient And yet shall we dare to say that the teaching which God in His mercy has vouchsafed to us, and the revelation that He has given to us, is insufficient? How much evidence of authority had He already given to those very Scribes and Pharisees! Sick persons had been wonderfully cured, the poor shrinking lepers had been made clean, sweet light had streamed into sightless eyeballs. Only a few days before, a crowd of those Jews had seen Lazarus come forth from his tomb. Those who asked Him this very question as to His authority had never denied these facts they had never dared to deny them. Yet you know what they had done they had hardened their hearts and shut their eyes against them. It was possible for them to know long ere this by Whose authority He did these things. So for us it is possible to know, and to know with great certainty too, of Christ and His authority, to know Him on His cross dying for our sins, and to know Him awakening within our own individual hearts a sense of guilt, to know Him sending us individually the blessed message of forgiveness, to know Him as He deigns to hold communion with our reconciled spirits. The struggle may be hard, but the victory is sure.

III. Conditions on which Knowledge Is Attainable. There are conditions on which this knowledge is attainable.

(a) Purity of heart. If you would believe in God, said even such a one as Rousseau if you would believe in God, live in such a manner that it is necessary for you that He exist.

(b) Obedience. There are men who question authority because they mean to obey no will but their own. There are times when a spirit of independence seems to rise in a nation or in a community, as there are times when in an individual the imagination dreams of a mistaken freedom and questions authority, when men demand to know the authority which bids them to be self-restrained, but nevertheless mean to yield obedience to none. Or, short of this, there are others whose demand for authority is simply a demand of idle curiosity. It has been well said that there is boundless danger in all inquiry which is merely curious! It is to such our Lord answers, and will ever answer, ‘Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things’. When men ask questions of Almighty God by the answer to which they never mean to rule their lives, let them not think that to them any sign will be given. The will must be set to do the will of God before the intellect can act with discernment on spiritual truth.

(c) Earnestness. A life of trifling here is not the life of those who are enlightened by their God. God must be really sought if God is to be truly found. It may be difficult to say why the eyes of some are so strangely holden that they cannot find Him. I know nothing more perplexing than to watch and see, and sometimes be made participator in, the doubts and difficulties of unbelief. It is not difficult to see why they are not permitted to pierce within the veil or to find the hidden presence of their God. For ‘the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, the violent take it by force’.

A life of earnest seeking is a life of finding, but God’s truth is too sacred a thing to be expounded to superficial worldliness. Let me add this one word more. There are others tried by intellectual difficulties, yet athirst for the living God and for a fuller revelation to their souls. The time of granting this revelation rests with Him, and to them that revelation will be given. The answer to their cry will come; they shall know the doctrine whether it be of God; He will tell them by what authority He does these things.

References. XX. 9-16. Expositor (5th Series), vol. v. p. 20. XX. 9-19. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. iv. p. 284. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 190. XX. 13. F. St. John Corbett, The Preacher’s Year, p. 15. XX. 16. Expositor (5th Series), vol. i. p. 214.

The Stone That Grinds to Powder

Luk 20:18

I. As far as regards things and laws which are on the same plane as those referred to in this parable, most people know that we cannot do as we like; that if we act in harmony with rational convictions it will go well with us; that if we pay no heed to them we shall suffer. In thousands of cases, too, men spontaneously, unhesitatingly conform to nature and its laws.

II. When it is a question of men’s own bodies the principle I am referring to has, however, far less influence and control than when it is a question of our relations to the external world; though even there a great improvement has taken place.

III. As we approach the sphere of mind, of spirit, we discover that this idea of reality and law has less and less control over men’s thoughts and conduct.

IV. But let us now deal more directly with the words of Christ Himself in the light of these general truths. ‘Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.’ (1) The first point we need to press upon ourselves is the reality of Jesus Christ: I mean, of course, His present reality: His present reality for us. (2) The next point that arises out of the text is that Christ is a reality with which every man has to reckon. (3) A third point is, that if you stumble at Christ, if you neglect His claims, if you treat Him as if He did not exist, you inflict serious injury on yourselves. (4) Still further, to enter into positive conflict with Christ is to ensure our own utter ruin. ‘On whom that stone shall fall, it shall grind him to powder’ stronger language could scarcely be used to describe the effect of a deadly encounter with Jesus Christ

D. W. Simon, Twice Born and other Sermons, p. 166.

References. XX. 20. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vii. p. 267. XX. 22. J. Stalker, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. p. 392.

Luk 20:23

It appears to us a ridiculous prudery to say that a moral teacher is bound to discuss casuistry with a set of political spies; and that, if the question be only well-chosen and real, he is to be unaffected by the malicious purpose of the questioners…. When people ask what they do not want to know, it is not merely a silly softness, but an irreverence to truth itself, to produce it to be spit upon or abused to crime. As to the particular mode in which Jesus parried the question of his enemies, nothing, we think, could be more admirable…. The retreat of Jesus from the casuistry of faction to the permanent relations of the soul, his hint that, amid the changing pressures and coercions of the world, an imperishable realm remains open for human fidelity and Divine communion, we cannot but regard as not only an acute escape from artifice, and a wise check to zealotry, but in the highest degree dignified, beautiful, and profound.

Martineau.

References. XX. 23. Expositor (6th Series), vol. x. p. 362. XX. 24. A Maclaren, The Wearied Christ, p. 59. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Luke, p. 195. XX. 34, 35. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 31. XX. 35. J. M. Whiton, Beyond the Shadow, p. 81. J. B. Brown, Aide to the Development of the Divine Life, No. 10. Expositor (4th Series), vol. x. p. 108. XX. 36. H. Bonar, Short Sermons for Family Reading, p. 416. Expositor (6th Series), vol. x. p. 113.

The Resurrection of the Body

Luk 20:37-38

J. H. Newman writes in his sermon entitled ‘The Resurrection of the Body’: Our Blessed Lord seems to tell us that in some sense or other Abraham’s body might be considered still alive as a pledge of his resurrection, though it was dead in the common sense in which we apply the word. His announcement is, Abraham shall rise from the dead, because in truth he is still alive. He cannot in the end be held under the power of the grave, more than a sleeping man can be kept from waking. Abraham is still alive in the dust, though not risen thence. He is alive because all God’s saints live to Him, though they seem to perish…. His angels, surely, guard the bodies of His servants; Michael, the Archangel, thinking it no unworthy task to preserve them from the powers of evil.

References. XX. 37, 38. J. N. Bennie, The Eternal Life, p. 209. Bishop Boyd-Carpenter, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliv. p. 8. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxi. No. 1863. XX. 38. Basil Wilberforce, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlviii. p. 328. Bishop Boyd-Carpenter, ibid. vol. lxx. p. 232. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iii. p. 302. XX. 45-47. Ibid. vol. iv. p. 263. XXI. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 71. XXI. 1-3. T. Sadler, Sermons for Children, p. 55. XXI. 1-4. J. M. Bennie, The Eternal Life, p. 118. XXI. 1-6. R. Allen, The Words of Christ, p. 299.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Jesus Taunted

Luk 20

“And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel ” not an exceptional work, but on a particular and memorable day. This was the circle within which Jesus Christ moved namely, he taught the people in the temple and preached the gospel. A familiar word to us is the word “gospel,” but not a familiar word in the four evangelists. Does Mark ever use it? Does John ever use it? Is it ever used in the Gospel according to Matthew? but once; and that not in a direct and positive sense. But Luke cannot do without it. So it is that we choose our particular words, and men become attached to forms and expressions and ideas and methods, and their names become involved with the outworking of these, so that sometimes a feature which to others would be regarded but as transient becomes a permanent expression of an individual genius and consecration. Luke uses the word “gospel” some ten times in his narrative. When he writes the Acts of the Apostles the word “gospel” has been counted in the record in about twenty instances. The man who uses the word “gospel” most frequently after Luke is the Apostle Paul. What wonder? They were companions; they talked much with one another, and took sweet counsel together; and thus, by the action of a spiritual masonry, they came to use one another’s favourite expressions. There is a plagiarism that is honest; there is a talk that is contagious; there is a way of uttering Christian experience that so commends itself to others that they must needs reproduce it. Jesus Christ taught in the temple, and evangelised, told the good news, related what men could then receive respecting the kingdom of God upon earth. And never was such talk heard by human listeners: they were spell-bound. They were not all believing: some were of a doubtful and sceptical mind; yet the spell that was upon them wrought like a divine fascination, and made immediate contradiction difficult, if not impossible. Sometimes we think we could answer an argument; but we are restrained from attempting to do so by the sweetness of the music which accompanies its utterance. The argument failed, but the music soothed. It is often so with character, consistency, beneficence. Some put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, by simply doing well; doing good, by being liberal with both hands; and tender, ineffably tender, towards all human infirmity and weakness, so that listeners say, We could not accept his argument; but it would be impossible to reject the man himself. In this way all may acquire most beneficent power, most sacred and elevating influence. It is not possible for all to be great: blessed be God, it is possible for all to be good.

As Jesus Christ was engaged in this work, “the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, and spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?” So they had their favourite word; they, too, must have their badge and pass-word, their mechanical, unsympathetic, chilling masonry. Where is thy name written? where are thy certificates? who accredits thee? open thine hand, and let us see how the thunder lies in it: we are startled and perplexed when we compare the instrument with the effect; what we know about thee does not correspond with what we see thee do and what we hear thee say: explain thyself. When a man can explain himself he is done. There are those who delight in vivisection; and in hunting for the life, they kill it. There are those who would try to make a man out and cannot do so, and they give him up as an enigma. The gospel can never be made out, in the sense of getting behind it; for it covers infinity, as it came up from eternity. The authority is in the thing that is done. If you cannot explain the metaphysic you can estimate the practical; if you cannot get behind so as to see all the secrets of God, you can get in front and see what those secrets do when they embody themselves in living character and active exertion. Christians should be the proof of Christianity. Let the men speak the praises of the Saviour who has redeemed and inspired them. Christians, too, should be inexplicable as to root and core and essence, and innermost spring of life and purpose. But there should be no mystery on the disc of their conduct, nothing evasive, shuffling, ambiguous, equivocal. Whatever mystery may attach to the spirit there must be no mystery about the conduct as to its purpose, beneficence, nobleness, charity; let the mystery lurk in all these if you will, but let there be enough of explanation, clearness, and frankness of thought and action, to constrain confidence and elicit healthful approbation.

By what authority do you preach? By the authority of the issue. We have seen the effect of the gospel, and therefore we preach it. Others could account for preaching metaphysically; most of us can account for it practically. We have seen a man healed, we have seen a leper cleansed, we have seen a barbarian civilised, chastened, refined, ennobled; and this has all been done by Jesus Christ of Nazareth; therefore we preach, that others may be touched by the same power, renewed by the same divine energy, and brought to the same perfectness of spiritual quality, and the same dignity of moral intention. It is always forgotten that Christianity can ask questions as well as Unbelief. It seems to be thought by some that the mark of interrogation is the private property of infidels and sceptics and scribes and Pharisees, and that poor dumb Christians can only sing hymns and psalms, and never ask any questions. They are difficult men to meet in interrogation. All things are not plain on the side of unbelief, opposition, hostility. There are riddles in the open book of providence as well as in the metaphysics of divine rule. Jesus Christ could reason, inquire, discuss, and impale men with a gentleness which did not at all mitigate the agony of the impalement. If Christianity chooses rather to be positive in its action, distinctly beneficent and aggressive rather than verbally controversial, Christianity has its reasons for choosing that policy. Christianity says, Time is brief, the case is urgent; the remedy is here: instead of paltering with word-mongers, let us declare the positive redemption, the immediate, gracious, ever-present kingdom of God, and truth, and light. But the enemy always created an opportunity for the Saviour. We have already shown that we owe more to the enemy than to the friend in the New Testament. If there had been no enemy there could have been no New Testament as we have it now. All the great parables were spoken in reply to hostility. It is difficult to continue in a monotonous course of instruction, not because there is any failure of genius on the part of the teacher, but because the people so soon weary and tire. Thus opposition becomes useful, controversy becomes an ally of the pulpit, and question-asking is turned to high account by men who watch the signs of the times, and show to all who care to see how the kingdom of God is always the question of the day.

Having been thus taunted through the medium of interrogation, having been thus insulted by circumlocution a favourite method with men who even in cruelty cannot give up politeness Jesus Christ “spake a parable unto them.” To their credit be it said, they could read between the lines. They were shrewd men; they knew what they heard. “They perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.” They were, therefore, good men to preach to. The infinite “difficulty of the preacher is when the people perceive nothing. He can preach well who knows that every man is saying to himself, The preacher means me; he is hard upon me, but he will be gentle before he closes; he has now dragged me to the seat of judgment, but presently he will speak to me gospel music, and he will show me how to escape this great dilemma. It is pointless preaching that nobody applies. Preaching of this kind could be continued for ever, and the minister would acquire a reputation for being a very harmless and a very quiet, and it may be kind, sort of a man, who is finding his way down to oblivion without giving anybody any trouble. We have lost in too large a degree the courage of our convictions. The pulpit should be an institution feared by every scribe and chief priest and Pharisee. Let some pulpits find their fame in their odiousness to wicked men. Whilst others may be acquiring renown in other directions, would God some pulpits could acquire first notoriety and then solid repute as instruments that are feared by every evil-doer, every tyrant, every statesman who is playing falsely with the destinies of his country! We may do this in various ways, sometimes through the medium of parable. A great deal can be said through the agency of an active imagination. We need not always say everything directly and frankly. There are more instruments in the world than cannon-balls. The resources of civilisation are not reduced to paving-stones. Let us now and again try a parable, an image, a mirror held up to evil nature, that it may see itself and cry out, Take away that duplicate; I will look anywhere but at a visage so indicative of evil purpose, so suggestive of evil life. So Jesus Christ was a judge through parable. He could speak in all styles. Many of the beatitudes approach the conciseness of epigram; some of his retorts might be characterised as specimens of the highest wit; then as to his parables, every one of them is a judgment or a gospel, a condemnation or a reward, or a door swinging back upon all the amplitude and glory of heaven. No one minister may be able to take this range, but each of us can find out his own department, sphere, faculty, opportunity, and all can combine in a testimony the clearness and emphasis of which it would be impossible to mistake.

“By what authority doest thou these things?” By the need of the hour. The minister finds his authority in human necessity. By what authority dost thou speak against evil? Because it is evil that is the authority. Oh, blessed halcyon days when the pulpit can look upon all manner of evil and never recognise its existence! Who would attend such a pulpit? Who would love it and desire it? Not men of justice; not strong-minded, earnest, equitable men. Sometimes even silent men are forced to speech, and the very fact of their speech being only occasional lends to it a quaint but poignant emphasis; it is known that they would not have spoken but for the pressure of the times. Wise are they who take such note of occasion and historic development as to know when they ought to speak and in what tone they ought to deliver themselves.

This is one aspect of Jesus Christ’s work; another and almost totally different aspect is given in other parts of the chapter: “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection”; and they had a case of infinite interest to their finite minds. It was a novel case. When they collected the particulars they gloated over the anecdote as one that would upset the whole fabric of distinctively Christian revelation. Where they got the case nobody knows. Who cares to inquire into the genealogy of an anecdote? If they made it up they were clever, and if they did not make it up they were probably easily imposed upon. But the case was stated, and they waited with that patient impetuosity which can hardly hold its tongue, that wants to laugh because it is sure it has conquered. When they had told their tale, Jesus Christ answering said unto them: You are wrong at the foundation; ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures: there can be no such possibility as you indicate in reference to the resurrection; they who rise again “neither marry, nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” They were wrong, where all men who oppose Christ are wrong, on the base line. The error was not only in the superstructure; the sophism or the mistake was in the foundation. Jesus Christ withdrew the corner-stone, and all the Sadducees went home again, sorry that they had troubled him. It is always so with the Son of God. His answers are fundamental, and therefore inclusive. We tamper with details, and inquire into vexatious incidents, and puzzle ourselves about what we call phenomena, and when we state our case we are told that we were wrong in the first line. He only can be really sound in all thought and Christian service who is sound in the foundation, who has got hold of first principles about whose quality there is no doubt. If we are wrong in the foundation we cannot be right in the superstructure. We must know on what we are building.

Jesus Christ having disposed of these men made a grand popular appeal. “Then in the audience of all the people.” Christianity is an open religion: it invites the consideration, the criticism, the judgment of the popular mind. It has its secrets, which eternity will be required to unfold; but its sublime moral appeals may be heard and answered by all. “Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, Beware of the scribes.” Then he described the men, saying, “which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; which devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.” This is the man who uttered the beatitudes! Is that the tongue we heard on the mount, saying, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God; blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”? What says he? “Beware of the scribes!” His voice changes; he becomes another man; he thunders, lightens, denounces, and already drives into darkness those who have opposed the commandment and counter-worked the purpose of God.

We must put all these aspects together if we would see Jesus Christ in anything like the totality of his character. We find him, in the first verse, teaching the people condescendingly, breaking up all the long words into little ones, that he might get down to all classes of mind. We find him preaching the gospel or evangelising, bidding men welcome to God’s banquet, to God’s forgiveness, to God’s heaven, and doing it as if his whole life were, as it was in reality, involved in the issue. We find him raising his head, as it were, from the book, and looking at the chief priests and scribes. In the seventeenth verse we read, “And he beheld them.” That word “beheld” is pregnant with meaning. It is not the ordinary English word which signifies he saw them, he cast a glance upon them; but it means that he fastened his gaze upon them, looked through their hypocrisy, burned them with his look, scorched them with his eyes. “He beheld them,” and they fell back from that gaze as men flee from advancing fire. Then we see him for a moment interested in some poor creatures who had got together a number of impossible details for the purpose of puzzling him with a question, and we hear him saying in a tone which cannot be printed a tone half of judgment and half of compassion “Poor souls! you are wrong at the foundation; you do not understand the Scriptures; you have to begin the alphabet yet.” Then we see him answering certain of the scribes; and then we hear him expounding by interrogation a glorious psalm; and then we see him rising into the dignity of moral indignation. It is the same Christ throughout. His voice is a voice of a tempest, yet it is the whisper of anxious love, the music of infinite pity.

This chapter, therefore, gives us an outline of the great work which the Christian ministry has to do in this and in every age; teaching the people and preaching the gospel that is the basis work; answering objectors in a way which gives them to feel that they have approached the wrong man if they have desired to overthrow him by shallow questioning and moral impertinence; correcting men who have made great mistakes in fundamental lines, and then judging the age as represented by its chief personages. Who would dare to rebuke a Prime Minister? Are we not too eloquent in denouncing Agnostics, and too silent in reproving men who are misleading a nation? We should, if pursuing that policy of denunciation, create a great revolution in our churches. That is precisely what we want everywhere a great expulsion of all seat-holders and an opportunity for the return of those who are really in earnest about the kingdom of God. We are always hindered by the presence of the one man, rich, or prejudiced or peculiar, the exceptional man: we wonder what he will think and what he will do. We ought not to count him; he ought not to be in the census at all, unless he finds some vague position in a great etcetera. What we have to do is to reveal a kingdom, to declare a gospel, to set forth a judgment. I am not saying on which side that judgment should be, except that it should always be a word for the helpless, the weak, the down-trodden, the friendless. It should always be thunder against iniquity, unrighteousness, cupidity, perverseness, and all meanness of soul. When he comes who will so talk he will have a hard time of it; he will be taken out to be crucified. This must be so. No man can commit himself to judgment and be allowed to die in his bed; he must, in some way or sense, be hanged by the neck until he be dead. Could I speak to young ministers I should not hesitate to foretell such a course, and to urge them to be faithful to conscience and to duty. It is not necessary that they should live, but it is necessary that they should be true and faithful and just

The God of the Living

Luk 20:38

Perhaps the text might be made more vivid in its expression by taking the words before, namely, “not a God of the dead, but of the living.” This is the very thing which nobody believes. It is probably believed universally in words, but when in this connection we use the word “believes” we use it in its intensest and fullest meaning, and in that sense probably there is not a man under heaven who believes that God is the God of the living. They are not the worst atheists who openly call themselves by that dreary name; such persons are comparatively harmless: the man who is injuring God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost is the man who professes to believe in that God and yet does not. It is the Church that is killing God. If men believed that God was the God of the living, there would be no more fear, or darkness, or sorrow, or tears; nothing would come amiss, nothing would inflict upon the soul humiliating surprise; we should live in the very quietness and peace and glory of God. The kind of atheism that is ruining life is the atheism which says in words “I believe in God,” and then goes away and lives as if there were no God to believe in. It is merely theoretical belief that is sowing the earth with the seed of perdition. Yet there will be many a protest against this suggestion; many a man will say, speaking for himself, that he believes that God is the God of the living: but I would press upon him the inquiry, In what sense do you believe that? Do you believe it with limitations? Do you believe it with certain qualifications which you could hardly put into words? Do you really, intensely, and unchangeably believe that God is the chief factor in the present life? Does he look in through your window every morning? Does he watch you in your sleeping hours? Does he direct you in all your ways? And do you never put on hat or boot, or take up staff to walk with, without first asking if you may? “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he will direct thy path.” Is that only a verse in the Bible, or is it a principle that rules and and elevates and guides your whole course of conduct? We have a kind of general faith, or faith in theological generalities; we are somewhat partial to propositions that have about them the haze and the dimness of old age: but what about the immediate life, the present necessity, the temper of the moment? Do we ask God when we shall lie down and when we shall get up, or do we assume ninety-nine hundredths of our life, and leave God the odd hundredth to make of it what he pleases? Let us be earnest and searching in these matters; otherwise our so-called religion will sink into superstition, and our superstition itself will sink into ruin, and ruin will bring with it moral contagion, moral pestilence, social blight and death.

Men are so prone to worship somebody else’s God. This is not the spirit of Christ, this is not the dominant message of Christianity to the soul: every man must worship, so to say, his own personal God; he must not have indirect commerce with heaven, he must do immediate business with the skies. Do not receive anything intermediately, except as a kind of incidental help; open up a great, wide thoroughfare to God, and travel on that road night and day, and never be found on any other road; then you will believe that God is the living God of living men; not an Old Testament idea, or a New Testament idea, or a first century idea, but the one all-including, all-glorifying fact of creation and eternity. We do not want any books of references or any books of evidences. If a man’s religion stand upon the foundation of argument, it stands upon no foundation at all. A man’s religion must stand upon the ground of experience, of immediate, personal, loving intercourse with God, so that a man shall be able to say, I saw God this morning: I will refer this to my Father; having had an interview with heaven, I will give you my answer: God is behind me, before me, on my right hand, on my left hand, and he lays his hand upon me, and everything that I do seems to be of importance to my Father in heaven. When a man has to go to some book to find out what he believes, he believes nothing. You must be your faith. “The word that I speak unto him,” said Christ, “shall be in him”: he does not take it with him as an external article, he does not hold it in his hand, as who should say, Behold my belief is written in this paper, and if you would know what I believe read these words in black and white. That is not faith. As with faith so with preaching. A man must not have his sermon, for then he would be no preacher; he must be his sermon, and then he never can be other than eloquent. It is just here that the Church has been making its mistakes with painful consistency. It has had a library to which it has gone; it has kept God in the library. I want God kept in the living-room, wherever that is; if we live in the library, so be it. We must not keep God in the ornamental rooms, but in the place we live in, and so realising the nearness of the divine presence the humblest chamber will become as the vestibule of heaven.

It is possible to dishonour the very God that we pretend to worship. We say God is in heaven. Nothing of the kind: God is not in heaven in any sense of the word which implies distance, palatial luxury, and security and delight; God is in the field, on the highroad; God is in thee, thou poor fool, if thou wouldst open thine eyes and see him in the sanctuary of thine heart. We will have God in heaven; nothing can persuade us that he is anywhere else: we forget that wherever he is his presence is heaven. The Church will not have it so: it will have God in heaven, immeasurable number of miles away, and it will have all its arrangements formal and mechanical: immediate absorption in God would appear to the Church to be a kind of sentimental blasphemy, whereas it is the central doctrine of Christ, it is the essential principle of the Cross.

We also dishonour the very men whose memories we celebrate. Who honours the Apostle Paul? No man, except in the character of a historical personage, somebody who lived, maybe, eighteen centuries ago, somewhere, under certain circumstances detailed in some book. That is not the Paul to honour. The Paul to honour is the man who living to-day would repeat the Paul of eighteen centuries ago. Paul asks no granite stone at our hands; the mighty heroic prince of God does not ask for our memorial brass; speaking from his urn he says, If I lived amongst you nineteenth-century men, I would tear society to pieces. The revolutionist, inspired by justice and chastened by reason and ennobled by reverence, is the only man that really honours the Apostle Paul. Other honour is worthless flattery, encomium that never reaches the object of the worthless eulogy. There are those who honour, almost worshipfully, Martin Luther. Martin Luther is honoured when Lutherism is propagated. We cannot honour Martin Luther, but we can repeat Lutherism, and Lutherism is Martin Luther in his noblest form. If Luther lived to-day he would eat and drink amongst the people, he would have his music, he would sit down at the table and discourse eloquently upon all the affairs of earth; he would rise, and, shaking himself like a lion, he would condemn all evil things; he would flame and burn against all restrictions placed upon individual conscience and private judgment; he would hurl his thunders against the little popes that are trying to snub the rising genius of immediate progress.

It Martin Luther were himself to come back again, we should kill him. If Christ were to descend to the earth again, we should take him to a place called Calvary. It is not Christ in any historical sense we want, but Christianity, Christ’s own deep sweet saving truth, Christ’s blessed spirit of sacrifice and obedience. There are those who honour everything that is about a hundred years old as against things that are of immediate conception, and immediate purpose and use. Only give some people a tune that Wesley sang, and they think that they are as near heaven as they ever will be which is indeed probable, now I think of it. Only give them a tune that was sung a hundred and fifty years ago, and the very fact that it was sung a hundred and fifty years ago is the only fact they care about! whereas if Wesley were here now he would be listening to the tunes on the streets. That will do! the fine old statesman would say, if that tune were baptised and consecrated it would be useful in the church: I will fit it to words. He would take the tune home and link it to worthy expression, and that tune would be sung in the church next Sunday. Why do not men see that the very things they praise as belonging to a hundred years ago were a hundred years ago quite novel? They had not at that period of time the advantage of antiquity, they were then new, they had to run the gauntlet of all kinds of opposition, and establish themselves in the confidence of the Church: and that is what we must do now. If any man can make a new tune, let him make it, and the common heart of humanity will soon pronounce upon its merits. It is possible so to use history as to debase it. There is a kind of evil disease in some men which will not allow them to believe that though Wesley is dead God lives. Theirs is a God of antiquity: ours is a God of antiquity, but also the God of the present throbbing moment. We must have no patience with persons who take the life out of God, and worship him as a mere term in ancient history. It is what God is to me at this moment that is the all-important and all-determining factor in my life. Of what avail to tell me that there was once a God called the God of Abraham? Any God that can die is no God. The only God I can worship is a living present God, who is giving me new experience, new history, new faculties, new inspirations, new tunes, always giving me new grace and new power to reveal himself. There is a novelty that is rich with an eternal secret. By what means can we get rid of the people we do not want to keep, the whining, sentimental, superstitious worshippers of something that happened a hundred and fifty years ago? Will any infidel build a church to hold such people? I would transfer them all in one letter. They are the infidels. We had better call them by their right name and put them to their right uses. They who believe that God is here, now, in all the fulness of his light and love and grace, they who believe that every step they take is ordered from heaven, if they have put their life into God’s keeping, they are the believers, and they never can be argued down.

We are then called upon by this train of suggestion to believe that Providence is not something that expired long ago, but that Providence is in beneficent and detailed action now. Who can draw himself up to that stature of faith? What, God in action now! I could believe that he may have been in action five hundred years ago, but to believe that everything is under his control now, at this very present moment, baffles my imagination, and puts my religious faith to severe tests. Yet I must accept that doctrine. Appearances are sometimes against the theory that God is in action now; we are oftentimes the victims of appearances, we do not take in field enough, within whose amplitude we can judge fairly and justly of God’s purposes in life. When, in a great flood that carried with it village after village, a mother put her lost child upon some driftwood, and the child said, “Mamma, you have always told me God would take care of me: will he take care of me now?” I must say there is one way of looking at that which utterly shatters our religious faith; there is another way of looking at it which may confirm the faith which is momentarily in peril. We have formed a wrong conception of death. We first of all take our logical sword and cut the filaments which connect the worlds, and then we say, Will God take care of me now? What is care? What is taking care of a little human life? All men must die, they must go out of this world by fire or flood or disease: what is, in the largest sense of the term, taking care of human life? In that case, so pathetic and so tragical, I would say, Pity the living, not the dead; pity her who has to wait a few months or years and carry all the trouble in her soul, do not pity those who by flood or fire or pestilence or disease are urged into their destiny. We must talk of such tragedies fifty years hence; time must work out its ministry of soothing and suggestion and comfort, aye, and in many a day-dream we must see from what awful possibilities they have been saved who under circumstances of violence have been detached from our side. Let those who can testify as to God’s presence in their life be no longer silent. I can bear testimony that God has been with me. I have felt him. There be those who with cold pen and ink write whether we know God by some intellectual process. I know him by my feeling, by my experience, by my spiritual elevation; I know him by the view I have been enabled to take of all past things in my life: they were painful, humiliating, tormenting; they were full of disappointment and distress; yet every one of them was right. You cannot put that down by any argumentative process. This is not an affidavit in the court of intellect, it is sworn testimony in the court of conduct, character, and human feeling.

I must therefore believe, if faithful to this line of suggestion, that inspiration is now going on. Can you believe in a God who has nothing more to say to his human family? Has God quite gone from his Church? Does he never whisper to any of his sons and daughters? Does he never interpret the Scripture by some ministry of the Holy Ghost known and felt by the individual heart alone? May not God have changed the method of his inspiration without changing the fact? May not he who once inspired individual men now inspire whole communities and nations of men? May there not be a thought common to civilisation? May there not now be a tendency in movement which can only be accounted for by a sovereign action on the part of God? May he not now inspire actions, great acts of self-sacrifice and generosity; may he not now so work in the human mind that men shall keep back nothing from him, but make themselves poor every night that every morning they may go forth and reap a harvest of gold? What is your God? an antiquity, a mythologic conception, some dim nebulous impalpable thing? or is he Father, Shepherd, Friend, in you, near you, round about you? Is he the builder of your house from the basement to the roof; is he the chief guest at your table; does he keep all your account books; does he watch you with eyes of love? And has he never anything new to say to his ministers? Do they go forth Sunday after Sunday to tell something that he has not told them? Does he not now say to his servants, Arise, the time of battle has come, or seed-sowing; rise, I will go with thee, the people are waiting for us, and I will tell you in the same hour what ye shall say: put away all your own little ability and cleverness and smartness, and put away all attempts to patronise your Father in heaven; I will go with you, and fill you with the Holy Ghost, and the opening of your mouth shall be as the sounding of music, and the people will answer with a glad amen? This is the God we worship, this is the God for whose presence we pray. Unchangeableness in providential action does not mean monotony. God “spake at sundry times” and “in divers manners,” We will not allow that expression “divers manners,” although it is part of the very economy of heaven. God does nothing by mere repetition: he gives every man an individuality; every atom casts its own little shadow, every soul has its own momentum from God, every voice has in it a tone that no other voice can utter. Let us therefore find God’s consistency in his providence, and not in the methods of it; let us find God’s inspiration, not in some mechanical theory concerning it, but in the feeling that it is created round about us in the minds and hearts of men. When men say in great bodies, whether in families, municipalities or nations, Come, let us go unto the house of the Lord! that is inspiration; the wind is from heaven, rushing and mighty, and there is no dust of earth in all its sounding tempest.

We are not then to limit the Holy One of Israel. Let God work as he may. All ministers are necessary to form a ministry. No one preacher can say everything. When you say, What about the preaching of Christianity? you can say nothing about it until you have heard every preacher under heaven; the man you have not heard is the man who may contribute the completing touch. God looks upon his ministry as one: we unfortunately look upon the ministry as a series of individuals, one personality having little or no connection with another. To God it is a solidarity, not an association of atoms that have no relation to one another. So with Providence, the great movements of the world are one in purpose and in tendency; and so with inspiration, there is an inspired sentiment, and who dare say that jurisprudence to-day is not in the highest Christian countries inspired? The noble lord comes before the law, or the noble scion of a noble house, and the one who brings him before the law is some poor orphaned friendless woman: what will jurisprudence do in the highest countries? It will do right, and the noble scion of a noble house must make compensation to the life he has wronged. When that voice of judgment is heard God is heard. When our laws are good, when our judgment is impartial, when our honour is without a stain, when we speak truth and fear no consequences, let us know that God is in the tabernacle of his people, and that he is leading the civilisation of the world. What we want, then, is living character, a living Church. When we hear discussions of an ecclesiastical kind, what are they all about? Listening to these controversies about words and phrases, see how warm these men become. They smite the table. Why so hot, my little sirs? What do you know about it? Nothing nothing. It will require eternity to settle the things you want to handle as if they were so many pennyweights of gold. What you can do is to love justice and mercy and truth; what you can do is to be honest, helpful, noble, Christlike; what you can do is to realise God in conduct. Yet how pitiable it is to see doxy versus doxy, and many clouds of words. There is a friend of yours, it may be, who settles everything by saying it. The Unitarians, he says the blockheads! Of course the Unitarians, then, are all settled. Strauss and Renan and Wellhausen the blockheads! That is one way of treating the case; but it is a useless way in all instances. We cannot settle metaphysics or eternal questions within the little cage of time, but this, through Jesus Christ, our dying, risen Lord, we can do, this by the power of the Cross of Christ lies within the compass of our ability we can do justly, we can love mercy, we can walk humbly with God.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XVII

THREE QUESTIONS AND CHRIST’S ANSWERS

Harmony, pages 147-154 and Mat 21:23-22:33 ; Mar 11:27-12:27 ; Luk 20:1-40

This section commences on page 147 of the Harmony, near the bottom. Before its special exposition let us consider several introductory thoughts:

First, It is a part of a great day in the life of our Lord. We have already noted one great day’s work in Galilee, and a little later we considered another great day, and this one makes the third. The transactions of this one twenty-four hour day covers everything from page 146 to page 172 of the Harmony. If we reckoned according to the Jewish method of days, from sunset to sunset, we would have to stop at page 168.

To obtain some general idea of the tremendous work of this day we must group its events:

Jesus walked from Bethany to the Temple two miles.

On the way he gave the lesson concerning the withering of the fig tree.

On arriving at the Temple he began walking about and teaching. Here the Sanhedrin pressed on him this question of authority: “What sort of authority have you for doing these things and from whom did you get it?” Their inquiry looks to the nature of his authority and its author. To that question he makes an elaborate reply. Then commences the series of questions resulting from a conspiracy on the part of his several enemies with a view to ensnare him or tangle him in his talk in one way or another that would make him odious either to the authorities or to some part of the people. The object of the second question is to put him either in opposition to Herod and Rome, and thus make him amenable to the civil authority, or to the people, and thus destroy his popularity. This was a question concerning the tribute money. Then comes a question concerning the resurrection, the answer to which they hoped would array him against either the Sadducees or the Pharisees. This was followed by a question as to the kind of commandment that should be considered greatest. The form of this question resulted from a conference among themselves, and they selected a lawyer to propound it. To all of these questions he gave the most marvelous replies, demonstrating his supreme wisdom and rendering them dumb. Then follows his last public discourse, in which he makes a terrible indictment against the scribes and Pharisees, denounces an awful penalty upon the Jewish nation, but holds out a glorious future hope.

Then follows his lesson on giving suggested by the widow’s contribution to the treasury of the Temple. Then, after he left the Temple and got as far as Mount Olivet going to Bethany, came his great discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his final advent in response to the questions of his disciples. This great discourse is recorded in Matthew 24-25; Mar 13 ; Luk 21 .

Following this comes a lesson concerning his death nearly at hand. In the meantime a meeting of the Sanhedrin is held concerning the way to put him to death. We have a thrilling account of a feast given in his honor when he arrives at Bethany, at which he is anointed by Mary, and where he delivered a great lesson concerning that anointing. Following this anointing Judas returns to Jerusalem and offers for a price to betray him to the Pharisees. All of these events thus grouped happened in one day. The strain upon both his physical and mental resources must have been very great.

Second, The next introductory thought lies in the obvious fact that here it is Bethany versus Jerusalem, an obscure village against the Holy City. His headquarters are at Bethany and every morning he goes into the city and teaches in the Temple, and every afternoon late he goes back to Bethany. The whole narrative here is very lively.

Third, We cannot fail to see the steps of a triple development. The malice of his enemies ripens rapidly. We see also the development in the clearness of Christ’s exposure of their murderous attempt. We see the rapid development in the spiritual downfall of Judas Iscariot and how it culminated.

Commencing then on page 147 of the Harmony, in the text of Mat 21:23-22:14 , Mar 11:27-12:12 , and Luk 20:1-19 , let us consider in detail such of the events of this great day, as come within this discussion. We see him walking and teaching in the Temple. One who is familiar with Greek history may recall how Aristotle was accustomed to teach in the same manner, walking about with his disciples under the colonnades of certain buildings; hence the name, “peripatetic philosophy.” He may also recall from Greek history the method of Socrates, who taught by asking and answering questions, and the scene of Paul at the marketplace in Athens.

FIRST QUESTION The scribes and Pharisees commenced the catechism with this twofold question: “By what sort of authority do you teach and do these things and who gave it to you?” They were accustomed to give authority to the rabbis before they taught. No man could expect to be heard in teaching who could not show the authority by which he taught. Their questions, however, had already been answered by our Lord, as appears from Joh 12:44-50 . I will quote:

And Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me. I come a light into the world that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness. And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, bath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I spake not from myself, but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life eternal; the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

Here very plainly and explicitly he has given a reply to that question as to the sort of authority under which he acted and the author of that authority. He had divine authority for all he said and did. They knew well enough what he had taught concerning his being sent of the Father, and there was no need to propound that question this time, but let us see how he replies now.

He replies by a counter question. This was an acceptable method of rejoinder by both Pharisee and Greek philosophers: “I also will ask you a question; and tell me the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?” After consideration they replied that they did not know. Their answer was insincere, for in their communing they had said, “If we say that John’s baptism is from heaven, then he will say, Why did not ye believe him when he testified of me and baptized me as the Messiah and pointed to me, saying, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!” Hence to answer that the baptism of John was from heaven would be to answer the question that they had just propounded to him. On the other hand, if they had answered that it was from men, then the people would rise up against them, for the people believed that John was a prophet, and here they would be defeated in the object that they had in view, viz., to destroy his popularity with the people. As the object of their questioning was to break his power with the people so that they could arrest him safely, we can readily see the dilemma in which he placed them by his counter question. So they had to stand there dumb before the people. To complete their discomfiture he then goes on to show that John was sent from heaven and that the people who believed in John were wiser than these religious teachers propounding questions to him: “The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God ahead of you. They justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John, and you, when you saw it, repented not yourselves that you might believe.” In this way he made it plain that it was not a desire upon their part to know his authority) but their question was one of guile and malice. Nor is he yet through with them upon this question of authority. He continues to press home upon them their own wickedness by a parable. A man had two sons. To the first he said, “Son, go along and work to-day in the vineyard,” and he answered and said, “I will not,” but afterward he repented and went. He said also to the other son, “Son, go and work in the vineyard,” and he replied, “I will, sir,” but went not. Having stated this parable he forces them to say which was the obedient son, the one who first said, “I will not” and afterwards obeyed, or the one who said, “I will,” and did not obey. Having extorted from them the reply that the first was the obedient son, he then applied his lesson. Here are two classes of people: First, these publicans and harlots refused to obey God at first, going into open wickedness and wrong, then later repented and obeyed God and he accepted them. The other class, consisting of the scribes and Pharisees, are all the time saying, “I will, I will,” but their professions are empty; they never obey.

He now drives them like a wolf into a final corner by another parable the parable of the wicked husbandman. His object is to utterly expose the malice underlying all their opposition to him. They could not misunderstand the application of this parable. It is a perfect arraignment of the Jewish nation and of its leaders. Following the old time Jewish imagery he tells of a vineyard as one of the prophets hath said, “I brought a vine out of Egypt, and planted it and watered it and cultivated it, and what more could I do to my vineyard than I have done?” Now these husbandmen who had charge of that vineyard were refusing to its owner its land dues. The prophets who had been sent unto them were maltreated, their message rejected, some of them were killed, some sawn asunder, some stoned. Then at last the heir comes and they take counsel to kill him in order to make permanent their authority over the vineyard. His purpose is to show that the most inveterate unbelief, hardness of heart, and murderous malice are evinced by these scribes rind Pharisees. From that day until the present the unbelieving Jews have sought to evade the point of our Lord’s great indictment, that they have murdered the Prince of Glory, their own Messiah.

Many years ago, when I was a young pastor, a Jewish rabbi came to Waco and offered to prove from the Gospels themselves that the Jews were not guilty of the death of Christ; that he was punished according to the forms of the Jewish law. And he offered to prove this if any church in the city would offer him their pulpit. I accepted on condition that I be allowed to reply to him, and he would get his people to hear my reply, as I would get my people to hear his discussion. The arrangements were made and when he delivered his address he followed very closely an account of the trial of Jesus Christ given by Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and learned Jew, who had published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institution of Moses and the Jewish People. In this history there is a chapter on the administration of justice. Then follows an application of the principles set forth in that chapter to the most memorable trial in history that of Jesus Christ. Doubtless this rabbi supposed that nobody in Waco had ever heard of that book. When I began my reply the following night I recited the facts concerning Mr. Salvador’s book and that this rabbi’s speech was merely a series of quotations from that book, and then I gave the reply to Mr. Salvador’s book by a distinguished French lawyer, Mr. Dupin. Mr. Dupin, with the utmost courtesy and respect, grinds to fine powder Mr. Salvador’s argument. I then told the audience that they would find both Mr. Salvador’s argument, which was the same as that to which the audience had listened, and Mr. Dupin’s reply in an appendix to Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists.

I may refer also to a discussion by Mayor Gaynor of New York, and I mention the most exhaustive discussion by a great lawyer: The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint two volumes, by v. M. Chandler of the New York Bar. While fully agreeing with Mr. Chandler in his broad sympathies with all persecuted Jews, by any country” or religion, I utterly dissent from him on one capital point which is also both a legal and a historical one, my own conviction being that nations as well as individuals are responsible for their actions and the actions of their leaders, and more so in this case than in any other in history. There can be no serious question here. Jesus of Nazareth was pursued to death murderous death contrary to the forms of the Jewish law. This is exactly our Lord’s indictment, and in this argument of the wicked husbandman he puts the final point upon this indictment, forces these scribes and Pharisees to answer this question: “When, therefore, the Lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto these husbandmen?” And they are compelled to answer: “He will miserably destroy these miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their season.”

Our Lord seeks to prepare all of his audience for this immense transition, the taking away of the kingdom of God from the Jews and the giving of that kingdom to the Gentiles. He puts the capstone upon his application by a citation from the prophets, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.” Isaiah had said, “Behold, I lay for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone.” Now our Lord’s charge is that this stone, which God himself had prepared for the foundation, they rejected, and then he announces their doom: “Whoever stumbles on that stone, whoever through unbelief in this life, rejects Christ, shall be broken. But upon whom that stone shall fall, he shall be ground to powder.”

He follows up this victory by another parable, the parable of the marriage feast. We have already seen Luke’s account of a similar parable, and yet in some things dissimilar: The parable of the gospel feast. The distinction between the two is very important. A student should put them side by side. The gospel feast is at the beginning, illustrating the preaching of the gospel to the Jews. The marriage feast presents not the beginning, but the culmination. While the Jews counted a betrothal as binding as marriage, yet there was a distinction between the betrothal and the consummation of the marriage. The object of the gospel feast is to betroth Christ. The object of the marriage feast is to show the consummation of that betrothal. Paul says, “I have espoused you as a chaste virgin unto Christ.” Everybody is invited under the terms of this gospel feast to be betrothed to Christ, but in this marriage feast the rejection is final, and as a penalty the king himself sends his armies and destroys the murderers and burns their city. Such is the fate of Jerusalem. Already the shadow of the coming armies of Titus on the nation appears. In less than forty years from the time that Jesus speaks this parable, Titus takes Jerusalem, since which time they have had no home, no Temple, and no national government.

This argument clearly shows that on the rejection of the Jews the heralds of the cross are to go to the highways and the hedges. There is one special incident in the parable a man who outwardly accepts the invitation to the wedding feast, but attends without a wedding garment is cast into the outer darkness. He represents the formal professor of religion; the one who accepts God’s invitation so far as externals are concerned, but who makes no inward preparation. Thus by parable after parable Christ makes an end to his answer to their first question, “By what sort of authority do you teach and who gives it?”

SECOND QUESTION The conspiracy underlying the second question and the motive prompting it is thus expressed by Luk 20:20 : “And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who feigned themselves to be righteous, that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor.” There were two political parties. One was called the Herodians, that is, those who accepted the Roman government and its administration through Herod. The Sadducees belonged to this party. The Pharisees constituted the bulk of the other party. Their object was to free their nation from any semblance of dependence upon Rome. The issue between these parties was very sharp. Everywhere there was alignment for one or the other. One who committed himself to the Herodians deprived himself of favor with what is called the patriotic party led by the Pharisees, and one who openly aligned himself with them secured the enmity of the ruling party. Led by malice they feigned great love for Jesus and respect for his teaching and brought him a question concerning the poll tax or tribute money. With flattering words they thus introduce it: “Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us, therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?” If he had answered, “Yes,” this would have turned the people against him. If he had said, “No,” this would have made him obnoxious to the authorities and would have furnished them the ground for preferring a charge of treason. It is a well laid plot. The question was a puzzling one to most of the Jewish people. They were a holy nation enslaved to a heathen nation. Could they as God’s own people pay this poll tax? History tells us that not long after Christ was crucified a rebellion took place on this very subject. A man named Judas in Galilee raised an insurrection, and Barabbas, about whom we will learn later, was not so much a common robber and murderer as he was a representative of this patriotic idea of freeing the nation from the iniquitous government of Rome. Our Lord does not hesitate to make a reply to their question. He passes no judgment on the righteousness of the Roman rule, but he recognizes the fact that they are the rulers of Judea. His mission is not a political one, but a spiritual one. He asks for the tribute money. Holding it in his hand he says, “Whose is this image and superscription?” They answer, “Caesar’s.” He replies, “Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

This reply shows that he would not head a political faction; that his kingdom was not of this world; that while he did not justify the Roman government, he recognized the fact that they were the rulers of the nation and he made it the occasion of laying down a principle of worldwide application by his people. Paul repeats it later, “Render tribute to whom tribute is due.” Peter repeats it, “Honor the king,” not that he expresses a preference for a monarchial form of government over a democratic, but that it is not the object of the Christian religion primarily to teach forms of human government, but to save men; to deal with the spiritual condition of the people. The answer of our Lord to this second question, has, throughout all history, been the guiding principle of his people.

THIRD QUESTION The Sadducees came to the front with a question that has hitherto puzzled their adversaries. They do not believe in the immortality of the soul. They are materialists. They think when a man dies that is the last of him, and, of course, they do not believe in the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees believe in the immortality of the soul and in the resurrection of the body. The Sadducees present what they consider an unanswerable question, citing a supposititious case of a man dying without an heir and under the Mosaic law his brother taking his place as a husband of the widow, and that brother dying without an heir, and so on, until she had been the wife of seven brothers. Then she dies. Now, in the resurrection which one of the seven will be her husband? Of course, they did not believe that there would be any resurrection, but as the Pharisees were accustomed to teach that in the next world there would be marriages, and that earthly relations would be continued, to them the question was a puzzle. The Mohammedans also teach the continuance of sexual relations in the world to come: They hold out as an incentive the luxuries of sexual pleasures of paradise. Of course, it was agreed between the Pharisees and the Sadducees that this question should be propounded to our Lord. If he should answer in favor of the Sadducees that would turn against him all the people who followed the teachings of the Pharisees. If he should answer in favor of the Pharisees then the Sadducees, who were Herodians, fewer in number, but occupying the most of the offices, would have had ground of accusation against Christ. The Sadducees were the party in power. The object of the question was to put him between the upper and the nether millstones. He completely vanquishes both of them by his teaching that in the next world there is no marriage nor giving in marriage. Those who attain the resurrection state are sexless, as are the angels, not that they will be angels. But the present physical conditions of this life will not be continued in the other world. He does not mean that man and wife living long together on earth may not rejoice with each other in heaven, remembering the lessons of time, but that the physical conditions of married life do not continue in the world to come. This answer both breaks the points of the question of the Sadducees and corrects the erroneous doctrine of the Pharisees concerning the conditions of the future life. No Pharisee with the views that he held could have met the difficulties of the question of the Sadducees. Our Lord now turns upon the Sadducees with a most crushing rejoinder. “You deny the resurrection of the body. You err upon two points: You neither know the scriptures nor the power of God.” He then proves from the Pentateuch the resurrection of the dead by the words of God to Moses: “I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” He is not the God of dead people, but of living people. Abraham is dead only as to his body. He lives and is with God. This argument is from the greater to the lesser; if God be the Saviour of the soul of Abraham he will be the Saviour of his body, rescuing it from the grave. Some commentators have been puzzled to see the application of Christ’s answer to the resurrection of the body. But our Lord was wiser than commentators. His one citation destroys both errors of the Sadducees. They held that there is no immortality of the soul. He disproves that. They held that there is no resurrection of the body. He disproves that.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the three introductory thoughts to this chapter?

2. What is the greatest day’s work in the life of our Lord, and what two other very great days in his life?

3. Give a detailed outline of this great day’s work.

4. What are the parallels between the methods of Christ and Paul in their teaching and the methods of the Grecian philosophers?

5. With what double question did the scribes and Pharisees open the discussion with Christ in the Temple?

6. How had Jesus already answered these questions?

7. How did Christ answer them here and how did this answer place them in a dilemma?

8. Do you know any other people who have been puzzled to account for John’s baptism?

9. How does Christ complete their discomfiture?

10. How does he further press on them their own wickedness in a parable?

11. How does he drive them into a final corner by another parable?

12. Give an account of the controversy which occurred in Waco between a Jewish rabbi and the author.

13. Where may be found the substance of the rabbi’s speech and the reply?

14. What other discussion cited and commended and what one point from the prophets and what application?

15. What great purpose of Christ toward his audience, what citation of dissension?

16. How does he further show their doom in a parable?

17. What other parable similar and what points of contrast and distinction between the two?

18. What historical event clearly foreshadowed by this parable?

19. Who represented by the man that “had not on the wedding garment”?

20. What were the two political parties in the time of Christ, what did each stand for, how did one of these parties try to entangle Christ, and how did Christ in his reply, outwit them?

21. What does this reply show, what principle here enunciated by Christ and how recognized afterward by Paul and Peter?

22. What distinctive tenets of the Sadducees, how did they conspire with the Pharisees to entrap Christ, what dilemma in which they attempted to place him and how did he escape?

23. How does Christ prove the resurrection in this connection and what is the argument?

24. How does this citation disprove the two main tenets of the Sadducees and thus silence them?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

Ver. 1. The chief priests and scribes came ] Gr. , “came suddenly upon him.” As an unexpected storm; the devil drove them.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 8. ] HIS AUTHORITY QUESTIONED. HIS REPLY. Mat 21:23-27 . Mar 11:27-33 , where see notes. (The history of the fig-tree is not in our text.)

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1. . ] of the days , viz. of this His being in Jerusalem.

. without a dative (see ch. Luk 2:38 ) does not signify any suddenness of approach.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Luk 20:1-8 . By what authority ? (Mat 21:23-27 , Mar 11:27-33 ). . ., on one of the days, referred to in Luk 19:47 ; vague note of time. : Lk. wishes his readers to understand that Jesus was not engaged in heated controversy all the time, that His main occupation during these last days was preaching the good news, speaking “words of grace” there as in Galilee and in Samaria. , came upon, with perhaps a suggestion of suddenness (examples in Loesner from Philo), and even of hostility (adorti sunt, Erasmus, Annot. ). In Luk 21:34 Lk. uses a separate word along with the verb to express the idea of suddenness.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luke Chapter 20

Luk 20:1-8

Mat 21:23-27 ; Mar 11:27-33 .

The Lord is now seen in contact with the various classes of officials and religious and political bodies among the Jews, who successively present themselves in the hope of perplexing and inveigling Him, but in effect to their own confusion. Essaying to judge Him, they expose themselves and are judged by the truth from His lips on their own evidence one after another.

“And it came to pass on one of the* daystid=65#bkm494- as he was teaching the people in the temple and evangelizing, the chief priests and the scribes, with the elders, came up, and spoke to him, saying, Tell us by what authority thou doest these things; or who is it that has given thee this authority.”

The common addition of , “those” [ACE, etc., 33, 69], seems to be a correction from not seeing the connection with Luk 19:47 . BD and Q, at least ten cursives and most of the more ancient versions [Old Lat. Syrrcu pesch Memph.] give the shorter reading. (B.T.)

“Chief”: so most Edd., following BCDLMQR, 1, 33, 69. Tisch. reads “priests” with AEFG, etc.

It is ever apt to be thus in an evil day. Worldly religion assumes the sanction of God for that which exists, its permanence, and its future triumph. It was so in Israel; and it is so, in Christendom. Prophets then held up the fate of Shiloh to the religious chiefs who reasoned from the promises of guaranteed perpetuity for the temple, its ordinances, its ministers, its devotees, and its system in general; and those who warned like Jeremiah found bitter results in the taunts and persecutions of such as had the world’s ear. They denied God’s title to tell them the truth. And now a greater than Jeremiah was here; and those who stood on their successional office, and those who claimed special knowledge of the Scriptures, and those of leading influence in the counsels and conduct of the people, demanded His right to act as He did and its source. No wonder they felt the solemn testimony of approaching ruin to all that in which they had their importance; but there was no faith, no conscience toward God. They therefore turned away from the consideration of their own ways and responsibility to the question of His title.tid=65#bkm494a-

The Lord meets them by putting, another question. “And he answering said to them, I also will ask you a [or, one*] word [thing], and tell me: The baptism of John, was it of heaven, or of men? And they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we should say, Of heaven, he will say, Why have ye not believed him? but if we should say, Of men, the whole people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered that they did not know whence [it was].”

*”[One] word”: BLR, a few cursives [1, 33, 69] and versions [e.g., Memph.] omit [ACDE, etc.], which may be imported from Mark. (B.T.). Revv.: “something” ().

The weight of evidence [BEL, etc., 69, Memph.] seems clearly against “then” [ACD, etc., 1, 33, Amiat.]. (B.T.)

The wisdom of the Lord’s procedure is worthy of all heed. He Who alone could have taken His stand on personal dignity, and the nearest relationship, and the highest mission, pleads none of these things. He probes their consciences; and, in their desire to escape from the consequences of answering truly, they are compelled to confess their incapacity both to guide others and even to act aright themselves in a matter of the deepest and most general concern to all Israel of that day. “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and at his mouth should they seek the law, for he is the messenger of Jehovah of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, said Jehovah of hosts.” So said Malachi, (Mal 2:7 ff.) and so the Lord proved now. “And I also have made you contemptible and base before all the people, because ye have not kept my ways, but have respect of persons in the law.” They could not deny, yet refused to profit by, the moral power of John, Who bore witness to Jesus as Messiah and to Israel’s need of repentance. To own, therefore, the baptism of John, a new institution, as of Heaven, without the least appearance of traditional sanctity or claim of antiquity or connection with the priesthood or the temple, was of the most serious import to men who derived all their consequence from the regular course of the law and its ordinances. Besides, it at once decided the question of the Messiah, for John in the strongest and most solemn way declared that Jesus was the Christ. To disown John and his baptism would have been fatal to their credit, for all the people were persuaded that John was a prophet. It was to them a mere question of policy, and hence they shirked answering under cover of a lie. They could not afford to be truthful; they said they knew not whence John’s baptism was. They were as void of faith as the heathen.tid=65#bkm495- He who read their dark hearts wound up with the reply, “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” It was useless to inform unbelief. Long before the Lord had forbidden His disciples to tell any man that He was the Christ; for He was going to suffer on the cross. “When ye shall have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [be], and from myself I do nothing, but even as the Father taught me, these things I speak.” (Joh 8 .)

Here we have no special application to the Jews in order to let them know that the most despised men and corrupt women go into the kingdom of God before the heads honoured by the people. This has its appropriate place in the Gospel of Matthew. But we have the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen in all three Synoptic accounts, each with its own special shades of truth.

Luke 20: 9-19.tid=65#bkm496-

Mat 21:33-46 ; Mar 12:1-12 .

“And he began to speak to the people this parable: A* man planted a vineyard and let it out to husbandmen, and left the country for a long time. And in the season he sent to the 3 husbandmen a bondman that they might give to him of the fruit of the vineyard; but the husbandmen having beaten him sent [him] away empty. And again he sent another bond. man; but they having beaten him also, and cast insult upon him sent [him] away empty. And again he sent a third, and they having wounded him also, cast [him] out. And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do.tid=65#bkm497- I will send my beloved son: perhaps when they see* they will respect [him]. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may become ours. And having cast him forth out of the vineyard they killed [him]. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will cometid=65#bkm498- and destroy those husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it they said, May it never be! But he looking at them said, What then is this that is written? The stone which they that builded rejected, this has become the corner stone. Every one falling on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall crush him to powder.”

*”A”: so Edd. with BCDEL, etc., 1, 33, Old Lat. Memph. A, 69, Syrr. have “a certain.”

“When they see”: so AR, later uncials, most cursives, Syrpesch. Edd. omit, following BCDLQ, 1, 33, Syrcu Memph. Arm.

CDLR, most cursives (33, 69), Syrrcu pesch Memph. add “come”. Edd. omit, as ABKMQ, 1, most Old Latt, Amiat., Goth. Arm.

On the truth common to all it is not needful to speak now. But the reader in comparing may notice the greater fullness of detail in Matthew and Mark than in Luke as to the dealings with Israel, as also the greater minuteness in Mark of the reception the servants and son received. So also observe on the other hand that Mark and Luke speak simply of giving the vineyard to others, Matthew on letting it out to other husbandmen such as shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Responsibility is thus most maintained in Matthew, grace in Luke, both being true and of capital moment. Again, in Matthew it is “he that falleth,” in Luke “Every one,” etc. There is breadth in judgment as in grace. Mark has not the verse at all, as not bearing on service, the theme of the Spirit by him.

“And the scribes and the chief priests that very hour sought to lay hands on him, and they feared the people; for they knew that he had spoken this parable of (against) them.” Again does the Holy Spirit notice their bad conscience, their hatred of Jesus, and their fear of the people. God was in none of their thoughts, else had they repented and believed in Jesus. What a comment on the parable was their desire to lay hands on Him! Thus were they soon to fulfil the voice of the prophets and the parable of the great Prophet Himself.

Luke 20: 20-26.tid=65#bkm499-

Mat 22:15-22 ; Mar 12:13-17 .

And having watched [him] they sent suborned persons pretending to be righteous that they might lay hold of his language so as to deliver him to the power and the authority of the governor. And they asked him, saying, Teacher, we know that thou rightly sayest and teachest and acceptest no [man’s] person, but in truth teachest the way tid=65#bkm500- of God. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not? But perceiving their deceit he said to them,* Show me a denarius [penny].tid=65#bkm500A- Whose image and title has it? And answering they said, Caesar’s. And he said to them, Therefore render the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God.” The moral depravity of all concerned is here very marked, whether of suborners or suborned. Simplicity of purpose detects and exposes the crafty. Jesus sacrifices no duty. tid=65#bkm501- Let Caesar have what is his, and God His own. The world-panderers and the zealots were alike foiled, who set one duty against another, doing neither aright because each was seeking self. “And they were not able to lay hold of his word before the people, and wondering at his answer were silent.”

*ACD, etc., most cursives, Old Lat. add “Why do ye tempt me?” which Edd. reject, after BL, 1, Syrr. Memph. Goth. Arm. (from Mark).

After “denarius,” CL, 1, 33, 69, Memph., etc., add “and they showed it to Him and He said.” Syrsin has “and they showed it to Him” after the question. Edd., however, adhere to ABD, etc., most cursives and Old Lat., Syrcu and Goth.

Luk 20:27-40 .

Mat 22:23-33 , Mat 22:46 ; Mar 12:18-27 , Mar 12:34 .

And some of the Sadducees who deny that there is any resurrectiontid=65#bkm502- came up, and demanded of him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrotetid=65#bkm503- to us, If any one’s brother having a wife die and he be* childless, that his brother take the wife, and raise up seed to his brother. There were then seven brothers, and the first having taken a wife, died childless; and the second and the third, took her; and likewise also the seven left no children and died; and lastly the woman died. In the resurrection therefore, of which of them does the woman become wife? For the seven had her as wife. And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age tid=65#bkm504- marry and are given in marriage; but those deemed worthy to obtain that age and the resurrection from among [the] dead tid=65#bkm505- neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they can die no more, for they are equal to angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.tid=65#bkm506- But that the dead rise even Moses showed [in the section] on the bush when he called Jehovah the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob.tid=65#bkm507- But He is not God of dead but of living, for all live to Him.”tid=65#bkm508-

*”Be ()”: so most Edd., according to BLP, 1, 33, Syrcu, most Old Lat. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Blass: “die” () after A, later uncials, nearly all cursives, Syrsin and Goth.

Blass retains here “took the woman and he died childless,” after AP, etc., most cursives (1, 33, 69), Syrrcu sin Old Lat. Amiat. Other Edd. omit the words, as BDL,

Before “said,” AE, etc., have “answering,” which is rejected by Edd. with BDL, Old Lat. Memph.

We need not combat here men like Dr. Campbell, ably as he wrote on the Gospels, or Dwight, who contend that the point is a future life rather than the resurrection of the body. Not so. The proposed case could hardly have risen but as a difficulty in the ways of a risen body, though it is doubtless true that the Sadducees went further and denied angels and spirits.

Our Gospel, it is of interest to observe here, furnishes several distinct truths beyond what is found in Matthew and Mark. Resurrection from among the dead (not resurrection as such) has its own proper age, a time of special blessedness which the resurrection of the unjust cannot be said to be. It was after this resurrection the apostle longed so ardently, minding no sufferings if by any means he might attain to that. The resurrection of the wicked is for the second death. The resurrection from among the dead is for the righteous who die no more, being equal to angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. The resurrection of the unjust is the awful condition of eternal judgment, as they had rejected Christ and eternal life in Him. God is Abraham’s God and will raise the dead to enjoy the promises not yet fulfilled; He is not God of dead men but of living; for to Him all live, even before the resurrection comes as well as when it does come. Thus Luke above all the Evangelists gives us a full glimpse of the separate state, besides the certainty of resurrection and glory. “And some of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast well said. For* they did not dare any more to ask him anything.” We shall see that the Lord’s turn is come to question them.

*The “and” of T.R. is in ADE, etc., 1, 69, Old Lat. Syrr., and is retained by Blass (as by Hahn and Godet in their expositions). Very ancient authorities (BLR) and a few cursives (1, 33) support , “for.” (B.T.) So W. H.

Luke 20: 41-44.tid=65#bkm509-

Mat 22:41-45 ; Mar 12:35-37 .

As the various parties, the leaders of religions thought in Israel, did not dare any more to ask the Lord anything, He put the crucial question to them; not of course to tempt like them, but to convince them that the Pharisees had no more real faith than the Sadducees, and that the scribes had no more understanding of the Divine Word than the crowd who knew not the law. His, indeed, was a probe to conscience and an appeal to the Scriptures, if peradventure they might hear and live. Alas! they had ears but heard not, and their own Messiah’s highest glory they denied, to their own perdition and God’s dishonour. And this is no peculiarity of the Jews in that day; it applies as really now, and even more conspicuously among Protestants than among Papists. At bottom, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, earthly religion slights Christ: sometimes by open antagonism, as when His Deity is opposed and His sacrifice set aside; at other times by setting up rival mediators, the virgin, saints, angels, priests, etc., who usurp that which belongs exclusively to Him. To us, then, there is but one Lord, even Jesus Christ; and as we cannot serve two masters, so we cannot have two Saviours; but either men hate the one, and love the other, or else they hold to the one, and despise the other.

“And he said to them, How do they say that the Christ is David’s son; and David himself* saith in the book of Psalms, Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies [as] footstool of thy feet? David therefore calleth him Lord; and how is he his son?”

*”And . . . himself”: so Blass, after Lachmann, with ADP, Syrr. Vulg. Goth. Others read “for,” with BLR, 33, etc.

There is and could be but one answer. The Messiah, David’s son, must have been a Divine Person in order to be David’s Lord, the everlasting enigma of unbelief, now as then the stumbling-stone to the Jew. Yet is it as certainly if not as clearly and continually presented in the Old Testament as in the New; and as it is essential to His proper dignity and enhances incalculably the grace of God, so it is indispensable that there should be an irrefragable rock of salvation, whether for an Israelite or for any other. Without the Godhead of Jesus, however truly man as He is, Christianity is a delusion, an imposture, and an impossibility, as Judaism was an unmeaning child’s play. To Him, God and man in one person, do the law and the prophets bear their unequivocal witness, not more surely to God’s righteousness without law than to the Christ’s glory above law, however He might deign to be born of woman, born under law, in order to redeem those who were in this position. (Gal 4 .)

But man fears to face the truth till he is born anew. It annihilates his pride, it exposes his vanity in every sense, as well as his guilt and ruin; it makes God the only hope and Saviour. Man does not like what grinds his self-importance to powder, and, unless grace intervene savingly, will risk everlasting destruction rather than yield to the testimony of God. But the truth erects a judgment-seat in the conscience of each believer, who now owns himself lost that he may be saved, and saved exclusively by His grace Who will be the judge, to their endless misery and shame, of all who despise His glory and His mercy now.

To the believer no truth is simpler, none more precious, than the Christ a man yet God, son of David yet David’s Lord, the root and the offspring of David, Who came to die, but withal the living and eternal God. On the intrinsic dignity of His person hang the grace of His humiliation and the value of His atonement, and the glory to God of the kingdom He will take and display as Son of man. He is now the Centre to faith of all who are brought to God reconciled by the blood of His Cross; as He will be of all things that are in heaven and that are on earth reconciled by Him; but if not God, equally with the Father, such a place of centre in grace or glory must be a deadly blow at that honour which is due to the only God, because it would be giving to a creature, however exalted, the homage proper to Him alone. His Godhead therefore is essential to His character of the model man; the denial of it logically implies the horrible libel and lie that He is no better than the most fraudulent and successful of impostors. This may serve to prove what the guilt of discrediting the Son of God really is; this explains why whoever denies the Son has not the Father, while he who confesses the Son has the Father also. He who honours not the Son honours not the Father Who sent Him.

Therefore is judgment given only to the Son; because He alone in infinite love stooped to become a man and to die for men, yea for the guiltiest of sinners, who alas! repaid His love by the deepest dishonour, rejecting Him when He came in grace, as they reject Him preached in grace still, Who will judge them as Son of man in that nature because of the assumption of which they despised Him and denied His Godhead. Thus will God compel all, even the proudest unbeliever, to honour the Son as they honour the Father. But this will be to their judgment, not salvation. Eternal life is in hearing Christ’s Word now and believing Him Who sent His Son in love; otherwise nothing remains but a resurrection of judgment in vindication of His injured name, the rejection of the Father in the Son.

We need not dwell on other truths wrapped up in the citation from Psa 110 , though of the deepest interest and elsewhere applied in the New Testament. Here the object is as simple as it is fundamental, an inextricable riddle to the incredulous, Jews or Gentiles. But it is especially the former who have ever stopped short there, silenced but not subdued. As for such Gentiles as professed to receive the only solution in His person, the enemy finds other ways to nullify the truth wherever they are unrenewed by grace. False friends are no better than open enemies, but rather worse – ungodly men turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ, Whose judgment is just and sure, as we see in the solemn epistle of Jude.

Luk 20:45-47 .

Mat 23:1 , Mat 23:5-7 , Mat 23:14 ; Mar 12:38-40 .

“And as all the people were listening, he said to the* disciples: Beware of the scribes, who like to walk about in long robes, and love salutations in the market-places, and first seats in the synagogues and first places at the feasts,tid=65#bkm510- who devour the houses of widows, and as a pretext make long prayers. These shall receive more abundant (severer) judgment.”

*”The”: so Edd. with BD. “His” is read in AL, etc., Syrsin.

The difference in the object of the Holy Spirit’s writing by Matthew and Luke, as well as Mark, comes out here in a striking way. For the former devotes a considerable chapter to their position, their utter failure, and the stern judgment awaiting such hollow formalists from God. Mark and Luke touch the question only, the one as a falsifying of service, the other on moral ground, for the instruction of disciples. What is specially Jewish, either in title or in forms and habits, disappears; what Mark and Luke record is not loving service but selfishness and hypocrisy, the more fatal because of the profanation of God’s name.

NOTES ON THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER.

494 Luk 20:1 . – “One of the days.” Mark shows that this was the Tuesday of Passion Week.

494a Luk 20:2 . – See note on Luk 11:52 .

495 Luk 20:7 . – Observe that in effect they own themselves “blind” (6: 39).

496 Luk 20:9 ff. – See note 121 on Mark.

497 Luk 20:13 ff. – See Spurgeon’s Sermon, 1951.

498 Luk 20:15 . – “The Lord of the vineyard”: this disproves Scott Russell’s theory (cf. Bishop Westcott’s views in his “Historic Faith”) that the SON came with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. Here “the Lord” (cf. Luk 10:2 ) is the FATHER (cf. note 441).

499 Luk 20:20 . – Some have supposed that this verse introduces the Tuesday of Passion Week, but see note on verse 1. The whole of Luk 20 seems to belong to that day.

500 Luk 20:21 . – “Way.” Cf. Act 18:26 . The expression is not, however, peculiarly Lucan, as it is in each of the parallels. Instead of it, Syrrcu and Syrrsin have “word.”

500a Luk 20:24 . – “Penny.” The Roman denarius was equivalent to the Greek drachma (8.5d.). The latter of these (mentioned in Mat 18:28 , and Luk 15:8 ) survives to the present day.

501 Luk 20:25 . – Cairns attempts to show that the teaching of JESUS implicitly contains precepts for secular affairs, ethics of patriotism, etc. (chapter 4); but, as Hffding says, the Lord’s words will not bear such strain put upon them.

502 Luk 20:27 . – Cf. Tobit iii. 15. For discussion by the Greeks of the resurrection of the soul, see Plato’s “Phaedo.”

SADDUCEES. As to this party, see Edersheim, “Sketches, etc.,” chapter xxv., if not Schrer. They were Jewish Epicureans. Joseph us attests their belief in extinguishment of the soul by death (“Antiqq.,” viii. 1, 4).

503 Luk 20:28 . – A Mosaic, albeit Deuteronomic, text! See 25: 5 f. of that Book.

504 Luk 20:34 . – “Sons of this age.” This expression occurs in the New Testament only in ch. 16: 8 and here.

505 Luk 20:35 . – “Shall have been deemed worthy,” etc. Cf. 2Th 1:5 ; also Luk 14:14 and note there. Van Oosterzee on the present passage writes: “The Messianic is here represented as coincident with the resurrection of the just. It is a privilege which will not be shared by all, but only by the elect.” Cf. verse 11 of the passage in 2 Thess. with 1Th 1:4 , which speaks of election on the side of “Eternal Life” as used in John’s Gospel. In obedience to Christ’s words the real motive will always be love to Him, regard for His glory: to this His love will respond at the . “They . . . shall know that I have loved thee” (Rev 3:9 ).

One of the very few mistakes in J. Angell James’s old book, “The Anxious Inquirer,” is the statement that “it is a radical error to suppose that sanctification goes before justification” (p. 114).

Sanctification, which is always the work of the Spirit, in New Testament Scripture, is as an act:

(1) Absolute, objective, or imputed, as connected with “standing” in Grace (1Co 1:30 , Rom 5:2 ), by virtue of which every true believer is a “saint” (1Co 6:11 , Heb 10:10 ). This some Confessions, as the Westminster, fail to disengage from

(2) A work or process, which is subjective, practical and gradual, “inherent, but not perfect” (Hooker), to which, as a distinct “standing,” responsibility attaches (1Co 10:12 ), being sometimes described as “state” or “condition” (): see 2Th 2:13 , 1Pe 1:2 (), 1Th 3:13 . (cf. 1Th 5:23 ), and 2Co 7:1 . To this attaches the Apostle’s declaration, “The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power” (1Co 4:20 ). See further Rev 3:7 , Rev 3:11 : the Christian must ever remember that he has to do with a Master who is “holy and real” (). Such holiness in conduct (reality), nevertheless, is founded not on Law but on Grace (Rom 8:2 , Rom 11:20 , Heb 12:28 ), so that pride of merit and cavil of unbelief are alike excluded.

Sanctification, as Calvin puts it, means separation: “that we may serve God, and not the world.”

506 Luk 20:36 . – “Sons of the resurrection.” Cf. such Hebraisms already met with, as “sons of the bride-chamber” (Luk 5:34 ), “sons of peace” (Luk 10:6 ), and “sons of this age” (Luk 16:8 ). Cf. note 504.

Luther has preached on verses 25-36; and Dr. Arnold has a sermon from the last of these verses (p. 110).

507 Luk 20:37 . – “The God, etc.” The Sadducees, as generally stated, acknowledged the Torah, or Pentateuch: hence the Lord’s appeal to the book of Exodus (3: 6), in which the Law proper began.

508 “All live in.” Cf. Rom 6:10 , Rom 14:7 f. Here the Intermediate State in our Lord’s teaching reveals itself, additional to the statement in the other Synoptics. It of course supersedes the Old Testament conception of Sheol, which was felt to be a negation of all that was worth the name of “life.”

The Lord confines Himself to proof of the immortality of the soul. For the probable remaining links in the argument as regards resurrection of the body, see Neil, p. 289.

509 Luk 20:41 ff. – See Isa 11:1 , Isa 11:10 and Rev 22:16 . This resolves itself into, the Lord’s being GOD and MAN in one, establishing His Messiahship. Cf. 2: 11.

Observe that “David himself ” is referred to, and that Mark says that he spoke “in the Spirit.” Yet modern critics (but not Ewald) question the Davidic authorship of Psa 110 , which is ascribed to an anonymous poet writing about 143 B.C., and celebrating the accession of Simon the Maccabee to priestly and royal dignity. It is a curious task for any to undertake – that of showing how the language of the Psalm (e.g., verse 5) suits such an epoch. Cf. Maclaren on Psalms, vol. iii., p. 183 f.

An answer to the query of verse 44 Luke supplies in Act 2:31-36 , where “Lord” represents Adon in Psa 110:1 . Cf. 22: 69 here. Resurrection afforded the clue. Any reply that the scribes might have attempted must have required the use of Psa 2 , which speaks of Messiah’s earthly, as Psa 110 of his heavenly, kingship. They accorded the same recognition as Messianic to the one Psalm as to the other.

O. Holtzmann (p. 83; followed by L. Muirhead, “Eschatology,” p. 10, and others – cf. Schmiedel, “Jesus in Mod. Crit.,” p. 31) says: “He goes on to show that the opinion of the scribes was wrong.” Contra: Spitta, “Disputed Questions,” pp. 158-167. A sufficient reply to such as O. Holtzmann is (1) that the argument is of like nature to that in verses 2-8: this has been missed by Kennett in Interpreter, October, 1911, p. 45. The Lord’s dialectic vein was of a different order from that, for example, of Socrates in the Platonic Dialogues: the one made for certainty, as the other for doubt. (2) Luke could not have forgotten Luk 1:32 .

Burkitt has essayed the remark that “The New Testament was needed, not to bring men to Christ, or as a means of grace, but as an instrument of criticism by which to correct the impression we derive of Christ through our fellow-Christiains” (Church Congress Paper, 1908). This notion seems to have been broached in view of the GOSPELS. Now, those whom God does use in ministry of “the Word of His Grace” have ever themselves been brought to Christ directly or indirectly through some application of New Testament Scripture. Catechisms, Confessions, Liturgies, Ordinances – what good have these ever accomplished save as they have reflected the written WORD? To influence the lives of our fellows in either of the ways referred to by the Norrisian Professor requires, of course, other qualifications than those which any of us possess as literary “hewers of wood” or “drawers of water.” Telling a Christian audience that the New Testament in none of its parts was designed as an instrument for individual blessing must surely have been as the proverbial water on a duck’s back.

510 Luk 20:46 . – Here is another of the imagined “duplicates”: cf. Luk 11:43 .

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 20:1-8

1On one of the days while He was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders confronted Him, 2and they spoke, saying to Him, “Tell us by what authority You are doing these things, or who is the one who gave You this authority?” 3Jesus answered and said to them, “I will also ask you a question, and you tell Me: 4’Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?'” 5They reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 6But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 7So they answered that they did not know where it came from. 8And Jesus said to them, “Nor will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

Luk 20:1 This opening phrase shows that Jesus repeatedly and regularly taught in public. He imparted truth to whomever would come, listen, and receive. Christianity is open to all. There are no required academic degrees or special callings. Whosoever will come to God’s banquet of truth may eat (cf. Isa 55:1-13). Be careful of special teachers, speakers, and preachers who claim secret knowledge or special insight! There are no gurus or illuminati in biblical Christianity!

“the chief priests and the scribes” This is the official designation for the Sanhedrin, which was the supreme court of the Jews made up of seventy leaders in Jerusalem. See SPECIAL TOPIC: THE SANHEDRIN at Luk 9:22.

NASB, NKJV”confronted Him”

NRSV, TEV”came”

NJB”came up”

Luke uses the Greek word ephistmi often in his writings, but it is found in the rest of the NT only in Paul’s writings. It has several connotations:

1. to approach suddenly, Luk 2:9; Luk 21:34; Luk 24:4; Act 12:7; Act 23:27

2. to assault, Luk 20:1 (and possibly Luk 10:40); Act 4:1; Act 6:12; Act 17:5

3. to appear, Act 10:17; Act 11:11; Act 23:11

Remember that context, not a pre-set definition, determines meaning. Words have semantic ranges and only a context (sentence, paragraph) can denote which connotation is meant by the original author.

These religious leaders (the Sanhedrin was controlled by Sadducees) were concerned with both Jesus’ popularity and His cleansing of the temple (cf. Luk 19:45-46). Jesus confronted their authority (the temple) with His own authority (He was the new temple of God, cf. Mat 26:41; Mat 27:40; Mar 14:58).

Luk 20:2 “Tell us by what authority You are doing these things, or who is the one who gave You this authority” This question of authority (exousia) is a central issue that all humans must think through

1. about God (world religions)

2. about the Bible (holy books)

3. about Jesus of Nazareth (holy persons)

Humans are incurably religious creatures, but who speaks the truth?

SPECIAL TOPIC: AUTHORITY (EXOUSIA)

Luk 20:3 “tell Me: ‘Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men” Jesus’ counter question asks them about the source of John’s authority to baptize Jews (cf. Joh 1:19-25). John the Baptist had previously witnessed to Jesus’ person and authority (cf. Luk 7:18-23; Joh 1:29). If they answered the question affirmatively, they would have their answer about Jesus’ authority. Neither John or Jesus were official scribes or teachers. Yet both clearly exhibited God’s power and authority, which the people recognized and affirmed. The question of authority is not only a theological issue, but a practical matter of motives, actions, and results. Jesus’ authority was clearly revealed in His life, teachings, and actions.

Luk 20:5 “if we say. . .” This is a third class conditional sentence, which denotes potential action (so is Luk 20:6). Self-interest, not truth, was the main issue in their deliberation.

Luk 20:6 “all the people will stone us” Although this verb (future active indicative) does not appear in the Septuagint, this is the OT response to blasphemy (cf. Lev 24:14-23; Num 15:35-36; Deu 13:1-5; Deu 21:21). Speaking the truth was important. Lying or false statements had serious consequences, especially for those who claimed to speak for God.

“for they are convinced that John was a prophet” The term “convinced” is a periphrastic perfect passive. The people had a settled conviction that John the Baptist was a prophet (cf. Mat 21:26). He was the last OT prophet fulfilling the prophecies about Elijah from Mal 4:5.

Luk 20:7 They sidestepped the question. They had an opinion, but they would not publicly put themselves in jeopardy. Honesty was mitigated by self-interest. Jesus refused to respond to these hypocrites (cf. Luk 20:8). They did not want truth; they were not seeking information, but looking for an opportunity to condemn and attack Him for their self interest!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

it came to pass. AHebraism. See note on Luk 2:1.

on. Greek. en. App-104.

those days. Those last six days. See App-156.

taught = was teaching.

in. Greek. en. App-104. the temple = the temple courts. See note on Mat 23:16.

preached the gospel = announced the glad tidings. Greek. euaggelizo. App-121. Almost peculiar to Luke and Paul. Luke uses it twenty-five times and Paul twenty-four.

came upon. Implying suddenness and hostility. See Act 4:1; Act 6:12; Act 23:27. Compare Mar 11:27.

with, Greek. sun. App-104. Not as in Luk 20:5.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-8.] HIS AUTHORITY QUESTIONED. HIS REPLY. Mat 21:23-27. Mar 11:27-33, where see notes. (The history of the fig-tree is not in our text.)

Fuente: The Greek Testament

We are in the final week of the life of Jesus. He is now in Jerusalem. This is the week in which pilgrims are coming from all over the world to celebrate the Feast of the Passover. He has made His triumphant entry, that is on Sunday. He was officially rejected. He did cleanse the temple, driving out the moneychangers, taking authority in His Father’s house. And He taught daily in the temple, we read in verse Luk 20:47 of chapter 19.

So it came to pass, that on one of those days ( Luk 20:1 ),

The days that He was teaching in the temple from Sunday through Wednesday or Thursday, “…one of those days,”

as he was teaching in the temple, and preaching the gospel ( Luk 20:1 ),

Proclaiming to man God’s good news.

the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders ( Luk 20:1 ),

So this august body of religious authority, the chief priests who were mainly Sadducees, the scribes and the elders.

And they spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority do you do these things? and who is he that gave you this authority? ( Luk 20:2 )

They’re probably still a little upset over the fact that He cleansed the temple. He drove out the moneychangers. He came in and took over and said, “This is my Father’s house,” and He took over. And they were upset because the high priest was in league with the moneychangers. They made a rake off of the moneychangers and those that sold the doves and the oxen and all there in the temple grounds. And so what authority? Now they were expecting, or at least hoping…you see, they’re looking now for charges whereby they might put Him to death, and they were hoping that at this point He would say, “I am the Messiah. God is my Father. He gave Me the authority.” He referred to the temple as “My Father’s house,” and so they were hoping that He would make the claim of Messiahship in order that they might accuse Him of blasphemy and immediately try Him. But His hour was not yet come. So He did not answer them directly, but

he answered them [indirectly], saying, I will ask you one thing; and you answer me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why did you not believe him? If we say, Of men; all of the people will stone us: for they’re persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things ( Luk 20:3-8 ).

Now, John had testified concerning Jesus Christ that, “This is He that was after me, but who was preferred before me, the latchet of whose shoes I’m unworthy to unloose” ( Joh 1:27 ). John had declared concerning Jesus Christ, “Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world” ( Joh 1:36 ). So, John, who the people had accepted as from God, they recognized that John’s authority was from the Lord. And John, being recognized by the people as the prophet of God, had declared that Jesus was indeed the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. So had they said, “Well, John was of the Lord,” then Jesus would say, “All right, that’s the authority that I have, the same authority of John’s.” And basically He was saying this, “I came with the same authority that John came.”

Now, it is interesting to me how that so often there is that challenge today concerning authority. For men have set up their systems by which they recognized authority. “If you go to our college and graduate and then attend our seminary, then we will recognize your authority to teach the Word of God, or to proclaim God’s truth,” and the authority that man bestows upon man. I would like to offer my opinion that men have ordained many men to the ministry who have never been ordained by God. They’ve been ordained to the ministry purely on the basis that they have fulfilled a certain requirement of studies. But there is absolutely no anointing of God upon their lives or upon their ministries, and they’d be better off selling shoes. Or I should say maybe repairing shoes, and that’s a better way that they could save soles.

We have made it a policy here at Calvary Chapel in the ordination board to observe a person’s ministry and to see if their ministry bears witness that God’s anointing is upon their life. For we are convinced that only God ordains a man for the work of the Lord, and the best we can do is ratify what God has done. So basically, we haven’t ordained anybody to the ministry, nor do we ordain anybody to the ministry. But we like to recognize those that God has ordained and ratify that work of God in their lives. So, recognizing that God has ordained this man, God’s anointing is upon his life, God is using him, we give to them that recognition that they need by the state. But it is interesting also how that so many of these young men who have gone out with the obvious work of God in and through their lives are challenged, “Who gave you the authority?” Greg Laurie has been challenged so many times. Raul Ries has been challenged so many times. “Where did you go to seminary? Who gave you the authority?” It’s sort of disconcerting and upsetting to these men with their doctorates in theology that some young kid can come into town and start a Bible study that grows into a church of over 5,000 members. When with all of their degrees and learning and knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew and so forth, they have a hard time, through pushing and programming and every guise and device that you can think, maintaining 400 or 500 people. “It’s just not fair! After all, I’ve been trained.” The authority!

Now, the Mormons quite often ask this question, because they believe that God has restored the authority to the church through Joseph Smith. And that the twelve apostles of the Mormon church are the only ones who can actually bestow authority upon a person to minister the gospel. And so they do not recognize the authority of anyone who has not been sanctioned by the twelve apostles of the Mormon church; for everybody knows that they are the only true church. And so they quite often challenge, “By what authority?” So, Jesus went through the same thing.

Then he began to speak to them a parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and he let it out to husbandmen, and he went into a far country for a long time ( Luk 20:9 ).

Note: Jesus is now giving a parable that relates to His going away. Letting out: it’s a twofold interpretation, actually, because it also is a parable against these Pharisees.

At the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And he again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and they sent him away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be that they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder ( Luk 20:10-18 ).

Now, in the fifth chapter of Isaiah, the Lord speaks there a parable through Isaiah of a vineyard. And the vineyard was the nation of Israel. How that this man planted a vineyard, he put the choicest vines in it, he built a hedge around it and he put a wine press in the middle. And when the time came to gather fruit from the vineyard, there was nothing but wild grapes on the vine. And so he let the vineyard go. And the prophet was speaking about how that God had set apart the nation Israel that it might bring forth fruit unto God. But their failure to bring forth that fruit that God was desiring from them would bring actually a rejection by God, or just being let go by God, and their demise. So when Jesus began to speak the parable of the vineyard, aware of the prophecy of Isaiah, their minds flipped back and they realized that He’s talking now about the nation of Israel, God’s vineyard. The servants that were sent to the vineyard were the prophets who were rejected by the people. Some of them were stoned, others of them were killed; Isaiah was actually sawed in two. And so, these are the prophets that God sent to the nation. Finally, God sent His only begotten Son. “Surely they will reverence Him.” But the husbandmen, when they saw Him, said, “This is the heir; let’s kill Him, that the inheritance may be ours.” And so Jesus, here, is predicting His death at their hands. Now, the result of their rejection of the Son, The commandment of the Lord–destroy the husbandmen. The nation of Israel was destroyed by Titus. Josephus said that he killed 1,100,000 Jews and they carried 97,000 as slaves to Rome. When they heard this, they said, “God forbid!” For they recognized that Jesus was speaking about them. And so then He asked them, “What does this parable mean? That which is written, ‘The stone which the builders have rejected, the same is become the chief cornerstone’?” Psa 118:1-29 .

Now Peter, in the fourth chapter of Acts, when he was standing before the elders and the scribes and the high priest, this same group that was challenging Jesus here, when Peter stood before them in Acts the fourth chapter, they were asking Peter, “By what authority did you work this miracle on this lame man? By what name or by what power have you done this?” So they were giving him much the same business as they gave to Jesus. “We want to know, by what power did you do this? By what name?” And Peter said, “Ye men of Israel, if we have been examined this day because of the good deed that has been done to this lame man, you judge for yourselves on that. But be it known unto you that it is by the name of Jesus Christ that this man stands before you whole, and this is the stone which was set of naught by you builders, but He has become the chief cornerstone, and neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved” ( Act 4:8-12 ). So Peter was here when Jesus was challenged concerning authority. He remembered the answer of Jesus to these men. He remembered this parable that Jesus ended by saying unto them, “What does this mean, ‘The stone that was set of naught by the builders, the same has become the chief cornerstone’?” And so Peter brings it right back to them very forcibly, declaring of Jesus, “This is the stone which was set of naught by you builders, but the same is become the chief cornerstone.”

Now Jesus declaring, concerning that stone, said, “Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken, but upon whomsoever that stone shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” You have one of two relationships to Jesus Christ: either that of submitting to Him, falling upon the stone, or resisting Him, and ultimately being ground to powder. Woe unto him who strives with his maker! Many people are so foolish as to fight against Jesus Christ. Fall upon the stone, fall upon Jesus Christ! You’ll find you’ll be broken; better that you do that than in judgment have Him fall upon you and be ground to powder.

Now the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; but they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them ( Luk 20:19 ).

They got the message. They knew that He was referring to them, and so they were actually wanting, wanting desperately to arrest Him at this point. And yet, because of the popular acclaim of the people, they did not do it.

And so they watched him, and they sent forth spies, which should feign themselves to be just men, that they might take hold of his words, in order that they might deliver him to the powers and authorities of the governor ( Luk 20:20 ).

They’re now going to try and trap Him so that they can accuse Him of sedition or of rebellion against Rome and turn Him over to the governor.

And so they asked him, saying, Master, we know that you say and teach the truth, and you do not accept the person of any, but you teach the way of God truly ( Luk 20:21 ):

In other words, “You’re no respecter of man’s persons. You are a straight shooter. We know this. We know that You don’t bow to man, that You tell the truth, You speak the truth. Therefore,”

Is it lawful for us to give taxes to Caesar, or not? ( Luk 21:22 )

If Jesus says, “No, it is not lawful for you to give taxes to Caesar,” immediately, they’ll run to the Antonio fortress, call for the Roman centurion and have him come down and arrest Jesus for advocating a tax rebellion against Caesar. If Jesus says, “Yes, it is lawful for you to pay taxes to Caesar,” these zealots who would not recognize the power of the Roman government, who hated these taxes that were levied by Rome…and there was a certain tax that was levied upon every man just for the privilege of living…this was the tax they were referring to. It wasn’t much of a tax, but it was just to show the Roman authority. And so they felt that they had Jesus cleverly trapped; either way, He’s wrong. And so He said, “Show me a coin.”

Show me a penny. Whose image, superscription does it have on it? And they answered and said, Caesar’s. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s ( Luk 20:24-25 ).

If it’s got Caesar’s image on it, give it to Caesar. But He added, “You should be rendering unto God the things that are God’s.”

And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marveled at his answer, and they held their peace. And then there came certain unto him who were Sadducees, who deny that there’s any resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses ( Luk 20:26-28 )

Now, the Sadducees were materialists. They accepted as authoritative only the five books of Moses. They rejected the prophets; they would not accept them as a part of the scriptures. Only the five books of Moses did they consider to be divinely inspired. And so if you would get into an argument with them and you would quote from the Psalms or quote from the prophets, they would reject it as not being authoritative. Only the five books of Moses. So, they said,

Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up a seed unto his brother. Now there were therefore seven brothers: and the first took a wife, and he died without children. And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. And the third, and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and they all died. Last of all, the poor woman died too. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for all seven had her as their wife ( Luk 20:28-33 ).

The endeavor was to make the resurrection seem so ridiculous that people would say, “Well, that’s stupid, that’s foolish,” and thoroughly discount the idea of the resurrection. There have been those who have done the same thing today, only in a little different way. They hypothesize that back in the days of the wild West, when a man was shot in a gun battle and they went out and just dug a shallow grave and buried his body, that as his body decomposed . . . we know the body is made up of chemicals and elements . . . and as the body decomposed, these chemicals just actually went into the soil, became a part of the soil. And the prairie grass, its little roots, went down into the soil and the chemicals of this decomposed body were picked up in the roots of the prairie grass and, of course, came up through the root system and into the grass itself, nourishing the grass. And the cows came and ate the prairie grass that has the chemicals of the decomposed body of this man who was shot in the gun battle. And the cows gave their milk that contained part of the chemicals from the decomposed body and I drank that milk. And thus, those chemicals have become a part of my body now. So that in the resurrection, in what body are these chemicals going to go, because they’ve been a part of many bodies? And they’ve tried to make the idea of the resurrection seem ridiculous by these hypotheses that they have created. Now Jesus said, “You err because you do not know the resurrection or the power of God.” In the resurrection there will be no marrying or giving in marriage. But we will be as the angels, who neither marry, nor are given in marriage.

As I understand God’s purpose for marriage, it is to establish a beautiful healthy environment for children to be raised, to be brought into the world. The basic plan for marriage, that we might reproduce, that we might be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Now, in heaven the angels do not reproduce. Thus, no need for marriage. We will not be reproducing, thus, no need for marriage. We will be as the angels are. A lot of questions… “Will we know each other, then, in heaven?” Of course we will; we’re not going to be more stupid there than we are here! The Bible says we will know even as we are known. “But what kind of relationships will we have?” Deeper, richer than any we could ever experience on the earth. Now just how, when all of these relationships, God has not really gone into details with us. He’s just told us that we’ll be as the angels. Now, there are some poor people that feel, “Well, if I can’t be married, I don’t want to go there.” Well, the alternative is not so pleasant. And there’s nothing that says you’re going to be married there either.

You say, “But what about that milk I’m drinking?” I’m not going to have this body in heaven. We know that when the earthly tent, this body, is dissolved, we have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. I’m going to get a new body, a building of God not made with hands. So whatever happens to this body, I could care less. Someone said, “Well, what about cremation?” They can do what they want. You know that when this earthly tent is dissolved, and if they do it by cremation it’ll be dissolved in thirty-seven minutes. If they let the natural processes go, it’ll take a little longer. But I will have moved out and have moved into my new house, the building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I’m going to prepare a place for you.” You say, “Oh, but what about the resurrection of our bodies?” Well, what about them?

Paul the apostle said, “Some will say, ‘How are the dead raised and what kind of a body will they have?'” And he said, “Don’t you realize that God teaches resurrection in nature? For when you plant a seed into the ground the seed does not come forth into new life until it first of all dies, and then the body”…and listen carefully…”the body that comes out of the ground is not the body that you planted” ( 1Co 15:35-37 ). I feel sorry for you that are so in love with your body that you want to carry it on into the new kingdom. “For the body that comes out of the ground is not the body that you planted, because all you planted was a bare grain and God gives it a body that pleases Him. And if it pleases God, you can be sure it’s going to please me. So is the resurrection from the dead,” Paul asserts, “for we are planted in corruption and we will be raised in incorruption. We are planted in weakness; we will be raised in power. We are sown in dishonor; we’ll be raised in glory. We are planted as a natural body; but we’ll be raised as a spiritual body. For there’s a natural body and there’s a spiritual body, and the glory of the terrestrial differs from the glory of the celestial. And even as we have born the image of the earthen and have been earthy, so shall we bear the image of the heavens” ( 1Co 15:37-44 ).

So, the body that comes out is not the body that was planted. All we planted was a bare grain. God gives it a body that pleases Him. So I’m really quite interested in that new model and all of the gadgets, the capacities of that new model. It’s probably just fantastic. As this corruption puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality. For you see, God created this body out of the earth for the earth, of the earth, earthy, designed it for the environmental conditions of the earth. The atmosphere around the earth is made up of seventy-nine parts of nitrogen, twenty parts of oxygen, and one part of neon and other gases. Now when God made my body, He designed it so that it needed this Luk 79:20 ratio in the atmosphere. It operates well under it. If He put more oxygen in, my heart would beat faster and I would die sooner. More nitrogen, it would have the opposite effect, but I’d still die sooner. My heart would go slower. If He put equal parts of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, we’d all go around like a bunch of laughing maniacs, because that’s nitric oxide, which is laughing gas in the dentist chair. So we’d all go around with uncontrollable laughter. So He designed the body for the conditions of the environment of the earth. But to come into the heavenly scene, I need a body that is designed for that environment. And so God has a new body prepared for me, and one day my spirit and soul are going to move out of this body into the new body that God has. And with Paul, I’ll say, “Oh, death, where is your sting? Oh, grave, where is your victory?” We have been caused to triumph over them through Jesus Christ. Thanks be unto God who gives us that continual victory through Jesus our Lord.

So, they did not understand. And so,

Jesus said, The children of this world marry ( Luk 20:34 ),

That is, in this age, in this time, they marry.

and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain [that age,] or that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more ( Luk 20:35-36 ):

My new body is indestructible, eternal in the heavens…the building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. So, you better like your new one, because that’s where you’re going to be.

for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection ( Luk 20:36 ).

Uh-oh, wait a minute! You said something, Jesus. These guys don’t believe in the resurrection!

That the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush ( Luk 20:37 ),

You see, these men, only accepting the first five books of the Old Testament, held a position that there was no resurrection. And though there were many arguments prior to the time of Christ as others were seeking to prove the resurrection to them, because they only accepted Moses as authoritative, no one had ever offered them from the writings of Moses any proof of the resurrection. So Jesus goes right back to Moses. “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush,”

when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ( Luk 20:37 ).

Jacob, at the time that Moses stood before the bush, had been dead for 400 years. Isaac and Abraham even longer. And yet, God, when He spoke to Moses out of the bush, said, “I am the Lord. I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” And Jesus adds,

He is not the God of the dead, but of the living ( Luk 20:38 ):

Declaring that 400 years after their recorded deaths, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive in another dimension, another sphere. But still alive, because God is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. And the scribes, when they heard that they said, “Hey, that’s all right.” They had never been able to argue their case with the Sadducees. But when they heard that argument, they were really pleased at that. “Hey, that’s all right! You nailed ’em, you got ’em.” And so, they answered Jesus saying,

Master, you have said well ( Luk 20:39 ).

That’s good.

And after that they dared not to ask him any more questions. And so he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David’s Son? ( Luk 20:40-41 )

Now one of the titles for the Messiah was Son of David. Last week you remember when we were in Jericho, and Jesus was entering the city, there was the blind man who cried out, “Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.” Son of David was a Messianic title, because they were looking for some descendant of David to arise in power and in authority to establish the kingdom and to overthrow the Roman rule. “Thou Son of David”: a common title of the Messiah. So He said unto them, “How is it that you say that the Messiah…” and the word Christ is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah … “How is that you say the Messiah is David’s Son?”

David himself said in the book of the Psalms ( Luk 20:42 ),

That is in Psa 110:1-7

The Lord [that is Yahweh] said unto my Lord [my Adonai], Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore called him Lord, how then could he be his son? ( Luk 20:42-44 )

You are dealing with a culture that is a very strong patriarchal culture, the father rules. No matter how old he is, as long as he’s living he rules over the household. You can be married and have your own grandkids, but if your dad is still alive, he rules. No father would ever call his son “Lord.” That was a title for the father, for the patriarch of the family. He ruled. So no father would ever say to his son, “Lord,” using that title. So Jesus said, “Look, if he’s a son of David, how is it that David called him ‘Lord’ if he’s his son?” And, of course, they had no answer.

Then in the audience of all the people he said to his disciples ( Luk 20:45 ),

And you know, He turns to His disciples now, all the people listening in, He said,

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms in the feasts; which devour widows’ houses, and for a show make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation ( Luk 20:46-47 ).

Beware of those who seek to make a public show, for a pretense make long prayers, devour widows’ houses, send out computerized letters filled with deceit and fraud to the little women on Social Security, asking, “Go down to the bank and borrow some money to send to them to help them out of this emergency;” who love the honor and the greetings and the palavering of man. Pray for them, because Jesus said they will receive the greater damnation.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Luk 20:1. [, as He taught) He walked about, taught, and preached the Gospel in the temple, as in what was altogether His own house.-V. g.]- , with the elders) These do not recur in Luk 20:19.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Luk 20:1-8

2. JESUS EXERCISING AUTHORITY

Luke 20:1-8

1 And it came to pass, on one of the days,-We are now in the last week of the earthly life of Jesus it is not necessary to attempt to outline what he taught each day of this week; some have attempted to classify what he did and what he taught according to each day of the week. “He was teaching the people in the temple.” Parallel records of this are found in Mat 21:23-27 and Mar 11:27-33. This was a day of controversy; the chief priests and scribes and elders drew him into controversy at many points; this as many think was the last day of the temple teaching. The leaders had determined to attack Jesus on this morning, both Sadducees, from whom came most of the chief priests, and the scribes who were for the most part Pharisees. Jesus “was teaching” and “preaching the gospel”; the “teaching” the people included the “preaching the gospel.” To “teach” means to instruct, while to “preach” means to proclaim; however, this distinction is not kept throughout the New Testament.

2 and they spake, saying unto him,-These chief men, who were now becoming bolder enemies of Jesus, asked him “by what authority doest thou these things?” They are attempting to get Jesus to make some declaration by which they can condemn him; they are not wanting the truth. They had rejected the evidence that Jesus had given them; they had ignored the miracles that he worked, even the one of raising Lazarus from the dead they now ask for the authority under which he acted. Jesus had given the highest authority and had presented the strongest proofs. He had been with them for more than three years, and in the face of the three years, during which he had taught and worked miracles, they still asked for proof and authority for what he was doing. Their question was double; they wanted to know where he got this authority, or the source of his power.

3, 4 And he answered and said unto them,-There is a dignity and authority in his reply; he does not quibble with them his answer showed that they had not disturbed or disconcerted him by their question. He proposed to answer their question on the condition that they would answer a question which he asked them. He answered by giving them a question as to the authority of John the Baptist. He asked: “Was it from heaven, or from men?” That is, was John’s authority to baptize from men or was it from God? John had called upon them to repent and to believe on the Messiah who was to come; where did he get his authority to demand repentance and baptism? This question put them in a dilemma. This question threw the responsibility back on them as to the source of authority; John had testified of Jesus; he had pointed him out to the people; what can they do now with respect to this question?

5-7 And they reasoned with themselves,-They saw the dilemma and felt the clutches of it. It seems that they went aside and reasoned “with themselves.” The original for “reasoned” is used only here in the New Testament, and it not only means “with themselves,” or “together,” but denotes a very close conference. If they, they said, should say that John’s baptism was “from heaven,” then he would reply “Why did ye not believe him?” They had rejected John’s baptism, and to admit that John’s baptism was from heaven would be to admit that they had rejected the authority of God. On the other hand, if they should deny God as the authority of John’s baptism, they would be antagonizing the people for “they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” They were anxious to retain the favor of the people; they must seek some way to get the people to turn against Jesus. These leaders had resorted to mob violence and had encouraged the people in acts of violence when argument and reason had failed them. Later they practiced this in the death of Stephen (Act 7:54-60), and at a still later period with respect to Paul (Act 21:27-36). At this time they feared the people; if they deny to John, whom the whole nation honored as a holy man, the claim of being a teacher sent from God, the people might turn with violence upon them.

8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I-They had convicted themselves of moral dishonesty; they had shown that they did not want the truth. They were not wanting to know by what authority Jesus taught, preached the gospel, cleansed the temple, and worked miracles; they must have known, but would not acknowledge. It was useless for Jesus to give them further evidence. If they rejected John, they would reject Jesus; if they would not believe John’s testimony in his favor (Joh 1:15; Joh 1:29-36; Joh 5:33-36), they would not believe that which Jesus would offer for himself.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

This chapter records the remarkable happenings gathered around our Lord’s entrance into the Temple. By a parable He revealed the awful sin and failure of the Hebrew nation, culminating in His own rejection, showing, moreover, that that sin must result ultimately in the breaking into pieces of the sinning people.

The closing conflicts between the rulers and Jesus constitute the saddest revelation of the depravity of the human heart. Jesus’ teaching had driven them into a comer from which there was no escape. They would have laid hands on Him forthwith had they not feared the people. So they sent spies to endeavor to take hold of His speech. Here, as in all cases, man’s sin serves only as a dark background to throw into brighter relief the glory of the Saviour. All the rulers’ attempts were futile. He answered with infinite wisdom and terrific force all the quibbles they raised, and then uttered in the hearing of all the people the solemn warning and the scathing denunciation of the scribes. These answers of His were not the sharp retorts of smartness, but the final utterances of a wisdom which revealed the ignorance of the questions.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

20:1-8. The Question of the Sanhedrin respecting the authority of Jesus. Mat 21:23-27; Mar 11:27-33. Having given a general description of the activity of Jesus and of His enemies during these last days, Lk. now gives some illustrations of both. it was fear of the people which kept His opponents from proceeding against Him: and therefore their first object was to discredit Him with His protectors. Then they could adopt more summary measures.

None of the Evangelists enables us to answer with certainty the question whether the hierarchy had at first any idea of employing the sicarii to assassinate Jesus. Mat 26:4 might mean this. But more probably this and other notices of plots against the life of Jesus refer to the intention of getting Him out of the way by some legal process, either as a blasphemer or as a rebel against the Roman government. Of course, if a mob could be goaded into a fury and provoked to put Him to death (4:29; Joh 8:59, Joh 10:31), this would suit their purpose equally well. The intrinsic probability of the controversies reported by the Evangelist as taking place after the triumphal entry is admitted even by Strauss.

If the tentative chronology suggested above be accepted, this conversation about authority took place probably two days after the entry, and on Tuesday, April 4, Nisan 12. This day is sometimes called the Day of Questions. We have (1) the Sanhedrin asking about Authority, and (2) Christs counter-question about the Baptist; (3) the Pharisees and Herodians asking about the Tribute; (4) the Sadducees asking about the Woman with Seven Husbands; (5) the Scribe asking which is the First Commandment; (6) Christs question about Psa_110. It is possible this day the question was asked about the Woman taken in Adultery; but that is too precarious to be worth more than a passing mention, although Renan places it here without doubt, and makes it the proximate cause of the arrest and death of Jesus (V. de J. p. 346). If it were included, we might group the questions pressed upon Christ thus: (i.) a personal question; (ii.) a political question; (iii.) a doctrinal question; (iv.) an ethical question; (v.) a question of discipline. Of hardly any day in our Lords life have we so full a report. With Luk_20. and 21. comp. Mat 21:18-5; Mar 11:20-2; Joh 12:20-43. It includes at least four parables: the Two Sons (Mat 21:28-32), the Wicked Husbandmen (Mat 21:33-44; Mar 12:1-11; Luk 20:9-18), the Ten Virgins (Mat 25:1-13), and eht Talentg (Mat 25:14-30). The day may be considered the last working-day of Christs ministry, the last of His public teaching, the last of activity in the temple, the last of instruction to the e and of warning to their leaders. It is a picture with genuine Oriental local colouring. We see Jesus sitting surrounded by a multitude awed into silence. They are all devoutly meditating on the great Messianic question. From time to time an emissary from His opponents steps up to Him, with Eastern solemnity and ceremoniousness, to propose some well-considered question. Anxiously do the multitude listen for Jesus answer. Then again follows a meditative silence as before, until at last Jesus Himself delivers a connected discourse (Hausrath, N. T. Times, ii. p. 250).

1. . Lk. alone uses this expression (5:17, 8:22; comp. 5:12, 13:10). He is still indefinite in his chronology. Mt. is a little more clear. It is Mk. who enables us to distinguish three days; presumably Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. The days perhaps refers to the daily teaching in the temple (19:47); and this deputation from the Sanhedrin is the result of their seeking to destroy Him. We have a similar deputation to the Baptist Joh 1:19. See fourth note on Luk 9:22. For , which defines the character of His teaching more clearly than , see on 2:10.

. One of Lk.s favourite words (see on 2:38): there came upon Him. So also . and illustrate his fondness for these prepositions. Mt. and Mk. here have for (see on 1:56), and neither of them has after .

The introduction of the oratio recta by or after is rare (Mar 12:26): but either is common after (Act 8:26, Act 26:31, Act 28:25, etc.).

2. ; So in all three. The two questions are not identical; nor is the second a mere explanation of the first. It anticipates the reply, By the Messiahs authority, with another question, Who made Thee Messiah? They ask by what kind of authority, human or Divine, ecclesiastical or civil, assumed or conferred, He acts. They refer not merely to His teaching, but also to His cleansing the temple, as shows. On the first occasion they had asked for a as a guarantee for the lawfulness of His (Joh 2:18). They do not venture to do more than question Him, for they know that the feeling and conscience of the people are with Him for putting down their extortionate and profane traffic, for His teaching, and for His works of healing. This was the one point where He seemed to be vulnerable. For there was no principle more firmly established by universal consent than that authoritative teaching required previous authorization, because all such teaching was traditional (Edersh. L. & T. 2. p. 381). For see on 4:32.

3. . Both Mt. and Mk. have .

. The refers to their answer rather than His question, as is shown by (Mat 21:24). You ask Me to state My authority. I also will ask you for a statement; not, ask you a question (RV.), nor, ask you one thing (AV.). As teachers they must speak first.

The (A C D) is an insertion from Mt. and Mk, om. B L R, Syr-Sin. Latin texts are divided.

4. Verbatim as Mt. and Mk., except that Mt. inserts , and Mk. adds . Baptism of repentance was the special characteristic of Johns teaching (3:3). The question as to is origin is not a mere escape from their attack by placing them in a difficulty: the answer to it would lead to the answer to their question. John had testified to the Divine authority of Jesus, and his baptism was a preparation for the Messianic Kingdom. What had been their view of Johns position? That was a question to which the official guides of the nation were bound, and had long been bound, to furnish an answer. For the alternative or comp. Act 5:38, Act 5:39

5. . Here only in N.T., but classical. C D have . Comp. ver. 14.

6. . Here only: but is found Joh 10:31-33, Joh 10:11:8; Act 5:26, Act 14:19. In LXX occurs twice (2Sa 16:6, 2Sa 16:13), but is the common verb. comp, 13:34; Act 7:58. The . expresses stoning down, overwhelming with stones: Comp. Exo 17:4, and in Josephus. Here Mt. and Mk. have the less definite expression, fear the multitude.

. Their intense joy at the reappearance of a Prophet after three centuries of silence (p. 80) would be the measure of their fury against a hierarchy which should declare that John had not been a Prophet at all. Comp. 7:29, 30. With comp. 19:48. Nowhere else does occur.

7. . This shameful and dishonest avowal is excelled a few days later by their answer to Pilate, We have no king but Csar (Joh 19:15). Timentes lapidationem, sed magis timentes veritatis confessionem (Bede), these professed Teachers of Israel (Joh 3:10), who so scorned the ignorant multitude (Joh 7:49), confessed that they had not yet decided whether one, who for years had been recognized by the nation as a Prophet, had any Divine commission. If they were not competent to judge of the Baptist, still less were they competent to judge of the Christ. Nsgen, Gesch. J. C. i. p. 514.

8. . Verbatim as in Mt. and Mk. Their refusal to answer His question cancels their claim to an answer from Him. This they admit by ceasing to press it. See Gould on Mar 11:33.

9-19. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Mat 21:33-46; Mar 12:1-12. Mt. here gives a trilogy of parables, placing this one between the Two Sons and the Marriage of the Kings Son. Godet thinks that the Two Sons cannot have been uttered where Mt. places it. But it fits the preceding discussion about the Baptist very well; and Mk., who records one parable only, says , which agrees well with the fact that more than one parable was spoken. The idea of work in the vineyard is common to both parables. In this parable Christ lets His enemies know that He is aware of their murderous plans against Himself; an in it He warns both them and the people generally of the fatal results co themselves, if their pans are carried out.1 It is the special characteristic of this parable that it does not teach general and perinanent truths for the guidance of Christians, but refers to post, present, and future events. From the conduct of His traditional enemies, especially at that very time, He predicts His own end and theirs. The parable is capable of spiritual application as to Gods dealings with churches and individuals, but its primary reference is to the treatment which He is receiving from the Jewish hierarchy. The parable contains the answer to the question which they had raised. He is acting in the authority of His Father who sent Him to them. The imagery is taken from the O. T. and would be readily understood by the audience. The inairl source is the similar parable Isa 5:1-7; but comp. Jer 2:21; Eze 15:1-6, 19:10-14; Hos 10:1; Deu 32:32, Deu 32:33, and the many other passages in which Israel is spoken of as a vineyard or a vine; Psa 80:8 ff.; Joe 1:7, etc.

It has been said that be main difference between this parable and Is. v. or other O.T. figures is, that there the husbandmen or leaders and teachers of the people are not mentioned: it is the nation as a whole that fails in its duty to Jehovah. Here it is those who have charge of the nation that are condemned: the vineyard itself is not destroyed for its unfruitfulness, but is treansferred to more faithful stewards. And, in support of this view, it has been pointed out that in the first times of the Kingdom the nation went voluntarily into idolatry; it was not led into it by the priests and other teachers: but now it was mainly the official teachers who prevented the people from acceptin Jesus as the Messiah. This, however, does not fit vv. 15, 16, which show that the tenants are the Jewish nation, and not merely the leaders, and that the vineyard is not the nation, but its spiritual privileges. The nation was not to be transferred to other rulers, but its privileges were to be transferred to other nations.

9. . There is a pause after the discomfiture of the deputation from the Sanhedrin; and then Jesus begins to address a different company. But while He speaks to the people He also speaks at the hierarchy, who are still present, though silenced. Mt. and Mk. regard the parable as addressed to the latter. Syr-Sin. has to speak to them. D, a d e omit . Comp. 5:36.

. Lk. commonly adds : see small print note on 13:19. TR. follows A in adding here.

. The phrase is freq. in O.T. (Gen 9:20; Deu 20:6, 28:30, 39; Psa 106:37, etc.). Lk. omits the fence, the winepress, and the tower.

. In all three narratives in this place, but nowhere else in N. T. In LXX it is used of giving a daughter in marriage; Exo 2:21; Ecclus. 7:25; 1 Mac. 10:58: but the sense of letting out for hire is classical; Plat. Leg. vii:806 D, . Among the Jews rent was sometimes paid in money, but generally in kind. If in kind, it was either a fixed amount of produce, whether the harvest was good or bad; or a certain proportion, e.g. a third or fourth, of each harvest. This latter system led to much disputing and dishonesty, and does so still wherever it is adopted. The tenants in the parable have a long lease and pay in kind; but it is not clear whether they pay a fixed or a proportionate amount.

The same form (, not – is found in the best MSS. in all three. Comp. (Act 4:35) and (1Co 11:23). Gregory, Proleg. p. 124.

. This addition is peculiar to Lk. See on 7:12. We may understand several years.

10. . No doubt (Mt.) is meant. Syr-Sin. has at one of the seasons.

. So also Mk., while Mt. has . In Lk. it is always a single slave who is sent, and the treatment becomes worse each time, culminating in the slaying of the heir, before whom no one is killed. In Mt. and Mk. there is no such dramatic climax, and several are killed before the son is sent: all which is more in accordance with facts in Jewish history. See 1Ki 18:13, 22:1Ki 18:24-27; 2Ki 6:31, 2Ki 6:21:16; 2Ch 24:19-22, 36:15, 2Ch 24:16; Neh 9:26; Jer 37:15, 44:4; Act 7:52.

. Keim says that this means the O. T. tenth; but it does not necessarily imply a proportionate amount at all. A fixed amount, independent of the yield, would be paid .

. The fut. iudic. is found in class. Grk. after , but not after . In bibl. Grk, it is found most often in the last of a series: of verbs following : but cases in which the verb depends immediately upon occur: 1Co 9:18; 1Pe 3:1, Rev 6:4, Rev 8:3, Rev 9:20, Rev 12:12, on 14:13, and other passages in which the reading is somewhat doubtful. See on 14:10. Burton., 198, 199.

. They probably told him, and perhas tried to persuade themselves that his masters demand was unjust. Excepting Gal 4:4, Gal 4:6. the verb is peculiar in N.T. to Lk. (Act 7:12, Act 9:30, Act 11:22, Act 12:11, Act 13:26, Act 17:14, Act 22:21); but it is freq. in LXX. For the phrase send empty away comp 1:53; Gen 31:42; Deu 15:13; 1Sa 6:3; Job 22:9. For see on 12:47.

11. . A Hebraism: see on 19:11. Whether this is a second messenger sent that same vintage, or the messenger sent at another vintage, is not stated. The important point is that chastisement does not follow upon the first outrage. The husbandmen have several opportunities; and these are brought by different persons. If one messengers manner of delivering his message was unpleasing, anothers would be the opposite. But this time they add insult () to violence. Comp. the use of in Joh 8:49; Act 5:41; Rom 1:24, Rom 1:2:23; Jam 2:6. The verb is freq. in LXX.

12. . Worse than . , as is worse than . Comp. Heb 11:36-38; Act 7:52.

13. ; Peculiar to this account; as also is the qualifying , which occurs nowhere else in N.T., and only once in LXX (1Sa 25:21), where English Versions have surely. Godet contends for such a meaning here: pourtant, en tout cas, certainement. But comp. . . . , (Plat. Laws, xii:965).

We must remember that it is the of ver. 9 who deliberates as to what he shall do, says , and expects that his son will be well received. All this is the setting of the parable, and must not be pressed as referring to God. This man represents God, not by his perplexity, but by his long-suffering and mercy.

. In all three: for the meaning see on 18:2. This form of the fut. is late. In Polyb. and Plut. the verb sometimes has an acc., but in class. Grk. a gen., when it means reverence Comp. Exo 10:3, Wisd. 2:10.

The of TR. with A R, Vulg. Goth. comes from ver. 14; om. B C D C Q, a c d e ff2 i l q r, Bob. Arm. The Syriac Versions are divided. Syr-Sin. is defective here.

14. . This touch also is peculiar to Lk. It perhaps looks back to 19:47, 48. Nothing is gained by taking : with : comp. , which is equally amphibolous, ver. 5.

A K and Latt. have , cogitaverunt and A C Q, Vulg. have from Mar 12:7 for ( B D L P, Bob. Arm.). For see Wsctt. on Heb 1:2 and his detached note on Heb 6:12, p. 167.

15. . This perhaps was intended to represent their turning him out of his inheritance. It may be doubted whether it refers to Jesus suffering without the gate. Outside the vineyard would be outside Israel rather than outside Jerusalem. Moreover in Mk. the heir is killed before he is cast out of his inheritance. It is possible that they regard the vineyard as already made over to the heir, as was often the case in ancient law: see on 15:12. Comp. the case of Naboth: , (1Ki 20:13). No doubt . goes with (4:29; Act 7:58, which is closely parallel), not with .

; Not, ; Our Lord indicates that the parable is not a mere fiction: it is a key to a future which depends upon present action. Assuming that the heir is killed, what will happen? In Mt. some of the bystanders answer the question. They are so interested, and enter so fully into the spirit of the narrative, that, without seeing the application to themselves, they reply . See on 19:25, and comp. Davids reply to Nathans parable (2Sa 12:5, 2Sa 12:6).

16. . Three points: He will no longer send but come; will punish the wrong-doers; will transfer their privileges to others. The Jews were familiar with the idea of the Gentiles being gathered into the Messianic Kingdom (Isa 2:2; Isa_60. passim; Jer 3:17). Yet this was restricted to those Gentiles who had taken no part in oppressing Israel, but had submitted to Israel; and later Judaism as a rule denied even this to the heathen (Charles, Enoch, 90:30). Here the Jews are to lose what the Gentiles gain. In vv. 16-19 Syr-Sin. is confused.

. We need not confine this to the people and conclude that the Pharisees had too much wariness and self command to have allowed such an exclamation to escape from their lips. The exclamation may not mean more than That is incredible, or Away with the thought. See Lft. on Gal 2:17 and Sanday on Rom 3:4. This is the only instance of in N.T. outside the Pauline Epp., where it generally is used to scout a false inference which might be drawn. Burton., 176, 177. Here it probably refers to the punishment rather than to the sin which brings it,-to rather than to .

The expression is rare in the Pauline Epp. except in Rom., where it occurs ten times: twice in Gal. and once in 1 Cor. In LXX it is rare, and never stands as an independent sentence: Gen 44:7, Gen 44:17; Jos 22:29, Jos 22:24:16; 1Ki_20 [21] 3.

17. . Lk. alone has this touch. Comp, 22:61 and Elishas fixed look on Hazael (2Ki 8:11).

. If the destruction which I have just foretold is not to come ( ), how then do you explain this text? The passage is once more (see on ver. 9) from the Hallel Psalms (118:22, 23), where see Perowne. The Rabbis recognized it as Messianic: see Schoettg. 1. p. 173. In all three Gospels the quotation is verbatim as in LXX. For see on 22:37, and for see on 9:22. Perhaps is a stone rather than the stone: the builders may have rejected many stones, one of which became . But, if the Jews used as a name for the Messiah, as seems to be probable, the stone is better. In Justin Martyr we have as a name for Christ (Try. xxiv:xxxvi.): see on Rom 9:33.

For the attraction of to see on 3:19, and for see on 13:19.

. Not the key-stone of the arch, but a cornerstone uniting two walls; but whether a foundation-stone at the base of the corner, or a completing stone at the top of it, is uncertain. Comp. Act 4:11 and 1Pe 2:7; also in Eph 2:20 and Isa 28:16. Mt. and Mk. quote ver. 23 of Psa_118. as well as ver. 22, and Mt. adds the explanation that the Kingdom shall be transferred to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Would Lk. have omitted this reference to the believing and loyal Gentiles if he had known it? We conclude that he was not familiar with Mt.s account. See on 19:46.

18. . These words are not in Mk. and are of somewhat doubtful authority in Mat 21:44, where they are omitted by D 33, or b d e ff12 Syr-Sin., Orig. But the characteristic is in any case peculiar to Lk. The first half of the saying seems to be an adaptation of Isa 8:14, and the second half an adaptation of Dan 2:34, Dan 2:35, Dan 2:44. Christ is a stumblingblock to some (2:34), and they suffer heavily for their shortsightedness. They not only lose the blessing which is offered, but what they reject works their overthrow.

. Shall be shattered; confringetur (Lat Vet, Beza), conquassabitur (Vlug.), wird zerschellen (Luth.). But in Mat 21:44 Vulg. has confringetur. The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but the act, is found in LXX (Psa 57:7; Mic 3:3), and several times as v.l.

. Note the impressive change of construction. In the first case the man is the chief agent; in the second the stone. And the main thought now is simply : the metaphor of is dropped. A chief corner-stone would not be likely either to trip up a person or to fall on him.

. The rendering grind to powder, which all English. Versions from Tyn. to AV. give (Rhem. breake to pouder), follows the comminuet of Vulg. (in Mt. conteret), but is without authority. Not only in classical authors (Hom. Xen. Plut. Lucian.), but also in LXX, it means to winnow chaff from gain, from , a winnowing fan. In Rth 3:2, , and Ecclus. 5:9, , the meaning is indisputable. Hence to blow away like chaff, sweep out of sight or out of existence: , (Job 27:21); (Isa 17:13); (Jer 31:10); , (Amo 9:9). Dan 2:44 is important, as being the probable source of the saying: there, while in LXX we read , Theodotion has , showing that = . Comp. Theod. , , (Dan 2:35). Scatter him as chaff, therefore, is the meaning. When a heavy mass falls, what is pulverized by the blow is scattered by the rush of air. The Commovet illum of Cod. Palat. (e) looks like an attempt to preserve the right idea. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 225.

19. . In that very hour Lk.s usual expression: see on 10:7, 21. There is no equivalent to it here in Mt. or Mk.

. So also in Mar 12:12, while Mt. has . Vulg. has ad ipos here and ad eos in Mk. But may be either with a view to, in reference to (see on 12:41, 18:1, 9, 19:9), or against (AV. RV.): comp. Act 23:30. Here, as in Heb 1:7, Heb 1:8, Wsctt. prefers the meaning in reference to: comp. Rom 10:21; Heb 11:18. The nom. to is , not , which would require , to be unambiguous. In Mt. the nom. to must be the hierarchy. And gives the reason, not for , but for , as the order of the sentences shows: and this is still more clear in Mk. by the change of tense from (see Gould). The hierarchy recognize that the parable was directed against themselves; and this made them fear the people, who had heard e parable also. Syr-Sin. transfers this to v. 16.

In class. Grk. often means in reply to, and hence against, being less strong than , as adversus than in. Here Beza has adversus ipsos and Luther auf sie.

20-26. The Question about the Tribute. Mat 22:15-22; Mar 12:13-17. There is no evidence that a night intervened between the previous question and this one. The connexion between vv. 19 and 20 is close; and ver. 19 took place with what precedes. The previous question about authority had emanated from the Sanhedrin as a whole. The different parties represented in it now act separately and devise independent attacks. This one comes from the Pharisees (Mat 22:15), who send a group composed of Pharisees and Herodians (Mat 21:16; Mar 12:13). Neither Lk. nor Jn. mentions the Herodians. Their alliance with Pharisees is remarkable, for the Pharisees detested the Herodian dynasty; and this is not the first instance of such an alliance (Mar 3:6). But opponents often combine to attack those who are obnoxious to both.

20. . See on 14:1. Both AV. and RV. follow Tyn. Cran. Cov, and Gen. in translating watched him; but neither indicates by italics that him is not in the Greek. Wic, and Rhem. have no pronoun, in accordance with Vulg. observantes miserunt. It is doubtful whether the pronoun ought to be supplied, for without case may mean to watch an opportunity. See Field and Alford, ad loc. Mt. has his favourite .

D and some Versions here have : so Goth. Aeth. cum recessissent (f i l), cum discessissent (a), recedentes (d), secesserunt et (e).

. Suborned to lie in wait; lit. sent down into. In N.T. here only, and in LXX Job 19:12, Job 31:9: but classical. Comp. Jos. B. J. vi:5, 2. The shows for what purpose they were suborned: they posed as scrupulous persons with a difficulty of conscience. In different ways all three accounts call attention to their hypocrisy. Meyer quotes, Qui tum, cum maxime fallunt, id agunt ut viri boni videantur (Cic. De Off. i:13, 41).

. Take Him in His speech; depending upon . and being epexegetic (De W. Mey. Go.): rather than take hold of His speech, depending upon (Holtz. Hahn). Vulg. has eum in sermone. So also Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. Rhem. Luth. Comp. (Job 30:18) and (Xen. Anab. iv:7, 12). Mt. has , Mk. Jesus had baffled them with a dilemma (ver. 4), and they now prepare a dilemma for Him. Comp. the constr in 19:4.

. Peculiar to Lk. Quod per se non poterant, prsidis manibus efficere tentabant, ut veluti ipsi a morte ejus viderentur immunes (Beds). For comp 4:29; Mat 24:4.

. . It is an improbable refinement to press the double article and separate from : so as to deliver Him to the Government, and (in particular) to the authority of the governor (Mey. Weiss); or, so as to deliver Him to the rule (of the Sanhedrin) and to authority of the governor (Nsg. Hahn). For the combination of with comp. 12:11; 1Co 15:24; Eph 3:10, Col 1:16, Col 1:2:15; Tit 3:1. See Lft. on Col 1:16.

The generic term may be used of the emperor (comp. 3:1) or any of his subordinates. In N.T. it is often used of the or procurator (Mat 27:2, Mat 27:11, Mat 27:14, etc.; Act 23:24, Act 23:26, Act 23:33, Act 23:24:1, Act 23:10, etc.) and less definitely of any governor (21:12; 1Pe 2:14). Comp. Jos, Ant. xviii:3, 1; and 2:2, 3:1.

21. . The falseness of these fulsome compliments in their mouths ( ) stamps this as one of the most dastardly of the attacks on Christ. They go on to emphasize their flattery by denying the opposite.

. Affreux barbarisme pour des lecteurs grecs (Godet). The expression is a Hebraism, which originally meant raise the face, i.e. make the countenance rise by favourable address, rather than accept the face. Hence it came to mean regard with favour, but not necessarily with undue favour: Comp. Psa 81:2; Mal 1:8, Mal 1:9. But the bad sense gradually prevailed; and both here and in Gal 2:6 (see Lft.) partiality is implied, as in Lev 19:15 and Mal 2:9. In LXX the common phrase is : comp. Jud 1:16. The compounds , , etc., always imply favouritism.

Both Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. for way of God read word of God.

22. The (classical and in LXX) or capitation-tax must be distinguished from , which are indirect taxes. Mt. and Mk. here have , but in Mk. is a notable v. l.

For ( A B L) TR. has (C D P A ). Only here and 6:4 does c. acc. et infin. occur in N.T. stands first with emphasis. Usually both dat, and acc. follow : 1:74, 77, 12:32, 17:18; Act 5:31, Act 5:7:5; Mat 14:7, Mat 20:4, etc.

23. . Mt. has , Mk. . See on 12:27 for Lk.s fondness for . In N.T., as in class. Grk., always has a bad meaning (1Co 3:19; 2Co 4:2, 2Co 4:11:3; Eph 4:14). In LXX it may mean versatility, skill (Pro 1:4, Pro 8:5).

24. . Mk. has , which implies that they had to fetch it. They would not have heathen money on their persons. Mt. has , which implies the same thing; and he calls it , because this poll-tax had to be paid in denarii.

(A C D P) is an insertion here from Mt. and Mk. B L omit. See Wright, Synopsis, 80, p. 73.

. Probably that of Tiberius. There was no royal offigy on Jewish coins: and Roman copper coins, if for circulation in Palestine, had no image on them. It was a base piece of flattery on the part of Herod Philip that he placed on his coins the head of the emperor, and the denarius used on this occasion may have been one of his. It is possible but not probable that it was a foreign coin, such as circulated outside Palestine.1 Judas of Galilee (Act 5:37; Jos. Ant, xviii:1. 6, 20:5, 2) or the Gaulonite (Ant. xviii:1, 1) had denounced the payment of tribute to Csar as treason against Jehovah, the only Lord that Israel could acknowledge (a.d. 6): and probably the Galileans who were listening to Jesus on this occasion were thoroughly in sympathy. But His adversaries had conceded the whole point when they admitted that the coinage was Csars: for even Judaism admitted that coinage implies the right of taxation, and is evidence of the government to which submission is due. Ubiunque numisma alicujus regis obtinet, illic incol regem istum pro domino agnoscunt (Maimon.). See Edersh. L. & T. 2. p. 385; Hist. of. J. N. p. 257. Grodus quotes ; (Arrian. Epict. iv:5, 17).

25. . This is the right order ( B L, Boh. Goth. Arm.), contrary to the best usage; and hence the correction ( C R D A P). D, Syr-Sin. and Lat. Vet. omit . For first in the sentence come Heb 13:13; Isa 3:10, Isa 5:13, and contrast 1Co 9:26; Wisd. 1:11, 8:9. The (Mt. ) marks the sayings as a conclusion drawn from the previous admission: Then render to, Csar, etc.

. This is the answer to the Pharisaic portion of His questioners, as to the Herodian. The error lay in supposing that Csar and God were mutually exclusive alternatives. Duty to Csar was part of their duty to God, because for purposes of order and government Csar was Gods vicegerent. In Rom 12:1, Rom 12:2 S. Paul insists on the second of these principles, in 13:1-7 on the first. See detached note at the end of Rom_13. As Juda was an imperial province, its taxes would go to the fiscus of the emperor, not to the rarium of the senate.

. No one duty is to be understood to the exclusion of others, whether offerings in the temple, or penitence, etc. All duties owed by man to God are included.2 For of paying what is due comp. vii:42, x:35, xii:59; and see Wsctt. on Heb 12:11. They had said , as if the tribute was a gift. By substituting He indicates that it is a due.

26. . Peculiar to Lk., who drawe special attention to this further victory of Jesus. All three record the wonder of His adversaries.

For the constr. of see on ver. 20. This use of is common in LXX, but in N.T. is found only here, 24:19; Act 7:10, Act 8:32: comp. 1:8, Act 8:21.

For see on 2:33, and for see on 18:39.

27-38. The Question of the Sadducees respecting a Woman with Seven Husbands. Mat 22:23-33; Mar 12:18-27. Mt. tells us expressly that this took place . Lk. mentions the Sadducees several times in the Acts (4:1, 5:17, 23:6-8) but here only in his Gospel. Mk. also here only. This question was less dangerous than the previous one. It concerned a matter of exegesis and speculation, not of politics, and was doctrinal rather than practical. Like the first two questions, it aimed at destroying Christs influence with the multitude. While the first aimed at inspiring them with distrust, and the second at rousing their indignation against Him, this one is calculated to excite their ridicule. If Jesus failed to answer it, He and His supporters would be placed in a grotesque position. The Sadducees were not popular, for the doctrine of the resurrection is precious to the majority of mankind, and they would be glad of this opportunity of publicly exhibiting the popular doctrine as productive of ludicrous results. Josephus says that when Sadducees became magistrates, they conformed to the views of the Pharisees, for otherwise the people would not tolerate them (Ant. xviii:1, 4). D.C.G. art. Sadducees.

But the doctrine of the resurrection and of invisible powers (Act 23:8, Jos. B. J. ii:8 14) was not the main point in dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees, but a deduction from the main point. The crucial question was whether the oral tradition was binding (Ant. xii:10, 6). The Pharisees contended that it was equal in authority to the written law, while the Sadducees maintained that everything not written was an open question and might be rejected. Apparently the Pharisees were willing to concede that the doctrine of the resurrection is not to be found in the written Law; and indeed outside the Book of Daniel it is not clearly taught in O.T. What is said in favour of it (Job 19:26; Psa 16:9, Psa 16:11; Isa 26:19) seems to be balanced by statements equally strong on the other side (Psa 6:5, 88:10, 11, 115:17; Ecc 9:4-10; Isa 38:18, Isa 38:19). Hence it followed, on Sadducean principles, that the doctrine was without authority, and was simply a pious opinion. That the Sadducees rejected the O.T., with the exception of the Pentateuch, is a mistake of Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Jerome, and others; and perhaps arises from confusion with the Samaritans. But no Jew regarded the other books as equal in authority to the Books of Moses; and hence Jesus, in answering the Sadducees, takes His argument from Exodus (Bleak, Int. to O. T. 305, Eng. tr. 2. p. 310). The name probably comes from Zadok, the best attested form of which in many passages of LXX is (2Sa 8:17; Neh 3:29, Neh 3:10:21, Neh 3:11:11, Neh 3:13:13; Eze 40:46, Eze 43:19, Eze 44:15, Eze 48:11): but which Zadok gave the name to the sect, remains doubtful (Schrer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. II, 2. pp. 29-43; Hausrath, N. T. Times, 1. pp. 136-150; Pressens, Le Sicle Apostolique, pp. 87, 88, ed. 1888. For minor points of difference between Sadducees and Pharisees, see Kuenen, Religion of Israel, 3. pp. 234-238; Derenbourg, pp. 132-144):

27. . The . may agree with , or be an irregular description of . In the latter case comp. Mar 12:40; but the former is better. All Sadducees held that the resurrection was not an article of faith, but some may have believed that it was true. One might render who were saying at that moment.

is the reading of B C D L” 133 etc., d e Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Aegypt. Goth. Aeth., which is not discredited because it is also in Mt. But Tisch. follows B R etc. in reading .

. The quotation gives the substance rather than the wording of Deu 25:5; comp. Gen 38:8. The levirate law is said still to prevail among the Kalmucks and other nations in the East. See Morison on Mar 12:19.

29. . The appears to indicate that what is about to be narrated was a consequence of this levirate law. But the may be a mere particle of transition. Mt. inserts , as if they professed to describe what had actually taken place. It is said to have been a well-known problem, the recognized answer to which was, that at the resurrection the woman would be the wife of the first brother. This answer Christ might have given; but, while it would have avoided the ridicule to which the Sadducees wished to expose Him, it would not have refuted their doctrine. D, Syr-Sin. c d ff2 l q ins. here.

. Childless as in ver. 28: comp. ver. 31. All three imply that there was neither son nor daughter. And this is laid down in the Talmud,-that the deceased brother must have no child at all, although Deu 25:5 says simply have no son (RV.). Some maintained that the levirate law, which to a large extent had gone out of use, did not apply to a wedded wife, but only to a betrothed woman. The Mishna recommends that the levirate law be not observed.

30. . This is the reading of B D L 157, e. omitting after and after . These insertions are found in A R , Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Vulg.

31. . The main point is placed first, although their death logically precedes.

33. ; The question is a plausible appeal to the rough common sense of the multitude, and is based upon the coarse materialistic views of the resurrection which then prevailed.

34. Jesus begins by removing this erroneous basis and shows that the question is futile. The words of are peculiar to Lk., who omits Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Comp. Eph 1:21.

35. . One might have expected simply of . . But the substitution of corrects the assumption that all the sons of this world will enter the Kingdom which begins with the resurrection. Comp. Act 5:41; 2Th 1:5 Nowhere else does occur in N.T. It means the age beyond the grave regarded as an age of bliss and glory. See on Rom 12:2. In itself it implies resurrection; but, inasmuch as this is the doctrine in dispute, the resurrection is specially mentioned. The word occurs Zep 3:8; Lam 3:63; Dan 11:20; title of Psa_65. But not until 2 Mac. 7:14, 12:43 is it used of resurrection after death.

. This must be distinguished from [] [] . The latter is the more comprehensive term and implies that all the dead are raised (Mat 22:31; Act 17:32, Act 17:23:6, Act 17:24:21, Act 17:26:23; Rom 1:4; 1Co 15:12, 1Co 15:13, 1Co 15:42; Heb 6:2). Whereas rather implies that some from among the dead are raised, while others as yet are not. Hence it is used of the resurrection of Christ and of the righteous, and is equivalent to the (Act 4:2; 1Pe 1:3: comp. Col 1:18). The includes the as well as the (Joh 5:29).Comp. 14:14; 1Th 4:16; Rev 20:5, Rev 20:6; and see Lft. on Php 3:11 and Mey. on Rom 1:4. With the construction comp. (Aesch. P.V. 239).

. Identical in meaning with (ver. 34).

In both verses the simple verb is the right reading. In both places TR. inferior authorities in reading .

36. . The means that the abolition of death involves the abolition of marriage, the purpose of which is to preserve the human race from extinction.

For (A B D L P 106 157) Tisch. has ( Q R G D D P). It looks like a correction.

. The adj. occurs here only in bibl. Grk. and was probably coined by Lk. on the analogy of (4 Mac. 17:5), , , … Mt. and Mk have . Grotius quotes from Hierocles . They do not marry, because they cannot die; and they cannot die, because they are like angels; and they are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. In correcting the error of the Sadducees about the resurrection Jesus incidentally corrects their scepticism respecting Angels (Act 23:8). See Latham, A Service of Angels, pp. 52-60; Charles, Apoc. of Baruch, pp. 77:84.

The connexion of is uncertain. The repetition of is rather against the clause being taken with . More probably it is co-ordinate with . It is worth noting both in Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Gen 6:2 LXX has not but . Comp. 1Co 15:52; Rev 21:4 But in any case it is the immortality, of the Angels, not their sexlessness or immateriality, that is the point of the argument. For . see on 16:8.

37. Having shown that their question ought not to have been asked, being based upon a gross misconception of the conditions of the future state, Jesus proceeds to answer the objection which their question implied, viz. that the doctrine of the resurrection is inconsistent with the Mosais Law. On the contrary, Moses implies the doctrine. The levirate law is no argument against a resurrection; and the passage here quoted is a strong argument in favour of it. See Martensen, Chr. Dogm. 290, 274.

. Even Moses, who was supposed to be against the doctrine (Mey. Weiss, Holtzm.). Less well, etiam Moses, non modo proPhet (Beng.). Jesus quotes Moses because they done so (ver. 28), not because the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch (Tert. Orig. Hieron.), which was not the case.

. Not, hinted, but disclosed, intimated, revealed. Both in class. and bibl. Grk. is specially used of making known what was secret (Act 23:30; 1Co 10:28; Joh 11:57; soph. O.R. 102).

. In the Bush, i.e. in the portion of Scripture known as the Bush. In Mk. we have , where AV. violently transposes . .,-how in the bush God spake unto him. Comp. 2Sa 1:18 and Rom 11:2 The O.T. was divided into sections, which were named after something prominent in the contents. Examples are quoted from the Talmud. The rhapsodists divided Homer into sections and named them on a similar principle. In the Koran the chapters are named in this way. But the possibility of the simple local meaning here must not be excluded.

The gender of varies. Here and Act 7:35 it is fem. In Mk. and in LXX it is masc. (Exo 3:2, Exo 3:3, Exo 3:4; Deu 33:16). So also in Polyb. and Theophr. Several Old Latin texts here read sicut dixit vidi in rubo (cf ff2 il q), which seems to imply a Greek text .

38. The Sadducees based their denial of the resurrection on the alleged silence of Scripture and on the incredibility of existence after the death of the body (Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 14). Christ demolishes their premises by showing that Scripture is not silent, but teaches the reality of existence after death.1 His argument has less force against those who admit existence after death, but hold that this existence of the soul apart from the body will continue for ever. This, however, was not the error which He was combating, and perhaps was not a common view. Yet even against this error the argument has force, as Bengel points out. Deus non est non entis deus: ipse est deus vivens; ergo ii qui deum habent, vivere debent, et qua parte vivere intermiserant, reviviscere in perpetuum. But perhaps this is more than is intended. What is obvious is this:-Dead things may have a Creator, a Possessor, a Ruler: only living beings can have a God. If Abraham or any of the patriarchs had ceased to exist when he died, God would have ceased to be his God. I am the God of Abraham implies that Abraham still lives. Comp. , . . (4 Mac. 16:25).2 It is to reference to us that they seem to die: in reference to Him . The need not be restricted to the three patriarchs: it includes all who are mentioned in vv. 35, 36. Mk. adds , but the condemnation of this doctrinal error is less severe than of the Pharisaic hypocrisy.

39, 40. The Testimony of the Scribes. Some of the Pharisees could not refrain from expressing their admiration of the manner in which lesus had vanquished their opponents. That proof of the doctrine of the resurrection, which Sadducees had defied a Pharisees to find in the Pentateuch, Jesus had produced, and in the most convincing manner. The scribes were now persuaded that it was useless to ply Jesus with hard questions. Such attempts merely gave Him the opportunity of winning victories. But we learn from Mt. and Mk. that one of them came forward to try Him once more ( ) with a question that was much debated, as to which commandment was chief. There is nothing to show, however, that there was any snare in the question: the scribe may have wished to try His sagacity on a point which was very interesting. That a similar inquiry has been narrated elsewhere (10:25), may be Lk.s reason for omitting the incident here.

40. . The fact that this was not understood caused it to be altered in many texts into . Godet maintains that it has absolutely no sense, and erroneously states that WH. have abandoned it. It is attested by B L, 33, Aegyptt., and gives excellent sense. Some of His opponents praised Him, for they saw that He was always victorious, and that they must risk no more defeats.

41-44. Jesus in turn asks a Question about David and the Messiah. Mat 22:41-46; Mar 12:35-37, where see Gould. It is yet another opportunity of instructing them, not of vanquishing and humiliating them, that is sought. The approbation recorded in ver. 39 (comp. Mar 12:32) gave signs that some of His opponents were open to conviction, and might even now recognize the Christ.

41. . The scribes who had expressed admiration are perhaps chiefly meant. In any case, unto them and not in reference to them is the meaning.

. Mk. gives as the subject of , which does not imply that the scribes had gone away. With what right do teachers say? This is the usual doctrine; but do people consider what it involves in reference to other statements?

42. . is the reading of B L R I 33, l, Aegyptt., and may be safely preferred to (A D P, Syrr. Vulg. Goth.). Q has .

. See on 3:4. Mt. has and Mk. . for . The quotation is verbatim the same in all three, excepting that Mt. and Mk. have for the of LXX. and Lk. All three omit the before . In the Hebrew we have different words for Lord: Jehovah saith to Adonai. Psa_110. was always believed to be Messianic, and to have been written by David. That it is Messianic is a matter of spiritual interpretation; and, as Jesus here gives this doctrine the sanction of His authority, no loyal Christian will consider that he is free to question it. The authorship of the Psalm is a question of Criticism; and nothing in the method of Christs teaching, or in the contents of Scripture generally, warrants us in believing that He here frees us from the duty of investigating a problem which is capable of being solved by our own industry and acuteness. We have no right to expect that Scripture will save us from the discipline of patient research by supplying us with infallible answers to questions of history, chronology, geology, and the like.

The last word has not yet been spoken as to the authorship of Psa_110.; but it is a mistake to maintain that Jesus has decided the question. There is nothing antecedently incredible in the hypothesis that in such matters, as in other details of human information, He condescended not to know more than His contemporaries, and that He therefore believed what He had been taught the school and in the synagogue (see footnote, p. 124). Nor ought we summarily to dismiss the suggestion that, although He knew that the Psalm was not written by David, He yet abstained from challenging beliefs respecting matters of fact, because the premature and violent correction of such beliefs would have been more harmful to His work than their undisturbed continuance would be. In this, as in many things, the correction of erroneous opinion might well be left to time. But this suggestion is less satisfactory than the other hypothesis. It should be noticed that, while Jesus affirms both the inspiration (Mt. Mk.) and the Messianic character (Mt. Mk. Lk.) of Ps. 110., yet the argumentative question with which He concludes need not be understood as asserting that David is the author of it, although it seems to imply this. It may mean no more than that the scribes have not fairly faced whale their own principles involve. Here is a problem, with which they ought to be quite familiar, and of which they ought to be able to give a solution. It is their position, and not His, that is open to criticism. The question, Why callest thou Me good? appears to serve a similar purpose. It seems to imply that Christ is not to be called good in the sense that God is called good (Mar 10:18). But it need mean no more than that the young man who addressed Jesus as Good Master ought to reflect as to the significance of such language before making use of it.1

44. ; De Wette and Strauss both point out that this question must imply either (1) that the Messiah is not the Son of David, or (2) that the inspired Psalmist teaches that the Messiah is no mere political deliverer. Strauss, with Schenkel and Volkmar, prefers the former altenative.2 But it is incredible that, even if Jesus were a mere human teacher, He would thus gratuitously have contradicted the express utterances of Scripture (2Sa 7:8-29; Isa 9:5-7, 11:Isa 9:1-10; Jer 23:5-8; Mic 5:2) and the popular belief which was built upon them; especially as this belief was a valuable help to His own work (18:38; Mat 15:22, Mat 12:23, Mat 21:9). Whereas, those who believe in His Divinity need have no difficulty in admitting, that, on a point which was no part of His teaching, Jesus might go all His human life without even raising the question as to the truth of what was authoritatively taught about the authorship of this or that portion of Scripture.

45-47. The Condemnation of the Scribes. Like Mar 12:38-40, this seems to be a summary of the terrible indictment of the hierarchy given at length in Mat_23. Lk. perhaps did not know the longer report preserved by Mt. As he had already given an account of a similar discourse (11:39-52), there was the less need to give a full report here.

45. . It is in the hearing of the multitude who had just been witnesses of the contest, in which the scribes had been so signally defeated, that Jesus utters His final condemnation of them. Comp. the similar condemnation 12:1, where as here we have , and see notes there. Comp. also the somewhat parallel passage in Eze 22:25: , , .

46. . Mk. also has this Hellenized expression for (Mat 23:5). The saying from to is in all three accounts. Comp. 16:7, and see Wetst. on Mat 23:6, Mat 23:7.

Salmon quotes AV. of this and of Mar 12:38 in illustration of the variety which independent translation is sure to produce. There, love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the market places and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts, which for a pretence make long prayers. Here, desire, walk, robes, greetings, markets, highest, chief, show for the words in italics, the Greek in all cases being the same.

. This constr. of = like, love c. infin. occurs only here and Mar 12:38. It is perhaps an extension of the Hebraistic or = take delight in, and in Mar 12:7 an acc. is coupled with the infin. Comp. Mat 27:43, Mat 27:9:13, Mat 27:12:7; Heb 10:5, Heb 10:8. But Lk. seperates the acc. from by inserting the more usual , Win. liv. 4 p. 587. What follows is common to all three accounts. See on 11:43 and 14:7.

47. . Comp. Mar 12:40; but this item in the condemnation is not found in the true text of Mat_23. Probably wealthy widows are chiefly meant. They devoured widows houses by accepting hospitality and rich presents from pious and weak women. Sexus muliebris ut ad superstitionem pronior ita magis patet ad eas fraudes (Grot.). They would find widows a specially easy prey, and their taking advantage of the defenceless aggravated their guilt Ctaient les Tartuffes de lpoque (Godet). Josephus says of the Pharisees (Ant. xvii. 2. 4). Comp. the cases of Fulvia (18:3, 5) and of Helene (20:2, 5) as instances of devout and benevolent women. The wife of Pheroras, brother of Herod the Great, paid the fines of thousands of Pharisees who had been fined for refusing to swear loyalty to Csar (17:2, 4). The Talmud gives evidence of the plundering of widows. Inter plagas qu a Pharisis proveniunt hc etiam est. Est qui consulant cum orphanis, ut alimenta vidu eripiat (Sota Hieros. f. 20. I, , Schoettg. 1:199). Of a plundered widow R. Eleazar says, Plaga Pharisorum tetigit illam.

. The more abundant may be understood in two ways: (1) in proportion to the high estimation in which they were held in this world; or (2) in proportion to the hypocrisy which makes a trade of religion (Gould). Qui male agit, judicatur. Qui bono abutitur ad malum ornandum, magis judicatur (Beng.). For comp. Rom 13:2; Jam 3:1; and for see on 7:26.

V. de J. Vie de Jsus.

Edersh. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

RV. Revised Version.

AV. Authorized Version.

A A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.

C

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sc. 5. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1:2-2:5, 2:42-3:21, 4:25-6:4, 6:37-7:16, or 17, 8:28-12:3, 19:42-20:27, 21:21-22:19, 23:25-24:7, 24:46-53.

These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T.

D D. Cod. Bezae, sc. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

om. omit.

Cod. Sinaiticus, sc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.

B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 3, etc., p. 86).

L L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

R R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sc. 8. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 18-36, 39, 6:49-7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:15, 42-56, 22:71-23:11, 38-51. By a second hand 15:19-21.

Syr Syriac.

Sin. Sinaitic.

1 Keim speaks with sverity of the destructive criticism which again miserably fails to see anything hut an invention of the dogmatic artist in this grand self-revelation of Jesus, which is attested by all three Gospels (v. p.142).

TR. Textus Receptus.

Burton. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses.

Vulg. Vulgate.

Goth. Gothic.

Arm. Armenian.

K K. Cod. Cyprius, sc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

Latt. Latin.

Wsctt. Westcott.

Orig. Origen.

Luth. Luther.

Tyn. Tyndale.

Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).

Gen. Geneva.

Aeth. Ethiopic.

Jos. Josephus.

De W. De Wette.

Mey. Meyer.

Cov. Coverdale.

Nsg. Nsgen.

Cur. Curetonian.

. Cod. Sangallensis, sc. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

1 Some heretic sent R. Juda an imperial denapius, and he was deciding not to accept it, when another Rabbi advised him to accept it and throw it into a well before the donors feet (Avoda Sara f. 6 quoted by Wetst. on Mat 22:21). But see Schrer, J.P. in T. of. J.C. p. 77.

Boh. Bohairic.

Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.

2 It may be doubted whether the idea that man bears the image of God just as the coin bears the image of Csar is to be supplied: Render then the coin to Csar, and give the whole man up to God (Lathem, A Service of Angels, p. 50).

Tisch. Tischendorf.

ins. insert.

G G. Cod. Harleianus, sc. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.

Beng. Bengel.

Tert. Tertullian.

1 Gamaliel is said to have silenced Sadducees by quoting such promises as Deu 1:8, Deu 11:9. Gods promises must be fulfilled, and these were not fulfilled to the patriarchs during their lifetime. Again, if God quickened buried seed, how much His own people (Edersh. Hist. of J.N. p. 316).

2 The Fourth Book or Maccabees, although written before the destruction of Jerusalem, was probably written not very long before Christian interpolations, or conscious imitations of Christian phraseology, are possible (Schrer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. II. iii. p. 244).

WH. Westcott and Hort.

Aegyptt. Egyptian.

1

If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? (Luk 11:19) is possibly a similar case. It need not imply that Jewish exorcists had succeeded in casting out demons, but only that they were credited with no diabolical witchcraft in making the attempt. The question may mean no more than Judge Me on the same principles as you judge your own exorcists. See Wright ad loc. and 16:19.

On Psa_110. see Gore, Bampton Lectures, 1891, Lect. 7, sub fin. and note 55; Driver, Int. to Lit, of O.T. p. 362 and note; Perowne, Psalms, 2. p. 302, with the remarks of Thirlwall there quoted; Meyer on Mat 22:43; Weiss on Mat 22:43 with note; Bishop Mylne, Indian Ch. Quar. Rev. Oct. 1892, p. 486; Schwartzkopff, Konnte Jesus irren? 1896, pp. 21-36.

2 Latham is of the same opinion from a different point of view. He thinks that Jesus repudiated the title Son of David as implying that the Redeemer of the world was a Jewish Messiah, with a title based on legitimacy and genealogy (Pastor pastorum, p. 415).

Wetst. Wetstein.

Grot. Grotius.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

the Unanswered Question

Luk 20:1-8

When anyone has received a divine commission, he does not need to prove it. His credentials are written large upon his life and message. It was so with John the Baptist. There was no need for him to argue his claims. The crowds in the Jordan valley; the multitudes in the baptismal waters, were sufficient to attest him as Gods servant. What he said about God and sin found corroboration in their hearts. So it was with our Lord. The masses of people that followed Him and hung on His words had no doubt that He was the heir of the vineyard. The leaders professed to doubt it, because, to use the language of the parable that follows, they were reluctant to surrender their claims to the ownership of the vineyard. Probably, sufficient stress has not been laid upon the supreme intellectual power of our Lord, which shone out so clearly in these conflicts with Hebrew casuists, and in which He always came off conqueror, by the sheer force of His mind. We have the mind of Christ!

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

The Parable Of The Vineyard — Luk 20:1-18

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as He taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon Him with the elders, and spake unto Him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest Thou these things? or who is He that gave Thee this authority? And He answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer Me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; He will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. Then began He to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. And He beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder- Luk 20:1-18.

The rejection of Christ by the world is what fixes the Christians place in this scene. He to whom the believer owes everything for eternity has been spurned, cast out, and crucified by those who represented the present world-order; for both Jew and Gentile united in refusing to acknowledge as Lord Him whom the Father sent intc the world. This comes out clearly in the parable of the vineyard and in what follows here and in the twenty-first chapter. The world was tested by the personal presence of the Son of God, who had come in grace, seeking mans blessing and telling out the love of the Fathers heart. This is the One of whom men said, We will not have this Man to reign over us. Rejected by men, He has gone up to the Fathers right hand, where He waits expectantly until His enemies shall be made His footstool (Luk 20:43). Meantime the world continues unchanged in its opposition to its rightful King, as manifested by its hatred of those who now are called to represent Him in this scene. When the restraints of Christian light are withdrawn, its true character will be manifested, as we see in many lands today, both in Europe and Eastern Asia, where for many years the cause of Christ seemed to be in the ascendant, but where new persecution has broken out as violently as in any past period.

In the first eight verses we have the controversy between Jesus and the chief priests, scribes, and elders of Israel. These leaders of the people, who had from the very first rejected the testimony of Christ, were now gathered about Him as He taught the people in the temple: that is, the outer court of the temple, where teachers met with their disciples. They put the question to Jesus, Tell us, by what authority doest Thou these things? They referred to the cleansing of the temple which had taken place shortly before. They asked a second question: Who is He that gave Thee this authority? They resented the thought that a mere carpenter from that mean village of Nazareth should have dared to enter the precincts of the temple and undertake to cleanse it by driving out those who sold doves, lambs, etc., for sacrifices, and they challenged Him in this way. Jesus replied, I will also ask you one thing; and answer Me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? What did that have to do with their question? Well, it had everything to do with it. Declaring he was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, John had pointed the people to Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. He said, I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. John had directed the people to Jesus, exclaiming, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. How blessedly John preached the gospel! I have heard it said that John the Baptist never knew the gospel, that all he preached was legal instruction, pressing upon the people the guilt of their sins and calling upon them to be baptized in order that their sins might be remitted. But the records as given in Holy Scripture will show that statement to be false. John never promised forgiveness of sins through baptism; he did not preach that baptism could cleanse men of their guilt. Those who came down to John to be baptized were not justified through baptism. In their baptism they acknowledged their sins and need of remission, and John bore witness to the Christ as the Son of God, the Lamb of God, through whom alone sins could be put away. John was the forerunner of Jesus, and he pointed men to our Lord as the Messiah and the Saviour. If these leaders accepted John as a prophet they would know who gave to Jesus the authority to enter into the temple and cleanse it, for it was written in the Old Testament, The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in (Mal 3:1). When the Lord put this question to these self-righteous legalists, They reasoned with themselves, saying, If ye shall say, From heaven; He will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by authority I do these things. Notice that our Lord never attempted to make things clear to these hypocrites; He never attempted to explain divine mysteries to men who were not genuine. If people came to Him as serious inquirers, who were honest and really wanted help, He gave gladly what they needed; but as to these men who had rejected deliberately His testimony and had refused to accept Him, He did as He had commanded His disciples: Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you (Mat 7:6), He never sought to answer their cavils.

Then began He to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. It is God Himself who is here set forth under the symbol of the Owner of the vineyard, which represents the people of Israel (Isa 5:1-7). The husbandmen were their rulers, temporal and spiritual. At the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. So they had treated the prophets who were sent to Israel in the name of God to call the people back in heart to His law; yet they not only turned deaf ears to their entreaties, but also persecuted them for telling the truth (Mat 6:12). And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. Other messengers were sent from time to time, only to be treated with contempt and contumely (Act 7:52). All this revealed the actual state of the hearts of Israels leaders.

And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. For long centuries one prophet followed another, seeking fruit for God, but it became more and more evident that there was no desire to glorify Him on the part of those who had been blessed so greatly. As we look back in the Old Testament records we find that this agrees perfectly with the history of the prophets. They had been misused, ill-treated, and their testimony refused; some of them were actually put to death, and others treated most insolently.

Last of all we find the Lord of the vineyard saying, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. What an insight this gives us into the heart of God! We can see Him, as it were, looking down upon Israel, conscious of all the sinfulness, the waywardness of the people, yet saying, I am going to send My Son to them. Surely, they will not treat Him as they have treated the prophets. Of course God knew exactly what would take place, but this is what theologians call an anthropomorphism-God represented as speaking and acting on the human plane. In the fulness of time He sent forth His Son (Gal 4:4). He who was the delight of the Fathers heart was sent into the world, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat 15:24), to reveal the love of the God of their fathers. The people ,of Israel had misused Gods messengers; they had put many of the prophets to death; but at last He sent His Son. Would they accept Him and yield obedience to His word? Instead of that, we are told that When the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. This was sinful mans response to the love of the Father. Instead of reverencing the Son, they were determined to get rid of Him, and they refused to acknowledge His authority.

They cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Our Lord here anticipates that which He knew was soon to take place. He showed His enemies that He foresaw all that they were about to do. His death was foreordained ,of God, but their part in rejecting Him was the expression of their own wicked hearts, as Peter told them later on (Act 2:23). The picture is clear. Now what will be the next step? Jesus puts the question to His hearers: What therefore shall the Lord of the vineyard do unto them? What should be done with a people who had enjoyed such privileges but bad spurned all of them? The answer comes: He shall destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. These words were fulfilled literally some forty years after the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ, when God in His governmental dealing, permitted the Roman army to overrun the land of Palestine, encircle the city of Jerusalem and utterly destroy it. Israel has been a nation of wanderers ever since. Her day of opportunity, for the present at least, is over, and God has given His vineyard to other husbandmen; and the Gentiles are enjoying the blessing Israel might have had. Having forfeited all claim upon God because of their attitude toward Christ, Israel after the flesh must be set aside and the vineyard be given to those in a later day who will turn to God in repentance. It is not exactly the call of the Gentiles that is here set forth, but the regenerated Israel of the last days. Some day there will be a remnant of Israel who will be brought back, when they will once again be gathered in the land promised to them in the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. During this age they are cast out because of their rejection of their c Messiah. The Lord Himself makes the declaration that God will destroy these wicked husbandmen and give the vineyard to others.

What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Jesus drew the attention of His hearers to that same 118th Psalm from which the children sang as He rode into Jerusalem, where, in Psa 118:22-23, both His rejection and His triumph are prophesied. According to Jewish tradition, Psalm 118 was written about the time of the completion of Solomons Temple and may even have been sung at its dedication. It is said that the passage Jesus quoted may have reference to something that occurred during the building of the temple. It will be remembered that Solomon was seven years in constructing this glorious sanctuary, and that he had many thousands of workmen, who labored six months at a time and then were superseded by others; consequently very few who were in the early relays were engaged upon the building when it was about to be completed. From the Book of Kings we learn that the stones for the temple were all hewn and cut to order in the quarry below before being sent up to the great platform on the top of Mount Moriah.

The Jews say that these stones were practically all the same size and shape, but that one stone was sent up which was so different from the rest that they were at loss to know what to do with it. It did not seem to fit anywhere. After consultation they decided a mistake had been made, and so they placed it upon rollers and pushed it over to the edge of Mount Moriah and tumbled it down into the vale below. The stone which the builders rejected! But as time went on and the temple was nearing completion, the day drew near for the placing of the chief cornerstone. There was nothing suitable on the platform. Word was sent down to the quarry-men to send up this cornerstone, as they were now ready for it, but the answer came back, We sent it to you long ago; you must have it there upon the temple site. But a thorough search failed to reveal it. Then an old workman said: I remember now; there was a stone sent up when we first began to build, but we saw no place for it, and we hurled it down into the abyss. Go down below, and you will find it. And so they sent a searching party and eventually discovered it almost covered with debris and overgrown with moss. They raised it with great effort to the platform above and found it fitted exactly into the place prepared for it. Thus the rejected stone became the head of the corner.

Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken. Israel fell upon the stone, and they have been broken to pieces nationally and scattered among the nations (Isa 8:14). But on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. When He comes the second time the Lord will fall, like the stone in Dan 2:34-35; Dan 2:45, upon the great nations of the Gentiles and break them in pieces, in order that the kingdoms of this world may become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ (Rev 11:15).

The Lord Jesus said, practically, I am that Stone, for I have come to you, but you do not know that I am the Corner Stone of the spiritual temple that God is now about to build. So they rejected Him. They cast Him ,out, but God the Father raised Him from the dead and has made Him the head of the corner. Jesus Christ Himself, we are told, being the chief Corner Stone (Eph 2:20).

And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on Him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that He had spoken this parable against them. And they watched Him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of His words. that so they might deliver Him unto the power and authority of the governor. Unable to answer Him, and having wilfully rejected Him, they stooped to the meanest and most contemptible methods in order to discredit Him before the people, and to find some occasion against Him in order that they might accuse Him before Pilate.

Men are not lost because they do not know better; they are lost because they sin against the light which God gives them. These men had abundance of light, but they spurned it. He who is Himself the Light of the world stood in their midst, but their eyes were blinded by unbelief and self-righteousness, and they knew Him not. Nothing brings out the corruption and incurable evil of the heart of sinful man like the presence of Jesus. His holiness emphasizes mans unholiness. His righteousness throws into bold relief mans unrighteousness. His love stirs up mans hatred. It is a sad commentary on fallen human nature that when God Himself came unto His own creation in the Person of the Incarnate Son, men, instead of being melted by His grace, were hardened by His goodness, and were never satisfied until they saw Him nailed to a felons cross. God has declared, As in water face answereth face, so the heart of man to man (Pro 27:19). It is only the grace of God working in the soul that leads anyone to trust Christ and to repent of rejecting Him in the past.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Luk 20:25

I. Let us look at the use which has so long been made of our Lord’s reply, and ask whether it is justifiable or wise. His words have been perpetually quoted, as if “Csar” meant civil government, and “God” ecclesiastical government, and as if Csar and God had separate spheres of jurisdiction, each limiting the other. All intelligent students of the New Testament know that our Lord has made no such distinction as He is popularly supposed to have made. The question on which He was asked to pronounce had nothing whatever to do with the rival claims of Church and State; their respective rights were not even contemplated, the cunning cavillers who had conspired to entangle Him knew nothing of the distinction between the two. It was indeed a distinction utterly foreign to the Jewish mind. What feature in the prophetic writings is more marked than the interpretation of religion and politics?

II. Our Lord here recognises no division of allegiance. He does not regard man as under two masters-as owing duty to Csar and duty to God. No; God is set forth by Him always and everywhere as the sole Lord of man’s being and powers. Nothing man has can be Csar’s in contradiction to that which is God’s. Christ claims all for the Sovereign Master. Rightly understood, therefore, the great precepts of the text are in perfect accord with the doctrine of God’s sole and supreme lordship over every thought, and faculty, and possession of man. “Render unto Csar the things that are Csar’s.” Why? Who enacts it? The answer is, “God.” It is a part of your religious obedience to be a loyal citizen. God has bound up together our relation to the “powers that be” in this world with our relation to Himself. He has set us under rulers and in societies as a kind of interior province of His mighty kingdom, but our loyalty as subjects and our duty as citizens are but a part of the one supreme duty which we owe to Him.

R. Duckworth, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxviii., p. 273.

References: Luk 20:25.-M. Wilks, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvii., p. 344. Luk 20:34-38.-J. J. Murphy, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 102. Luk 20:35.-J. H. Evans, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 353. Luk 20:35, Luk 20:36.-G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 49; Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. x., p. 125.

Luk 20:36

The Mortal and the Immortal.

I. Ours is a dying world; and immortality has no place upon this earth. That which is deathless is beyond these hills. “Neither can they die any more” is the prediction of something future, not the announcement of anything either present or past. We are still under the reign of death, and this is the hour and power of darkness. The day of the destruction of death and the unlocking of sepulchres is not yet. It will come in due time. Meanwhile, we have to look on death; for our dwelling is in a world of death-a land of graves.

II. If then we would get beyond death’s circle and shadow we must look above. Death is here, but life is yonder. The fading is here, the blooming is yonder. Death, which is now a law, an inevitable necessity, shall then be an impossibility. They who are partakers of the first resurrection and of the world to come are made for ever immortal. This is the triumph of life. It is more than resurrection: for it is resurrection with the security that death can never again approach them throughout eternity.

H. Bonar, Short Sermons, p. 416.

References: Luk 20:36.-I. Taylor, Saturday Evening, p. 322. Luk 20:37.-J. Vaughan, Sermons, 13th series, p. 142. Luk 20:37, Luk 20:38.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxi., No. 1863; T. C. Finlayson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 65; J. Baldwin Brown, Ibid., vol. xii., p. 328; Ibid., vol. xxvi., p. 182.

Luk 20:38

Consider some of the consequences of the truth of this text:-

I. As regards the body. In heaven’s language-i.e. in the real truth of the case-the body never dies. There is that which lives. At least God sees it alive. The relation of the body to the soul, and of the soul to the body, subsists through the interval between death and the resurrection. Can we suppose that the spirit, in the intermediate state, does not affect and desire its own body? St. Paul leads us on to that thought. He did not rest in, he did not like the idea of, unclothed spirit-“Not that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon”-i.e. with the old body renovated, and no longer, as now, burdensome. To God, nothing dies: it changes, but it does not die, “For all live unto Him.”

II. But as respects the spirit. Surely it cannot be that energies are dormant, that existence is torpid, and all things in abeyance, and life as if it were not life after we die, till the day of Christ. For, then, could it be said of souls in such a state, we “live unto Him”? We say it of the body, indeed, though it be asleep, because of its relations to an animated soul. But would it be true if the soul also slept that long sleep. Are they not rather living in a very ecstasy of being and of joy, if they live unto Him? And to think of that life of theirs, may it not help us to live indeed an earnest, and a busy, and a holy, and a happy life? To think of them dead, is not it to sadden, to hinder, and to deaden us? But to think of them living, so living, is not it to gladden and animate us?

III. What, then, is death? Who are the dead? They who, living, live separate from their own souls; and, which is the same thing, they whose souls and bodies are both separate from God-they are the dead. That is the distance, and that is the parting. But do not think of those who sleep in Jesus as far off. Their life and our life is one.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 5th series, p. 20.

References: Luk 20:38.-I. Taylor, Saturday Evening, p. 280; G. Macdonald, Unspoken Sermons, p. 232. Luk 20:41.-T. T. Lynch, Three Months’ Ministry, p. 265. Luk 20:46.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 251. Luke 20-F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 301. Luke 20-21-A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 328. Luk 21:1, Luk 21:2.-R. L. Browne, Sussex Sermons, p. 213. Luk 21:1-11.-G. Calthrop, Pulpit Recollections, p. 192. Luk 21:9.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 252.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 20

1. His Authority Demanded and His Answer.(Luk 20:1-8)

2. Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. (Luk 20:9-19)

3. Question about Tribute to Caesar. (Luk 20:20-26)

4. The Question Concerning Resurrection. (Luk 20:27-40)

5. The Question Christ Asked. (Luk 20:41-44)

6. Beware of the Scribes! (Luk 20:45-47.)

The events in this chapter are found in both Matthews and Marks Gospels. The parable of the vineyard foretells His death. He is the son, the beloved son, whom the husbandman cast out of the vineyard and killed. The rejected stone, which becomes the head of the corner (Psa 118:22) is likewise Christ. Luk 20:18 shows the judgment which came upon the Jews nationally. Rejecting Christ, stumbling and falling upon that stone they were broken. It also shows the future judgment which will strike the Gentile world-powers at the close of the times of the Gentiles, when the Stone shall fall out of heaven and smite the image, which represents Gentile dominion (Dan 2:1-49). Inasmuch as we have followed the different questions in Matthew and Mark, put to the Lord by the chief priests, scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees, to ensnare Him, no further annotations are needed here.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Chapter 32

Ungodliness In The House Of God

In this passage of scripture we see our Lord Jesus Christ walking in the temple with his disciples, teaching and preaching the gospel. As he walked back and forth through the house of God, a multitude gathered around and listened intently to his every word. The event recorded here took place the day after our Lord cursed the barren fig tree and drove the money changers from the temple, two days after his entrance into Jerusalem.

In the crowd, listening to our Saviours doctrine, were those chief priests, scribes, and elders who were determined to destroy the Master, his doctrine, and his people. Once more, they thought they had a perfect opportunity to discredit him. The Lord Jesus had come into Jerusalem accepting the praises of men as the Messiah, the Christ of God. He entered the house of God, drove out the money changers, and set things in order as the Master of the house.

On top of all that, he called the house of God his house. Thus declaring himself to be God. As he preached the gospel of God in the house of God, contrary to the accepted traditions and customs of the Jews, these great, respected, scholarly infidels, who were the religious leaders of the Jewish world, demanded of the Lord Jesus the source of his authority.

What determined hatred these chief priests and scribes and elders had for the Son of God! What had the Lord Jesus done? He had preached the gospel to the poor. He had gone about healing all manner of sickness and disease among the people. Was this the cause of all their hatred and malignity? Strange as that may seem, it was. That is cause enough to Satan and his seed. It always has been and always will be, so long as the world shall stand. Is the offence of the cross ceased? Oh no! Let any of Gods servants in the present hour preach the gospel the Master preached, declaring that salvation is in his name alone, throwing all the goodness and righteousness of men to the ground and declaring that Christs blood and righteousness are the solitary cause of a sinners acceptance with God, and the religious leaders around him will rise up against him like angry hornets buzzing around his head.

When the religious, spiritual leaders of a church, denomination, nation, or age do not know God, when spiritual leaders are really infidels, those who blindly follow their blind guides do so to the eternal peril of their souls!

Here are four spiritual evils, four glaring matters of ungodliness, which stand out in these verses, as beacons to warn us.

Spiritual Ignorance

First, Luke shows us the evil of spiritual ignorance displayed in these religious men. You may think, How can spiritual ignorance be called an evil thing? Can a person be faulted for his ignorance in the things of God?

Yes, a person can and should be, indeed shall be, held accountable by God for that which he could have known and should have known had he simply walked in the light God gave him. Do you understand the implications of what I have just stated? Not only will God Almighty hold you accountable at the Day of Judgment for everything you have heard and despised concerning the gospel of his dear Son, he will hold you accountable for everything you could have heard had you chosen to do so.

Those things are true of all men; but they are especially true concerning those men who assume the responsibility of teaching others and preaching to others and leading others in the name of God.

That man who speaks to, teaches, leads, and preaches to others in the name of God better have a firm, well-grounded assurance concerning a few things. Writing as I now do in Gods name, I assume a tremendous weight of responsibility. Knowing what I do of Gods character, his Word, and the seriousness of this business of addressing immortal souls in the name of God, I would not dare speak (or write) another word, or continue another day in the work of the ministry, if I were not certain of these things. I say to any man, old or young, who is just chomping at the bit to be a preacher, before you assume this work, you better be certain that you know God and the gospel of his grace, God has called you and sent you to this work, you have a message from God, you faithfully proclaim Gods message.

Though all are responsible for their own souls, those who are set as watchmen over immortal souls are also responsible for those souls (Eze 3:17-21; Eze 33:1-20).

What does all that have to do with Luk 20:1-8? Just this: these chief priests, scribes, and elders stand before us as glaring examples of the fact that those who hold highest place in the religious world are often totally ignorant of the things of God.

They men were the most highly trained, specialized religious scholars of the time. They were selected from an elite group of elite men. They were not just priests, they were the chief priests. They were not just teachers, they were the scribes. They were not just elders, they were the elders.

These men were regarded by the religious world of their day as the very source and fountain of all spiritual knowledge. They were, for the most part, direct descendants of Aaron; and they could prove it. Their doctrine had the full weight and force of mainstream, historic Jewish tradition; and they could prove that, too.

But these men did not know God from a box of rocks. Spiritually, they were totally blind. They had the scriptures memorized, categorized, and compartmentalized; but they had absolutely no understanding of the message of the Book. They could tell you everything you could want to know about God and his Son, the Christ, the Messiah, except one thing. They could not tell you who he is! They could not spot him when he stood in their midst.

Spiritual knowledge comes by divine revelation. I wonder if we will ever learn this. In spiritual matters nothing matters except spiritual matters. Worldly approval, academic scholarship, historic approval, celebrated fame, religious order, and religious tradition are all meaningless. Indeed, these things are an absolute hindrance unless we are taught of God. We know nothing until God, by his Spirit, causes the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ to shine in our hearts. Christ must be revealed in us (2Co 4:3-6).

Once that happens, once Christ is revealed in a person, he is unceasingly taught of God and convinced of three things. These three things are the most important truths we ever consider. They are indescribably deep. We can never fully learn them. Yet, if we are taught of God, we will never cease to learn them, as long as we live in this world. They are

1. Sin. Our own sin, the depravity of our hearts, the corruption of our evil deeds, and the filth of our righteousnesses!

2. Righteousness. The righteousness of God accomplished and brought in for us by Christs obedience as our representative!

3. Judgment. Judgment finished at Calvary by the substitutionary satisfaction of divine justice (Joh 16:8-11; Rom 8:1; 2Co 5:21)!

As you care for your soul and for the souls of your families and for all who may be influenced by you, try the spirits to see whether they be of God (1Jn 4:1-3).

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Spiritual ignorance, ignorance of Christ and his gospel, among preachers, teachers, and religious leaders is an inexcusable evil, by which multitudes are being led to hell. When blind men are led by blind men, both fall into the ditch.

Yet, there is more to aggravate the wickedness of their ignorance. They were wilfully ignorant of Christ. Their ignorance arose from their enmity against the Master. It was the fruit of their malice toward and hatred of Christ and his doctrine. Our Lords miraculous works spoke for themselves. None but God could do the work he did. Nicodemus recognized that fact (Joh 3:2). And every man with common sense recognizes it. But these men refused the obvious, because to acknowledge the obvious would require that they acknowledge Christ and his doctrine.

Religious Curiosity

The second evil, the second display of ungodliness we see in these men, and often see in the house of God today is the evil of religious curiosity.

What multitudes there are who are curious about spiritual things! The more mysterious a matter is, the more their curiosity is stirred. They care nothing for plainly revealed truth. They despise things that are obvious and important, needful and vital. But, they love to talk about and debate obscure things. In Luk 20:27-37 the Sadducees asked the Master a trick question about the resurrection. Mind you, they did not believe in the resurrection; but they wanted to debate it.

People like the scribes and their companions abound in every generation. They are all alike enemies to the pure truths of the gospel. Their religion is nothing but curiosity. You will be wise to avoid them as you would the plague (1Ti 1:4).

Religious Pride

Third, these religious hypocrites also show us the horrid evil of religious pride and arrogance. Here is a group of men, pretending that they are doing Gods service, daring to challenge the incarnate God himself about his authority, moved by nothing but envy, jealousy, arrogance, and pride. They were not even slightly motivated by the glory of God. Their only concern was their own position and power. They said, By what authority doest thou these things?

They could not refute his doctrine. They could not make any charge of wickedness stick. They could not deny the power of God displayed in his works. The only thing left was to challenge his right to do the things he did in the name of God. They were asking, By what authority do you preach? Who ordained you? What right do you have to curse a fig tree, created by God? How dare you come into the house of God and set things in order, without consulting us?

Nothing makes a lost religious man more arrogant, insecure, envious, and malicious than the sight of another man doing the will of God; preaching the truth of God he refuses to preach; consecrated to the glory of God, while he is consecrated to nothing but himself; secure in the place of God, while he senses nothing but insecurity; at rest in the will of God, when he cannot find a moments rest in his own soul.

It is spiritual pride and arrogance, especially among religious leaders, which keeps men from bowing to the truth of God, when plainly confronted with it; and the embarrassment of having that wickedness exposed in their own hearts makes those, who normally appear to be so sugary sweet, raging persecutors. It was the spiritual arrogance of these men which dragged them down to hell. Everyone acknowledged that John the Baptist was a prophet of God; but these fine men were not about to sit at the feet of such an unacceptable teacher. Because they would not hear Gods servant, they could not believe Gods Son. Christ declared and displayed in undeniable ways his Messiahship and Godhood; but they refused to believe him. It would simply have cost them too much. Because they refused to hear Gods messenger and refused to believe Gods Son, they despised Gods ordinance of believers baptism.

Spiritual Dishonesty

Spiritual ignorance always leads to spiritual arrogance; and spiritual ignorance and arrogance always produce the evil of spiritual dishonesty. Those who are, by their wilful unbelief, prejudiced against the truth of God, in the attempt to justify themselves, will, without hesitation, lie and act in dishonesty to their own consciences. There is nothing dishonest men will not do to save face before men. Our Lord did not ask these men a hard, perplexing question. He just asked them whether Johns ministry was of God, or of men (Luk 20:3-4).

They did not even think about giving a plain, honest, straightforward answer. Immediately, they put their heads together, not to find out the truth, but to figure out how to save face (Luk 20:5-7; Luk 20:31). Rather than speak the truth, they told a direct and obvious lie. They said, We cannot tell. In reply to our Lords question whether Johns baptism was from heaven or of men, they answered that they could not tell. That was an obvious lie. They could have told, but they would not do so. They knew that if they said what they really believed they would condemn themselves. If they confessed that John was a prophet sent from God, they would be guilty of a gross inconsistency in not believing his testimony about Christ as the Lamb of God, the Messiah, the Saviour of needy sinners, who came to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Men and women will say anything rather than acknowledge themselves to be in the wrong. Lying is just one of the sins to which the human heart is most naturally inclined, and one of the most common evils in the world. Gehazi and Ananias and Sapphira have more followers and imitators in the house of God than Peter and Paul.

Lessons

You can mark this down as a matter of certainty. If God is pleased to use you, men will envy you, despise you, and do everything within their power to discredit you. If they cannot destroy you, they will try to destroy your influence. Our Lord Jesus found his most malicious enemies (the Pharisees) in the house of God. Paul found his greatest foes (false apostles and Judaisers) in the house of God. Even the beloved John had his foe (Diotrephes) in the house of God.

The best way I know of to deal with those who oppose us, oppose the gospel of the grace of God, oppose the work we do, and oppose our God is to ignore them, just as our Lord did, when he replied, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things (Luk 20:8).

Rarely do men and women rightly esteem and value the ministry of the gospel. In this passage, as he often did, our Lord Jesus highly commended John the Baptist and the ministry the Lord gave him in his day. Like John the Baptist, every true gospel preacher is sent of God to point out the Lamb of God and declare his work, to prepare the way of the Lord, to call sinners to repentance, showing them the way of life and faith in Christ (Isa 52:7), and to leave all who believe not without excuse.

And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. And be at peace among yourselves (1Th 5:12-13).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

were very attentive

Or, hanged on him.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

that: Luk 19:47, Luk 19:48, Mar 11:27, Joh 18:20

the chief: 1Ch 24:1-31

Reciprocal: Jer 26:2 – Stand Hag 2:7 – I will fill Mat 4:23 – the gospel Mat 21:15 – when Mat 21:23 – when Mar 12:35 – while Mar 14:49 – was Joh 2:18 – seeing Act 4:5 – rulers

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

YET IN THE precincts of the temple the Lord taught daily during this last week of His life, so it is not surprising that He came into conflict with them. The whole of this chapter is occupied with details of the conflict. The chief priest and scribes began the conflict, and at the end they were left silenced and unmasked.

They started by challenging His authority. They were the people in authority there, and to them He was but an upstart Prophet from Nazareth. Their question assumed that they had the ability to judge of the Lords credentials, if He produced them; so He called upon them to settle the preliminary question as to the credentials of His forerunner, John. This at once put them in a quandary, for the answer they wished to give would have been resented by the people. They were time-servers, courting popularity, so they pleaded ignorance. To such men as these the Lord did not produce His authority. Instead He proceeded to speak with all the authority which omniscience gives, and they were very soon made to feel its power. There could be no doubt about His authority by the time the verbal conflict ceased.

In the parable, which occupies verses Luk 20:9-16, He set forth with great clearness the exact position of things at that moment. It reads like a continuation of the historical statements made in 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:16. There it was God appealing by His messengers, rising up betimes and sending; but all were mocked and misused until there was no remedy, and He brought upon them the king of the Chaldees. Here the story is carried a step further and the Beloved Son is sent, only to be cast out and killed. Hence a worse chastisement than the Chaldeans was to come upon them. The Psalmist had prophesied that the rejected Stone should become the Head of the corner, and Jesus added that all, who fall upon that Stone, or upon whom it shall fall, would be destroyed. They were at that moment stumbling on the Stone, as Rom 9:32 declares. The falling of the Stone upon them, and upon the Gentile powers, will take place at the Second Advent, as Dan 2:34 shows.

The chief priests and scribes felt the point and authority of His words, as we see in verse Luk 20:19, but they were only thereby stirred up to more determined opposition; and they sent forth men of craft and deceit to entrap Him in His words, if possible. They came with the question as to paying tribute to Caesar; and in this both Pharisees and Herodians united, sinking their animosities in common hatred of the Lord.

The Lords question, Why tempt ye Me? showed that He was thoroughly aware of their craft. His request for the penny reveals His own poverty. The superscription on the penny was a witness to their subjection to Caesar. His reply thus was that they must render to Caesar his rights, and yield to God the rights that were His. It was because they had not rendered to God the things that were His that Caesar had acquired the rights of conquest over them. All this was so indubitable, when pointed out, that these crafty questioners were silenced.

The question with which the Sadducees thought to entrap the Lord was founded upon ignorance. No doubt they had often perplexed the Pharisees with it, but then they had no more light than the Sadducees on the essential point which the Lord made so plain. He contrasted this world and that world, using really the word which means age. Now it will be the portion of some to obtain that age as living men on earth, without passing through death and resurrection; but those who obtain that age and the resurrection will enter upon altogether new conditions of life. They will be deathless as the angels, and marriage will have no application to them. The Lord was here beginning to bring to light life and incorruptibility (2Ti 1:10. N.Tr.); and in result the Sadducees question, which to their ignorance seemed so unanswerable, became merely ridiculous.

The Lord proceeded to prove the resurrection from Exo 3:6. If the patriarchs were alive to God, centuries after they were dead to this world, their ultimate resurrection was a certainty. Thus He answered not only the foolish question of the Sadducees, but the unbelief that lay behind their question. And He answered it with such authority that even a scribe was moved to admiration and approval, and they all feared to ask Him any more questions.

The Lord then asked them His great question, based upon Psa 110:1-7. Matthew records that no man was able to answer Him a word. No answer was possible save to the faith that perceived the Divine glory of the Christ, and they had no faith. They were silent in stubborn unbelief. Answer His question they could not: ask Him any further question they dared not.

It only remained for the Lord to unmask these evil men, and this He did in few words, as recorded in the two verses which close the chapter. They were hypocrites of the most desperate type, using religion as a cloak to cover their self-seeking and rapacity. He unmasked them, and pronounced their doom. He did not speak of a longer damnation, as though judgment were bounded by time and not eternal. But He did speak of greater damnation, showing that judgment will differ as to its severity. They suffer more abundant judgment (N.Tr.).

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

1

The priests were a religious group, the scribes were those who copied the law for the people, and the elders were the seniors, members of the Sanhedrin.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders.

[The chief priests and the scribes with the elders.] So it is in Mar 11:27; but in Mat 21:23; it is the chief priests and elders of the people. Now the question is, who these elders should be, as they are distinguished from the chief priests and the scribes. The Sanhedrim consisted chiefly of priests, Levites, and Israelites, although the original precept was for the priests and Levites only. “The command is, that the priests and Levites should be of the great council; as it is said, Thou shalt go unto the priests and Levites: but if such be not to be found, although they were all Israelites, behold, it is allowed.”

None will imagine that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were Israelites only, and no priests or Levites; nor, on the other hand, that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were only priests and Levites, and no Israelites. The scribes; therefore, seem in this place to denote either the Levites; or else, together with the Levites, those inferior ranks of priests who were not the chief priests; and then the elders; may be the Israelites, or those elders of the laity that were not of the Levitical tribe. Such a one was Gamaliel the present president of the Sanhedrim, and Simeon his son, of the tribe of Judah.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

LET us notice, firstly, in this passage, the demand which the chief Priests and scribes made upon our Lord. “Tell us,” they said, “by what authority thou doest these things? and who gave thee this authority?”

The spirit which prompted this demand is too evident to be mistaken. These men hated and envied Christ. They saw His influence increasing. They saw their own power waning. They resolved, if possible, to stop the progress of this new teacher; and the point on which they made their assault was His authority. His mighty works they ought to have examined. His teaching they ought, in all fairness, to have compared with their own Scriptures. But they refused to take either one course or the other. They preferred to call in question His commission.

Every true-hearted Christian who tries to do good in the world, must make up his mind to be treated like his Master. He must never be surprised to find, that the self-righteous and the worldly-minded dislike His ways. The lawfulness of his proceedings will be constantly called in question. He will be regarded as meddlesome, disorderly, and self-conceited, a pestilent fellow, and a troubler of Israel. (Act 24:5; 1Ki 18:17.) Scripture-readers, district-visitors, lay-agents, and unordained missionaries, are specially liable to meet with such treatment. And worst of all they will often meet with enemies, where they ought to find friends.

Let all who are attacked by the world for trying to do good, take comfort in the thought that they are only drinking of the cup which Christ drank. Their Master in heaven sympathizes with them. Let them work on patiently, and believe that, if they are faithful, their work will speak for itself. The world’s opposition is sure to attend every really good work. If the servants of Christ are to cease from every movement which the world calls in question, they will soon come to an entire stand-still. If we are to wait till the world approves our plans, and is satisfied with the propriety of our efforts, we shall never do anything on earth.

Let us notice, secondly, in this passage, the manner in which our Lord speaks of John the Baptist’s ministry. He refers those who questioned His authority to John’s constant and unvarying testimony to Himself. “Ought they not to remember how John had spoken of Him as the Lamb of God,-as One whose shoe-latchets he was not worthy to bear,-as One who had the fan in His hand, and had the Spirit without measure? Ought they not to recollect that they and all Jerusalem had gone out to John’s baptism, and confessed that John was a prophet? Yet John had always told them plainly that Christ was the Messiah! Surely, if they were honest they would not come now to demand His authority. If they really believed John to be a prophet sent from God, they were bound to believe that Jesus was the Christ.”

It may reasonably be doubted whether the importance of John the Baptist’s ministry is generally understood by Christians. The brightness of our Lord’s history overshadows the history of His forerunner, and the result is that John’s baptism and preaching do not receive the attention which they deserve. Yet it should never be forgotten, that the ministry of the Baptist was the only New Testament ministry foretold in the Old Testament, excepting that of Christ. It was a ministry which produced an immense effect on the Jewish mind, and aroused the expectation of Israel from one end of Palestine to the other. Above all, it was a ministry which made the Jews without excuse in their rejection of Christ, when Christ appeared. They could not say that they were taken by surprise when our Lord began to preach. Their minds had been thoroughly prepared for His appearing. To see the full sinfulness of the Jews, and the entire justice of the judgments which came on them after crucifying our Lord, we must remember the ministry of John the Baptist.

However little man may esteem the work of faithful ministers there is One in heaven who sees it, and keeps account of all their labor. However little their proceedings may be understood, and however much they may be slandered and misrepresented, the Lord Jesus Christ writes all their doings in His book. He lives who testified to the importance of John the Baptist’s ministry when John was dead and buried. He will yet testify to the toil of every one of His faithful servants at the last day. In the world they may have tribulation and disappointment. But they are not forgotten by Christ.

Let us notice, lastly, in this passage, the falsehood of which our Lord’s enemies were guilty. In reply to our Lord’s question whether John’s baptism was from heaven or of men, “they answered that they could not tell.” This was a downright untruth. They could have told, but they would not. They knew that if they said what they really believed they would condemn themselves. If they confessed that John was a prophet sent from God, they would be guilty of a gross inconsistency in not believing his testimony about Christ.

Falsehoods like this, it may be feared, are only too common among unconverted men. Thousands will say anything rather than acknowledge themselves to be in the wrong. Lying is just one of the sins to which the human heart is most naturally inclined, and one of the commonest sins in the world. Gehazi, Ananias, and Sapphira have more followers and imitators than Peter and Paul. The number of lies which are constantly told by men, to save their own credit, and to cover over their own wickedness, is probably far greater than we are aware.

The true servant of Christ will do well to remember these things as he travels through this world. He must not believe all he hears, and especially in the matter of religion. He must not suppose that unconverted men really believe in their own hearts all that they say. They often feel more than they appear to feel. They often say things against religion and religious people, which they secretly know to be untrue. They often know the Gospel is true, but have not the courage to confess it. They often know the Christians life is right, but are too proud to say so. The chief priests and scribes are not the only people who deal dishonestly in religion, and say what they know to be false. Then let the servant of Christ go patiently on his way. Those who are now his enemies, will one day confess that he was right, though they used to cry loudly that he was wrong.

==================

Notes-

v1.-[And it came to pass, &c.] The chapter we have now begun is remarkable because of the variety of attacks on our Lord which it describes. Whether the whole of the events here narrated took place on one day, is a question on which commentators do not agree. If they did not all happen on one day, they must at any rate have happened on two successive days.

[In the temple.] This expression means “in the outward courts of the temple,” to which all Jews were admitted.

v4.-[The baptism of John, &c.] We must beware of supposing that this question which our Lord put was not pertinent to the one which had been put to Himself, or was at all an evasion of a disagreeable query by a counter inquiry.

Our Lord’s question was in reality an answer to the question of His inquirers. They had asked Him “by what authority,” He did what He did. In reply, He asked them whether “John the Baptist was a prophet sent from God.” His meaning evidently was that John the Baptist had expressly testified that He was tha Messiah. They knew this. They could not deny it. Now if they really believed that John the Baptist was a prophet, they would see at once by “what authority” He did what He did. He did all as the Messiah, whom John had proclaimed Him to be.

[From heaven.] This expression means simply “from God.” (See Dan 4:26; Luk 15:18, Luk 15:21.)

v5.-[Why then believed ye him not?] The meaning of this of course must be, “Why did ye not believe what he told you about me?”

v6.-[The people will stone us.] Grotius remarks, “They had themselves accustomed the people to this violence. When they could not legally convict their enemies, they incited the people to stone them. It was called the judgment of zeal.” See Joh 10:31; Act 14:19.

v7.-[They could not tell.] The Greek words here, when literally translated, are even more remarkable than our version, as a proof of the falsehood of our Lord’s enemies. They are literally, “they did not know.”

v8.-[Neither tell I you, &c.] Our Lord’s refusal was just, because those who asked him were not honest in their inquiry about His authority. Our Lord never refused to answer the question of any honest inquirer.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Luk 20:1-8. OUR LORD QUESTIONED AS TO HIS AUTHORITY. See on Mat 21:23-27; Mar 11:27-33.

On one of the days. On Tuesday morning, as we think.

Preaching the gospel, or good tidings. Peculiar to Luke.

Came upon him. This suggests the formality and solemnity of the proceeding, since all three classes of the Sanhedrin were represented.

Or who is he, etc. Or, i.e., to speak more definitely Matthew and Mark have and.

All the people will stone us. Thus Luke expresses more fully the thought: they feared the people.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

LAST TEACHING IN JERUSALEM

The facts of this lesson are: (1) the challenge of the chief priests and scribes as to the authority of Jesus which, as we saw in Matthew 21, was equivalent to their formal rejection of Him who had just entered their city as the Messiah in fulfillment of Zechariahs prophecy; (2) the parable of the vineyard which, as we saw in the same place, was equivalent to His formal rejection of the nation; (3) the questionings of the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the scribes, that they might take hold of His words, that so they might deliver Him unto the power and authority of the governor (Luk 20:19-47); (4) the incident of the widows mite (Luk 21:1-4), dealt with in Mark 12; and (5) the Olivet discourse on His second coming, being a shorter record of that in Matthew 24, and covering in this chapter Luk 5:34.

In the questioning of the Sadducees (Luk 20:27-40) Luke gives particulars unnoticed by the other evangelists. He adds the words of Jesus (Luk 20:36), and explaining why they who are counted worthy to attain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, because they never die any more but, in that sense, are equal unto the angels. In other words the ordinance of marriage is not needed to perpetuate the race. A further particular is at Luk 20:38 : For all live unto Him. Death does not terminate mans existence either that of the righteous or the wicked, the believing or the unbelieving. As unclothed spirits they live before God, and of course this will be true in the further sense on the resurrection of their bodies from the dead.

Another particular peculiar to Luke is in the Olivet discourse. Verses 20 and 24 are not given by Matthew or Mark. The whole of that section in Luke refers to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus A.D. 70, when the city was taken; but that siege foreshadows the greater one at the end of this age of which we learned in the Old Testament. In the siege at the end of the age the city will not be taken, but be delivered by the appearing of Christ (Rev 19:11-21). The references in Matthew and Mark, unlike this in Luke, are to this last siege and not to the earlier one. In Luke, the sign is the compassing of Jerusalem by armies (Luk 21:20), but in the other gospels it is the abomination in the holy place (2Th 2:4).

There is no contradiction among the evangelists as to this, as a comparison shows that questions touching both the commencement and the end of Jerusalems trouble were put to Christ by His disciples. But the different narrators give those which relate to our Lords reply as each was guided of the Spirit to record them. The trouble of Jerusalem caused by the rejection of Christ, began with the siege under Titus, but will not end till the times of the Gentiles have run their course. (Luk 21:24).

QUESTIONS

1. Name the great facts of this lesson.

2. Why is there no marrying in the resurrection life?

3. What words of Jesus prove life after death?

4. What essential difference is there between the siege of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, and that at the end of the age?

5. To which does Luke refer?

6. How would you harmonize the different statements of the evangelists on this point?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

The Pharisees having often quarrelled at our Saviour’s doctrine before, they call in question his mission and authority now: although they might easily have understood his divine mission by his divine miracles; for Almighty God never impowered any to work miracles that were not sent by him. Our blessed Saviour, understanding their design, gives them no direct answer, but replies to their question by asking them another: The baptism of John, was it from Heaven, or of men? That is, was it of divine institution, or of human invention? Plainly implying, that the calling of them who call themselves the ministers of God, ought to be from God: No man ought to take that honor upon him, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron, Heb 5:8

The Pharisees reply, that they could not tell where John had his mission and authority; which was a manifest untruth: they knew it, but did not own it. By refusing to tell the truth, they fall into a lie against the truth; thus one sin ensnares and draws men on to the commission of more: such as will not speak exact truth according to their knowledge, they fall into the sin of lying against their knowledge and their conscience. Our Saviour answers them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things: he did not say, I cannot, or I will not tell you, but I do not, I need not tell you; because the miracles which I work before you are a sufficient demonstration of my divine commission, that I am sent of God among you: because God never set the seal of his omnipotency to a lie, nor impowered any impostor to work real miracles.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Luk 20:1-8. And on one of those days the chief priests, scribes, and elders That is, some of the first men of the nation; came By appointment of the senate, to Jesus; and spake, saying, Tell us by what authority, &c. See on Mat 21:23-27, and Mar 11:27-33.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2. The Question of the Sanhedrim: Luk 20:1-8.

Vers. 1-8. This account is separated from the preceding, in Mark and Matthew, by the brief mention of two events: in Mar 11:16, the prohibition of Jesus to carry vessels across the temple,the court was probably used as a thoroughfare (Bleek); in Mat 21:14 et seq., the cures wrought in the temple, and the hosannas of the children. The authority which Jesus thus assumed in this sacred place was well suited to occasion the step taken by the Sanhedrim. If we follow Mark, it must have taken place on the day after the purification of the temple and the cursing of the barren fig-tree, and consequently on the Tuesday or Wednesday morning. Luke omits those events, which were unknown to him, as well as the cursing of the barren fig-tree, which related specially to Israel.

Since the evening before, the members of the Sanhedrim had been in consultation ( of Luk 19:47); and their seeking had not been in vain. They had succeeded in inventing a series of questions fitted to entangle Jesus, or in the end to extract from Him an answer which would compromise Him either with the people or with the Jewish or Gentile authorities. The question of Luk 20:2 is the first result of those conclaves. Luk 20:1 enumerates the three classes of members composing the Sanhedrim; it was therefore a formal deputation, comp. Joh 1:19 et seq. The elders are mentioned here also (comp. Luk 19:47) as secondary personages, beside the high priests and scribes. The first part of the question relates to the nature of Jesus’ commission: is it divine or human? The second, to the intermediate agent through whom He has received it. The Sanhedrim made sure that Jesus would claim a divine commission, and hoped to take advantage of this declaration to bring Jesus to its bar, and to sit in judgment on the question. On the one hand, Jesus avoids this snare; on the other, He avoids declining the universally recognised competency of the Sanhedrim. He replies in such a way as to force His adversaries themselves to declare their incompetence.

The question which He lays before them is not a skilful manoeuvre; it is dictated by the very nature of the situation. Was it not through the instrumentality of John the Baptist that Jesus had been divinely accredited to the people? The acknowledgment, therefore, of Jesus’ authority really depended on the acknowledgment of John’s. The second alternative, of men, includes the two possible cases, of himself, or of some other human authority.

The embarrassment of His adversaries is expressed by the three Syn. in ways so different, that it is impossible to derive the three forms from one and the same written source. This question has sufficed to disconcert them. They, the wise, the skilled, who affect to judge of everything in the theocracy,they shamefully decline a judgment in face of an event of such capital importance as was the appearing of John! There is a blending of indignation and contempt in the neither do I of Jesus (Luk 20:8). But that answer which He refuses them, they who have refused Him theirs, He goes on to give immediately after in the following parable. Only it is to the whole people that He will address it ( , Luk 20:9), as a solemn protestation against the hypocritical conduct of their chiefs.

Why did Luke omit the cursing of the barren fig-tree? He was well aware, answers Volkmar, that it was simply an idea represented by Mark in the form of a fact; and he restored to it its true character by presenting it, Luk 13:6-9, in the form of a parable. So the description of God’s patience toward Israel, the barren fig-tree (Luk 13:6-9), is one and the same lesson with the cursing of that same figtree! Why does Matthew make the cursing of the fig-tree, and the conversation of Jesus with His disciples on that occasion, fall at the same period and on the same day,two facts which are separated in Mark by a whole day? Holtzmann answers: On reading (Mar 11:12) the first half of this account, Matthew determined to leave it out. But on coming to the second half (Mar 5:20), he took the resolution to insert it; only he combined them in one. So, when the evangelist was composing his narrative, he read for the first time the document containing the history which he was relating! In view of such admirable discoveries, is there not reason to say: Risum teneatis?

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

CVIII.

IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS AUTHORITY,

JESUS GIVES THE THIRD GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.

(In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)

Subdivision A.

INTRODUCTION

aMATT. XXI. 23-27; bMARK XI. 27-33; cLUKE XX. 1-8.

c1 And it came to pass, on one of the days, bthey [Jesus and the disciples] come again to Jerusalem: a23 And when he was come into the temple, band as he was walking in the temple [The large outer court of the temple, known as the court of the Gentiles, was thronged during the feasts, and was no doubt the part selected by Jesus and his apostles when they taught or preached in the temple. We thrice find them on that side of it where Solomon’s porch was located– Joh 10:23, Act 3:11, Act 5:23], cas he was teaching the people and preaching the gospel [viz.: “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye”– Mar 1:15], there came upon him {bcome aunto him} bthe chief priests and the scribes, and {cwith} the elders; {aof the people} [the Sanhedrin (see Joh 10:24.] a24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, cI also will ask you a {aone} question, which if ye tell me, band answer me, aI likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? bWas it from heaven, or from men? answer me. [The question which Jesus asked was intimately and inseparably connected with the question which they had asked. Jesus, of course, did not derive his authority from John the Baptist, but John had testified plainly to the Messiahship of Jesus, and had, in no uncertain terms, designated Jesus as immeasurably greater than himself. Now, if the Pharisees admitted that John was a heaven-sent messenger or witness (of which fact his baptism was propounded as a test, since it was a religious ordinance introduced on his authority), then John had already answered the Sanhedrin that Jesus derived his authority from his Messiahship, and hence, all that the Sanhedrin had to do to satisfy their minds was simply to believe John. But if, on the other hand, the Pharisees rejected John’s pretensions and claims as a heaven-sent messenger in the face of the almost universal popular conviction, then what was there for Jesus to present his claims to so blind, bigoted, and unreasoning a body?] 31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, aunto us, Why then did ye not believe him? [When he testified to the Messiahship of Jesus ( Joh 1:7, Joh 1:15, Joh 1:34, Joh 3:26-36, Joh 10:40-42). The Sanhedrin could not admit that the messenger was heaven-sent and yet deny his testimony.] 26 But if we shall {bshould we} say, From men– call the people will stone us: awe fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. cfor they are persuaded that John was a prophet. bthey feared the people: for all verily held John to be a prophet. 33 And they answered [587] Jesus cthat they knew not whence it was. aand said, {bsay,} We know not. [It should be noted in their consultation there was no effort either to ascertain or to speak the truth. The question as to whether John really was or was not a prophet was in no sense the subject of their investigation. They were merely deciding what to say. They were seeking for the most expedient answer, and as neither truthful answer was expedient, they resolved to falsely deny any knowledge of the case. Men of such brazen dishonesty could not be dealt with openly and fairly as could sincere seekers after truth.] And Jesus, aalso said {bsaith} unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. [Their spoken lie was, “We know not,” but their inward and true answer was, “We will not tell,” and Jesus answered the suppressed truth saying, “Neither tell I.” How readily the subtle minds of the Jewish people would justify Jesus in thus declining to submit the question of his authority to judges who at that very moment publicly confessed their inability to even hazard an opinion, much less render a decision, as to the authority of John the Baptist, who claims were in popular estimation so obvious. It was plain that however well these men might judge human credentials, the divine testimonials of a prophet or of the Messiah were above their carnal sphere. Thus Jesus put his enemies to confusion in the first of man conflicts of that perilous Tuesday. But we may well imagine that they were rendered more bitter by the evidence of a wisdom so much beyond any which they possessed.]

[FFG 586-588]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Luke Chapter 20

It will be remarked here that, as He draws nigh to Jerusalem, the Lord weeps over the city. It is not now as in Matthew, where, while discoursing with the Jews, He points it out to them as that which having rejected and slain the prophets-Emmanuel also, the Lord, who would so often have gathered her children under His wings, having been ignominiously rejected-was now given up to desolation until His return. It is the hour of her visitation, and she has not known it. If only she had, even now, hearkened to the call of the testimony of her God! She is given up into the hands of the Gentiles, her enemies, who will not leave her one stone upon another. That is to say, not having known this visitation of God in grace in the Person of Jesus, she is set aside-the testimony goes no farther-she gives place to a new order of things. Thus the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus is here prominent. It is the moral character of the temple also of which the Lord here speaks. The Spirit does not notice here that it is to be the temple of God for all nations. It is simply (Luk 20:16) the vineyard is given to others. They fell upon the stone of stumbling then: when it falls on them-when Jesus comes in judgment-it will grind them to powder.

In His reply to the Sadducees, three important things are added to that which is said in Mat 1:1-25 st, It is not only the condition of those who are raised, and the certainty of the resurrection; it is an age, which a certain class only, who are accounted worthy of it, shall obtain, a separate resurrection of the just (Luk 20:35). 2nd, This class is composed of the children of God, as being the children of the resurrection (Luk 20:36). 3rd While waiting for this resurrection, their souls survive death, all live unto God, although they may be hidden from the eyes of men (Luk 20:38).

The parable of the wedding feast is omitted here. In chapter 14 of this Gospel we find it with characteristic elements, a mission to the lanes of the city, to the despised of the nations, which is not in Matthew, who gives us the judgment of Jerusalem instead, before announcing the evangelisation of the Gentiles. All this is characteristic. In Luke it is grace, a moral condition of man before God, and the new order of things founded on the rejection of Christ. I will not dwell upon those points which Luke relates in common with Matthew. They naturally meet in the great facts that relate to the Lords rejection by the Jews, and its consequences.

If we compare Mat 23:1-39 and Luk 20:45-47, we shall see at once the difference. In Luke the Spirit gives us in three verses that which morally puts the scribes aside. In Matthew their whole position with respect to the dispensation is developed; whether as having a place, so long as Moses continued, or with reference to their guiltiness before God in that place.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

CHAPTER 22

CONSPIRACY AGAINST JESUS

Mar 14:1-2; Luk 20:1-2; Mat 26:1-5. And it came to pass, when Jesus finished all these discourses, He said to His disciples, You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of man is delivered to be crucified. It is now late Wednesday afternoon, after our Lord has preached constantly all day, beginning in the temple and bidding it adieu about noon; halting and preaching to the Greeks waiting for Him at the gate; and going on over to Mount Olivet, where He delivered that indescribable and inimitable sermon on the judgments. Though He now tells them, as He had so frequently and so positively done, that He is to be crucified, they do not understand it.

Then the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people were assembled in the hall of the high priest, called Caiaphas. And they issued a verdict that they would take Him by stratagem, and kill Him. But they said, Not at the feast, lest there may be an uproar among the people. Luke: For they were afraid of the people. This conspiracy of the rulers took place Wednesday evening, in the Sanhedrin hall on Mount Zion, in which they passed an edict for His arrest and execution. They were in a serious dilemma because of His popularity, fearing that the people would arise in an incorrigible mob and take Him out of their hands.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Luk 20:2. Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things. A question after all his miracles which offered the foulest insult to God, and was the emanation of complot and of malice. See Mat 21:25. Mar 11:30. Luke adds, that this question came from the three orders of the jewish council, the chief priests, the scribes, with the elders who did not belong to the tribe of Levi. By consequence, the question was like that of the highpriest, If thou be the Christ, tell us. It was asked to draw from his lips an avowal that he was the Christ, and then to accuse him of blasphemy, and as worthy of death. This had been their aim for about three months after he had raised Lazarus from the dead.

Luk 20:9. A certain man planted a vineyard. The Hebrews were Gods choice vine, and the men of Judah his pleasant plants. Isa 5:7.

Luk 20:17. The stone which the builders rejected. See on Mat 21:42.

Luk 20:22. Is it lawful to give tribute to Csar, or no. See on Mar 12:15-17.

Luk 20:27. Then came to him certain of the sadducees. See on Mat 22:23. Mar 12:18.

Luk 20:36. They are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. This idea is confirmed by the words of the Elder to John. I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets: worship God. Rev 22:9. Whence the ancients got their ideas of the magnitude of the stature of archangels we are ignorant. Ezekiel regards the seraphim as filling the cloud: Ezekiel 1, 4, 10. Milton also tells us that Lucifer walked on the beach of hell with his spear in his hand, compared with which the tallest pine of Norway was but a wand. The words of Christ regard equality of intellect and happiness, rather than of stature.

Luk 20:46. Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes. This is an addition to Mat 23:5; which reads, they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments. As all the learned, and men of rank wear robes in Asia, it is the pride of decoration which is here condemned; such as the broad scarlet cross, in which the papists say high mass. The Hebrew prophets wore rough garments, which, however coarse, were badges of honour and professional dignity, and sometimes accompanied with the appellation of adoni, my lord. 2Ki 4:28. Eusebius names also a case in which the minister read the service in presence of the emperor Constantine, in a robe wove with threads of gold. Notwithstanding this, the pride of robes, of gait and mien in a minister, is abhorred of God and men.

REFLECTIONS.

The three efforts of the supreme council of the jews to lay snares for the Saviours life, and to tarnish his popularity, in the questions of the tribute, of the resurrection of the dead, and of the first and great commandment, show the ingenious malice of the human heart. And is it possible for a national council to stoop so low as to do this, against the humble preacher of righteousness? Is it possible for religious men to pursue the life of one whose whole life had been spent in doing good? Need we ask for proofs of original sin, and for the consummation of depravity, after this? All these are the depths of Satan.

The parable of the vineyard shows the delight which God took in his ancient people the jews. The choice plants, the vine of Sorek, as is the Hebrew in Isaiah 5. The excellent prophets and shepherds which he gave them, were the richest favours of heaven. Those pastors were made responsible for the vineyard: but alas, the husbandmen became murderers, and brought desolation on the vineyard, and destruction on themselves.

We must not fail to remark here, that the turpitude of their crime lay in the extent of their knowledge, more than in the baseness of their hearts. They said, this is the heir, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. After getting rid of him, no mad prophet will ever dare to reprove us, and in the courts of the temple too, for our sins. Our Saviour had given them proofs, by revealing the thoughts of their hearts, that his wisdom was more than human, and his works were the seals of his mission.

But Peter says, they did it ignorantly; and Paul says, had they known him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Act 3:17. 1Co 2:8. They were confused with the idea that Christs kingdom was temporal, not spiritual and heavenly; therefore, when they saw his poverty, as a root out of a dry ground, they hated him, and maliciously rejected all his miracles and all his mercy. They fulfilled the scriptures in rejecting the stone which God had made the head of the corner. This ignorance our Saviour exposed. How say the scribes that Christ is Davids Son? How can he be his Son, when David calls him Lord? The hundred and tenth Psalm is by the elder rabbins with one consent applied to Christ; but the gospel having declared his divine and human geniture, the later jews have applied that Psalm to Abraham; and Justin Martyr, as stated in his dialogue with Trypho the jew, found some who applied it to Hezekiah. Like the disciplined unitarians, they strive to get rid of every prophecy which declares the Redeemers sufferings. A batch of perjured culprits, convicted at their own bar. Oh Son of the Highest, and Son of David too, into thine arms my soul would ever spring for life, for righteousness and eternal joy.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Luk 20:1-8. The Question of Authority (Mar 11:27-33*, Mat 21:23-27*).The only additional point to notice in Lk. is that Jesus was not only teaching but preaching the Gospel, proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

AUTHORITY:FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN?

(vs.1-8)

The chief priests and scribes used every means they could to discredit the Lord Jesus among the people. While He was teaching and preaching in the temple, they planned a determined attack to challenge His right to do as He did. What authority did He have for teaching a preaching in the temple, and who gave Him this authority? Their thoughts were earthbound, for they thought of no authority but that of man, and this was the very snare that trapped them.

With admirable wisdom the Lord responded by also asking them a question. >From what source did John the Baptist receive his authority to baptize: was it from heaven or from man? Though they had ignored it, yet they could not escape the fact that heaven’s authority is far superior to man’s. But if they admitted the truth that John’s baptism was from heaven, they would condemn themselves for not believing him, but if they were to lie and say it was from men, then they would be in trouble with the people whom they wanted to influence. In fact, if of men, then what men? John the Baptist had absolutely no human credentials as they well knew: he was sent from God.

Deceitfully they evaded the question by claiming they did not know (v.7). He flatly answered them then that neither would He tell them by what authority He acted. For certainly His authority had the same source as did that of John: it was from heaven. If they would not honestly admit the one, then manifestly they had no intention of admitting the other. In fact, they had admitted themselves not to be qualified to judge as to the question of authority.

PARABLE OF THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS

(vs.9-19)

The parable the Lord then spoke was pointed enough that the chief priests and scribes discerned its application to themselves (v.19). The vineyard is Israel, over whom the vinedressers (religious leaders) had been allowed authority by God, while He retired from the scene for the time of their testing under law. Yet He sent servants (the prophets) from time to time to remind Israel of their true Master and to require some proper recognition of His rights. Notice the patient grace of the Master of the vineyard, for when one or two servants had been badly mistreated and sent away empty, it would be natural that the full force of His displeasure would bring quick judgment against the keepers of the vineyard.. But even after a third had been badly treated, there was no punishing action taken. Rather, the Lord of the vineyard decided to send His beloved Son who was certainly worthy of the deep respect of the vinedressers. All of this is a great understatement of the actual patience of God, who had sent many prophets to Israel before sending His Son.

When God in His marvelous grace sent His beloved Son to Israel, this precious manifestation of His kindness toward man only exposed the cruel enmity of man’s heart against God. Israel’s leaders were concerted in their determination to kill the Heir (v.14), so they might claim unchallenged possession of the vineyard. Such was the guilt of Israel’s leaders in killing the Son of God.

How blinding is the greed of man’s heart! How can he hope to escape the just retribution of the Lord of the vineyard? The more patient and longsuffering God has been toward men, the more dreadful and decisive will be His judgment when eventually it falls. In fact, the destruction of those vinedressers took place when, in the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, Israel’s leaders were totally stripped of authority and destroyed. The giving of the vineyard to others (v.16) may refer to Israel being yet, in the coming millennial age, placed under the authority of those whose genuine faith will fit them for the place of responsible government.

The destroying of the vinedressers and the giving of the vineyard to others seemed to some to be too hard. They said, “God forbid.” But is justice never to be done? He looked them in the eyes and quoted from Psa 118:22, asking them what God meant by declaring that the stone rejected by the builders is to become the head of the corner (v.17). Jacob, prophesying concerning Joseph — a striking type of the Messiah — said, “from there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel” (Gen 49:24). Israel’s true Shepherd, the Messiah, is the “one stone” referred to. Psa 118:1-29 says He would be rejected, yet would become the head of the corner. How could the chief priests and scribes evade the force of such words? This same One they rejected will yet take supreme authority, yet they were plotting His death.

The Lord added a most solemn word for their consciences. Those who fall upon this stone, that is, Israel casting out and crucifying their Messiah, would be broken, as indeed history has proven true (v.18). But all those upon whom the stone will fall will be ground to powder. This is the dreadful judgment of the Son of Man at the time of His future manifestation in power and glory. When much time has been given for repentance, and men refuse this, their judgment will be swift and decisive..

But the blindness of unreasoning unbelief had taken hold of the chief priests and scribes. They perceived that the Lord’s parable of the vinedressers had direct application to themselves, yet they were so hostile as to determine to fulfill the prophecy of the parable by putting Him to death! (v.19).

TAXES REQUIRED BY CAESAR

(vs.20-26)

Although the chief priests and scribes had before been trapped by the cunning snares they had laid for the Lord, they tried again the same type of deceit attempt to ensnare Him, so they might find an excuse to accuse Him before the Roman authorities. They sent spies who pretended to be righteous men, but their hypocritical flattery was fully discerned by the Lord. Yet, enemies as they were, they bore public witness to the fact that He taught the way of God in truth (v.21). What a condemnation of their own evil designs! When the spies asked if it was lawful to give tribute (or taxes) to Caesar, they were expecting Him to champion the cause of Israel against Caesar and to say “No.” They hated Caesar’s authority, but the expected answer would have given them a dishonest means to accuse Him.

He showed He knew their deceit, and asked was the image and superscription on a coin. Being under Roman domination they were required to use Roman currency, and answered correctly that it was Caesar. He told them, since it was Caesar’s money, then render it to Caesar, but He added solemnly, “and unto God the things that are God’s” (v.25). Their sin had put them in bondage to Rome: they must bow to this shame. But what of giving God His due? They were reduced to silence, and could only marvel at the wisdom of His words.Then the Sadducees decided to try their dexterity in tempting the Lord Jesus. They denied the resurrection, and thought they had an iron-clad argument that would easily defeat Him. They based their argument on a provision in Moses’ law that directed that if a man died childless, his brother was to take his wife and have children that would be counted as his brother’s (v.28). They then proposed an unlikely case of the same woman have as husband seven different brothers in succession, all dying childless. Then came their vainly triumphant question as to which of the seven would have her as wife in the resurrection (v.33). They thought their very question disproves the possibility of any resurrection!

With simple, pointed words the Lord exposed their pathetic ignorance. Marriage is only for this world. He did not speak of those who die in their sins and will be raised for judgment at the Great White Throne; but only of those accounted worthy (by grace through faith) to obtain “that world,” the glory of heaven, and the resurrection from among the dead. They neither marry nor are given in marriage (v.35). (Those unsaved will certainly not be married either, but will be raised only to be cast into the lake of fire.) Nor can death ever again touch those who have been raised, as at present it terminates the marriage relationship (vs.34-36). Moreover believers are as the angels which are neither male nor female, as we are told in regard to the new creation (Gal 3:27-28). They are sons of God, having a relationship and dignity higher than all natural relationships, being sons of the resurrection, that is, introduced into a sphere that mere human intelligence has not penetrated.

The Lord not only answered their question, but rather proceeded to expose their ignorance of the Word of God in using Moses as their authority, though Moses had declared the truth of resurrection when he called God the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For God is not a God of the dead, but of the living (v.38). Though their bodies were put in graves, their spirits still live unto Him; and God cannot consider man complete apart from the union of spirit and soul and body (1Th 5:23). Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be a resurrection.

BOTH LORD AND SON OF DAVID

(vs.41-47)

Some of the scribes (but probably not the Sadducees) couldn’t help but admire the wisdom of the Lord’s words, but all were silenced. Now the Lord asked a question more vitally important than those questions asked Him, which they were unable to answer, but which they ought to have known from their Old Testament scriptures. Why did the scribes say that Christ, the Messiah, was David’s son, though David himself in Psa 110:1 plainly called the Messiah “Lord”? (v.41). There could be no doubt of the application of that scripture, and the scribes could not dispute it, yet had no response.

The fact is that both are true: He is not only “the Offspring of David” — David’s Descendant — but “the root David” (Rev 22:16). As Man He is David’s son, but as God He is David’s Lord. Though as Man He came from David, yet since He is God over all, it is just as true that David came from Him. Certainly His eternal glory as God is the far more important fact, yet this had been passed over and ignored by the scribes. This same tragic ignorance is repeated today by many who even claim to be Christian: they recognize that Jesus is indeed a great man, but forget (and in many cases even strongly deny) that He is God manifest in flesh. The Lord’s question then should stir every such person to realize that he needs to learn the Word of God. If Christ is David’s Lord, how is He then his son? Let everyone face this question seriously.

By their questions to the Lord and the Lord’s question to them, the religious leaders exposed the ignorant folly of their opposition to the truth. The Lord therefore, in verse 45 to 47, in the hearing of all the people, gave solemn warning as to men who claim to be the highest authorities of learning. Notice that although all the people could hear this, He spoke directly to His disciples. Believers ought not to be deceived by men’s high pretensions. The scribes wore long robes to draw attention to themselves, as is copied by men’s religions today, and loved to be recognized wherever the people gathered. They liked the highest religious honors and places of honor at feasts. All of this was empty vanity, a veneer to cover up the fact of their ignorance of God’s Word, ignorance of His ways in government, ignorance of His grace. How different was the precious character of the lowly, faithful Son of Man, who being the eternal Son of God, was entitled to every honor, yet sought none whatever from man.

Greed was another evil principle linked with such arrogance, such greed as had no pity even for widows. Instead of caring for them, as Israel’s leaders ought to have done, they devoured their houses, that is, made themselves rich at their expense (v.47). At the same time their long public prayers made a show intended to impress such people. Solemn is the Lord’s denunciation of this hypocrisy: these leaders would receive greater judgment.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

CHAPTER 20

Ver. 36.-They are equal unto the angels. So the Arabic, Syriac, Egyptian, Persian, and Ethiopic; equal in celibacy, immortality, glory. As therefore the angels do not marry nor generate, so neither do the Blessed, because, being immortal per se, and glorious, they will remain for ever. For generation is desired in this life, because of death; as a mortal father might, as it were, survive and endure in the son whom he leaves alive. So S. Cyril: “As the angels are not of generation, so they who rise again will have no need of marriage.” S. Chrysostom on Matt. xxiii: “Wives are married that the diminution, which is by death, may be supplied by birth. But death will not be there, and, in consequence, neither marriages, nor wives, nor generation.”

And are, &c. “They are called the children of God,” says Theophylact, “as being born again through the Resurrection, not only through grace, but also through glory, that they may thus resemble God most closely, as is taught by S. John, 1 Ep. iii. 2. Then as sons they shall enter into the inheritance of God the Father.”

“They are called the sons of the Resurrection,” says Theophylact, “because they appear to be as it were born to a new, happy, and divine life.”

2. They will be the sons of the Resurrection, that is, worthy of the Resurrection, for the word “son” when it is added in Hebrew to the genitive of reward or punishment, means one subject to, one who deserves, or who is destined to, such a punishment or reward. Thus men are called the sons of Death and Gehenna, that is, men subject to death and hell; and the sons of the kingdom and the Resurrection, that is, they who are worthy of the kingdom of heaven, and of the Resurrection of the blessed.

Ver. 40.-And after that they durst not ask Him any question at all. That is the Sadducees, for the Pharisees asked Him afterwards which was the greatest commandment, as we find from Mat 22:35.

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

20:1 And {1} it came to pass, [that] on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon [him] with the elders,

(1) The Pharisees, being overcome with the truth of Christ’s doctrine, propose a question about his outward calling, and are overcome by the witness of their own conscience.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. The controversy over authority 20:1-8 (cf. Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33)

Jesus’ authority was crucial not only for the Jewish leaders who opposed Him but for Luke’s readers. This passage established Jesus’ authority beyond reasonable doubt.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

C. Jesus’ teachings in the temple 20:1-21:4

Luke presented Jesus’ teachings in the temple as beginning with opposition from the religious leaders and leading on to Jesus’ condemnation of them. He evidently wanted to highlight the reasons for God’s passing over Israel and working with Gentiles equally in the present era. All of what follows in this section happened on Wednesday of "passion week."

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Luke’s reference to Jesus preaching the gospel, as well as the question of His authority to do so, preview the experiences of Peter and Paul (cf. Act 4:7). Individuals from the chief priests, scribes or lawyers, and elders made up the Sanhedrin. Thus their question constituted an official inquiry. The critics’ first question dealt with who Jesus claimed to be and the second with whom He represented: Himself, or some group.

"Jesus had upset the normal ’religious’ atmosphere of the temple, which led the religious leaders to question His authority." [Note: Ibid., p. 254.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)