Luke 20:1

Luk_20:1-8. Sudden Question of the Priests and Scribes.

1. on one of those days] ‘Those’ is omitted in א, 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 (ηὐλίσθη) 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 (ἐσείσθη) 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:

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Christ’s 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 John’s 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 Christ’s 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 position—that He neither belonged to a priestly family nor was accredited as a teacher by any one of the rabbinical schools—was 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 it—a 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 God’s 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 Him—that 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 scoffer’s question (Luk_20:27-38).

IV. Our Lord’s 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 public—had 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 John’s 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 God—that 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.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, μὴ γένοιτο]. 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, ἐπέστησαν, 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 Lord’s 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, ἤ τίς, κ.τ.λ., the statement what messenger of God has mediately consecrated Him to this activity. Ταῦτα 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 (συνελογίσαντο). 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 λαός, yet undoubtedly in the sense of ὄχλος, as Mark writes it. Comp. Joh_7:49.—Stone, κατα λιθάσει, 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 sœpe etiam pervertum multitudinis studium per accidens subservit bonœ causœ.” Bengel.

Luk_20:7. That they could not tell whence.—Doubly painful to them is this declaration, if we compare it with the endless οί̓δαμεν, 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 πρὸς τὸν λαόν. 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 μὴ γένοιτο, 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. 1847–1848.

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 τοῦτον ἰδόντες 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 μὴ γένοιτο 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. ̓Εμβλέψας.—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 Lord’s 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 (καί not oppositive, but purely copulative), but at the same time is the reason why they cannot yet immediately do all that they wish.—Πρὸς αὐτ. 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. Κατ ̓ ά̓νθρωπον 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: “Hœc quidem cogitatio proprie in Deum non convenit, sciebat enim, quid futurum esset, nec spe melioris eventus deceptus fuit, sed usitatum est, prœsertim in parabolis, ad eum transferri humanos affectus. Neque tamen hoc abs re additum est, quia volwit Christus tanquam in speculo reprœsentare, 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 λίθος προσκόμματος. Thereupon falls the judgment of retribution: συνθλασθήσεται; for instance, as with Judas, the impenitent thief on the cross, and others. In spite of the offence taken, the Lord is elevated aloft—lifted to be the corner-stone; but he now upon whom the elevated stone falls is crushed to pieces like chaff (Gr. λικμήσει αὐτόν). 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 Lord’s 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 Lord’s 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.—God’s 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.—God’s 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:—God’s 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 God’s 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.—Ἐκείνων, 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.—Ἱερεῖς. The Recepta, ἀρχιερεῖς, appears to be from the parallel [in Mark].

[3]Luk_20:3.—The ἕνα before λόγον 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 λόγον, adds to the suspicion of its spuriousness.—C. C. S.]

[4]Luk_20:9.—The τις of the Recepta after ἄνθρωπος is decidedly spurious.

[5][Luk_20:11—The Hebrew: הוֹסִיף לְ.—C. C. S.]

[6]Luk_20:14.—Rec.: δεῦτε, ἀποκτ. 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.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Matthew’s and Mark’s 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.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

CHAPTER 5

THE DISCIPLE’S PRAYER

Luk 20:1-4. “And it came to pass, that He was in a certain place, praying; as He ceased, a certain one of His disciples said to Him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.” We have this same lesson in the Sermon on the Mount, which he preached near Capernaum, on the Sea of Galilee, early in His ministry, and we have expounded in Volume 6. I have repeatedly visited the spot on Mt. Olivet where this prayer was offered. A few years ago, Aurelia de Rossa, a French princess, expended a great sum of money in the erection of a beautiful, snowy-white, stone church-edifice on this very spot. It is really magnificent and charming, having in front a great open court, on whose surrounding walls of white marble this prayer (popularly denominated the Lord’s Prayer, but really given to His disciples for their use till He comes in glory) is superscribed in every language under heaven, so that every one of the thirty thousand pilgrims, annually coming to Jerusalem to explore the footprints of Jesus, can there read the Lord’s Prayer in his own language. The marble tomb and statue of this noble saint, who, at her own expense, erected this memorial edifice, is also at the south Side of this great veranda. “He said to them, When you pray, say, Our Father who art in the heavens, let Thy name be hallowed.” Hence it is never to be spoken except in the deepest reverence, humility, and godly fear. “Let Thy kingdom come.” The kingdom is already here, in the hearts of all saints. While we should pray for it to come to all aliens in the whole earth, the moment of this prayer contemplates the kingdom of glory coming down to earth in millennial triumphs, as the kingdom of grace had already come in the first advent of Jesus. How strange that a species of infidelity has ever crept into the Church, ignoring and rejecting the coming of the glorious kingdom! There never was a dissenting voice on this subject raised in the first three centuries, till after the Constantinean apostasy had so secularized the Church as to disqualify her to meet her descending Lord and enter the glorious kingdom. Consequently, during the Dark Ages, the millennium was repudiated, and, as a necessary consequence, the whole Book of Revelation repudiated as spurious. It is the glory of the present holiness movement now to preach the coming kingdom in all the earth. “Thy will be done, as in heaven, even upon the earth.” This is a beautiful standard of entire sanctification, which alone can qualify people to do the will of God on earth as the angels do it in heaven. While multitudes of preachers stand in their pulpits and preach against sanctification and the coming kingdom, it is very gratifying to know that they all pray on the side of truth, when, on their knees, they repeat the Lord’s Prayer, in concert with their congregations, Sabbath after Sabbath. O that they would preach what they pray for, thus bringing heaven down to earth! “Give us this day our daily bread.” This is to be understood spiritually, in a very pre-eminent sense, while in a secondary significance it includes temporal sustenance. “Forgive us our sins; for we truly forgive every one who is indebted to us.” We have no promise of pardon unless we actually forgive everybody else; thus all unforgiving spirit actually rearing between us and the mercy-sea, a mountain, high as heaven, deep as hell, and broad as the universe. Whole Churches are dragged by Satan into apostasy black as midnight by an unforgiving spirit. “Lead us not into temptation;” i. e., Suffer us not to go into temptation, an Orientalism we frequently meet in the Bible. We have the blessed assurance that if we are true to the triple Divine leadership — God’s Word, Spirit, and providence — He will never suffer us to be tempted beyond our ability, by His wonderful grace, to bear it for His glory, and receive a blessing thereby; i. e., strength from the conflict and courage from the victory. The ponderous blows develop the Herculean muscles of the blacksmith’s arm. These awful fights we have with the strong intellect of the devil are a wonderful means of grace, constituting the grandest spiritual gymnasium in probationary life. Temptation from within, when “each one is drawn out by his own lust and enticed,” should be utterly dispensed with, as entire sanctification eliminates all that inward lust, putting all of our enemies on the outside, and giving us the down-hill pull against them. “Deliver us from the evil one.” The E. V. is too weak, rendering this, “Deliver us from evil;” i. e., giving the abstract, whereas the Greek gives the concrete; not simply meaning evil, but the evil one — i. e., the devil. What a glorious privilege, not only to be delivered from everything the devil ever put in us, but from the devil himself! This prayer goes up from pulpit and pew throughout all the Churches of Christendom, and the people at the same time ridden and debauched by the devil, without the remotest apprehension of the glorious privilege, not only to get rid of all their sins, but even the devil himself. Will you not go and tell them this wonderful news? The Omnipotent Christ is ready, by their side, responsive to their perfect consecration and doubtless faith, to confer on them this glorious triumph, not only delivering them from everything in them belonging to Satan — i. e., all sin, actual and original — but, best of all, delivering them from the devil himself, so he never again can put his black hand on them, and they can go shouting on their way:

“Hallelujah! ‘t is done! I believe on the Son, I am saved by the blood of the Crucified One!”

THE HIGH PRIESTS DEMAND HIS AUTHORITY

Mat 21:23-27; Luk 20:1-8; Mar 11:27-33. “And again they come into Jerusalem. And He, walking round in the temple, file high priests, scribes, and elders come to Him, and say to Him, By what authority do You these things? And who gave You this authority that You may do these things? And Jesus, responding, said to them, I will also ask you one question; answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? Tell Me. And they reasoned among themselves, If we may say, It is from heaven, He will say, Wherefore then did you not believe on him? But if we may say, It is from men; they feared the people: for all held John, that he was truly a prophet. And responding, they say to Jesus, We do not know. And Jesus, responding, says to them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” Those high priests considered the authority He exercised in the purification of the temple outrageous, intrusive, and usurpatory in the extreme. Consequently they look Him in the face, with the scribes and Pharisees holding up their hands, and publicly demand His authority, feeling that it was their prerogative to manage affairs in the temple. See how inconsistent their attitude, as they were really Satan’s preachers, worshipping him as God; while the Son of God, with all authority in heaven and in earth, was there, and they were too blind to see Him! How does history repeat itself! The Lord’s true people, saved, sanctified, and filled with the Spirit, alone have authority this day to preach and labor to save souls, going where He leadeth. Do we not see the authority of such called in question by the high priests and Pharisees on all sides? Jesus simply referred them to the ministry of John, under which He was baptized with water, and thus inaugurated into His official Messiahship, the Holy Spirit immediately descending and filling Him, thus qualifying Him for His work. As Jesus said to John, “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” — i.e., to verify every injunction of the Levitical law, which required the high priests to be anointed before entering upon the duties and exercising the authority of their office — so, pursuant to the example of our Great Leader, we should all conform to the ritual law of the New Testament, and be sure that, like Jesus, we get filled with the Holy Ghost, thus silencing criticism and disarming our enemies. You see all the high priests, Pharisees, and elders here dumfounded. They were in a dilemma, and dare not take either horn. If they denied the Divine authority of John, they were afraid of a riot, as the people all regarded him as truly a prophet, there being no dissenting voice, but unanimity of opinion as to the Divine prophetical commission of John, whose ministry was a sunburst on Israel after a dark interregnum of four hundred years. Again, they were afraid to acknowledge the Divine authenticity of John’s ministry lest Jesus would say, Why did you not believe on Him? Consequently they took a neutral position. O what a succession these blind, unspiritual high priests, ruling eiders, and Pharisees have this day! Do you not know that, as a rule, their successors in the Churches are now playing neutrality in reference to God’s mighty works in the great current revival shaking all nations, and denominated the “Holiness Movement?”

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20:1-47 In this series of controversies between Jesus and the religious leaders of Jerusalem, they repeatedly questioned and challenged him, and he repeatedly outmatched them with his spiritual wisdom, insight, and authority.

20:1 the leading priests, the teachers of religious law, and the elders: The most influential Jewish leaders in Jerusalem converged against Jesus, who threatened their authority.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν] (without ἐκείνων, 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.

ἐπέστησαν] 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. ἤ] introduces a more definite idea of the point of the question.

Luk_20:3. καὶ εἴπατέ μοι] καί is the simple and: I will ask you, and tell me (what I shall ask you). Then follows the question itself.

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

Luk_20:6. πᾶς ὁ λαὸς καταλιθ. ἡμᾶς] a later form of the tradition. The word is not elsewhere retained. Comp. καταλιθοῦν in Josephus, καταλιθοβολεῖν, Exo_17:4. It denotes the stoning down.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 20:1-8 . By what authority ? (Mat 21:23-27 , Mar 11:27-33 ). ἐν μιᾷ τ . ἡ ., on one of the days, referred to in Luk 19:47 ; vague note of time. εὐαγγελιζομένου : 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. ἐπέστησαν , 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 20:1-8. SUDDEN QUESTION OF THE PRIESTS AND SCRIBES

1. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, אBCD, La[341] W.H[342] The reading in A, Ti[343] &c. is ἱερεῖς.

[341] La. Lachmann.

[342] W.H. Westcott and Hort.

[343] Ti. Tischendorf.

1. ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν. ‘On one of the days.’ Ἐκείνων is omitted in אBDLQ. 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 (ηὐλίσθη) 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 (Mat 21:9-16); the Rejected Cornerstone (Mat 21:17-18); and the Marriage of the King’s Son (Mat 22:1-14).

εὐαγγελιζομένου, 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.

ἐπέστησαν. The word implies a sudden and hostile demonstration (Act 4:1; Act 6:12; Act 23:27). Thus they surrounded Him while He was walking in the Temple (Mar 11:27). The idea of suddenness is sometimes separately expressed (αἰφνίδιος, Luk 21:34).

οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς. 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 (ἐσείσθη) 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.

σὺν τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις. There were probably three great sections of the Sanhedrin: 1, Priests; 2, Scribes and Rabbis (Sopherîm, Tanaîm, &c.); and 3, Levites. Derenbourg, Pal. ch. 6. Comp. Joh 1:19.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

20:1-8.] 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.)

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

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

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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) Christ’s 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) Christ’s 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 Lord’s 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 Christ’s 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. ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν. 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 εὐγγελιζομένου, which defines the character of His teaching more clearly than διδάσκοντος, see on 2:10.

ἐπέστησαν. One of Lk.’s favourite words (see on 2:38): “there came upon Him.” So also σὺν τοῖς πρ. and πρὸς αὐτόν illustrate his fondness for these prepositions. Mt. and Mk. here have καὶ for σύν (see on 1:56), and neither of them has πρός after λέγειν.

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

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 (ζητεῖν 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 (πρὸς τὸν λαόν, 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?

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Pharisees being overcome with the truth of Christ’s doctrine, move a question about his outward calling, and are overcome by the witness of their own conscience.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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 - epestēsan. 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.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. επεστησαν, "came suddenly upon him." As an unexpected storm; the devil drove them.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

In one of the days. This happened on the last week (on the Tuesday) two or three days before Christ suffered. See the contents of this chapter, Matthew xxi. and xxii. and Mark xi. and xii. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Various Incidents of the Last Week

1-8. The authority of Jesus challenged (Mat_21:23; Mar_11:27). See on Mt.

9-18. The wicked husbandmen (Mat_21:33; Mar_12:1). See on Mt.

19-26. The tribute money (Mat_22:15; Mar_12:13). See on Mt.

27-40. The Sadducees and the Resurrection (Matthew 22, 23; Mar_12:18). See on Mt.

36. Neither can they die] This is perhaps given as a reason why after the Resurrection there is no more marriage.

37. At the bush] RV 'in the place concerning the Bush': cp. Exodus 3.

41-44. Is the Christ David's son? (Mat_22:41; Mar_12:35). See on Mt.

45-47. Jesus denounces the scribes (Mat_23:1; Mar_12:38). See on Mt.

47. Devour widows' houses] see on Mar_12:40.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-8. Question of the priests and scribes as to the nature of the authority under which Jesus was acting.

Vers. 1, 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 euaggelizomenou 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.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Vers. 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, 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.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Vers. 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 mission; 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 stood in his own individual right and 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.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matt. xxi, 23; Mark xi, 27.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

were very attentive

Or, hanged on him.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 "Cæsar" meant civil government, and "God" ecclesiastical government, and as if Cæsar 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 Cæsar 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 Cæsar’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 Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’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.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CVIII. A. Third Great Group of Parables].

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]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 Lord’s 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.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–8. Tell us, by what authority does thou these things. See notes on Matt. 21:23–27. Compare Mark 11:27–33.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

The chief priests, scribes, and elders question Jesus in the temple.

It came about

This phrase is used here to mark the beginning of a new part of the story. (See: Introduction of a New Event)

in the temple

"in the temple courtyard" or "at the temple"

translationWords

Jesus

teach

temple

preach

good news

chief priests

scribe

elder

authority

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.