Luke 20 commentary
-
Upload
glenn-pease -
Category
Spiritual
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Luke 20 commentary
LUKE 20 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Authority of Jesus Questioned
1 One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him.
GILL, "And it came to pass, that on one of those days,.... According to the
account of the Evangelist Mark, it must be the second day, or two days after his
public entrance into Jerusalem; for on the evening of the day he made his entry,
he went out to Bethany with his disciples; the next morning, as he returned from
thence, he cursed the barren fig tree; and when he came to the temple cast out
the buyers and sellers; at evening he went out again, either to Bethany, or the
Mount of Olives; and the next morning, as he and his disciples returned, the fig
tree was observed to be dried up; and when they were come to Jerusalem, as he
was walking in the temple, he was attacked by the sanhedrim, and had the
following discourse with them:
as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the Gospel; for he taught
them by preaching that, and which he did most clearly, faithfully, and publicly,
being abundantly anointed and qualified for it, and sent to do it.
The chief priests, and the Scribes, came upon him, with the elders. The whole
sanhedrim being purposely convened together, came upon him in a body; and it
may be suddenly, and at an unawares, and came open mouthed against him, and
attacked him with great warmth and vehemency.
HENRY, "Introduction
In this chapter we have, I. Christ's answer to the chief priests' question
concerning his authority, Luke 20:1-8. II. The parable of the vineyard let out to
the unjust and rebellious husbandmen, Luke 20:9-19. III. Christ's answer to the
question proposed to him concerning the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæ sar,
Luke 20:20-26. IV. His vindication of that great fundamental doctrine of the
Jewish and Christian institutes--the resurrection of the dead and the future state,
from the foolish cavils of the Sadducees, Luke 20:27-38. V. His puzzling the
scribes with a question concerning the Messiah's being the Son of David, Luke
20:39-44. VI. The caution he gave his disciples to take heed of the scribes, Luke
20:45-47. All which passages we had before in Matthew and Mark, and therefore
need not enlarge upon them here, unless on those particulars which we had not
1
there.
Verses 1-8
Christ's Enemies Nonplussed.
1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the
temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him
with the elders, 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 one thing and answer me: 4The baptism
of John, was it from heaven, or of men? 5 And they reasoned with themselves,
saying, If we shall say, From heaven he will say, Why then believed ye him not? 6
But and if we say, Of men all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that
John was a prophet. 7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.
8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these
things.
In this passage of story nothing is added here to what we had in the other
evangelists but only in the Luke 20:1, where we are told,
I. That he was now teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel.
Note, Christ was a preacher of his own gospel. He not only purchased the
salvation for us, but published it to us, which is a great confirmation of the truth
of the gospel, and gives abundant encouragement to us to receive it, for it is a
sign that the heart of Christ was much upon it, to have it received. This likewise
puts an honour upon the preachers of the gospel, and upon their office and
work, how much soever they are despised by a vain world. It puts an honour
upon the popular preachers of the gospel Christ condescended to the capacities
of the people in preaching the gospel, and taught them. And observe, when he
was preaching the gospel to the people he had this interruption given him. Note,
Satan and his agents do all they can to hinder the preaching of the gospel to the
people, for nothing weakens the interest of Satan's kingdom more.
II. That his enemies are here said to come upon him--epestesan. The word is used
only here, and it intimates,
1. That they thought to surprise him with this question they came upon him
suddenly, hoping to catch him unprovided with an answer, as if this were not a
thing he had himself thought of.
2. That they thought to frighten him with this question. They came upon him in a
body, with violence. But how could he be terrified with the wrath of men, when it
was in his own power to restrain it, and make it turn to his praise? From this
story itself we may learn, (1.) That it is not to be thought strange, if even that
which is evident to a demonstration be disputed, and called in question, as a
doubtful thing, by those that shut their eyes against the light. Christ's miracles
plainly showed by what authority he did these things, and sealed his commission
and yet this is that which is here arraigned. (2.) Those that question Christ's
authority, if they be but catechized themselves in the plainest and most evident
principles of religion, will have their folly made manifest unto all men. Christ
2
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,
Luke 20:7,8.
LIGHTFOOT, "[The chief priests and the scribes with the elders.] So it is in
Mark 11:27: but in Matthew 21:23, it is the chief priests and elders of the people.
Now the question is, who these elders should be, as they are distinguished from
the chief priests and the scribes. The Sanhedrim consisted chiefly of priests,
Levites, and Israelites, although the original precept was for the priests and
Levites only. "The command is, that the priests and Levites should be of the
great council; as it is said, Thou shalt go unto the priests and Levites: but if such
be not to be found, although they were all Israelites, behold, it is allowed."
None will imagine that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were Israelites
only, and no priests or Levites; nor, on the other hand, that there ever was a
Sanhedrim wherein there were only priests and Levites, and no Israelites. The
scribes, therefore, seem in this place to denote either the Levites, or else, together
with the Levites, those inferior ranks of priests who were not the chief priests:
and then the elders, may be the Israelites, or those elders of the laity that were
not of the Levitical tribe. Such a one was Gamaliel the present president of the
Sanhedrim, and Simeon his son, of the tribe of Judah.
BARCLAY, "BY WHAT AUTHORITY? (Luke 20:1-8)
20:1-8 One day, while Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple and telling
them the good news, the chief priests and scribes with the elders came up and
said to him, "Tell us, by what authority do you do these things? Or, who is it
who gives you this authority?" He said to them, "I, too, will ask you for a
statement. Tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?" They
discussed it with each other. "If," they said to each other, "we say, 'From
heaven,' he will say, 'Why did you not believe in him?' But, if we say, 'From
men,' all the people will stone us, for they are convinced that John was a
prophet." So they answered that they did not know where it was from. Jesus said
to them, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."
This chapter describes what is usually called the Day of Questions. It was a day
when the Jewish authorities, in all their different sections, came to Jesus with
question after question designed to trap him, and when, in his wisdom, he
3
answered them in such a way as routed them and left them speechless.
The first question was put by the chief priests, the scribes and the elders. The
chief priests were a body of men composed of ex-High Priests and of members of
the families from which the High Priests were drawn. The phrase describes the
religious aristocracy of the Temple. The three sets of men--chief priests, scribes
and elders--were the component parts of the Sanhedrin, the supreme council and
governing body of the Jews; and we may well take it that this was a question
concocted by the Sanhedrin with a view to formulating a charge against Jesus.
No wonder they asked him by what authority he did these things! To ride into
Jerusalem as he did and then to take the law into his own hands and cleanse the
Temple, required some explanation. To the orthodox Jews of the day, Jesus'
calm assumption of authority was an amazing thing. No Rabbi ever delivered a
judgment or made a statement without giving his authorities. He would say,
"There is a teaching that . . ." Or he would say, "This was confirmed by Rabbi
So and So when he said . . ." But none would have claimed the utterly
independent authority with which Jesus moved among men. What they wanted
was that Jesus should say bluntly and directly that he was the Messiah and the
Son of God. Then they would have a ready-made charge of blasphemy and could
arrest him on the spot. But he would not give that answer, for his hour was not
yet come.
The reply of Jesus is sometimes described as a clever debating answer, used
simply to score a point. But it is far more than that. He asked them to answer the
question, "Was the authority of John the Baptist human or divine?" The point is
that their answer to Jesus' question would answer their own question. Every one
knew how John had regarded Jesus and how he had considered himself only the
fore-runner of the one who was the Messiah. If they agreed that John's authority
was divine then they had also to agree that Jesus was the Messiah, because John
had said so. If they denied it, the people would rise,, against them. Jesus' answer
in fact asks the question, "Tell me--where do you yourself think I got my
authority?" He did not need to answer their question if they answered his.
To face the truth may confront a man with a sore and difficult situation; but to
refuse to face it confronts him with a tangle out of which there is no escape. The
emissaries of the Pharisees refused to face the truth, and they had to withdraw
frustrated and discredited with the crowd.
PETT, "So one day while He was teaching in the Temple, and preaching the
Good News of the Kingly Rule of God, the members of the Sanhedrin
approached Him. The chief priests were the leading authorities in the Temple
including the High Priest himself, the temple Treasurer, the leaders of the
priestly courses, ex-High Priests, and their blood relations. The Scribes mainly
represented Pharisaic opinion, although there were some Scribes of the
Sadducees. The elders were the wealthy laymen from aristocratic families.\
COFFMAN, "In this chapter, which details Jesus' teachings on Monday of the
final week, there are the following units; the Pharisees questioned Jesus'
4
authority (Luke 20:1-8); he gave the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke
20:9-18); he answered the question of tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:19-26); he
exposed the question of the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (Luke
20:27-40); he confounded them with a question of his own (Luke 20:41-44); and
he uttered a sharp condemnation and warning against the scribes (Luke
20:45-47).
All of this chapter is contained in the parallel accounts of both Matthew and
Mark; and twice already in this series, a line-by-line exegesis of these teachings
has been presented. To avoid needless repetition, the several units of this chapter
are discussed in a more general manner.
I. The Pharisees questioned the authority of Jesus, their purpose no doubt being
to embarrass the Lord. That Jesus had no authority from THEM was certain;
and, supposing that they alone could grant authority to religious teachers, they
must have felt rather smug in propounding their question.
And it came to pass on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the
temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief priests and the
scribes and the elders; and they spake unto him, saying unto him, Tell us: By
what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this
authority? And he answered and said unto them, I also will ask you a question;
and tell me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? And they
reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why
did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone
us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that
they knew not whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by
what authority I do these things. (Luke 20:1-8)
Parallels: Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33.
Their question was snide, as was evident in the malice and dishonesty of them
that asked it; and yet, despite this, the question itself is the most important that
any man may ask concerning the authority of Jesus. Whence is it? That question
must be answered by every person hoping to enter into eternal life.
There is a dramatic contrast in the manner of Jesus' feeding the same words of
those hypocrites back to them. They demanded that Jesus "Tell us"; but Jesus
threw their hand grenade back into their own faces, saying "TELL ME!" By
such a shocking refusal of their rights to pass on the credentials of the Christ, the
Lord exposed them before all the people.
John the Baptist's authority was indeed from God (John 1:5); and the chief
priests, scribes and elders of Israel well knew this; for the mighty herald had
unequivocally identified Jesus thus:
The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
He that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33)
5
He that hath the bride is the bridegroom (John 3:29)
He ... cometh from above, is above all (John 3:31)
He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God (John 3:33)
God hath given to the Son all things (John 3:35)
He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life (John 3:36)
He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on
him (John 3:36)SIZE>
With a corpus of testimony like that, well known to all the people, and coming
from a man even the priests recognized as universally hailed a true prophet of
God - the name "John the Baptist" must have struck fear and embarrassment
into the hearts of Jesus' challengers. So great was the impact of Jesus' question
that it appears they withdrew somewhat, and held a council among themselves
on the answer they would give. It quickly appeared that not Jesus, but they, were
trapped. The best thing they could come up with was an open profession of
ignorance, and that before the multitudes!
BURKITT, "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, Hebrews 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.
PULPIT, "Question of the priests and scribes as to the nature of the authority
under which Jesus was acting.
Luke 20:1, Luke 20:2
6
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 εὐαγγελιζομένου 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—
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 (Mark 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.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:1-8
The great Teacher's silence.
The refusal of Jesus Christ to answer the question proposed to him demands
explanation and suggests remark.
I. THE DIFFICULTY WE FIND IN HIS SILENCE. Had not the Sanhedrin a
right to ask this of him? It was a legally constituted body, and one of its functions
was to guide the people of the land by determining who was to be received as a
true Teacher from God. John had recognized their right to formally interrogate
him (John 1:19-27). As Jesus was claiming and exercising authority (Luke
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:
7
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 Luke 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 Luke 13:23, Luke 13:24; Acts
1:6, Acts 1:7).
2. Unmeaning and unspiritual utterance makes no way with him (see Luke
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 (John 14:8, John 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 (John 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.
8
2 “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”
GILL, "And spoke unto him, saying, tell us by what authority doest thou these
things?.... The Arabic and Ethiopic versions read, "this thing"; as if the
sanhedrim only referred to his preaching the Gospel, which is mentioned in the
preceding verse, and was what he was about when they came to him: but the
Persic version reads, "all these things"; not only preaching, but working
miracles; and particularly driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, which
especially affected them, they losing their rents thereby:
or who is he that gave thee this authority? God or man? See Gill on Matthew
21:23.
PETT, "Their question, as an official deputation from the leadership, was
twofold. Firstly on what did He base His authority for His actions, and secondly,
who had given Him that authority? Did He, for example, claim Rabbinic
authority, or Prophetic authority, or what? And if any of these, who had so
authorised Him? To them ‘authorisation’ by the right people was all. Unless a
man was authorised he had no right to speak. What authorisation then had
Jesus?
The approach was high handed and officious. ‘By what authority -- who gave
you this authority?’ Their first hope was that He would have no answer and be
caught unprepared. Then the people would see that He was a charlatan.
Alternately they were hoping to make Him declare Himself, and say something
‘foolish’, such as making a claim to Messiahship, and whatever He said they
would use against Him. They could accuse Him of self-exaltation, or even worse,
of being a Messianic claimant and an insurrectionist. So the question was, was
He claiming to be a prophet? Was He claiming to be the Messiah? Was He
claiming to be the coming Elijah? And if He was not claiming to be anyone so
important, how could He then claim to have God’s personal authority? Compare
Luke 9:7-8; Mark 6:15; John 1:19-25.
3 He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me:
9
GILL, "And he answered and said unto them,.... That is, Jesus replied to them,
as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions express it:
I will also ask you one thing, and answer me; when he also promised, that if they
would give him an answer to his question, he would satisfy them in the point they
interrogated him about: and as this was a prudent decline to avoid the snare they
laid for him, so it was not an impertinent reply to them; since it led on to a
proper answer to their question, as appears by the case proposed; See Gill on
Matthew 21:24.
PETT, "Their question, as an official deputation from the leadership, was
twofold. Firstly on what did He base His authority for His actions, and secondly,
who had given Him that authority? Did He, for example, claim Rabbinic
authority, or Prophetic authority, or what? And if any of these, who had so
authorised Him? To them ‘authorisation’ by the right people was all. Unless a
man was authorised he had no right to speak. What authorisation then had
Jesus?
The approach was high handed and officious. ‘By what authority -- who gave
you this authority?’ Their first hope was that He would have no answer and be
caught unprepared. Then the people would see that He was a charlatan.
Alternately they were hoping to make Him declare Himself, and say something
‘foolish’, such as making a claim to Messiahship, and whatever He said they
would use against Him. They could accuse Him of self-exaltation, or even worse,
of being a Messianic claimant and an insurrectionist. So the question was, was
He claiming to be a prophet? Was He claiming to be the Messiah? Was He
claiming to be the coming Elijah? And if He was not claiming to be anyone so
important, how could He then claim to have God’s personal authority? Compare
Luke 9:7-8; Mark 6:15; John 1:19
COKE, "Luke 20:3-8. And he answered, &c.— The great sanhedrim seems to
have been established after the failure of prophesy; and concerning the members
of this body the rabbies tell us there was a tradition, that they were bound to be
skilled in the sciences. So far is certain, that they extended their jurisdiction to
the judging of doctrines and opinions. (see on Matthew 21:23.) as appears by
their deputation to Jesus, to know by what authority he did his works. We are
not to suppose the answer of Christ to this deputation, to be a captious evasion of
the question made by those whose authority he did not acknowledge; on the
contrary, it was a direct reply to an acknowledged institution, (as Jesus was
obedient to all the institutions of his country,) convincing them, that the question
needed not any precise answer, even on the principles of that jurisdiction. They
sent to him to know his authority: he asked them, whether they had yet
determined of John's? They acknowledged that they had not. "Then, (replies
Jesus) I need not tell you of my authority, since the sanhedrim's not having
determined of John's, shews such a determination unnecessary: or, at least, since
both by John's account and mine he is represented as the forerunner of my
mission, it is fit to begin with his pretensions first." The address and reason of
this reply are truly divine.
10
PULPIT, "Luke 20:3-6
And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer
me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men! And they reasoned with
themselves saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed
ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be
persuaded that John was a prophet. The reply of Jesus was one of strange
wisdom. He—Jesus—as was well known, had been introduced to the people by
this very John. If the Sanhedrin acknowledged John the Baptist as a divinely
accredited messenger, then surely they could not question the claims of one
borne special witness to by him, brought forward and introduced to public
notice by him! If, on the other hand, the Sanhedrin refused to acknowledge the
authority of John as a Heaven-sent messenger, which would have been the course
they would have preferred, then the popularity and influence of the Sanhedrin
would have been sorely imperilled, for the people generally held firmly that John
the Baptist was really a prophet of the Lord. They even feared—as we read, "All
the people will stone us"—personal violence on the part of the people whose
favour they so zealously courted.
4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”
GILL, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? This was a new
ordinance, and John must have his authority for administering it either from
God, or from men; and Christ is desirous to know from which he derived it in
their opinion; suggesting, that by the same authority John, his forerunner, came
baptizing, he himself came preaching and working miracles; See Gill on
Matthew 21:25.
PETT "Verse 5-6
‘And they reasoned with themselves, saying, “If we shall say, From heaven, he
will say, Why did you not believe him? But if we shall say, From men, all the
people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”
His opponents in their discussions together revealed how clearly they themselves
recognised their predicament. They knew that if they said that John’s baptism
was ‘from Heaven’ Jesus would ask why in that case they had not supported
John more, and why they had not listened to him, and promulgated his baptism,
and He would then also point out what John had said of Him, describing Him as
greater than himself. But if they said ‘from men’ they knew very well that the
crowds, who still remembered John vividly, and the method of his death, would
stone them for the equivalent of blasphemy. For all the crowds knew that John
11
was a prophet, and at this time feelings were running high. The principle behind
the crowd’s thinking would be that while it was true that a false prophet had to
be stoned, it was also true that any who falsely accused a true prophet of being a
false prophet was also liable to stoning, the false accuser bearing the penalty that
would have been that of the accused if the charge had been proved. This was an
ancient principle of the Law (see Deuteronomy 13:1-11; Deuteronomy 19:15-21).
And the members of the Sanhedrin were well enough aware of the mood of the
crowd to realise that feelings were such that such a stoning would be a very likely
consequence of any denial.
5 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’
GILL, "And they reasoned with themselves,.... Or "they thought with
themselves", as the Syriac version; or "within themselves", as the Vulgate Latin,
though they did not express it; or "one with another", as the Arabic version;
they took counsel together, and debated the matter among themselves, and
reasoned after this manner:
saying, if we shall say from heaven; which was what, in their own consciences,
they believed to be true,
he will say, why then believed ye him not? in what he said concerning the
Messiah; which if they had, as they should, there would have been no reason for
such a question they had put; See Gill on Matthew 21:25.
6 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”
GILL, "But and if we say of men,..... Which they had a good will to, against the
dictates of their own consciences:
all the people will stone us; meaning the common people, that were then in the
temple about Christ, hearing him preach; who would be so enraged at such an
answer, that without any regard to their character and office, they would rise
12
and stone them. The Ethiopic version adds, "whom we fear"; see Matthew 21:26
for it seems that they had not so behaved as to have the good will and esteem of
the people, at least they did not pin their faith on their sleeve:
for they be persuaded that John was a prophet; they were fully assured of it; and
the sentiments and authority of the chief priests could have no weight and
influence upon them to weaken their faith in this point; the evidence was so
strong, and their faith so firm and sure.
7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”
GILL, "Whether from heaven, or of men; in this, no doubt, they told an untruth:
but they chose rather to sacrifice their consciences than their interest, and
pretend ignorance rather than profess the truth, when they saw they should be
put to confusion, or be exposed to the resentments of the people.
JAMISON, "could not tell — crooked, cringing hypocrites! No wonder Jesus
gave you no answer (Matthew 7:6). But what dignity and composure does our
Lord display as He turns their question upon themselves!
PETT, "So they replied lamely that they did not know the answer to His
question. Lame though their reply was they were really left with no option. But
we can imagine their sense of extreme humiliation at having to do it. For by
answering like this they would know that they were admitting that they in fact
were in no position to decide on genuine bases of authority when it came to
someone like John. And if they admitted that they could not judge John’s
authority, how could they then be credibly seen as being able to judge any
prophet’s authority?
Furthermore at the same time the crowds, who were not stupid, would know
from their reply exactly what the situation was. To the crowds they would simply
be revealing themselves as treacherous. So their whole position was being
undermined by their inability to answer, and instead of showing up Jesus they
had shown themselves up.
And, of course, the consequence of this was that as they could not decide on what
John’s authority was, it was quite clear that there was no point in Jesus
appealing to that authority. His appeal must await their deciding on John’s
authority. But it had answered the question. For the crowds, who would know of
Jesus’ connection with John would again draw their own conclusions. They
would accept His authority, both because they accepted John’s authority, and
13
because of His own works and teaching.
PULPIT, "And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. The reply
of Jesus, which so perplexed the Sanhedrin, really inflicted a grave blow to their
prestige, thus compelling the grave doctors of the Law, who claimed the right of
deciding all momentous questions, to decline to pronounce a judgment on so
grave a question as "the position of the Baptist," that mighty preacher who had
so stirred and roused Israel and who had with his life paid the forfeit of his
boldness in rebuking crime in high places, thereby no doubt enormously
enlarging his already vast popularity with the people.
8 Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
GILL, "neither tell I you by what authority I do these things; nor was there any
need of it; they might easily perceive by what he had said, from whence he
professed to have received his authority, from God, and not men; See Gill on
Matthew 21:27.
PETT, "So when Jesus then declared that He was not willing to submit His case
to the very people who had admitted that they did not know how to judge a
prophet’s authority, the people would recognise that He had really answered
their question. His claim was that the source of His authority was the same as
that of John, which was what they thought anyway. The Sanhedrin were
stymied, and the belief of the people was thus confirmed.
NISBET, "THE SUFFICIENCY OF REVELATION
‘Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.’
Luke 20:8
What is the truth that is involved in our Lord’s answer—‘Neither tell I you by
what authority I do these things’?
I. The principle of reservation.—God reserves to Himself the right to restrain,
when He sees fit, that full manifestation of Himself which some men nevertheless
demand of Him. There are some men, some women, in whose heart there has
frequently risen up something of this resentment: ‘Why must I live in a state of
imperfect knowledge, which is the result of a limited revelation?’ It was not only
unto the scribes and the Pharisees, and the idle, gaping crowd that our Lord
acted upon this principle of reservation when He was here on earth, it was so
with His own disciples. How is the great central mystery of the Incarnation, for
example, ever present in His teaching, and yet who shall deny that it is ever
shrouded? How guardedly He speaks of the new birth by water and the Word;
14
how mysteriously in the blessed sacrament of His own Blood and Body!
II. The revelation sufficient.—And yet shall we dare to say that the teaching
which God in His mercy has vouchsafed to us, and the revelation that He has
given to us, is insufficient? How much evidence of authority had He already
given to those very scribes and Pharisees! Those who asked Him this very
question as to His authority had never denied the facts—they had never dared to
deny them. Yet you know what they had done—they had hardened their hearts
and shut their eyes against them. It was possible for them to know long ere this
by Whose authority He did these things. So for us it is possible to know, and to
know with great certainty too, of Christ and His authority. What we need is
sufficient knowledge to guide us unto the knowledge of God’s will. And such
knowledge comes to men and women rather through the heart than through the
intellect. ‘If any man will do His will, he shall know the doctrine whether it be of
God.’ Will to do His will, and He tells you that you shall know.
III. Conditions on which knowledge is attainable.—There are conditions on
which this knowledge is attainable.
(a) Purity of heart. It is purity of heart that enables men to see God, it is men
who love God, and men who love each other as the children of God, who have the
most perfect intelligence of God.
(b) Obedience. It has been well said that there is boundless danger in all inquiry
which is merely curious! It is to such our Lord answers, and will ever answer,
‘Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.’ When men ask questions
of Almighty God, by the answer to which they never mean to rule their lives, let
them not think that to them any sign will be given. The will must be set to do the
will of God before the intellect can act with discernment on spiritual truth.
(c) Earnestness. A life of trifling here is not the life of those who are enlightened
by their God. God must be really sought if God is to be truly found.
A life of earnest seeking is a life of finding, but God’s truth is too sacred a thing
to be expounded to superficial worldliness. There are others tried by intellectual
difficulties, yet athirst for the living God, and for a fuller revelation to their
souls. The time of granting this revelation rests with Him, and to them that
revelation will be given. The answer to their cry will come; they shall know the
doctrine whether it be of God; He will tell tell them by what authority He does
these things.
Rev. Prebendary Villiers.
The Parable of the Tenants
15
9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time.
GILL, "Then began he to speak to the people this parable,.... According to the
other evangelists it seems to be spoken to the chief priests, Scribes, and elders;
and certain it is, that they looked upon themselves as struck at in it; it might be
spoken to both. Christ having silenced the sanhedrim, turned himself to the
people, and delivered the parable of the vineyard to them, though his principal
view was to the priests:
a certain man planted a vineyard; the people of the Jews are designed by the
vineyard, and the "certain man", or "householder", as Matthew calls him,
Matthew 21:28 is the Lord of hosts; and the planting of it is to be understood of
his bringing and settling the people Israel in the land of Canaan. Luke omits
certain things which the other evangelists relate, as setting an hedge about it,
digging a winepress, and building a tower in it; and the Persic version here adds,
"and planted trees, and set a wall about it"; all which express the care that was
taken to cultivate and protect it; and signify the various blessings and privileges
the Jew's enjoyed under the former dispensation; see Gill on Matthew 21:33 and
See Gill on Mark 12:1.
and let it forth to husbandmen; put the people of the Jews under the care not
only of civil magistrates, but of ecclesiastical governors, who were to dress this
vine, or instruct these people in matters of religion, that they might be fruitful in
good works:
and went into a far country for a long time; for a long time it was, from the times
of Moses and Joshua, when the first settlement, both of the civil and ecclesiastical
state of the Jews, was made, to the time of Christ; it was fourteen or fifteen
hundred years; see the notes, as above.
HENRY, "9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable A certain man
planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country
for a long time. 10 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 another servant: and they beat
him also, and entreated 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, let us kill him,
that the inheritance may be ours. 15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and
killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16 He
16
shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.
And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. 17 And he beheld them, and said,
What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same
is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall
be broken but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 19 And
the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him and
they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable
against them.
Christ spoke this parable against those who were resolved not to own his
authority, though the evidence of it was ever so full and convincing and it comes
very seasonably to show that by questioning his authority they forfeited their
own. Their disowning the lord of their vineyard was a defeasance of their lease of
the vineyard, and giving up of all their title.
I. The parable has nothing added here to what we had before in Matthew and
Mark. The scope of it is to show that the Jewish nation, by persecuting the
prophets, and at length Christ himself, had provoked God to take away from
them all their church privileges, and to abandon them to ruin. It teaches us, 1.
That those who enjoy the privileges of the visible church are as tenants and
farmers that have a vineyard to look after, and rent to pay for it. God, by setting
up revealed religion and instituted orders in the world, hath planted a vineyard,
which he lets out to those people among whom his tabernacle is, Luke 20:9. And
they have vineyard-work to do, needful and constant work, but pleasant and
profitable. Whereas man was, for sin, condemned to till the ground, they that
have a place in the church are restored to that which was Adam's work in
innocency, to dress the garden, and to keep it for the church is a paradise, and
Christ the tree of life in it. They have also vineyard-fruits to present to the Lord
of the vineyard. There are rents to be paid and services to be done, which,
though bearing no proportion to the value of the premises, yet must be done and
must be paid. 2. That the work of God's ministers is to call upon those who enjoy
the privileges of the church to bring forth fruit accordingly. They are God's rent-
gatherers, to put the husbandmen in mind of their arrears, or rather to put them
in mind that they have a landlord who expects to hear from them, and to receive
some acknowledgment of their dependence on him, and obligations to him, Luke
20:10. The Old-Testament prophets were sent on this errand to the Jewish
church, to demand from them the duty and obedience they owed to God. 3. That
it has often been the lot of God's faithful servants to be wretchedly abused by his
own tenants they have been beaten and treated shamefully by those that resolved
to send them empty away. They that are resolved not to do their duty to God
cannot bear to be called upon to do it. Some of the best men in the world have
had the hardest usage from it, for their best services. 4. That God sent his Son
into the world to carry on the same work that the prophets were employed in, to
gather the fruits of the vineyard for God and one would have thought that he
would have been reverenced and received. The prophets spoke as servants, Thus
saith the Lord but Christ as a Son, among his own, Verily, I say unto you.
Putting such an honour as this upon them, to send him, one would have thought,
should have won upon them. 5. That those who reject Christ's ministers would
reject Christ himself if he should come to them for it has been tried, and found
17
that the persecutors and murderers of his servants the prophets were the
persecutors and murderers of himself. They said, This is the heir, come let us kill
him. When they slew the servants, there were other servants sent. "But, if we can
but be the death of the son, there is never another son to be sent, and then we
shall be no longer molested with these demands we may have a quiet possession
of the vineyard for ourselves." The scribes and Pharisees promised themselves
that, if they could but get Christ out of the way, they should for ever ride masters
in the Jewish church and therefore they took the bold step, they cast him out of
the vineyard, and killed him. 6. That the putting of Christ to death filled up the
measure of the Jewish iniquity, and brought upon them ruin without remedy. No
other could be expected than that God should destroy those wicked husbandmen.
They began in not paying their rent, but then proceeded to beat and kill the
servants, and at length their young Master himself. Note, Those that live in the
neglect of their duty to God know not what degrees of sin and destruction they
are running themselves into.
II. To the application of the parable is added here, which we had not before,
their deprecation of the doom included in it (Luke 20:16): When they heart it,
they said, God forbid, Me genoito--Let not this be done, so it should be read.
Though they could not but own that for such a sin such a punishment was just,
and what might be expected, yet they could not bear to hear of it. Note, It is an
instance of the folly and stupidity of sinners that they proceed and persevere in
their sinful ways though at the same time they have a foresight and dread of the
destruction that is at the end of those ways. And see what a cheat they put
themselves, to think to avoid it by a cold God forbid, when they do nothing
towards the preventing of it but will this make the threatening of no effect? No,
they shall know whose word shall stand, God's or theirs. Now observe what
Christ said, in answer to this childish deprecation of their ruin. 1. He beheld
them. This is taken notice of only by this evangelist, Luke 20:17. He looked upon
them with pity and compassion, grieved to see them cheat themselves thus to
their own ruin. He beheld them, to see if they would blush at their own folly, or if
he could discern in their countenances any indication of relenting. 2. He referred
them to the scripture: "What is this then that is written? How can you escape the
judgment of God, when you cannot prevent the exaltation of him whom you
despise and reject? The word of God hath said it, that the stone which the
builders rejected is become the head of the corner." The Lord Jesus will be
exalted to the Father's right hand. He has all judgment and all power committed
to him he is the corner-stone and top-stone of the church, and, if so, his enemies
can expect no other than to be destroyed. Even those that slight him, that
stumble at him, and are offended in him, shall be broken--it will be their ruin but
as to those that not only reject him, but hate and persecute him, as the Jews did,
he will fall upon them and crush them to pieces--will grind them to powder. The
condemnation of spiteful persecutors will be much sorer than that of careless
unbelievers.
Lastly, We are told how the chief priests and scribes were exasperated by this
parable (Luke 20:19): They perceived that he had spoken this parable against
them and so he had. A guilty conscience needs no accuser but they, instead of
yielding to the convictions of conscience, fell into a rage at him who awakened
18
that sleeping lion in their bosoms, and sought to lay hands on him. Their
corruptions rebelled against their convictions, and got the victory. And it was not
because they had any fear of God or of his wrath before their eyes, but only
because they feared the people, that they did not now fly in his face, and take
him by the throat. They were just ready to make his words good: This is the heir,
come let us kill him. Note, When the hearts of the sons of men are fully set in
them to do evil, the fairest warnings both of the sin they are about to commit and
of the consequences of it make no impression upon them. Christ tells them that
instead of kissing the Son of God they would kill him, upon which they should
have said, What, is thy servant a dog? But they do, in effect, say this: "And so we
will have at him now." And, though they deprecate the punishment of the sin, in
the next breath they are projecting the commission of it.
JAMISON, "Verses 9-13
vineyard — (See on Luke 13:6). In Matthew 21:33 additional points are given,
taken literally from Isaiah 5:2, to fix down the application and sustain it by Old
Testament authority.
husbandmen — the ordinary spiritual guides of the people, under whose care
and culture the fruits of righteousness might be yielded.
went, etc. — leaving it to the laws of the spiritual husbandry during the whole
length of the Jewish economy. (See on Mark 4:26.)
BARCLAY, "A PARABLE WHICH WAS A CONDEMNATION (Luke 20:9-18)
20:9-18 Jesus began to speak this parable to the people. "A man planted a
vineyard and let it out to tenants, and went away for a long time. At the proper
time he despatched a servant to the tenants so that they might give him his share
of the fruit of the vineyard. The tenants beat him and sent him away empty-
handed. He went on to send another servant. They beat him, too, and maltreated
him, and sent him away empty-handed. He went on to send a third. This one they
wounded and threw out. The owner of the vineyard said, 'What am I to do? I
will send my beloved son. It may be they will respect him.' When the tenants saw
him they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Let us kill him so that the
inheritance will be ours.' And they flung him out of the vineyard and killed him.
What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and he will
destroy these tenants, and will give the vineyard to others." When they heard
this, they said, "God forbid!" He looked at them and said, "What, then, is this
which stands written--'The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the
head of the corner? Everyone who falls against that stone will be shattered; but
if it falls on anyone it will wipe him out as the wind blows the chaff away.'"
This is a parable whose meaning is crystal clear. The vineyard stands for the
nation of Israel (compare Isaiah 5:1-7). The tenants are the rulers of Israel into
whose hands the nation was entrusted. The messengers are the prophets who
were disregarded, persecuted and killed. The son is Jesus himself. And the doom
is that the place which Israel should have occupied is to be given to others.
The story itself is the kind of thing which could and did happen. Judaea in the
19
time of Jesus was in the throes of economic trouble and labour unrest. There was
many an absentee landlord who let out his lands in just such a way. The rent was
seldom paid in money. It was either a fixed amount of produce, irrespective of
the success or failure of the harvest, or it was a percentage of the crop, whatever
it might be.
In its teaching this is one of the richest of the parables. It tells us certain things
about man.
(i) It tells us of human privilege. The tenants did not make the vineyard. They
entered into possession of it. The owner did not stand over them with a whip. He
went away and left them to work in their own way.
(ii) It tells us of human sin. The sin of the tenants was that they refused to give
the owner his due and wished to control what it was his sole right to control. Sin
consists in the failure to give God his proper place and in usurping the power
which should be his.
(iii) It tells of human responsibility. For long enough the tenants were left to their
own devices; but the day of reckoning came. Soon or late a man is called upon to
give account for that which was committed to his charge.
The parable tells us certain things about God.
(i) It tells us of the patience of God. The owner did not strike at the first sign of
rebellion on the part of the tenants. He gave them chance after chance to do the
right thing. There is nothing so wonderful as the patience of God. If any man
had created the world he would have taken his hand, and, in exasperated
despair, he would have wiped it out long ago.
(ii) It tells us of the judgment of God. The tenants thought they could presume on
the patience of the master and get away with it. But God has not abdicated.
However much a man may seem to get away with it, the day of reckoning comes.
As the Romans put it, "Justice holds the scales with an even and a scrupulous
balance and in the end she will prevail."
The parable tells us something about Jesus.
(i) It tells us that he knew what was coming. He did not come to Jerusalem
hugging a dream that even yet he might escape the cross. Open eyed and
unafraid, he went on. When Achilles, the great Greek hero, was warned by the
prophetess Cassandra that, if he went out to battle, he would surely die, he
answered, "Nevertheless I am for going on." For Jesus there was to be no
turning back.
(ii) It tells us that he never doubted Gods ultimate triumph. Beyond the power of
wicked men stood the undefeatable majesty of God. Wickedness may seem for a
time to prevail, but it cannot in the end escape its punishment.
20
Careless seems the great Avenger, history's pages but record
One death grapple in the darkness, 'twixt old systems and
the Word;
Truth for ever on the scaffold, Wrong for ever on the throne,
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
(iii) It lays down most unmistakably his claim to be the Son of God. Deliberately
he removes himself from the succession of the prophets. They were servants; he
is the Son. In this parable he made a claim that none could fail to see to be God's
Chosen King.
The quotation about the stone which the builders rejected comes from Psalms
118:22-23. It was a favourite quotation in the early church as a description of the
death and resurrection of Jesus. (compare Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7.)
PULPIT, "A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen.
Under a very thin parabolic veil, Jesus foretells the awful tragedy of the next few
days. He adopts a well-known imagery, and seems to say, "Listen to Isaiah's
well-known story of the vineyard, the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, which is the
house of Israel. I will expand it a little, that I may show you how it stands with
you as regards this matter of 'authority,' that we may see whether you have as
much respect for the ascertained will of God as ye pretend, so that ye should be
sure to submit to me if only ye were satisfied that I was an accredited Messenger
of God" (Professor Bruce). For a long time. Representing the nearly two
thousand years of Jewish history.
PETT, "Jesus’ words are spoken to the people, but as ever among these were a
number of antagonists, including chief priests and Scribes. The idea of Israel as a
vineyard is found regularly in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 5:1-7 we have a
similar opening to this, ‘My wellbeloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill’
(Isaiah 5:1). And there the choicest vine was planted and it produced wild
grapes, so that it was ripe for judgment. And that vineyard and vine were Israel
and Judah Compare also Psalms 80:8-16; Jeremiah 2:21-22; Hosea 9:10, where
again the vineyard is Israel/Judah.
Here the vineyard is planted (Luke omits the further details) and put under the
control of others who are made responsible for ensuring that a fair rental in
terms of produce is paid to the owner. The owner, Who is clearly the God of
Israel, then leaves it in their hands ‘for a long time’. It would take four years for
the vineyard to become fruitful in such a way that rents (paid in produce) could
be expected (see Leviticus 19:23-25). Even the Jewish leaders recognised that
here He was speaking about them (Luke 20:19). It was they who saw themselves
as having the responsibility for God’s vineyard.
21
PETT, "Verses 9-19
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants of a Vineyard (20:9-19).
But Jesus did not leave it there, He riposted with a parable that connected His
accusers with the slayers of the prophets, by this confirming their connection
with others in the past who had been unable to recognise those who came from
God, and at the same time remarkably laying down His claim to being the
unique and only Son of God, thus answering their question about the source of
His authority indirectly, which is one reason why in both in Mark and Luke the
parable immediately follows the question about authority.
The importance that Luke places on this parable comes out in that he places it
centrally in the chiasmus of the whole Section (see above). It is the message
around which the whole chiasmus is based.
In this parable He spoke of Israel as a vineyard, of God as its owner, and of the
Jewish leaders as the tenants responsible for it. All this would be recognisable
from the Old Testament. Those then sent by the Owner in order to collect the
proceeds from the vineyard could only be the prophets, and Who then must be
the last to come, the only beloved Son? In view of all His earlier claims we can be
in no doubt that it is Jesus. (And yet there are still those who close their eyes and
refuse to see this. Spiritual blindness is still among us).
The parable is based on real life. In Palestine at that time there were many farms
and vineyards tenanted by tenant farmers, with absent landlords who expected
to receive their rents. And we can with regard to some of those farms and
vineyards that there was much skulduggery.
With regard to Luke’s sources for the parable, we need have no doubt that he
had Mark’s Gospel in front of him, and yet he clearly did not just copy from
Mark. It would seem that he also had other sources. This should not surprise us
as he would have spoken with a number of people who were probably
eyewitnesses, including especially some of the Apostles. His concern was not to
ape Mark but to present the truth succintly without altering it, while
emphasising what he saw as important.
Analysis of the passage.
a He began to speak to the people this parable. “A man planted a vineyard, and
let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time” (Luke
20:9).
b “And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that they should give
him of the fruit of the vineyard, but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him
away empty, and he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and
handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty, and he sent yet a third, and
him also they wounded, and cast him out” (Luke 20:10-12).
c “And the lord of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved
son. It may be that they will reverence him” (Luke 20:13).
22
d “But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying,
‘This is the heir. Let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours” (Luke 20:14
a).
e “And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.” (Luke 20:14 b).
d “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and
destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.” And when they
heard it, they said, ‘God forbid’ ” (Luke 20:15-16)
c ‘But He looked on them, and said, “What then is this that is written, The stone
which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? Every
one who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it will
fall, it will scatter him as dust” (Luke 20:17-18).
b And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on Him in that very
hour (Luke 20:19 a).
a And they feared the people, for they perceived that He spoke this parable
against them (Luke 20:19 b).
Note that in ‘a’ he speaks the parable concerning the husbandmen, and in the
parallel the Scribes and Pharisees noted that He spoke it against them. In ‘b’
their ancestors had laid hands on the prophets, and in the parallel they were
seeking to lay hands on Jesus. In ‘c’ the Lord determines to send His only Son,
trusting that they will at least reverence Him as the One Who represents the
owner most closely, and in the parallel they rejected Him with the obvious
consequences. In ‘d’ they make their decision to act against the heir and
prospective owner by killing Him so as to gain possession of the vineyard, and in
the parallel the owner kills them and takes over the vineyard. And centrally in ‘e’
are their acts of deliberate rejection and brutal murder.
COFFMAN, "THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED FARMERS
II. This great parable is the central member of a trilogy of magnificent parables,
all three of which were spoken by Jesus to set forth the rebellious behavior of
official Israel. The full trilogy is found only in Matthew (Matthew 21:28-22:14).
The independence of the synoptic Gospels (and all of them, for that matter) is
nowhere more evident than here. This trilogy of parables is arranged in
ascending order of power and dramatic effect (see full discussion of this in my
Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 22:14). They are the Parable of Two Sons,
the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, and the Parable of the Marriage of the
King's Son. If either Mark or Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel, or if either
one of them had ever seen it, there can be no logical explanation of why they
would have selected the central member of the trilogy and left out the other two.
On the other hand, there is no logical device by which it may be supposed that
Matthew took Mark's (and Luke's) single parable and formed it into a trilogy,
because the trilogy carries within itself the most positive and overwhelming
proof of originality, an originality that plants it undeniably in the authentic
words of Jesus our Lord. The ancient convictions that all of the sacred authors
wrote independently of each other is justified by many such things in the
Gospels.
Analogies in the parable are easily seen. God, the householder, let out his
vineyard, which is the chosen people with their privileges and protection from
23
the Father, to the husbandmen who are the leaders of Israel. Such things as the
planting of the vineyard, the hedge, the winepress, etc., represent the
establishment of Israel as the chosen people and such religious devices as the law,
the temple, etc. The servants whom God sent to Israel to receive the fruits of his
vineyard were the prophets of the Old Testament, leading up to and including
John the Baptist. Maltreatment of the servants represents Israel's rejection,
abuse, and even murder of the prophets. The householder's (God's) desire for
fruits in season was God's desire for true spiritual fruits from Israel, including
especially a recognition on their part of the need of salvation. The beloved Son in
the parable is Jesus Christ. Their casting him forth and killing him prophesied
the hierarchy's crucifixion of Jesus without the camp of Israel. The fact of the
Son's coming last of all shows the finality of God's revelation in Christ who is
God's last word to man. God's taking the vineyard away from the wicked
husbandmen and giving it to others is the replacement of Israel with Gentiles in
the main possession of the gospel. The householder's going into another country
for a long time stands for the absence of God, in a sense, during the long ages
when Israel was left unpunished for countless rebellions against God, in the
period required for the bringing of Christ into the world.
This is the heir; let us kill him ... This parable shows very clearly that the leaders
of Israel recognized Christ as the true heir of the throne of David, the head of the
Theocracy, and as the promised Messiah. The only flaw in their identification of
Christ was in this, that they failed to see that he was GOD come in the flesh.
He will destroy these husbandmen ... is a reference to the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In the third member of the trilogy, this prophecy took the
form of a king sending his armies, killing those murderers, and burning their
city (Matthew 22:7).
The stone which the builders rejected ... By this, Christ referred to himself. He is
the chief cornerstone; the builders (those wicked leaders) rejected him, but they
are not through with him; he will be the head cornerstone of the New Covenant.
For article on "Christ the Living Stone," see my Commentary on Romans,
Romans 9:33.
Every one that falleth on that stone ... This means "all who stumble at the
teachings of Christ."
On whomsoever it shall fall ... The imagery here appears to be from Daniel
2:34,44, in which the little stone "cut without hands" smote the kingdoms of the
world and ground them to powder. The Jews were still dreaming of the secular
kingdom; and by such a word as this Jesus called their attention to what God
would do with their worldly kingdoms. Jesus himself is the little stone; and in the
figure he warned the leaders that, although they were planning to kill him, there
would come the time when he would fall upon them.
Scatter as dust ... The scattering of Israel is in this. Frequently that word appears
in the New Testament, and not a few times it refers to God's judgment and
scattering of the chosen people because of their rejection of Christ. Too little is
24
made of this prophecy, the fulfillment of which is before the eyes of all
generations.
III. The theme of events being narrated in this chapter is that of the leaders of
Israel seeking to "destroy" Christ. In the question regarding authority, they had
been completely frustrated; and likewise in the parable of the wicked
husbandmen, it was quite obvious at last, even to the wicked leaders, that Christ
was speaking about them. They rallied and came back with a series of trick
questions, hoping to procure some word from Jesus that they could use as a
pretext for formal charges against him. The most likely area for them to explore
was the political issues of the day. This they did at once.
BURKITT, "In the parable before us, the Jewish church is compared to a
vineyard, God the father to an householder, his planting, pruning, and fencing
his vineyard, denotes his care to furnish his church with all needful helps and
means to make it fruitful; his letting it out to husbandmen, signifies the
committing the care of his church to the priests and Levites, the public pastors
and governors of the church; his servants are the prophets and apostles whom he
sent from time to time, to admonish them to bring forth answerable fruits to the
cost which God had expended on them; his son is Jesus Christ, whom the rulers
of the Jewish church slew and murdered. So that the design and scope of the
parable is, to discover to the Jews, particularly to the Pharisees, their obstinate
impenitency under all the means of grace, their bloody cruelty towards the
prophets of God, their tremendous guilt in crucifying the Son of God; for all
which God would unchurch them finally, ruin their nation, and set up a church
among the Gentiles, that should bring forth much better fruit than the Jewish
church ever did.
From the whole, note,
1. That the church is God's vineyard; a vineyard is a place inclosed, a place well
planted, well fruited, and exceeding dear and precious to the planter, and the
owner of it.
2. That as dear as God's vineyard is unto him, in case of barrenness and
unfruitfulness, it is in great danger of being destroyed and laid waste by him.
3. That the only way and course to engage God's care over his vineyard, and to
prevent its being given to other husbandmen, is to give him the fruits of it; it is
but a vineyard that God lets out, it is no inheritance: no people ever had so many
promises of God's favor as the Jews; nor ever enjoyed so many privileges while
they continued in his favor, as they did; but for rejecting Christ and his holy
doctrine they are a despised, scattered people throughout the world. See the note
on Matthew 21:39-40
BENSON, "Luke 20:9-19. A certain man planted a vineyard, &c. — See this
paragraph explained on Matthew 21:33-46, and Mark 12:1-12. And went into a
far country for a long time — It was a long time from the entrance of the
Israelites into Canaan to the birth of Christ. He shall destroy those
25
husbandmen — Probably he pointed to the scribes, chief priests, and elders; who
allowed, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, Matthew 21:41, but could
not bear that this should be applied to themselves. They might also mean, God
forbid that we should be guilty of such a crime as your parable seems to charge
us with, namely, rejecting and killing the heir. Our Saviour means, But yet ye
will do it, as is prophesied of you. He looked on them — To sharpen their
attention.
BI 9-19, "A certain man planted a vineyard
Lessons
1. Let us be thankful that God has planted His vineyard among us. We are situated, not in any of the deserts, or wastes, or commons, of the world, but in the vineyard, in “a garden inclosed,” in the very garden of the Lord.
2. Let us inquire whether we be rendering to the Lord of the vineyard the fruit which He expects in its season.
3. Beware of resembling these wicked husbandmen in their conduct, lest you also resemble them in their doom. What reception, then, are you giving to God’s ministers, and especially to God’s beloved Son?
4. In the last place, see that you give to the Lord Jesus that place in your spiritual building which is His due. Let Him be both at its foundation and at its top. Let Him be both “the author and the finisher of your faith.” (J. Foote, M. A.)
God’s manifold mercy
Like the drops of a lustre, which reflect a rainbow of colours when the sun is glittering upon them, and each one, when turned in different ways, from its prismatic form shows all the varieties of colour, so the mercy of God is one and yet many, the same yet ever changing, a combination of all the beauties of love blended harmoniously together. You have only to look at mercy in that light, and that light, and that light, to see how rich, how manifold it is. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
Fruitfulness the test of value
Years ago in Mentone they estimated the value of land by the number of olive-trees upon it. How many bearers of the precious oil were yielding their produce? That was the question which settled the value of the plot. Is not this the true way of estimating the importance of a Christian Church? Mere size is no criterion; wealth is even a more deceiving measure, and rank and education are no better. How many are bearing fruit unto the Lord in holy living, in devout intercession, in earnest efforts for soul winning, and in other methods by which fruit is brought forth unto the Lord? (Sword and Trowel.)
Abused mercy
Nothing so cold as lead, yet nothing more scalding if molten; nothing more blunt than iron, and yet nothing so keen if sharpened; the air is soft and tender, yet out of it are engendered thunderings and lightnings; the sea is calm and smooth, but if tossed
26
with tempests it is rough beyond measure. Thus it is that mercy abused turns to fury; God, as He is a God of mercies, so He is a God of judgment; and it is a fearful thing to fall into His punishing hands. He is loath to strike, but when He strikes, He strikes home. If His wrath be kindled, yea, but a little, woe be to all those on whom it lights; how much more when He is sore displeased with a people or person! (John Trapp.)
The Son rejected
Turning to the parable, notice—
I. THE OWNER’S CLAIM. His right and authority are complete. God presses His right to our love and service. Blessings are privileges, and privileges are obligations.
II. THE OWNER’S LOVING PATIENCE. There never was an earthly employer who showed such persistent kindness towards such persistent rebellion. The account of servants sent again and again, in spite of insults and death, is a faint picture of His forbearance towards Israel. Mercies, deliverances, revelations, pleadings, gather, a shining host, around all their history, as the angelic camp was close to Jacob on his journey. But all along the history stand the dark and bloodstained images of mercies despised and prophets slain. The tenderness of God in the old dispensation is wonderful; but in Christ it appears in a pathos of yearning.
III. THE REJECTION.
IV. THE JUDGMENT. It was just, necessary, complete, remediless.
V. THE FINAL EXALTATION OF THE SON. (Charles M. Southgate.)
The rejected Son
I. GOD’S INTEREST IN HIS VINEYARD. The great truths of the Old Testament are from the prophets rather than from the priests. The grand progress of truth has depended upon these fearless men. The age without its prophet has been stagnated. The priesthood is conservative; prophecy, progressive. The true prophet is always great; truth makes men great. Only by a clear understanding of the accumulating prophecies of the Old Testament can we appreciate the Divine care. In this lesson as to the care of God for His vineyard, Christ has marked the distinction between the functions of the prophets and Himself. They had spoken as servants; He as the Son. In such a comparison is seen the transcendent revelation of God in Christ. He was the heir. The interests of the Father were identical with His own. It was in such a comparison that Christ declared the infinite grace of God in the incarnation and its purpose.
II. THE IRREVERENCE OF MEN. The whole attitude of God toward His Church is that of an infinite condescension and pity.
1. The attitude of these men toward the truth. The greatest conflicts have been between the truth of God and the personal desires of men.
2. This antagonism is manifested in the treatment of those who are righteous. In one sense he who accepts a truth becomes its personation, and as a consequence must bear all the malignity of those who hate that same truth. Witness the treatment of the prophets in evidence. Because Micaiah uttered that which was displeasing to the government of Israel he was scourged and imprisoned. Because the prophet Jeremiah gave an unwelcome prophecy to his king, although it was the word of the Lord, he was thrown into a dungeon for his courage. No better
27
fate awaited the prophet Isaiah than to be sawn asunder by order of the ruler of God’s chosen people. It was the high priest who obtained a decree for the expulsion of Amos from Jerusalem.
3. This antagonism to the prophets of the truth is only a lesser expression of a burning hatred toward God. The spirit of hatred to the prophets would result in the killing of the Son of God. Whether the truth or man or God stands in the way of this lust for power, the result is the same.
III. THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE. Repeatedly this truth is brought out in the life of Christ. “They sought to lay hold on Him, but feared the people.” In these few words we recognize the corrective of the terrible accusation against human nature. If such a history is the expression of what is universal, then we must discern the fact that the truth is more safe in the hands of the many than of the few.
IV. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE OWNER OF THE VINEYARD. In the parallel account of this parable in Matthew, we read the question of Christ: “When the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” In all history this same truth has been often witnessed. The rejecters of God are self-rejected from Him. The power that is not used for God is taken from us and given to those who will use it. There are two practical suggestions very intimately connected with this theme that we briefly notice. First: The greatest hindrance to Christ’s kingdom may come from those who are the highest in the administration of its affairs. Second: The stupidity of wickedness. These very men who robbed God were robbing themselves. By planning to possess the vineyard they lost it. By attempting to keep the owner away they cast themselves out. God controls His own kingdom and Church. “The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner: this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.” (D. O. Mears.)
Parable of the vineyard let to husbandmen
I. THE MATERIALS OF WHICH THE PARABLE IS COMPOSED are objects which were familiar in Palestine, or common in warm countries; a vineyard, a proprietor, and tenants.
II. Let us next attend to THE OBJECTS WHICH OUR SAVIOUR HAD IN VIEW IN DELIVERING THIS PARABLE; or, what is the same thing, inquire what are the important truths contained in it. The objects of our Saviour in this parable seem to be
1. To point out the singular advantages bestowed on the Jews as a nation.
2. Their conduct.
3. Their punishment.
4. The transference of their advantages to others
Inferences:
1. From this passage we may learn that we, as Christians, possess a portion of that kingdom which the Lord Jesus came to establish. For the Christians came in the place of the Jews. This kingdom consists in privileges, in blessings, in superior knowledge, and superior means of improvement. Of those privileges we have much cause to be grateful, but none whatever to be proud. For they were not given because we were better than other nations: but they were bestowed solely that we might cultivate and improve them, and become the blessed instruments of conveying them to others.
28
2. That if we cease to bring forth the fruit of holiness, the kingdom of God will also be taken from us. God has given us much, and therefore of us much will be required. (J. Thomson, D. D.)
The Herodians and Pharisees combined against Jesus
1. The combination of men of opposite sentiments, in a particular case, affords no proof that truth and justice are connected with their temporary union.
2. In the conduct of the scribes and Pharisees on this occasion we see the disgraceful artifices which malice leads men to employ.
3. From this passage we may observe the perfect knowledge which Jesus had of the characters, principles, and intentions of His enemies.
4. The wisdom of Jesus was also conspicuous on this occasion. Had He been a mere man, we should have said He was distinguished by presence of mind. Now His wisdom is strongly displayed here. He might have refused to answer the question of the Pharisees and Herodians, as the Pharisees had done to Him. Or He might have given some dark enigmatical reply which they could not have perverted. But, instead of doing so, He gave a plain decided answer, without fear or evasion.
5. The fearless regard to truth which the Lord Jesus displayed on this occasion deserves to be carefully noticed. He did not mean to decline answering the question, Whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. On the contrary, He instantly declared that it was lawful; and not only lawful, but obligatory, as they themselves had unwillingly confessed. For the allusion to the denarius struck them forcibly; and they went away admiring the person whom they had come to expose and overwhelm.
6. Lastly, we may observe the disposition which our Saviour always showed to direct the attention of His hearers to the duty which they owed to God. If, then, we are to render to God the things that are God’s, we must render everything to God; for everything we have belongs to Him—our capacities, our opportunities, our advantages, our blessings. (J. Thomson, D. D.)
It will grind him to powder
The madness of opposing Christ
“It is said that a hundred thousand birds fly against the lights of the lighthouses along the Atlantic coast of the United States, and are killed annually.” So says a slip cut from this morning’s newspaper. We need not be afraid in these excited times that captious cavillers will put out our hope. The dark wild birds of the ocean keep coming forth from the mysterious caverns; they seem to hate the glitter of the lenses. They continue to dash themselves upon the thick panes of glass in the windows. But they usually end by beating their wings to pieces on the unyielding crystal till they fall dead in the surf rolling below. (C. S.Robinson, D. D.)
The wreck of infidelity
Some years ago, a man and his wife were found living in a wretched broken-down house in a low part of London; and although the husband was down with illness, his
29
only bed was a little straw, with a coarse dirty wrapper for a covering, and a brick for a pillow. An old chair and a saucepan appeared to be the only other furniture on the premises, while the wife in attendance was subject to fits, which made her for the time more like a wild animal than a woman. Though reduced to so wretched a condition, this man was really gifted and educated; and in days of health and strength he had worked with his pen for an infidel publisher. What, then, was the cause of his downfall? It so happened that the sufferer answered this question himself; for, casting his dull, leaden-looking eyes around the room after a visitor had entered, he remarked, “This is the wreck of infidelity!”
10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
GILL, "And at the season,.... Or "when it the time of fruit", as the Ethiopic version
renders it, agreeably to See Gill on Matthew 21:34,
he sent a servant to the husbandmen; or servants, as in Matthew 21:34; the prophets of
the Lord, his messengers, whom he sent to them, to exhort them to bring forth the
fruits of righteousness, as follows:
that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard; that is, that they, bringing forth
good fruit in their lives and conversations, whereby it might appear that they were
trees of righteousness, and the planting of the Lord; he, or they observing them, might
give an account of them to the Lord, to the glory of his name:
but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty; the Jews not only mocked
these messengers of the Lord, and despised their words, but misused them, 2
Chronicles 36:15 they beat them with their fists, smote them on the cheek, and
scourged them with scourges; so that they had no account to give of their fruitfulness
in good works, but the contrary; See Gill on Matthew 21:35 and See Gill on Mark
12:3.
JAMISON, "beat, etc. — (Matthew 21:35); that is, the prophets, extraordinary
messengers raised up from time to time. (See on Matthew 23:37.)
PETT, "Verses 10-12
“And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that they should give
him of the fruit of the vineyard, but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him
away empty. And he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and
handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And he sent yet a third, and
30
him also they wounded, and cast him out.”
When the appropriate time came, and no fruit was forthcoming, the owner then
sent a number of servants, one by one, in order to collect His portion of the fruit
of the vineyard. But in each case the servants were handled shamefully in order
to discourage them from persisting or returning. As so often ‘three’ indicates
completeness. These three cover all the prophets and men of God down to John.
None would have any difficulty here in recognising that this indicated all godly
men who had sought to speak to Israel, and none more so than the true prophets
whose treatment by Israel/Judah was a byword.
‘Sent -- a servant.’ See Jeremiah 7:25-26 - ‘I have sent unto you all my servants
the prophets, day by day rising up early and sending them -- but they made their
neck stiff and did worse than their fathers’, and 2 Chronicles 24:19 - ‘yet He sent
prophets to them to bring them again to the Lord’. (See also Matthew 23:30-36).
Compare also 2 Chronicles 36:15-19, ‘the Lord, the God of their fathers, sent
persistently to them by His messengers, because He had compassion on His
people, and on His dwellingplace, but they kept mocking the messengers of God,
despising His words and scoffing at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord
arose against His people, until there was no remedy --- therefore He slew their
young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary ---and they burned
down the house of God and broke down the walls of Jerusalem’. None knew
better than Jesus that history repeats itself. For the maltreatment of successive
men of God see also 1 Kings 18:13; 1 Kings 22:27; 2 Chronicles 24:20-21;
Nehemiah 9:26; and for the sending of prophets, Jeremiah 25:4; Amos 3:7
Zechariah 1:6. The consequences that followed are also clearly described.
Note that Luke deliberately leaves out the mention of the death of some of the
servants. He wants to emphasise the contrast between the servant and the son. It
is only the Son Whose death is really significant.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:10-12
He sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the
vineyard. After the pains and care bestowed upon the vineyard, that is, after the
many mighty works done in Israel's behalf, the Lord of hosts looked for fruits of
gratitude and fidelity in some proportion to the mighty favours which it had
received from him. The people were intended to be the example to, and the
educators of, the world, and, instead of carrying out these high functions, they
lived the poor selfish life so sadly depicted in the long story contained in the
historical and prophetical books. "He looked that it [his vineyard] should bring
forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes" (Isaiah 5:2). But the husbandmen
beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they
beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And
again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. These
represent the prophets, those faithful servants of the Lord, whose toils and trials
and fate are painted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11.) in such glowing and
eloquent language. And again he sent. In Luke 20:11 and Luke 20:12, προσέθεο
31
πέμψαι, literally, "he added to send another"—a Hebraism. This shows St. Luke
here based his account on a Hebrew (Aramaic) original. Professor Bruce well
puts the thoughts which possessed the wicked husbandmen thus: "When the
servants came for fruit, they were simply surprised. 'Fruit! did you say? We have
occupied the position of vine-dressers, and have duly drawn our wages: what
more do you want?' Such was the actual fact in regard to the spiritual heads of
Israel. They were men who never thought of fruit, but only of the honour and
privilege of being entrusted with the keeping of the vineyard. They were triflers,
men utterly devoid of earnestness, and the practical purpose of the property
committed to their charge they habitually forgot. Generally speaking, they had
utterly lost sight of the end of Israel's calling." Their anger flamed forth when
accredited messengers of the Lord visited them and reminded them of their
forgotten duties; they vented their furious wrath by persecuting some and killing
others of these faithful men.
11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed.
GILL, "And at the season,.... Or "when it the time of fruit", as the Ethiopic
version renders it, agreeably to See Gill on Matthew 21:34,
he sent a servant to the husbandmen; or servants, as in Matthew 21:34; the
prophets of the Lord, his messengers, whom he sent to them, to exhort them to
bring forth the fruits of righteousness, as follows:
that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard; that is, that they, bringing
forth good fruit in their lives and conversations, whereby it might appear that
they were trees of righteousness, and the planting of the Lord; he, or they
observing them, might give an account of them to the Lord, to the glory of his
name:
but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty; the Jews not only
mocked these messengers of the Lord, and despised their words, but misused
them, 2 Chronicles 36:15 they beat them with their fists, smote them on the
cheek, and scourged them with scourges; so that they had no account to give of
their fruitfulness in good works, but the contrary; See Gill on Matthew 21:35
and See Gill on Mark 12:3.
32
12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.
GILL, "And again he sent the third,.... Perhaps after the return of the Jews from
captivity, and between that time and the coming of Christ, in which interval
many good men were used in a very inhuman manner, Hebrews 11:37
and they wounded him also; by casting stones at him; see Mark 12:4
and cast him out; of the vineyard.
13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’
GILL, "Then said the Lord of the vineyard,.... Who planted it, and let it out to
husbandmen, and expected fruit from it, and sent his servants from time to time
for it:
what shall I do? or what can be done more than has been done? Isaiah 5:4 who
else can be sent that is likely to do any good with such an ungrateful and
unfruitful people?
I will send my beloved Son; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who lay in his
bosom, was the darling of his soul, and the delight of his heart; him he
determined to send, and him he did send to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:
it may be they will reverence him, when they see him: it might be thought after
the manner of men, that considering the greatness of his person, as the Son of
God, the nature of his office, as the Redeemer and Saviour of men, the doctrines
which he preached, the miracles which he wrought, and the holiness and
harmlessness of his conversation, and the great good he did both to the bodies
and souls of men, that he would have been had in great esteem and veneration
with the men, to whom he was sent, and among whom he conversed: but, alas!
when they saw him, they saw no beauty, comeliness, and excellency in him, and
nothing on account of which he should be desired by them.
JAMISON, "my beloved son — Mark (Mark 12:6) still more affectingly,
33
“Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved”; our Lord thus severing Himself
from all merely human messengers, and claiming Sonship in its loftiest sense.
(Compare Hebrews 3:3-6.) it may be — “surely”; implying the almost
unimaginable guilt of not doing so.
PETT, "Finally the owner of the vineyard decided that He would give them one
last chance. He would send to them his beloved son. This was with the twofold
hope, firstly that they would acknowledge the potential owner as having the right
to collect payment, and secondly in the hope that their consciences might be
moved at the thought of the special and precious beloved son, with the result that
that they would repent and respond to Him. They would recognise that while
they might get away with illtreating servants, it would be a very different matter
with the only son. In Isaiah 5:1-7 the Beloved was God Himself. Here the Beloved
is His Son. Compare also Luke 3:22, ‘You are My beloved Son’. The implication
was clear for all who had eyes to see. It is as clear a declaration of Jesus’
uniqueness, and of His Sonship as it is possible to have. Only the spiritually and
obstinately blind could fail to see it.
And yet, as was necessary at this time of such bitterness, His claim was couched
in such a way that it could not be used as an instrument against Him. All knew,
however, that if they questioned Him about it He would come back with one of
His devastating questions, such as, ‘Why do you think that this applies to Me?’
All would know that it did, and they would simply be left looking foolish. But it
would equally appear foolish to charge Him with blasphemy on account of it
unless they were willing to admit His claim.
The sending of the Son is seen as God’s final act towards men. If they will not
respond to Him, and to those who go out in His Name, they will not respond to
anyone. Hebrews 1:1-3 may well have partly resulted as a consequence of this
parable.
Some may argue that no father in his right senses would do such a thing, and
they would, of course, be right. But this is not speaking of any father. It is
speaking of God. And this is precisely what God amazingly did do. It is meant to
sound remarkable. It was remarkable (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9-10; Romans 5:8;
Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 1:1-3).
PULPIT, "Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do! I will send my
beloved son. The guilt of the husbandmen who acted as vine-dressers here
reached its highest measure. The words represented here by Jesus as spoken by
God, possess the deepest doctrinal value. They, under the thin veil of the
parable-story, answer the question of the Sanhedrim (Luke 20:2), "By what
authority doest thou these things?" The deliberative words, "What shall I do?"
recall the Divine dialogue alluded to in Gem. Luke 1:26. St. Luke here represents
the Father as calling the Son, "my Beloved." St. Mark adds that he was an only
Son. Such sayings as this, and the remarkable prayer of Matthew 11:25-27, are a
clear indication of the Christology of the synoptists. Their estimate of the Person
of the blessed Son in no wise differed from that given us by St. John at much
greater length and with fuller details.
34
14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’
GILL, "But when the husbandmen saw him,.... In human nature, heard him
preach, and observed the miracles done by him:
they reasoned among themselves; as the Scribes and Pharisees, and elders of the
people often did:
saying, this is the heir; the heir of God, being his Son; and so the Ethiopic
version; "this Son is his heir", or the heir of the vineyard; being, by
appointment, heir of all things, and by his descent from David heir to the
kingdom of Israel;
come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. The Arabic and Persic
versions render it, "and his inheritance shall be ours": the nation, city, temple,
and all the emoluments and benefits thereof. The word "come" is left out in the
Alexandrian copy, and in the Gothic and Vulgate Latin versions.
JAMISON, "reasoned among themselves — (Compare Genesis 37:18-20; John
11:47-53).
the heir — sublime expression of the great truth, that God‘s inheritance was
destined for, and in due time to come into the possession of, His Son in our
nature (Hebrews 1:2).
inheritance … ours — and so from mere servants we may become lords; the deep
aim of the depraved heart, and literally “the root of all evil.”
PETT, "The reaction of the husbandmen is then given. Reasoning with each
other (which has been seen to be a trait of the Jewish leaders - Luke 20:5) they
determined what they would do. They would kill the heir so that they might
retain control of the inheritance. For the Law allowed for the fact that if those in
physical possession of land were able to farm it untroubled by anyone for a
number of years they could claim legal possession of it also.
Certainly as the Jewish leaders saw the great crowds hanging on to Jesus’ every
word they must have felt that ‘their inheritance’ was slipping away from them.
Thus the picture is graphic, and in view of their plans to kill Jesus, telling. And
once He was out of the way they would be able to regain control over the
inheritance.
35
‘Let us kill him.’ The words are similar to those used by Joseph’s brothers in
Genesis 37:20 (see LXX). Jesus was likening these men to Joseph’s brothers, full
of hate and jealousy. They were the forerunners of the persecutors of the
prophets, and of these men who now planned Jesus’ downfall.
PULPIT, "But when the husbandmen saw him; they reasoned among
themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance
may be ours. The husbandmen are represented as knowing the son and heir. Nor
can we resist the conclusion that some at least of those grave learned men who
sat in the Sanhedrim as priests or scribes well knew who the Speaker of the
awful words claimed to be, and, in resisting him and seeking his destruction,
were deliberately sinning against the voice of their own hearts.
Luke 20:15, Luke 20:16
So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. The parable-story of itself
was an improbable one. The conduct of the husbandmen, the long patience of the
owner of the vineyard, his last act in sending his beloved and only son, ― all this
makes up a history without a parallel in human experience. Yet this is an exact
sketch of what did actually take place in the eventful story of Israel! What
therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy
these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. Again a hint of a
solemn deliberation in heaven, a prophetic picture of the future of the Jewish
race fulfilled with terrible exactness. And when they heard it, they said, God
forbid! Well understood they the Speaker's meaning here. He foreshadowed, in
no veiled language, the utter ruin of the Jewish polity. When they heard this,
forgetting to be scornful, they exclaimed, in deprecation of the ominous and
terrible prediction, ΄ὴ γένοιτο! which we render accurately, though not literally,
"God forbid!"
Luke 20:17, Luke 20:18
And he beheld them, and said, What is this then thai; is written, The stone which
the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever
shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will
grind him to powder. In spite of the deprecating expression, the severity of the
tone of Jesus increases in his next words, when, looking at them with grave anger
( ἐμβλέψας), he proceeds to speak of himself under the figure of the rejected
stone. Quoting a well-known psalm (Psalms 118:22), and using the imagery of
Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 8:15 and Daniel 2:44, he describes his fortunes under the
imago of a corner-stone—that stone which forms the junction between the two
most prominent walls of a building, and which is always laid with peculiar care
and attention. In Luke 2:34 of our Gospel Simeon refers to the same well-known
prophetic saying. The husbandmen who had just been described as vine-dressers
are now described as builders, and the murdered son is reproduced under the
image of a corner, stone tossed aside as useless. In the first part of the picture,
the earthly humiliation of Messiah is portrayed when the stone is laid in the
earth. In the second, the stone falling from the top of the building represents the
36
crushing of all earthly opposition by Messiah in his glory. Woe to the builders,
then, who had scornfully rejected him
15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?
GILL, "So they cast him out of the vineyard,.... Rejected him as the Messiah,
even denied that he was of the Jewish nation; said he was a Samaritan, and
delivered him to the Gentiles that were without, and were aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel; and at last had him without their city, and put him to
death, as follows:
and killed him; the Prince of life, the Lord of glory, and heir of all things; see
Acts 2:23
what therefore shall the Lord of the vineyard do unto them? the husbandmen,
the chief priests, elders, Scribes, and Pharisees; at whose solicitations the life of
his Son, and heir, was taken away; by which he must be greatly provoked and
incensed.
JAMISON, "cast him out of the vineyard — (Compare Hebrews 13:11-13; 1
Kings 21:13; John 19:17).
PETT, "The result was that the servants rejected the son, expelling him from the
vineyard and killing him. This was a clear warning to the Jewish leaders that
both God and Jesus were fully aware of their murderous intentions. The
expulsion from the vineyard indicated that it was their intention that Jesus be
seen as excommunicated and cut off from Israel (the vineyard is Israel, not
Jerusalem), and the killing simply described what was in their minds. And then
He gave His warning, “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them?”
Let them think well of the consequences of what they were doing.
Mark has ‘they killed him and cast him forth out of the vineyard’. The ideas are
not necessarily contradictory. It is rather a matter of where they wish the
emphasis. For if the son was physically attacked and mortally wounded on
entering the vineyard, retreating before the onslaught and collapsing dead
37
outside the vineyard under their final blows, either description would be true.
The question would then be, is someone killed when they are first mortally
wounded, or when they finally collapse and die? The difference is thus one of
emphasis, not of chronological order. Luke is wanting to lay stress on the son as
being like the One Who is numbered among the Gentiles in His death, as well as
on His being killed, Mark’s emphasis is on the blows that commenced the death
throes of the son in the first place, the fist initial, vindictive and murderous
attack. ‘Killed him and cast him out’ are simply two events that took place
together. The verbs in translation can therefore be in any order that fits the
grammar, for the physical order of words in one language is never the same as
the physical order in another.
‘Cast him forth out of/from the vineyard.’ This could signify:
1) The expulsion of Him from Israel by being cut off from among the people
and ‘branded’ a renegade, and an excommunicate
2) The expulsion of Him to take His place among the Gentiles, the greatest
humiliation that the Jews could place on a homeborn Israelite.
3) Simply a parabolic description.
As with all Jesus’ parables that were not explained the actual application was left
to the listener and the reader, so that different ones could take it in different
ways which were not exclusive.
NISBET, "THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN
‘What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?’
Luke 20:15
Notice—
I. The vineyard.
(a) Its owner (see Isaiah 5:7).
(b) What the owner did with it (see Isaiah 5:1-2).
II. The husbandmen.
(a) Their privileges and how they used them.
(b) Their rebellion and how it ended.
The Jewish Church had served its end. The Jews thought it was to last for ever;
but a great Church was to arise which should embrace all nations, Jews and
Gentiles. And who was to be the Head of it? The Son they ‘cast out’—the ‘stone’
they refused (Acts 4:11-12) was to be the chief corner stone.
We are part of His kingdom. We are now in God’s vineyard. Then what does
God expect from us? Fruit. Are we yielding any? Is the world any the better for
our being in it? Are we rebellious? Not listening to God’s voice? Forgetting Who
gives us all our blessings? Despising His Son? (Hebrews 6:6.) Then we must
38
prepare for the King’s displeasure—for banishment from His presence.
—Rev. Canon Watson.
SIMEON, "THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN
Luke 20:15. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore
shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
WHEN the mind is unbiassed, it can easily discern between truth and error,
especially where the grounds of judgment are clear and strong. But where
persons are under the influence of prejudice or worldly interest, they are blind to
the most obvious conclusions, and obstinately tenacious of the most absurd
opinions. Hence our Lord spake so much in parables; because his adversaries,
not aware of their drift at first, were easily brought to acknowledge things,
which, if more plainly delivered, would have excited the most inveterate
opposition. In this manner he gained their assent to the equity of God in
executing the heaviest judgments on themselves and their whole nation.
This was the scope of the parable before us [Note: Read the whole parable, ver.
9–16.] — — — in opening which, we shall shew,
I. In whom this heinous wickedness is found—
It was manifestly accomplished in those to whom the parable was spoken—
[God had planted his Church among the Jews, and had cultivated it with
peculiar care [Note: Isaiah 5:1-4.]. From it he expected a revenue of honour and
glory: and when the people were forgetful to pay it, he sent his prophets to
remind them of their duty, and to stir them up to the performance of it. But they
abused his messengers in every successive age, and beat them, and sent them
away empty. He, however, averse to punish them as they deserved, sent, last of
all, his Son, in hopes that, when they should see his exalted dignity, his clear
credentials, and his unbounded benevolence, they would reverence and obey
him. But they, wishing to retain undisturbed possession of their lusts, determined
to cast him out and kill him. And though, when warned that they would do so,
they exclaimed, ‘God forbid that we should treat the Messiah thus [Note: ver.
16.]!’ they actually fulfilled the parable within the space of three days, and put to
death God’s only begotten Son.]
And is it not accomplished in us also?
[It is true that we cannot crucify him as the Jews did, because he is not within
our reach; but nevertheless we cast him out with as much indignity as ever they
did. As he was among them, “the man whom the nation abhorred,” so is he still
“despised and rejected of men,” “a butt of contradiction” to an ungodly world
[Note: Luke 2:34-35.]. How is he treated by the ungodly and profane [Note: Shew
under each of these heads (printed in Italics) what the Lord requires of them;
which however they will not do.]? When he comes to them in the ministry of the
39
word, and demands their hearts for God, do they not thrust him away, saying,
“Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us [Note: Acts 7:27.]?” “We will not
have this man to reign over us [Note: Luke 19:14.]?” And how do the self-
righteous moralists regard him [Note: Shew under each of these heads (printed
in Italics) what the Lord requires of them; which however they will not do.]?
When he calls them to build on him as the only foundation of their hopes, do
they not make him a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence [Note: Romans
9:30-33.]? Do they not persist in going about to establish their own righteousness,
instead of thankfully submitting to his [Note: Romans 10:3.]? Among his very
followers too, are there not many self-deceiving professors [Note: Shew under
each of these heads (printed in Italics) what the Lord requires of them; which
however they will not do.], who acknowledge him in words, but in works deny
him [Note: Titus 1:16.]? If others crucify him more openly, these, like Judas,
betray him with a kiss. Lastly, what shall be said of vile apostates [Note: Shew
under each of these heads (printed in Italics) what the Lord requires of them;
which however they will not do.], who having once embraced his cause, decline
from his ways, and go back unto the world? Are we not expressly told, that they
crucify him afresh [Note: Hebrews 6:6.], and “tread him under foot?” By all of
these then is Jesus cast out of the vineyard, as much as ever he was by the Jews
of old.]
Let us then consider attentively,
II. What portion such persons must expect—
The Jews, as our Lord foretold, were visited with the heaviest calamities—
[They, when interrogated by our Lord, confessed what such labourers must
expect at the hands of their lord [Note: Matthew 21:41.]. And behold, it
happened to them according to their word. That generation was not passed
away, before their city was burnt up, their people were massacred without
distinction, and their whole polity, civil and religious, was dissolved. Nor can any
one reflect on their treatment of their Messiah, without acknowledging the equity
of those unparalleled judgments that were inflicted on them.]
And shall not the wrath of God fall on those also who contemn him now?
[Let our Lord’s appeal be considered, “What shall the lord of the vineyard do
unto them?” Would any rational person imagine that he should shew kindness to
such obstinate transgressors? Do we not see immediately that God must be
incensed against them? must he not be displeased with those who withhold from
him the tribute of their love? Must he not be indignant also that his messages of
mercy are so continually slighted? And above all, must not the contempt poured
upon his only dear Son, provoke him to anger? What can we expect, but that his
wrath should wax hot against us, and “burn even to the lowest hell [Note:
Deuteronomy 32:22.]?” Let any one impartially consider the ingratitude and
impiety of such conduct, and he will confess that the everlasting punishment of
such offenders is no more than adequate to their just desert [Note: Hebrews 2:3;
Hebrews 10:28-29.].]
40
Let us then learn from this parable,
1. That we are accountable to God for all the advantages we enjoy—
[If God has made us his vineyard, and bestowed culture upon us, doubtless such
a favour entails upon us an obligation to love and serve him. And if he have sent
a succession of faithful servants to remind us of our duty, and direct us in the
performance of it, this also calls for correspondent acknowledgments from us.
Above all, if he have sent us his only dear Son, not only to instruct us, but to die
for us, we should be incessantly filled with admiration of his love, and with zeal
for his glory. But these very mercies, if overlooked and despised, will bring upon
us the heavier indignation. Think then for how many things, both temporal and
spiritual, you are indebted to God; and begin immediately to render to him his
dues. That which, above all, he requires is, the tribute of a grateful heart. O that
he may receive it daily from us; and that we may devote ourselves to him in
body, soul, and spirit!]
2. That we are peculiarly responsible for our treatment of Jesus Christ—
[Christ is the Father’s greatest gift. Our past abuse of all his other mercies may
be forgiven, provided we be duly sensible of this mercy. However long we have
alienated God’s property, yea, however shamefully we have abused his other
messengers, if now we repent us of our sins, and turn to him in the name of
Jesus, he will pardon our past transgressions, and remember our iniquities no
more. But, if we continue to slight the Saviour, all other changes will be to no
purpose. We may turn from profaneness to morality, or may even profess a
regard for Jesus himself; yet if we do not cordially receive him for all the ends
and purposes for which he was sent into the world, we shall only deceive
ourselves to our eternal ruin. Let us then “look on him whom we have pierced,
and mourn.” Then shall God’s indignation be turned to love; and we shall be
made partakers of his eternal inheritance.]
16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
When the people heard this, they said, “God forbid!”
GILL, "He shall come and destroy these husbandmen,.... Which had its
accomplishment at the destruction of Jerusalem: according to the other
41
evangelists, these words are the answer of the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, to
the above questions put to them by Christ, after he had delivered the parable;
but here they seem to be the words of Christ, who also said the same, and
confirmed what they had observed, and could not but own, that it was just and
right, and what might be expected, with what follows:
and shall give the vineyard to others; the land of Judea to the Romans in
particular, and the church state, with the Gospel and ordinances of it, to the
Gentiles in general, sometimes called "others"; See Gill on Luke 5:29 and See
Gill on Luke 18:11.
and when they heard it, they said, God forbid; though they were their own
words, yet repeated and confirmed by Christ, and perceiving that they were the
persons intended, deprecate the fulfilment of them; at least so far as they
understood they related to the killing of the Messiah, and to the destruction of
their nation, city, and temple.
JAMISON, "He shall come, etc. — This answer was given by the Pharisees
themselves (Matthew 21:41), thus pronouncing their own righteous doom.
Matthew alone (Matthew 21:43) gives the naked application, that “the kingdom
of God should be taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the
fruits thereof” - the great evangelical community of the faithful, chiefly Gentiles.
God forbid — His whole meaning now bursting upon them.
PETT, "What the Lord of the vineyard will do is then spelled out by means of
the answer to a typical question. What will He do with them? He will destroy the
evil men who have done this thing, and give the vineyard to others. No one could
really have been in doubt about the final ending. It was the obvious conclusion.
Nevertheless its literal fulfilment was remarkable. For Jerusalem would, within
forty years after the death of Jesus, be destroyed, and the care of God’s people
would have been removed elsewhere, initially, among other places, to Syrian
Antioch (Acts 13), and then to the church leaders of the local communities. But
Jerusalem would be left empty.
‘To others.’ Presumably the Apostles, compare Luke 22:30; Matthew 16:18-19;
Matthew 18:18. We can compare here Matthew 21:43, ‘The Kingly Rule of God
will be taken away from you and given to a nation bringing forth its fruits’, not
strictly another nation, but a new Israel as headed by His followers. It was of
that new Israel, which excluded the unbelievers in the old Israel, that all who
became Christians would become a member (Romans 11:17-27; Galatians 3:29;
Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11-22).
‘And when they heard it, they said, “God forbid.” ’ As we must surely assume
that a good number present recognised the significance of His parable from the
start, at least in general outline, some such expostulation is not unexpected. The
thought of God’s people being removed from the control of the High Priest and
of the Sanhedrin would have appeared to the people like the end of the world. It
would sound like another Exile. What would have been surprising would have
been if there had been no reaction. For the consequences had been vividly
42
described. This is, of course, a summary of the reaction which would have been
even more vociferous. We are not expected to think that everyone said exactly
this like some huge automaton. It indicates their intended meaning, not actually
what everyone said. But what it does bring out is that they all recognised what
the parable was saying.
It should be noted that the fact that the resurrection is not in some way included
in the parable serves to confirm that the parable is as given before the
resurrection and not altered afterwards. We thus have it in its pre-resurrection
state. But the idea of the resurrection is now introduced, although as something
added in additionally, not as a direct part of the parable, and it is in the form of
a quotation from Scripture.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:16
Deprecation and doom.
We may regard—
I. THE FORCE OF THESE WORDS AS ORIGINALLY APPLIED. The people
who listened to this parable:
1. Deprecated a guilt in which they were to be partakers. "God forbid," said
they, "that we should do such shameful things as these, that we should be in any
way involved in such crimes as these! Whosesoever hands may be dyed with the
blood of the Husbandman's Son, ours shall be stainless." Yet were they moving
on to the last and worst enormity, and already were they doing their best to
bring about the guilty consummation.
2. Deprecated a doom to which they were descending. "God forbid," said they,"
that we should be subjected to the Divine wrath, and that we should lose that
place of privilege we have so long enjoyed! May Heaven avert from us the
calamity of having to yield to another nation or kingdom the post of honor, the
place of privilege, which our fathers handed down to us!" But they were then
pursuing the course which led inevitably to this very doom. If they only walked
on in the path along which they were then hurrying, they were bound to reach
that "miserable" end.
II. ITS APPLICATION TO OUR OWN HEARTS AND LIVES.
1. We may be supposing ourselves incapable of wrong-doing the seeds of which
are already sown in our heart. Hazael proved to have "dog" enough in him to do
the worst things he shuddered at when he spoke (2 Kings 8:13). David discovered
that he was capable of a selfishness which he was condemning to death in
another (2 Samuel 12:5-7). These Jews shrank from an action which was
described to them, as a thing too base for them to commit; and yet they were in
the very act of committing it. We little know what possibilities of evil are within
us; we cannot estimate aright our own capacity for wrong-doing. Probably every
man has in his heart something of which sin may lay hold in some dark hour,
43
and by which he may conceivably be led down to guilt and shame. The
declension and fall of those who once stood among the worthiest and the most
honored speaks to us in earnest tones of the possible wandering of our own souls
from God and goodness. Even Paul realized this stern possibility, and acted upon
it (1 Corinthians 9:27). The histories of the erring and ruined souls of men who
once seemed beyond the reach of wrong and crime, but who became entangled in
their meshes and were slain by them, call upon us to be
(1) watchful with a constant vigilance, and
2. We may be supposing ourselves safe from a doom which lies straight in front
of us. How many a youth imagines himself secure from a degradation and a
darkness toward which he has, in the sight of God, already set his foot! How
many a man considers himself safe from a low and dishonorable level, when he is
already on the slope that leads down to it I What if we could see the goal to
which the path we tread is tending! "God forbid," we say, "that this should be
our destiny!" and all the while our face is turned in that direction. There is "an
earnest need for prayer" that God would show us what is the way in which we
are walking; that, if we are in the wrong road, he would "apprehend" us even as
he apprehended his chosen messenger (Philippians 3:12), and turn our feet into
the way of his testimonies (Psalms 139:23, Psalms 139:24).—C.
17 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written:
“‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’[a]?
GILL, "And he beheld them,.... Looked very earnestly and wistly at them,
speaking as it were by his looks, signifying, that verily so it would be, as he had
said; that they would reject the Messiah, and put him to death, and bring utter
ruin upon themselves, and deprive their posterity of many advantages and
privileges:
and said, what is this then that is written; that is, what else is the meaning of
such a Scripture? is not the sense of that perfectly agreeable to what has been
said, that the Messiah shall be rejected by the principal men among the Jews in
church and state, and yet he shall be exalted, who will then take vengeance on
them?
the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
44
The passage is in Psalm 118:22. See Gill on Matthew 21:42.
JAMISON, "written — (in Psalm 118:22, Psalm 118:23. See on Luke 19:38). The
Kingdom of God is here a Temple, in the erection of which a certain stone,
rejected as unsuitable by the spiritual builders, is, by the great Lord of the
House, made the keystone of the whole. On that Stone the builders were now
“falling” and being “broken” (Isaiah 8:15), “sustaining great spiritual hurt; but
soon that Stone should fall upon them and grind them to powder” (Daniel 2:34,
Daniel 2:35; Zechariah 12:3) - in their corporate capacity in the tremendous
destruction of Jerusalem, but personally, as unbelievers, in a more awful sense
still.
PETT, "This method of finishing off a parable with a Scripture quotation is
regularly found among the Rabbis.
For then Jesus looked at them and emphasised the reference to Himself as the
beloved Son by citing Psalms 118:22, and declaring that ‘The stone which the
builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner.’ They might reject
Him, He is telling them, but they cannot prevent Him from being made the chief
cornerstone of God’s saving purposes. For while they may kill the Son it will not
be the end. He will rise again and be the foundation and seal on which God’s
salvation will be based. The verse is used similarly in Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7.
The chief corner stone was either the corner stone of the foundation which had
to bear the weight of the building, or the stone which when it was finally set in
place, completed the building and held it together as one (the cap-piece). Here it
is seen as being in the first place rejected by the builders because they cannot see
how it will fit in, only for them to discover in the end that it was the essential
cornerstone. (We are not intended to ask whether builders could be so stupid,
although no doubt some could. The whole point of the parable is to bring out the
stupidity of those of whom it speaks by an exaggerated picture).
In contrast to this firm Foundation Stone on Whom the future will be based, and
on which other stones will be erected (Ephesians 2:19-22), are the ‘goodly stones’
of the Temple which will be cast down and left not one stone upon another (Luke
19:44; Luke 21:5-6). The One is to replace the other (compare John 2:19-22; 1
Corinthians 3:11-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16-18).
It should be noted that it was from this Psalm that the people greeted Jesus as He
rode into Jerusalem (see Luke 20:26). It was probably a Psalm used in festal
situations for among other things welcoming the king or ruler of Israel as he
ceremonially entered Jerusalem or the Temple with a view to making an offering
(Luke 20:27). It was thus a suitable picture for application to the King Himself
Who would shortly offer Himself upon the altar chosen by God.
SIMSON, "THE REJECTED CORNER STONE
Luke 20:17-18. And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written,
The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the
corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on
45
whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
MANY truths delivered by our Lord militated strongly against the carnal
notions of his hearers: they were ready on many occasions to reply, “This is an
hard saying, who can hear it?” But he invariably appealed to their own
Scriptures in confirmation of his word. Nor could any better method of silencing
their objections be possibly devised. He had just warned the priests and elders
that they would kill their Messiah; and that God would on that account transfer
his Church to the Gentiles [Note: ver. 13–16.]. They, not conceiving that either of
those events could ever take place, cried, “God forbid!” Our Lord, in reply,
referred them to their own Scriptures, and added a most awful declaration of his
own, in order that he might impress the passage more deeply on their minds. We
shall consider,
I. The passage appealed to—
The words in their primary sense refer to David [Note: David’s establishment on
the throne of Israel had been opposed to the uttermost: Saul had laboured
incessantly to kill him: after the death of Saul, two tribes only acknowledged him
as their king: it was seven years before the other tribes became subject to him:
and then all the surrounding nations sought his destruction. But God made him
triumphant over all: in remembrance of which mercy he penned the words
before us. See Psalms 118:10; Psalms 118:22.]—
But they most undoubtedly have a reference to Christ also—
[Christ is represented in Scripture as the stone that should both support and
connect the Church of God [Note: Isaiah 28:16.]: and the passage referred to in
the text particularly declared, that he should be rejected by the very persons
whose duty it was to edify and build up the Church. It announced however the
determination of God to frustrate their designs, and to establish him as the head
of the corner in spite of all their endeavours to destroy him. In this view the
passage is quoted no less than six times in the New Testament: and its full
accomplishment was triumphantly proclaimed before the very builders who had
rejected him [Note: Acts 2:36; Acts 4:11-12.]—]
The particular manner in which our Lord appealed to them is worthy of notice—
[He “beheld” the objectors with a mixture of indignation and pity. He referred
them to the words as to a passage well known among them, and generally
considered even among themselves as applicable to the Messiah. His very look,
together with the pointed manner of his address, intimated to them, that they
were at that moment ignorantly fulfilling that prophecy, and that nothing but the
most inveterate prejudice could induce them to persist one moment longer in
such glaring impiety.]
The importance of this appeal will more strongly appear, if we consider,
II. The declaration founded upon it—
46
The latter part of the text is understood by most as intimating the more
aggravated punishment that persecutors would incur beyond that of other
unbelievers [Note: They suppose also that there is an allusion to the manner in
which persons were stoned to death, viz. by casting them down first upon a large
stone, and then throwing large stones upon them.]. Perhaps we may rather
understand it as importing,
1. That all, who stumble at Christ, greatly endanger their own souls—
[Many are the grounds of offence which Christ affords to proud and ungodly
men. To some the sublimity, to others the simplicity, to some the strictness, and
to others the grace of his Gospel, becomes a stumbling-block. Hence some
professedly “deny the Lord who bought them,” while others, “call him Lord, but
will not do what he commands.” These equally stumble at Christ himself [Note: 1
Peter 2:8.]. And as he who falls upon a great stone, will bruise and maim his
body, so does he who thus stumbles at Christ wound his own soul [Note: What
pangs of conscience, and dread of death and judgment, do such persons
experience!]. Solomon, expressly speaking of Christ, attests this awful truth
[Note: Proverbs 8:30; Proverbs 8:36.]—]
2. That they who provoke him to cut them off in their impenitence, will
perish certainly and without a remedy—
[Many have rejected him for a season, and found acceptance with him at last;
but they who abide in unbelief must inevitably perish. The despised Jesus will
fall upon them at the last day, and grind them to powder: the weight of rocks
and mountains would not more effectually crush a potter’s vessel, than he will
his obstinate and unbelieving enemies [Note: Psalms 2:9.].]
Surely this is a declaration which deserves the deepest attention—
[They who oppose the truth of Christ, think that they shall retard his work; at
least, they do not apprehend that they shall endanger themselves. But they “kick
against the pricks [Note: Acts 9:5.].” As well may persons hope to wound a rock
by casting themselves down upon it, as that they shall ever prevail against the
Church of Christ: the injury will ultimately be sustained by themselves alone.
The voice of God therefore in the text is like that of David, “Kiss the Son, lest he
be angry, and ye perish from the way [Note: Psalms 2:12.].]
Advices—
1. Attend diligently to every word of God which ye read or hear—
[The knowledge, which the Jews had by means of the Scriptures, rendered their
guilt in rejecting Christ incomparably more heinous than that of the Roman
soldiers; and we who enjoy the still clearer light of the New Testament, must
contract ten-fold guilt if we reject him. How shall we be able to endure that
appeal which will be made to us in the day of judgment, ‘Were not such and such
47
things written respecting me? were not my invitations, promises, and
expostulations set before you? were you not forewarned of the evils which a
rejection of me would bring upon you?’ — — — Give earnest heed then to the
word ye hear, lest, instead of proving a savour of life unto life, it become a savour
of death unto death [Note: 2 Corinthians 2:16.].]
2. Examine carefully what regard ye are paying to Christ—
[All do not make him the head of the corner: many reject him still. If we be not
with him, we are against him [Note: Matthew 12:30.]. All that disobey him, as
truly stumble at him, as if they were his avowed enemies [Note: 1 Peter 2:8.].
Inquire then whether ye make him the foundation whereon ye build, and the
corner-stone that unites you in love to every part of God’s spiritual temple. By
this must ye know that ye are his true disciples.]
3. Be thankful if you have attained even the smallest knowledge of Christ—
[There is no hope whatever for those who, in a Christian land, die ignorant of
Christ [Note: 2 Thessalonians 1:8.]. But they who know him, have nothing to
fear. To them is promised eternal life [Note: John 17:3.]. When the whole
assembly of the ungodly shall be banished from his presence, they shall stand
with great boldness [Note: 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10.]. When the wicked will be
crying to the rocks and mountains to fall upon them, the followers of the Lamb
will be triumphing in their God. This promise is sure to all the seed [Note:
Romans 9:33.]. Let Jesus then be more precious to all our souls; let us willingly
consent to his being the head of the corner; let us, as lively stones, ever seek to be
built up upon him [Note: 1 Peter 2:4-5.]; and, though we should be despised and
rejected like him, let us never be ashamed of owning him as all our salvation and
all our desire.]
PULPIT, "Luke 20:17
The rejection and exaltation of Christ.
We look at—
I. THE REJECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. Its strangeness.
1. From an evidential point of view. How came the builders to reject that
valuable Stone? How was it that all the miracles of Jesus, so wonderful, so
beneficent, so simple, and so credible as they were; that the life of Jesus, so holy
and so beautiful, so gracious and so winning as it was; that the truth spoken by
Jesus, so profound, so original, so lofty, so satisfying to the deepest wants of man
as it was;—how came it to pass that all this left him the "despised and rejected of
men"?
2. From a providential point of view. How do we account for it that there should
have been such a long and complicated preparation for the coming of the
Messiah of the Jews, and of the Redeemer of mankind, and that he should fail to
48
be recognized when he came? Does not all that Divine arrangement of Law and
ritual and prophecy, of privilege and discipline, seem to have been attended with
failure? Of what use was all that elaborate preparation, when the people of God
rejected the Son of God? when he to whom everything pointed, and of whom
everything foretold, was not welcomed and honored, but denounced as a deceiver
and slain as a criminal?
II. CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ACCOUNT FOR IT; or which, if they do not
account for it, lessen our surprise concerning it.
1. As to the evidential difficulty. We need not wonder that the very strongest
evidence failed to convince those who were unconvinced. What evidence can
prevail against bigotry (or prejudice) and selfishness combined? Our knowledge
and experience of mankind must have abundantly proved that either of these can
repel the clearest and weightiest proofs; much more can both of them. And
surely prejudice and self-interest never found a firmer seat than they found in
the minds of the "chief priests and the scribes" who led the opposition to our
Lord.
2. As to the providential difficulty. We must take into our consideration
III. HIS EXALTATION.
1. Notwithstanding his humiliation. That Stone was rejected indeed; that
Teacher was silenced, that Prophet slain, that cause covered with infamy; those
hopes, cherished by a few disciples, were laid in the tomb and covered from
sight; yet, notwithstanding all that apparent defeat and discomfiture, that "Stone
has become the Head of the corner," that Teacher the great Teacher of Divine
wisdom, that Prophet the acknowledged Savior of mankind, that cause the
kingdom of God upon earth.
2. ,is the reward of his humiliation. "Wherefore also God hath highly exalted
him" (Philippians 2:6-11; Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:10).
3. As the result of his humiliation. "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto
me." The cross has been the great loadstone which has been attracting the world.
It is to a crucified Savior, once slain for our sins, dying in mercy toward our
race, that we are drawn in faith and love. It is he "who loved us, and gave
himself for us" unto such shame and sorrow and death—it is he whom we rejoice
to make the Friend of our heart and the Sovereign of our life.
1. Learn the place of privilege. It is well for us that we stand where we do
stand—at a point in time where we can recognize the Corner-stone. The
mountain is best seen afar off, the city or the sea is best seen from above, the
character of the generation is best understood after some interval of time. We
know Jesus Christ better than we should have done had we lived when he was
the Stone rejected of the builders. We could not be better placed than we are by
the providence of God for understanding him and rejoicing in his worth.
49
2. Know the day of opportunity. Recognizing the true character of that once-
slighted "Stone," knowing Jesus Christ as we know him now, it is for us to
accept him without delay as our personal Redeemer, and to commend him, with
all devotedness, to the estimation and trust of all beholders.—C.
18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”
GILL, "Whosoever shall fall on that stone, shall be broken,.... Not who shall fall
upon Christ by faith, and build upon him as the foundation stone, for such shall
be saved; but that stumble at him, and are offended with him, and fall by
unbelief and hardness of heart; such do themselves much hurt and mischief and
expose themselves to danger and ruin; they bid very fair for destruction:
but on whomsoever it shall fall; as it did with its full weight upon the Jews at
their destruction, and as it will upon all Christless sinners at the last day:
it will grind him to powder; the ruin of such will be unavoidable, and there will
be no recovery; See Gill on Matthew 21:44.
PETT, "This method of finishing off a parable with a Scripture quotation is
regularly found among the Rabbis.
For then Jesus looked at them and emphasised the reference to Himself as the
beloved Son by citing Psalms 118:22, and declaring that ‘The stone which the
builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner.’ They might reject
Him, He is telling them, but they cannot prevent Him from being made the chief
cornerstone of God’s saving purposes. For while they may kill the Son it will not
be the end. He will rise again and be the foundation and seal on which God’s
salvation will be based. The verse is used similarly in Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7.
The chief corner stone was either the corner stone of the foundation which had
to bear the weight of the building, or the stone which when it was finally set in
place, completed the building and held it together as one (the cap-piece). Here it
is seen as being in the first place rejected by the builders because they cannot see
how it will fit in, only for them to discover in the end that it was the essential
cornerstone. (We are not intended to ask whether builders could be so stupid,
although no doubt some could. The whole point of the parable is to bring out the
stupidity of those of whom it speaks by an exaggerated picture).
In contrast to this firm Foundation Stone on Whom the future will be based, and
on which other stones will be erected (Ephesians 2:19-22), are the ‘goodly stones’
50
of the Temple which will be cast down and left not one stone upon another (Luke
19:44; Luke 21:5-6). The One is to replace the other (compare John 2:19-22; 1
Corinthians 3:11-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16-18).
It should be noted that it was from this Psalm that the people greeted Jesus as He
rode into Jerusalem (see Luke 20:26). It was probably a Psalm used in festal
situations for among other things welcoming the king or ruler of Israel as he
ceremonially entered Jerusalem or the Temple with a view to making an offering
(Luke 20:27). It was thus a suitable picture for application to the King Himself
Who would shortly offer Himself upon the altar chosen by God.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:18
Contact and conflict with Christ.
There is one thing which, as a stone or rock, Christ is willing and waiting to be to
us; there is that also which, in spite of his own desire concerning us, we may
compel him to be to us.
I. THE ROCK ON WHICH WE MAY BUILD.
1. Christ desires to be as the Corner-stone or Foundation-stone on which the
whole structure of our character and of our destiny is resting.
2. If we exercise a living faith in him, we shall find him to be all this to us.
II. THE ROCK AGAINST WHICH WE ARE BRUISED OR EVEN BROKEN,
We cannot come, in any sense or degree, into conflict with Christ without being
injured by the act.
1. To turn from him is to deprive ourselves of the best; it is to rob ourselves of
the highest motives to rectitude and spiritual worth, of the deepest springs of
goodness and of beauty, of the heavenliest influences that can breathe upon the
soul, of the purest and most elevating joys that can fill the heart, of the noblest
activities that can occupy and crown our life.
2. To reject him, whether by deliberate and determined refusal or by a foolish
and guilty procrastination, is to do conscious wrong to ourselves; it is to injure
our conscience, to weaken our will, to suffer constant spiritual deterioration, to
be moving along that downward slope which ends in darkness of mind and in
self-despair,
3. To disobey the commandments of Christ is to come into collision with those
laws of God which are also laws of our spiritual nature, any and every infraction
of which is attended with inward and serious injury; e.g. to hate our brother
without a cause, to look with lustful eye, to love our own life rather than the
cause of God and righteousness,—this is to suffer harm and damage to the spirit.
4. To work against Christ and his gospel is to be constructing that which will be
51
destroyed, is to be delving and building on the sand with the tide coming in
which will wash everything away. In no way can we take up an attitude of
resistance to Jesus Christ without "wronging our own soul;" it may be by a cruel
renunciation of all that is best, or it may be by incurring the judgment which
must fall and does tan upon folly and sin.
III. THE ROCK WHICH MAY CRUSH US IN ITS FALL. "On whomsoever it
shall fall," etc. The snow-drift and the glacier are magnificent objects on which
to gaze; but how terrible is the descending, destructive avalanche! It is simply
inevitable that the brightest light should cast the deepest shade; that fullest
privilege and most abounding opportunity should, in the case of the guilty, end
in deepest condemnation and severest penalty (John 3:19; Hebrews 6:4-8;
Philippians 3:18, Philippians 3:19). "When God arises to judgment," when the
rock of Divine dissatisfaction falls, when the "wrath of the Lamb" is revealed,
then must there be made known what God intends by "everlasting destruction
from his presence." All that is meant by that we do not know: we may well
resolve that, by timely penitence and loving faith, we will never learn by the
teaching of our own experience.—C.
19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.
GILL, "And the chief priests, and the Scribes, that same hour,.... As soon as he
had delivered the above parable, together with that of the two sons:
sought to lay hands on him; they had a good will to it, being exceedingly
gravelled with the question he put to them concerning John's baptism, which
confounded them, and put them to silence; and with the parables he delivered, in
which they were so manifestly pointed at:
and they feared the people; lest they should rise and stone them, as in Luke 20:6
or rescue him out of their hands;
for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them: and that they
were the husbandmen that had used the servants of God so ill, and would put to
death the son of God, the Messiah; and who would at length be destroyed
themselves, and the kingdom of God be taken from them, though they seem to
detest and deprecate it, saying in Luke 20:16 God forbid; that we should kill the
52
heir, or that we should be destroyed, and the vineyard given to others: these
things grievously nettled them, and exasperated them against him; but they knew
not how to help themselves at present.
BARCLAY, "CAESAR AND GOD (Luke 20:19-26)
20:19-26 The scribes and chief priests tried to lay hands on Jesus at that very
hour; and they feared the people, for they realized that he spoke this parable to
them. They watched for an opportunity, and they despatched spies, who
pretended that they were genuinely concerned about the right thing to do, so that
they might fasten on what he said and be able to hand him over to the power and
the authority of the governor. They asked him, "Teacher, we know that you
speak and teach rightly, and you are no respecter of persons. Is it lawful for us to
pay tribute to Caesar? Or not?" He saw their subtle deception and said to them,
"Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription is on it?" They said,
"Caesar's." "Well then," he said to them, "give to Caesar what belongs to
Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." There was nothing in this
statement that they could fasten on to in the presence of the people. They were
amazed at his answer, and had nothing to say.
Here the emissaries of the Sanhedrin returned to the attack. They suborned men
to go to Jesus and ask a question as if it was really troubling their consciences.
The tribute to be paid to Caesar was a poll-tax of one denarius, about 4 pence,
per year. Every man from 14 to 65 and every women from 12 to 65 had to pay
that simply for the privilege of existing. This tribute was a burning question in
Palestine and had been the cause of more than one rebellion. It was not the
merely financial question which was at stake. The tribute was not regarded as a
heavy imposition and was in fact no real burden at all. The issue at stake was
this--the fanatical Jews claimed that they had no king but God and held that it
was wrong to pay tribute to anyone other than him. The question was a religious
question, for which many were willing to die.
So, then, these emissaries of the Sanhedrin attempted to impale Jesus on the
horns of a dilemma. If he said that the tribute should not be paid, they would at
once report him to Pilate and arrest would follow as surely as the night the day.
If he said that it should be paid, he would alienate many of his supporters,
especially the Galilaeans, whose support was so strong.
Jesus answered them on their own grounds. He asked to be shown a denarius.
Now, in the ancient world the sign of kingship was the issue of currency. For
instance, the Maccabees had immediately issued their own currency whenever
Jerusalem was freed from the Syrians. Further, it was universally admitted that
to have the right to issue currency carried with it the right to impose taxation. If
a man had the right to put his image and superscription on a coin, ipso facto he
had acquired the right to impose taxation. So Jesus said, "If you accept Caesar's
currency and use it, you are bound to accept Caesar's right to impose taxes";
"but," he went on, "there is a domain in which Caesar's writ does not run and
which belongs wholly to God."
(i) If a man lives in a state and enjoys all its privileges, he cannot divorce himself
53
from it. The more honest a man is, the better citizen he will be. There should be
no better and no more conscientious citizens of any state than its Christians; and
one of the tragedies of modern life is that Christians do not sufficiently take their
part in the government of the state. If they abandon their responsibilities and
leave materialistic politicians to govern, Christians cannot justifiably complain
about what is done or not done.
(ii) Nonetheless, it remains true that in the life of the Christian God has the last
word and not the state. The voice of conscience is louder than the voice of any
man-made laws. The Christian is at once the servant and the conscience of the
state. Just because he is the best of citizens, he will refuse to do what a Christian
citizen cannot do. He will at one and the same time fear God and honour the
king.
COFFMAN, "The purpose of the leaders was clearly stated by Luke in this
paragraph. They planned to trip Jesus up with a dilemma. If Jesus said it was
unlawful to give tribute to Caesar, he might have lost much of his popular
following; and if the Pharisees could have turned the vast multitudes away from
Christ, they could have killed him without causing the uproar they feared. On
the other hand, if he said that it was not lawful to give tribute to Caesar, they
were planning to prefer charges before the Roman governor against him as a
seditionist, that is, a man rebelling against lawful authority and forbidding the
people to pay taxes.
The hypocrisy of the leaders is seen in the spies and their flattering approach to
Jesus, but his omniscience is seen in the perfect understanding of his questioners
and their wicked devices.
Kings and rulers in all ages, as well as all governments, held that the coinage of
the realm was the property of the issuing authority. This is still true today in the
United States of America. Thus Christ's reaction to this trick question was: (1) to
establish that Caesar's coinage was in circulation, which he did by inquiring for
a coin; (2) then to point out that it could not be wrong to "give back" to Caesar
that which was already his! The powerful thrust of this is implicit in two words
that surfaced in the confrontation. The Pharisees spoke of "paying" tribute;
Jesus spoke of "giving back" what already belonged to the central authority! (3)
Next, he took a step forward from this and demanded that those hypocrites also
"give back" to God what was his, namely the temple which they had usurped
and made a den of robbers, and themselves, created in God's image, they should
"give back" to God. The ages have not diminished the glory of this astounding
answer.
IV. One is a little surprised at the Sadducees appearing in this cabal against the
Lord; and the desperation of the Pharisees' case is evident in their including
those old enemies of theirs in the contest. This was due to the fact that the
Sadducees were the stronger political party, holding most of the high offices,
including that of high priest; and these were in fact, the principal architects in
the plot to kill Jesus. At any rate, they tried their luck against the Lord of Life.
54
PULPIT, "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay
hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken
this parable against them. Again the Sanhedrim take counsel. They long to arrest
him on some capital charge; but they dared not, for the people, joined by the
Passover pilgrims, had exalted him to the rank of a hero. Not a few evidently
looked on him at that period as King Messiah, But the feeling of the great council
was intensely bitter. They felt their power and influence was slipping away from
them. These last parables were scarcely veiled attacks on them. In the last spoken
words he had calmly announced that he was to die, and their hands were to
carry out the bloody work. And then, in the simile of the corner-stone, he, in no
ambiguous terms, told them that in killing him they will not be done with him,
for that in the end they will be utterly crushed by his power.
PETT, "The parable made the Scribes and the chief priests even more
determined to arrest Jesus, and they sought to find ways of doing so, but always
the people got in the way, for they would not leave Jesus alone. And while the
people were there in such huge numbers they recognised that any attempt to
arrest Him would simply cause excessive trouble.
We may, perhaps, conclude our comments on this passage by drawing from the
application made of the parable by a well known scholar:
· It tells us of human privilege. God had given to His people an inheritance
which all recognised as a blessing.
· It tells us of human sin. Man misuses what God has given and
appropriates it for his own purposes.
· It tells us of human responsibility. The inheritance was given in order that
man may pay his proper respects to God and show his proper respect to his
neighbour.
· It tells us of God’s patience. Over the long centuries, while God had
chastened His people, He had preserved them through it all and had even
brought them back to their land. And now He was still lovingly reaching out to
them.
· It tells us of God’s mercy. In reaching out to them He even gave His only
beloved Son.
· It tells us of God’s judgment. One day the consequence of this can only be
that for those who have rejected His Son will come judgment.
· It tells us that Jesus knew what was coming and yet did not turn back
from it. he suffered for us, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring
us to God.
· It tells us that He never doubted God’s ultimate triumph. He knew that in
the end God’s purposes would prevail and man’s folly be revealed for what it is.
· It tells us that He is the only beloved Son of God, greater than Moses and
all the prophets, even greater than John the Baptiser. They were beloved
servants but He is the beloved Son. There is no other.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:19-26
The sacred and the secular. There are three preliminary truths which may be
55
gathered before considering the proper subject of the text.
1. The worthlessness of heartless praise. What value do we suppose Jesus Christ
attached to the eulogium here pronounced (Luke 20:2)? How worthless to him
now are the epithets which are uttered or the praises which are sung by lips that
are not sincere?
2. The evil end of a false attitude toward Christ. The attitude of hostility which
his enemies had definitely taken up led them to resort
3. The final discomfiture of guilt. (Luke 20:26.) It is silenced and ashamed.
Respecting the principal subject before us, we should consider—
I. TWO NOTIONS THAT FIND NO COUNTENANCE IN OUR LORD'S
REPLY,
1. When Jesus answered, "Render unto Caesar," etc., he did not mean to say
that the spheres of the secular and the sacred lie so apart that we cannot serve
God while we are serving the state. Let none say, "Politics are politics, and
religion is religion." That is a thoroughly unchristian sentiment. If we ought to
"eat and drink," if we ought to do everything to the glory of God, it is certain
that we ought to vote at elections, to speak at meetings, to exercise our political
privileges, and to discharge our civil duties, be they humble or high, to the glory
of God, it is certain that we ought to vote at elections, to speak Christ as truly
and as acceptably in the magistrates' court, or in the lobby of the House of
Commons, as he can be in the school or the sanctuary.
2. Nor did Christ mean to say that these spheres are so apart that a man cannot
be serving the state while he is engaged in the direct service of God; for, indeed,
there is no way by which we render so true and great a service to the whole body
politic as when we are engaged in planting Divine truth in the minds and hearts
of men; then are we sowing the seeds of peace, of industry, of sobriety, of every
national virtue, of a real and lasting prosperity.
3. Nor yet that there are no occasions whatever when we may act in opposition to
the state. Our Lord encouraged his apostles in their refusal to obey an
unrighteous mandate (Acts 5:28, Acts 5:29).
II. THE LEADING TRUTH WHICH CHRIST'S WORDS CONTAIN, Viz. that
our obligation to God does not conflict with our ordinary allegiance to the civil
power. If the latter should enjoin apostasy, or blasphemy, or positive immorality,
then disobedience would become a duty, and might rise into heroism, as it has
often done. But ordinarily, we can serve God and be loyal citizens at the same
time, and this none the less that the rulers whom we serve are Mohammedans or
pagans. To be orderly and law-abiding under the rule of an infidel is as far as
possible from being unchristian. On the contrary, it is decidedly Christian (see 1
Timothy 2:2; Romans 3:1-7). Indeed, service rendered to "the froward" has a
virtue not possessed by service to "the good and gentle." and faithful citizenship
"in a strange land" may be a more valuable and acceptable service than in a
56
Christian country. Our duty, in the light of Christ's teaching, is not that of
discovering conscientious objections to the support of the civil government; it is
rather that of rendering a hearty obedience to the Divine will, and also of
conforming in all loyalty to the requirements of human law.
Paying Taxes to Caesar
20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.
CLARKE, "They watched him - Παρατηρησαντες, Insidiously watching. See on
Luke 14:1; (note).
Spies - Εγκαθετους, from εν, in, and καθιημι, I let down, to set in ambush. One
who crouches in some secret place to spy, listen, catch, or hurt. Hesychius
explains the word by ενεδρευοντες, those who lie in wait, or in ambush, to
surprise and slay. Josephus uses the word to signify a person bribed for a
particular purpose. See War, b. ii. c. ii. s. 5, and b. vi. c. v. s. 2. No doubt the
persons mentioned in the text were men of the basest principles, and were hired
by the malicious Pharisees to do what they attempted in vain to perform.
GILL, "And they watched him,.... What he said, and what he did, and where he
went, that they might take an advantage against him, or know where he was, to
send to him, as they should think fit, and take the best opportunity of so doing.
The Syriac and Persic versions leave out this clause:
and sent forth spies which should feign themselves just men: of virtue and
religion, conscientious men, that would do nothing but what was just and right,
and were desirous of being exactly informed of the truth of things, that they
might act right in every punctilio:
that might take hold of his words; improve them, and form a charge upon them,
of sedition and treason:
that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor; the
Roman governor, and by him be put to death. These men were some of them the
disciples of the Pharisees, and others were Herodians; see Matthew 22:16.
57
HENRY, "Verses 20-26
Christ's Enemies Nonplussed.
20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves
just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him
unto the power and authority of the governor. 21And they asked him, saying,
Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the
person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: 22Is it lawful for us to give
tribute unto Cæ sar, or no? 23But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto
them, Why tempt ye me? 24Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription
hath it? They answered and said, Cæ sar's. 25 And he said unto them, Render
therefore unto Cæ sar the things which be Cæ sar's, and unto God the things
which be God's. 26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people:
and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
We have here Christ's evading a snare which his enemies laid for him, by
proposing a question to him about tribute. We had this passage before, both in
Matthew and Mark. Here is,
I. The mischief designed him, and that is more fully related here than before.
The plot was to deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor, Luke
20:20. They could not themselves put him to death by course of law, nor
otherwise than by a popular tumult, which they could not depend upon and,
since they could not be his judges, they would willingly condescend to be his
prosecutors and accusers, and would themselves inform against him. They hoped
to gain their point, if they could but incense the governor against him. Note, It
has been the common artifice of persecuting church-rulers to make the secular
powers the tools of their malice, and oblige the kings of the earth to do their
drudgery, who, if they had not been instigated, would have let their neighbours
live quietly by them, as Pilate did Christ till the chief priests and the scribes
presented Christ to him. But thus Christ's word must be fulfilled by their cursed
politics, that he should be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles.
II. The persons they employed. Matthew and Mark told us that they were
disciples of the Pharisees, with some Herodians. Here it is added, They were
spies, who should feign themselves just men. Note, It is no new thing for bad men
to feign themselves just men, and to cover the most wicked projects with the most
specious and plausible pretences. The devil can transform himself into an angel
of light, and a Pharisee appear in the garb, and speak the language, of a disciple
of Christ. A spy must go in disguise. These spies must take on them to have a
value for Christ's judgment, and to depend upon it as an oracle, and therefore
must desire his advice in a case of conscience. Note, Ministers are concerned to
stand upon their guard against some that feign themselves to be just men, and to
be wise as serpents when they are in the midst of a generation of vipers and
scorpions.
III. The question they proposed, with which they hoped to ensnare him. 1. Their
preface is very courtly: Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly,
Luke 20:21. Thus they thought to flatter him into an incautious freedom and
58
openness with them, and so to gain their point. They that are proud, and love to
be commended, will be brought to do any thing for those that will but flatter
them, and speak kindly to them but they were much mistaken who thought thus
to impose upon the humble Jesus. He was not pleased with the testimony of such
hypocrites, nor thought himself honoured by it. It is true that he accepts not the
person of any, but it is as true that he knows the hearts of all, and knew theirs,
and the seven abominations that were there, though they spoke fair. It was
certain that he taught the way of God truly but he knew that they were unworthy
to be taught by him, who came to take hold of his words, not to be taken hold of
by them. 2. Their case is very nice: "Is it lawful for us" (this is added here in
Luke) "to give tribute to Cæ sar--for us Jews, us the free-born seed of Abraham,
us that pay the Lord's tribute, may give tribute to Cæ sar?" Their pride and
covetousness made them loth to pay taxes, and then they would have it a question
whether it was lawful or no. Now if Christ should say that it was lawful the
people would take it ill, for they expected that he who set up to be the Messiah
should in the first place free them from the Roman yoke, and stand by them in
denying tribute to Cæ sar. But if he should say that it was not lawful, as they
expected he would (for if he had not been of that mind they thought he could not
have been so much the darling of the people as he was), then they should have
something to accuse him of to the governor, which was what they wanted.
IV. His evading the snare which they laid for him: He perceived their craftiness,
Luke 20:23. Note, Those that are most crafty in their designs against Christ and
his gospel cannot with all their art conceal them from his cognizance. He can see
through the most politic disguises, and so break through the most dangerous
snare for surely in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird. He did not give
them a direct answer, but reproved them for offering to impose upon him--Why
tempt ye me? and called for a piece of money, current money with the
merchants--Show me a penny and asked them whose money it was, whose stamp
it bore, who coined it. They owned, "It is Cæ sar's money." "Why them," saith
Christ, "you should first have asked whether it was lawful to pay and receive Cæ
sar's money among yourselves, and to admit that to be the instrument of your
commerce. But, having granted this by a common consent, you are concluded by
your own act, and, no doubt, you ought to give tribute to him who furnished you
with this convenience for your trade, protects you in it, and lends you the
sanction of his authority for the value of your money. You must therefore render
to Cæ sar the things that are Cæ sar's. In civil things you ought to submit to the
civil powers, and so, if Cæ sar protects you in your civil rights by laws and the
administration of justice, you ought to pay him tribute but in sacred things God
only is your King. You are not bound to be of Cæ sar's religion you must render
to God the things that are God's, must worship and adore him only, and not any
golden image that Cæ sar sets up " and we must worship and adore him in such
way as he had appointed, and not according to the inventions of Cæ sar. It is
God only that has authority to say My son, give me thy heart.
V. The confusion they were hereby put into, Luke 20:26. 1. The snare is broken
They could not take hold of his words before the people. They could not fasten
upon any thing wherewith to incense either the governor or the people against
him. 2. Christ is honoured even the wrath of man is made to praise him. They
59
marvelled at his answer, it was so discreet and unexceptionable, and such an
evidence of that wisdom and sincerity which make the face to shine. 3. Their
mouths are stopped they held their peace. They had nothing to object, and durst
ask him nothing else, lest he should shame and expose them.
PETT, "This verse beautifully sums up the true situation. These men who
approached Jesus, who were sent by the Sanhedrin who waited out in the
darkness, and pretended to a great deal of righteousness and godly concern,
were actually tricksters whose one aim was to catch Him out and report Him to
the governor for subversion. They wanted to entrap Him into saying something
seditious, i.e. that ‘it was not lawful to pay tribute to Caesar’.
Mark tell us that they were an unholy alliance of Pharisees and Herodians
(Galilean court officials), but Luke does not want to complicate things for his
readers, who would know nothing of the Herodians (see Mark 12:13 and
compare Mark 3:6).
PULPIT, "And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign
themselves just men, that they might take held of his words, that so they might
deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. In their intense
hatred, conscious that the populace were on the whole in sympathy with Jesus,
the Sanhedrim, to carry out their design on his life, determined to avail
themselves of the hated Roman military police. Their hope henceforward is to
substantiate a charge of treason against him. This was, in those troublous times,
when insurrection against the detested Gentile rule was ever being plotted, a
comparatively easy matter. The incident of the tribute money, which
immediately follows, was part of this new departure in the Sanhedrin policy
respecting the murder they so longed to see carried out.
PETT, "Verses 20-26
The Second Test: Is It Lawful To Give Tribute To Caesar? (20:20-26).
In the chiasmus of the Section this challenge parallels the challenge concerning
His authority (Luke 20:1-8). Sneakily they seek to take advantage of His claim to
speak with authority by trapping Him into subversive remarks that can then be
passed on to the Roman Governor as examples of His treasonable behaviour.
In most countries the question would have been fairly easy to answer, but in
Israel it was a minefield, for while most reluctantly paid their denarius poll tax
they did so because of what would have happened to them and their children if
they did not, but they did it with reluctance and with hatred in their hearts.
However, for any prophet to suggest that they should pay it even reluctantly
would have been the death knell for any hopes that the prophet had to be
listened to. He would be instantly discredited. Prophets were supposed to stand
out for what was right, not to give in to expediency (that was for common folk
like them).
Analysis.
60
a They watched Him, and sent out spies, who put on a pretence that they
themselves were righteous, in order that they might take hold of His speech, so as
to deliver Him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor (Luke 20:20).
b They asked Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that you say and teach rightly,
and do not accept the person of any, but of a truth teach the way of God. Is it
lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:21-22)
c But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Show me a denarius.
Whose image and superscription has it?” And they said, “Caesar’s” (Luke
20:23-24).
b And He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and
to God the things that are God’s” (Luke 20:25).
a And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people, and they
marvelled at His answer, and held their peace (Luke 20:26).
Note that in ‘a’ their aim was to ‘take hold of Him in His speech, and in the
parallel we learn that they were unable to take hold of His saying before the
people. In ‘b’ the question was as to whether it was lawful to give tribute to
Caesar, and in the parallel He gave His answer. And centrally in ‘c’ He calls on
them to produce the coin that He will cite in evidence against them.
BENSON, "Verses 20-26
Luke 20:20-26. And they watched him — For an elucidation of this paragraph,
see on Matthew 22:16-22, and Mark 12:13-17; and sent spies, which should feign
themselves just men — Men scrupulously conscientious in every point: that they
might take hold of his words — If he answered as they hoped he would. Master,
we know then sayest, &c. — Speakest in private, and teachest in public; the way
of God truly — The true path of duty. They could not take hold of his words
before the people — As they did afterward before the sanhedrim, in the absence
of the people, chap. Luke 22:67, &c.
BURKITT, "Both St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us, that these spies, sent forth to
ensnare our Saviour about paying tribute to Caesar, were the Pharisees and
Herodians: the former were against paying tribute, looking upon the Roman
emperor as an usurper; the latter were for it. These two opposite parties
concluded, that, let our Saviour answer how he would, they should entrap him;
if, to please the Pharisees, he denied paying tribute, then he is accused of
sedition; if, to gratify the Herodians, he voted for paying tribute, then he is
pronounced an enemy to the liberty of his country, and exposed to a popular
odium.
But observe with what wisdom and caution our Lord answers them: he calls for
the Roman penny, and asks them, whose superscription it bare? They answer,
Caesar's. Then says he, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. As if he
had said, "Your admitting the Roman coin amongst you, is an evidence that you
are under subjection to the Roman emperor; because the coining and imposing
of money is an act of sovereign authority; therefore you having owned Caesar's
authority over you, by accepting of his coin amongst you, give unto him his just
dues, and render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."
61
Learn hence,
1. That our Saviour was no enemy to magistracy and civil government; there was
no truer pay-master of the king's dues, than he that was King of kings; he
preached it and he practised it, Matthew 17:27
2. Where a kingdom is in subjection to a temporal prince, whether by descent,
election, or conquest, he derives the title, the sujects ought from a principle of
conscience to pay tribute to him.
3. That as Christ is no enemy to the civil rights of princes, and his religion
exempts none from paying their civil dues, so princes should be as careful not to
rob him of his divine honor, as he is not to wrong them of their civil rights. As
Christ requires all his followers to render to Ceasar the things that are Caesar's,
so princes should oblige all their subjects to render unto God the things that are
God's.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:20-40
Christ supreme in debate.
We have seen in the last section how our Lord told a parable whose bearing was
unmistakably against the Jewish rulers. They are determined, in consequence, to
so entrap him in discussion as, if possible, to bring him within the grasp of the
Roman governor. But in entering the doubtful field of debate with a base
purpose such as this, it was, as the sequel shows, only to be vanquished. Jesus
proves more than a match for the two batches of artful men who try to entrap
him. Let us look at the victories separately, and then at Jesus remaining Master
of the field.
I. HIS VICTORY OVER THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY. (Luke 20:21-26.)
This party was composed mainly of Pharisees. They corresponded to the modern
revolutionary party in settled or conquered states. They were constantly
fomenting sedition, plotting against the Roman power, the sworn enemies of
Caesar. They come, then, with their difficulty about tribute. But notice:
1. Their real tribute to Christ's character in their pretended flattery. (Luke
20:21.) They own to his face that he was too brave to make distinctions among
men or to accept their persons. In other words, their testimony clearly is that,
like God his Father, Jesus was "no respecter of persons." No one is fit to be a
teacher of truth who panders to men's tastes or respects their persons. Only the
impartial mood and mind can deal with truth truthfully. In the hollow flattery of
the Pharisees we find rich testimony to the excellency of Jesus.
2. Notice their scruple about paying tribute. (Luke 20:22.) The law of the nation
might possibly be made to teach the duty of being tributary to none. It was this
they wished to elicit from him, and so hand him over to the governor as seditious.
They wished a pretext for revolution, and if he furnished them with one and
perished for it, so much the better, they imagined. The baseness of the plot is
62
evident. Their hearts are hostile to Caesar, but they are ready to become
"informers" against him for the sake of getting rid of him.
3. Notice how simply he secured a victory. Showing them at once that he knew
their designs, he asks them to show him a penny. In his poverty he hardly
possessed at this time a spare penny to point his teaching. Having got the penny,
he asks about the image on the currency, and receiving for answer that it was
Caesar's, he simply instructs them to give both Caesar and God their due.
Caesar has his domain, as the currency shows. He regulates the outward
relations of men, their barter and their citizenship, and by his laws he makes
them keep the peace. But beyond this civil sphere, there is the moral and the
religious, where God alone is King. Let God get his rights as well as Caesar, and
all shall be well. These words of Christ sounded the death-knell of the Jewish
theocracy. They point out two mutually independent spheres. They call upon
men to be at once loyal citizens and real saints. We may do our duty by the state,
while at the same time we are conscious citizens of heaven, and serve our unseen
Master in all things. £
II. HIS VICTORY OVER THE SADDUCEES. (Luke 20:27-38.) The Pharisees
having been confounded by his subtle power, he is next beset by the rival party,
the party of sceptical and worldly tendencies. They have given over another
world as a no-man's land, the region of undoubted difficulty and puzzle.
Especially do they think it impossible to settle the complicated relations into
which men and women enter here in any hereafter. Accordingly they state a case
where, by direction of the Mosaic Law, a poor woman became successively the
wife of seven brothers. In the other life, ask they, whose wife shall she be?
Christ's answer is again triumphant through its simplicity. In the immortal life
to which resurrection leads there shall be no marrying or giving in marriage. All
shall be like. the angels. No distinction in sex shall continue. All are to be "sons
of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Revised Version). The complicated
earthly relations shall give place to the simplicity of sonship. God's family shall
embrace all others. His Fatherhood shall absorb all the descending affections
which on earth illustrate feebly his surpassing love, and our sonship to him will
embrace all the ascending affection which his descending love demands. The
Simplicity of a holy family, in which God is Father and all are brethren, and the
angels are our highborn elder brethren, will take the place of those complex
relationships which sometimes sweeten and sometimes sadden human love. But,
in addition, our Lord renders Sadducceism ridiculous by showing from the
Scriptures these sceptics revered that the patriarchs had not ceased to be, but
were still living in the bosom of God. For God, in claiming from the burning
bush to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed the reality of life
beyond death. It was a demonstration of the resurrection. The patriarchs must
have been living worshippers when God was still their God, and this life unto
him demands for its perfection the resurrection. The plenitude of life is
guaranteed in the continued and worshipful life beyond the grave. In this simple
and perfect fashion Jesus silences the Sadducees.
III. HE REMAINS COMPLETE MASTER OF THE FIELD. (Luke 20:39, Luke
20:40.) They are beaten in the field of debate. Jesus is Victor. There is no
63
question now which they can ask him. All is over on the plane of intellectual and
moral argument. Not even a Parthian arrow can be shot against him. But
treachery and brute force remain, and they can have him betrayed and crucified
whom they cannot refute. Resort to weapons like these is always proof of
weakness. Victory has always been really with the persecuted party. Persecution
on the part of any cause or organization demonstrates its inherent weakness.
Hence we hail the Christ in the temple as the supreme Master and Conqueror of
men. The very men who put unholy hands upon him must have felt that they
were doing the coward's part after ignominious defeat. The weapons of our
warfare should always be spiritual; with carnal weapons we only confess defeat
and court everlasting shame.—R.M.E.
BI 20-26, "They watched Him
Christ was watched, and so are we
The chief priests and rulers of the Jews watched Jesus, but not to learn the way of salvation.They watched Him with the evil eyes of malice and hatred, desiring to take hold of His words, to entangle Him in His talk, that they might accuse Him, and deliver Him up to die. He loved all men, yet He was hated and rejected of men; He went about doing good, yet they tried to do Him harm. The enemies of Christ are ever watching for our fall, eager to hear or to tell any evil thing about us, ready to cast the stone of slander against us. You know that the whitest robe first shows the stain, let us remember whose purity we wear if we have put on Christ. Let us strive “to walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” If we are tempted to say or do something which is equivocal, though the way of the world, let us pause and ask ourselves whether it will bring discredit on our faith, whether it will dishonour our Master. But there are others who watch us, and in a different manner. The Church in Paradise watches the Church on earth and prays for it. Our path of life is compassed by a great cloud of witnesses; the saints who have fought the battle and won the crown, they watch us. St. Paul, resting after his good fight, and his many perils, is watching to see how we are fighting against sin, the world, and the devil. St. Peter, restored to the side of Jesus, watches to see if any of us deny their Lord. St. Thomas, no longer doubtful, watches to see if our faith be strong. Holy Stephen watches us when the stones of insult and persecution assail us; the forty martyrs, who died for Jesus on the frozen pool at Sebaste, watch us when the world looks coldly on us, and many another who passed through fire and water watches us in our battle and the race that is set before us. Thus with the enemies of God watching for our fall, and the saints of God watching for our victory, let us watch ourselves, and let our cry be, “Hold Thou me up that my footsteps slip not.” (H. J.Wilmot-Buxton, M. A.)
Cowards are like cats
Cowards are like cats. Cats always take their prey by springing suddenly upon it from some concealed station, and, if they miss their aim in the first attack, rarely follow it up. They are all, accordingly, cowardly, sneaking animals, and never willingly face their enemy, unless brought to bay, or wounded, trusting always to their power of surprising their victims by the aid of their stealthy and noiseless movements. (Dallas, “Natural History of the Animal Kingdom.”)
64
Whose image and superscription hath it?—
The Divine image in the soul
1. The Divine image ought to be our highest glory.
2. Let the Divine image which we bear be a constant exhortation to serve God.
3. Never defile the Divine image by sin.
4. Endeavour to increase every day the beauty of the Divine image.
5. Respect the Divine image in your neighbour. (Bishop Ehrler.)
Man is God’s property
More than all visible things, we ourselves, with the faculties of body and soul, are God’s. Man is God’s image, God’s coin, and therefore belongs to God entirely.
I. ON WHAT IS THIS DIVINE OWNERSHIP FOUNDED?
1. On creation. Man is God’s property.
(1) As God’s creature. All that is created belongs to God, by whose omnipotence it was made.
(2) As God’s creature he bears the Divine image.
2. On redemption.
(1) The soul of the first man was a supernatural image of God, created in original justice and sanctity.
(2) In consequence of the first sin, the soul was deprived of sanctifying Rom_5:12).
(3) God had compassion on man, and found means (through the Incarnation) to restore His image in the human soul.
II. CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THIS DIVINE OWNERSHIP.
1. We should render to God our soul.
(1) Our understanding.
(2) Our will.
(3) Our heart.
2. Our body and all its members. (Grimm.)
The medal made useful
One day, when Martin Luther was completely penniless, he was asked for money to aid an important Christian enterprise. He reflected a little, and recollected that he had a beautiful medal of Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, which he very much prized. He went immediately to a drawer, opened it, and said: “What art thou doing there, Joachim? Dost thou not see how idle thou art? Come out and make thyself useful.” Then he took out the medal and contributed it to the object solicited for.
Render unto Caesar the things which he Caesar’s
65
Caesar’s due and God’s due
I. THAT KINGS AND PRINCES HAVE A CERTAIN RIGHT AND DUE PERTAINING TO THEM BY GOD’S APPOINTMENT, WHICH IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY MAN TO KEEP FROM THEM. This is plain here as if Christ had said: “It is of God, and not without the disposing and ordering of His Providence, that the Roman Emperor hath put in his foot among you, and is now your liege and sovereign: you yourselves have submitted to his government, and have in a manner subscribed unto that which God hath brought upon you; now, certainly, there is a right pertaining to him respectively to his place. This he must have, and it cannot be lawful for you, under any pretext, to take it from him.” So that this speech is a plain ground for this. But what is Caesar’s due?
1. Prayer for him (1Ti_2:1).
(1) That he may be endowed with all needful graces for his place.
(a) Wisdom.
(b) Justice.
(c) Temperance, i.e., sobriety and moderation in diet, in apparel, in delight, etc.
(d) Zeal and courage in God’s matters. This it is which will make kings prosper (1Ki_2:2-3).
(2) That he may be delivered from all dangers to which he is subject in his place. Kings are in danger of two sorts of enemies.
(a) Enemies to their bodies and outward state. Traitors.
Conspirators.
(b) Enemies to their souls. Flatterers.
2. Submission to him. By this I mean “an awful framing and composing of the whole man respectively to his authority.”
And now here, because I mention the whole man, and man consisteth of two parts; therefore I will declare, first, what is the submission of the inner man due to a king by the Word of God; and then, what is the submission of the outward man.
1. Touching the submission of the inner man, I account the substance of it to be this—“A reverent and dutiful estimation of him in regard of his place.” “Fear the Lord and the king,” said Solomon. As the “fearing of God” argueth an inward respectiveness to His Divine majesty, so the fearing of the king intends the like, the heart carrieth a kind of reverent awe unto him. And this is that honouring the king which St. Peter giveth charge 1Pe_2:17). Honour is properly an inward act, and we honour a superior when our respect is to him according to his dignity. That this reverent estimation of a king, which I term the substance of inward submission, may be the better understood, we must consider touching it two things.
(1) The ground of it is a right understanding of the state and condition of a king’s place.
(a) Its eminence.
(b) Its usefulness.
(2) Now the companion of this reverent esteem of Caesar is a ready and
66
willing disposition to perform to him and for him any service he may require.
2. I come now to speak of the outward submission, which is that which is for the testification and manifestation of the inward. An outward submissiveness without an inward awfulness were but hypocrisy; to pretend an inward respect without giving outward evidence thereof, were but mockery. This outward submission is either in word or in action. It includes—
(1) Conformity to the laws.
(2) Yielding of the person in time of war.
(3) Furnishing supplies.
II. THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY MAN TO DEPRIVE ALMIGHTY GOD OF THAT WHICH IS HIS DUE. “You are careful,” saith our Saviour, “as it seemeth, to inquire touching Caesar’s right, as if you were so tender conscienced that you would not keep ought from him that were his. It becometh you to be, at the least, as careful for God; there is a right also due to Him, look you to it, that you give it Him.” Thus is the doctrine raised, God must have His due as well as the king his. Nay, He is to have it much more; “He is the King of kings, and Lord of lords. By Him it is that earthly kings do reign. He beareth rule over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whosoever He will.” Let me begin by explaining what is here meant by the Lord’s due. The conscionable performance of any good duty is in some sense the Lord’s due, because the same is required by Him; and so even that which was spoken of before, by the name of Caesar’s due, is God’s due, because the law of God binds us to it. When we speak, therefore, of God’s due, we intend thereby that which is more properly and more immediately be, longing to Him. For example’s sake—in a house, whereof every room and corner is the master’s, yet that where he lieth himself is more particularly called his; so whereas all good services, even those which appertain to men, are the Lord’s, He being the commander of them, yet those are more precisely and specially termed His which belong to Him more directly. And of the dues of this sort we are now to treat; and these may justly be referred to two general heads. The first I may call His “prerogative,” the other His “worship.” Under God’s” prerogative” I comprehend two things.
1. “That the things which concern Him must have the pre-eminence.”
2. “That He must have absolute obedience in all things.” And now I come to the next part of His due, “His worship.” By His worship is understood that more direct and proper service which we do to God for the declaration of our duty to Him, of our dependence on Him, and of our acknowledgment both to expect and to receive all good and comfort from Him.
Here the particulars to be considered of, under this head of worship, are—
1. “That He must be worshipped.”
2. “That He must be so worshipped as Himself thinks good.” (S. Hieron.)
Duty discriminated
“Go with me to the concert this afternoon?” once asked a fashionable city salesman of a new assistant in the warehouse. “I cannot.” “Why?” “My time is not my own; it belongs to another.” “To whom?” “To the firm, by whom I have been instructed not to leave without permission.” The next Sabbath afternoon the same salesman said to this clerk, “Will you go to ride with us this evening?” “I cannot.” “Why?” “My time is not my own; it belongs to another.” “To whom?” “To Him who has said, ‘Remember
67
the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” Some years passed, and that clerk lay upon his bed of death. His honesty and fidelity had raised him to a creditable position in business and in society, and, ere his sickness, life lay fair before him. “Are you reconciled to your situation?” asked an attendant. “Yes, reconciled; I have endeavoured to do the work that God has allotted me, in His fear. He has directed me thus far; I am in His hands, and my time is not my own.” (W. Baxendale.)
Religion and politics
It is a common saying that religion has nothing to do with polities, and particularly there is a strong feeling current against all interference with politics by the ministers of religion. This notion rests on a basis which is partly wrong, partly right. To say that religion has nothing to do with politics is to assert that which is simply false. It were as wise to say that the atmosphere has nothing to do with the principles of architecture. Directly nothing, indirectly much. Some kinds of stone are so friable, that though they will last for centuries in a dry climate, they will crumble away in a few years in a damp one. There are some temperatures in which a form of a building is indispensable, which in another would be unbearable. The shape of doors, windows, apartments, all depend upon the air that is to be admitted or excluded. Nay, it is for the very sake of procuring a habitable atmosphere within certain limits that architecture exists at all. The atmospheric laws are distinct from the laws of architecture; but there is not an architectural question into which atmospheric considerations do not enter as conditions of the question. That which the air is to architecture, religion is to politics. It is the vital air of every question. Directly, it determines nothing—indirectly, it conditions every problem that can arise. The kingdoms of this world must become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. How—if His Spirit is not to mingle with political and social truths? (F. W. Robertson.)
No division of allegiance
Our Lord here recognizes no division of allegiance. He does not regard man as under two masters—as owing duty to Caesar and duty to God. Is there a trace in all His other teaching that He contemplated such a division? Did ever a word fall from Him to indicate that He looked upon some obligations as secular and others as sacred? 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 Caesar’s in contradiction to that which is God’s. Christ claims all for the Sovereign Master. Body, soul, and spirit, riches, knowledge, influence, love—all belong to Him; there is but one empire, one service, one king; and life, with all its complexity of interest, is simple—simple as the Infinite God who has given it. 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 Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Why? Who enacts it? Who has the right to require it? The answer is “God.” It is a part of your religious obedience to be a loyal citizen. Within the sphere that belongs to him Caesar claims your service as the ordained representative and minister of God. Civil obedience is an ordinance of the Church; civil society is the creation of God Himself. It is He who, through the earthly ruler, demands your tribute. The result, the order, and the progress of society are His work; and thus the principle of all duty is ultimately one. The inclusion of the lower obedience in the higher has been well illustrated from the world of nature. The moon, we know, has its own relation to the earth; but both have a common relation to the sun. The moon’s orbit is included in
68
the earth’s orbit, but the sun sways and balances both of them; and there is not a movement of the moon in obeying the inferior earthly attraction, which is not also an act of obedience to the superior spheres. And just so, 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. (Canon Duckworth.)
Secular and religious duties not in conflict
I. Our secular and spiritual relations are coexistent and co-relative in fact.
II. The obligations which arise from each are to be recognized equitably, and the respective duties performed faithfully.
III. They ought not to be in conflict, but mutually helpful. Both are of God, and with Him are no discords.
IV. Application of the principle to—
1. Secular business, society, politics, etc.
2. Soul culture, worship, Christian work. (Anon.)
21 So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
GILL, "And they asked him, saying, master,.... Rabbi, or doctor; hoping, by this
flattering title, and the flattering words used by them, to work him up to an openness
and freedom of conversation with them:
we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly; rightly dividest the word of God, and
deliverest out sound doctrine according to it: and this he certainly did, though they
spoke these words hypocritically, not believing what they themselves said; at least,
they did not care that others should believe this of him:
neither acceptest thou the person of any. The Persic version very wrongly renders it,
"and lookest not upon the countenance, and heart of any one whomsoever"; for though
Christ did not look upon the countenances of men, and judge according to the outward
appearance, nor regard men on account of outward circumstances, as riches, honours,
learning, &c. yet he looked upon the heart, and knew what was in it, and respected
sincerity and uprightness wherever he found it, and which were wanting in these men:
69
but teachest the way of God truly; the way of worshipping God, and of enjoying him,
both in this world, and in that to come; See Gill on Matthew 22:16.
PETT, "Their approach was with obsequious flattery. It is a warning to us to
beware of those who speak too well of us. Very often it is because they seek to
trap us. Here they lauded Him to the skies. They addressed Him as ‘Teacher’
(‘Rabbi), and then declared firstly that they knew that He only ever spoke and
taught what was true, secondly that He was not afraid of any man’s person, and
thirdly that He always spoke God’s way in truth. Such flattery could only have
made Him suspicious, (any sensible person would have thought on receiving it,
‘now what do they want?’), but they did it because they hoped that it would
make Him drop His guard and that, eager to show them how right they were
about Him, He would give them the answer that they wanted.
PULPIT 21-22, "And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest
and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the
way of God truly: Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? SS.
Matthew and Mark both tell us that in this plot the Herodians were united with
the Pharisees (and Sanhedrin). The great Nazareth Reformer was equally hateful
to both these hostile parties; hence their union in this matter. It was a well and
skilfully laid question. This "tribute" was a capitation tax—a denarius a head
assessed on the whole population, the publicans who farmed it being answerable
for it to the Roman treasury. As a direct personal tax it was most unpopular, and
was looked on by scrupulous legalists and the more zealous Jews as involving a
greater humiliation than the ordinary import or export customs dues. It
occasioned at times popular tumults, as in the case of Judas of Galilee (Acts
5:37). If Jesus answered the question in the affirmative "Yes, it is lawful for the
Jews to give this tribute to Caesar," then the Pharisees would use this decision of
his as a means of undermining his credit with the zealous populace. "See, after
all," they would say, "this pretended Messiah of yours is but a poor-hearted
traitor. Think of King Messiah paying tribute to a Gentile." If, on the other
hand, the Master had said such payment of tribute was unlawful, then the
Herodians, who were watching him, hoping for some such expression of opinion,
would at once have denounced him to their Roman friends as One who taught
the people—only too ready to listen to such teaching—lessons of sedition. In the
latter case Pilate and the officials of Rome would have taken good care that the
Galilaean Master had troubled the Sanhedrin no more.
22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
70
GILL, "And they asked him, saying, master,.... Rabbi, or doctor; hoping, by this
flattering title, and the flattering words used by them, to work him up to an
openness and freedom of conversation with them:
we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly; rightly dividest the word of God,
and deliverest out sound doctrine according to it: and this he certainly did,
though they spoke these words hypocritically, not believing what they themselves
said; at least, they did not care that others should believe this of him:
neither acceptest thou the person of any. The Persic version very wrongly
renders it, "and lookest not upon the countenance, and heart of any one
whomsoever"; for though Christ did not look upon the countenances of men, and
judge according to the outward appearance, nor regard men on account of
outward circumstances, as riches, honours, learning, &c. yet he looked upon the
heart, and knew what was in it, and respected sincerity and uprightness
wherever he found it, and which were wanting in these men:
but teachest the way of God truly; the way of worshipping God, and of enjoying
him, both in this world, and in that to come; See Gill on Matthew 22:16.
PETT, "Their question was as to whether it was ‘lawful’ or not to give tribute to
Caesar. That is whether it was in line with the teaching of Moses. Now strictly
speaking the Law does not deal with that question. But the Law does make it
clear that the people of Israel were God’s people, God’s holy nation, and thus
that for them to be ruled over by anyone else was contrary to God’s intention. It
was something that would only happen to them as a result of disobedience. So to
every Jew the answer as to whether tribute should be paid to Caesar would have
been a resounding ‘No!’ For while they reluctantly did on the whole give such
tribute, they certainly did not see it as ‘lawful’. In their view the Law required
rather that they directed their gifts towards God, His Sanctuary and His people,
and the Roman poll tax was highly and deeply resented as an imposition, and as
an evidence of their submission to Rome.
Thus if Jesus answered the question by declaring that it was lawful He would
instantly have been denounced by the whole nation as a false prophet. On the
other hand if He said that it was not lawful, (and that was the answer towards
which they were working), then they could immediately denounce him to the
Roman governor for stirring up the people to avoid paying their taxes, a crime
subject to the most serious punishment.
23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them,
71
GILL, "But he perceived their craftiness,.... Knowing what was in them, and
being a discerner of the thoughts and intents of their hearts, he clearly saw that
their view was either, that they might have a charge against him to the Roman
governor, should he declare against payment of tribute; or that they might
expose him to the people of the Jews, should he assert the lawfulness of it:
and said unto them, why tempt ye me? with this ensnaring question.
PETT, "Verse 23-24
‘But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Show me a denarius.
Whose image and superscription has it?” And they said, “Caesar’s.” ’
Jesus, however, saw through them immediately. And so He called for them to
produce a denarius, the silver coin in which the tax would be paid, which bore on
it the head of the reigning Caesar at the time that the coin was minted, and what
was actually a blasphemous superscription describing him.. Countries who were
under Rome could at the time produce their own bronze coinage, but their silver
coinage had to be that issued by Rome. This was partly because it was then an
indication to the peoples involved that they were subject to the overall control of
Caesar and the Empire. The use of Caesar’s coin demonstrated the allegiance
that they owed to Caesar.
Having that in mind, as soon as they produced a denarius (having the value of a
day’s wage to a working man) He asked them whose image and details were on
the coin. Their reply could only be, ‘Caesar’s’.
24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied.
GILL, "Show me a penny,.... A Roman denarius, value seven pence halfpenny of
our money. The Persic version adds, "they showed it, he asked of them"; and the
Ethiopic version, "and they brought it, and he said unto them", as follows;
whose image and superscription hath it? for the penny had an head upon it, with
something written, as the name of the emperor, whose image it was, his titles, the
date of the coin, or some motto on it:
they answered and said, Caesar's; very likely Tiberius Caesar's, who was at that
time emperor of Rome; See Gill on Matthew 22:20 and See Gill on Matthew
22:21.
72
PULPIT, "Show me a penny; literally, a denarius, a coin of the value of 7.5 d.,
but really representing a larger sum in our money. It seems probable, from the
language of Mark 12:15, Mark 12:16, that his interrogators had to borrow the
Roman coin in question from some of the neighbouring money-changers. These
Jews would scarcely carry any but Jewish coins in their girdles. That the Roman
denarius, however, was evidently a coin in common circulation in those days, we
gather from the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Whose image and
superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. "On one side would
be the once beautiful but now depraved features of Tiberius; the title 'Pontifex
Maximus' was probably inscribed on the obverse" (Farrar).
25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
GILL, "And he said unto them, render therefore unto Caesar the things which
be Caesar's,.... The Arabic version renders it, "give to the king what is the
king's"; the tribute that was due to him; since they were under his government,
and were protected by him, and traded with his money; the currency of which
among them was an acknowledgment of him as their sovereign:
and unto God the things which be God's; which relate to his worship, honour,
interest, and kingdom; See Gill on Matthew 22:21.
JAMISON, "things which be Caesar‘s — Putting it in this general form, it was
impossible for sedition itself to dispute it, and yet it dissolved the snare.
and unto God — How much there is in this profound but to them startling
addition to the maxim, and how incomparable is the whole for fullness, brevity,
clearness, weight!
PETT, "His reply was then, in that case, “Render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. It was a very wise reply. It was
pointing out that anyone who could produce a denarius was thereby testifying to
the overlordship of Caesar. It was right therefore that they rendered back to
him, what they had received from him. All denarii essentially belonged to
Caesar. Furthermore a good patriot should strictly not have touched a denarius
with a bargepole, and so good patriots would actually have agreed with Jesus
that all denarii should be got rid of by handing them back to Caesar. Of course,
if they would not touch a denarius they would have to go into hiding for non-
payment of taxes, but at least they would see themselves as being kept pure.
However, the moment one descended to the depths of obtaining a denarius in
73
order to pay the tax he was by it acknowledging his debt to Caesar. And it was
therefore right that he gave the hated coin back to him. Thus Jesus was both in
the clear with the extreme patriots, who agreed with Him on the fact that the
denarii should be handed over to Caesar, and should not be touched by any
patriotic Jew, while all else belonged to God, and also with the Roman
authorities, whose only concern was to be paid the denarius in poll tax.
What this did not teach was that a certain amount should be given to God, and
the rest could then be looked on as ‘Caesar’s’, to be looked on as ‘secular’, and
therefore usable as a man wished. It applied to a specific situation. It might,
however, be seen as saying that for any benefits that we receive from the state we
have an obligation to make a contribution back to them. But while that is true, it
is not really what Jesus was positively teaching.
For what was of general application in what He said was the command to render
“to God the things that are God’s”. The point here was that all that we have, we
have received from God, and we should therefore recognise that for it we are
accountable to God as His stewards. This is continuing the theme of numerous
parables that we have already looked at. It is confirming that every man must
give an account of himself to God with regard to his use of wealth.
NISBET, "NO DIVISION OF ALLEGIANCE
‘And He said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar, the things which be
Cæsar’s and unto God the things which be God’s.’
Luke 20:25
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.
I. 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
74
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.
—Rev. Canon Duckworth.
PULPIT, "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things
which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. As regarded the
immediate issues the Lord's answer was in the affirmative: "Yes, it is lawful
under the present circumstances to pay this tribute." The Roman money current
in the land, bearing the image and title of the Caesar, bore perpetual witness to
the fact that the rule of Rome was established and acknowledged by the Jewish
people and their rulers. It was a well-known and acknowledged saying, that "he
whose coin is current is king of the land." So the great Jewish rabbi Maimonides,
centuries after, wrote, "Ubi-cunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolae
regem istum pro Domino agnoscunt." The tribute imposed by the recognized
sovereign ought certainly to be paid as a just debt; nor would this payment at all
interfere with the people's discharging their duties God-ward. The tithes, tribute
to the temple, the offerings enjoined by the Law they revered,—these ancient
witnesses to the Divine sovereignty in Israel might and ought still to be rendered,
as well as the higher obligations to the invisible King, such as faith, love, and
obedience. Tribute to the Caesar, then, the acknowledged sovereign, in no way
interfered with tribute to God. What belonged to Caesar should be given to him,
and what belonged to God ought to be rendered likewise to him. Godet, in a long
and able note, adds that Jesus would teach the turbulent Jewish people that the
way to regain their theocratic independence was not to violate the duty of
submission to Caesar by a revolutionary shaking off of his yoke, but to return to
the faithful fulfilment of all duties toward God, "To render to God what is God's
was the way for the people of God to obtain a new David instead of Caesar as
their Lord. To the Pharisees and Zealots, 'Render unto Caesar;' to the
Herodians, 'Render unto God.'" Well caught the great Christian teachers their
Master's thought here in all their teaching respecting an institution such as
slavery, in their injunctions concerning rigid and unswerving loyalty to
established authority. So St. Paul: "Be subject to the powers … not only from
fear of punishment, but also for conscience' sake" (Romans 13:1 and 1 Timothy).
26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.
GILL, "And they could not take hold of his words before the people,.... Which
75
was what they wanted; that if he had dropped any seditious and treasonable
expressions against the government, they might be witnesses against him; or if he
had not vindicated the liberties of the people, and the rights of the Jewish nation,
these might be exasperated against him, and leave him:
and they marvelled at his answer; which was so formed, as to give them no
handle against him either way:
and held their peace; they were silenced, and had nothing to say to him, nor
against him, but left him, and went their way.
PETT, "The ‘spies’ were staggered at His reply. They recognised how cleverly
He had avoided their trap, while at the same time teaching something very
positive. And they recognised that there was nothing in His reply that they could
take hold of in order to use it to set the people against Him. He had indeed
agreed that all that a man had should be dedicated to God, apart from the hated
denarius which no godly person would touch. And yet that by leaving the latter
open for those who wanted them to pay their tax, however reluctantly, He was
preventing them coming under condemnation for doing so.
The Resurrection and Marriage
27 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.
GILL, "That is, "to Jesus", as the Persic version expresses it; and it was the
same day, as Matthew says, on which the disciples of the Pharisees, and the
Herodians, had been with him, putting the question about tribute to him:
Matthew 22:16
which deny that there is any resurrection; that is, of the dead; that there ever
was any instance of it, or ever will be: this was the distinguishing tenet of that
sect; see Acts 23:8
and they asked him, the following question, after they had put a case to him.
HENRY, "Verses 27-38
The Cavil of the Sadducees.
27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any
resurrection and they asked him, 28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any
man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother
should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29 There were therefore
seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the
76
second took her to wife, and he died childless. 31And the third took her and in
like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. 32Last of all the
woman died also. 33Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for
seven had her to wife. 34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of
this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be
accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,
neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for
they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the children of
the resurrection. 37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the
bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob. 38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live
unto him.
This discourse with the Sadducees we had before, just as it is here, only that the
description Christ gives of the future state is somewhat more full and large here.
Observe here,
I. In every age there have been men of corrupt minds, that have endeavoured to
subvert the fundamental principles of revealed religion. As there are deists now,
who call themselves free-thinkers, but are really false-thinkers so there were
Sadducees in our Saviour's time, who bantered the doctrine of the resurrection
of the dead and the life of the world to come, though they were plainly revealed
in the Old Testament, and were articles of the Jewish faith. The Sadducees deny
that there is any resurrection, any future state, so anastasis may signify not only
no return of the body to life, but no continuance of the soul in life, no world of
spirits, no state of recompence and retribution for what was done in the body.
Take away this, and all religion falls to the ground.
II. It is common for those that design to undermine any truth of God to perplex
it, and load it with difficulties. So these Sadducees did when they would weaken
people's faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, they put a question upon the
supposition of it, which they thought could not be answered either way to
satisfaction. The case perhaps was matter of fact, at least it might be so, of a
woman that had seven husbands. Now in the resurrection whose wife shall she
be? whereas it was not at all material whose she was, for when death puts an end
to that relation it is not to be resumed.
III. There is a great deal of difference between the state of the children of men on
earth and that of the children of God in heaven, a vast unlikeness between this
world and that world and we wrong ourselves, and wrong the truth of Christ,
when we form our notions of that world of spirits by our present enjoyments in
this world of sense.
1. The children of men in this world marry, and are given in marriage, hyioi tou
aionos toutou--the children of this age, this generation, both good and bad,
marry themselves and give their children in marriage. Much of our business in
this world is to raise and build up families, and to provide for them. Much of our
pleasure in this world is in our relations, our wives and children nature inclines
to it. Marriage is instituted for the comfort of human life, here in this state where
77
we carry bodies about with us. It is likewise a remedy against fornication, that
natural desires might not become brutal, but be under direction and control. The
children of this world are dying and going off the stage, and therefore they
marry and give their children in marriage, that they may furnish the world of
mankind with needful recruits, that as one generation passeth away another may
come, and that they may have some of their own offspring to leave the fruit of
their labours to, especially that the chosen of God in future ages may be
introduced, for it is a godly seed that is sought by marriage (Malachi 2:15), a
seed to serve the Lord, that shall be a generation to him.
2. The world to come is quite another thing it is called that world, by way of
emphasis and eminency. Note, There are more worlds than one a present visible
world, and a future invisible world and it is the concern of every one of us to
compare worlds, this world and that world, and give the preference in our
thoughts and cares to that which deserves them. Now observe,
(1.) Who shall be the inhabitants of that world: They that shall be accounted
worthy to obtain it, that is, that are interested in Christ's merit, who purchased it
for us, and have a holy meetness for it wrought in them by the Spirit, whose
business it is to prepare us for it. They have not a legal worthiness, upon account
of any thing in them or done by them, but an evangelical worthiness, upon
account of the inestimable price which Christ paid for the redemption of the
purchased possession. It is a worthiness imputed by which we are glorified, as
well as righteousness imputed by which we are justified kataxiothentes, they are
made agreeable to that world. The disagreeableness that there is in the corrupt
nature is taken away, and the dispositions of the soul are by the grace of God
conformed to that state. They are by grace made and counted worthy to obtain
that world it intimates some difficulty in reaching after it, and danger of coming
short. We must so run as that we may obtain. They shall obtain the resurrection
from the dead, that is, the blessed resurrection for that of condemnation (as
Christ calls it, John 5:29), is rather a resurrection to death, a second death, an
eternal death, than from death.
(2.) What shall be the happy state of the inhabitants of that world we cannot
express or conceive, 1 Corinthians 2:9. See what Christ here says of it. [1.] They
neither marry nor are given in marriage. Those that have entered into the joy of
their Lord are entirely taken up with that, and need not the joy of the
bridegroom in his bride. The love in that world of love is all seraphic, and such
as eclipses and loses the purest and most pleasing loves we entertain ourselves
with in this world of sense. Where the body itself shall be a spiritual body, the
delights of sense will all be banished and where there is a perfection of holiness
there is no occasion for marriage as a preservative from sin. Into the new
Jerusalem there enters nothing that defiles. [2.] They cannot die any more and
this comes in as a reason why they do not marry. In this dying world there must
be marriage, in order to the filling up of the vacancies made by death but, where
there are no burials, there is no need of weddings. This crowns the comfort of
that world that there is no more death there, which sullies all the beauty, and
damps all the comforts, of this world. Here death reigns, but thence it is for ever
excluded. [3.] They are equal unto the angels. In the other evangelists it was said,
78
They are as the angels--os angeloi, but here they are said to be equal to the
angels, isangeloi--angels' peers they have a glory and bliss no way inferior to that
of the holy angels. They shall see the same sight, be employed in the same work,
and share in the same joys, with the holy angels. Saints, when they come to
heaven, shall be naturalized, and, though by nature strangers, yet, having
obtained this freedom with a great sum, which Christ paid for them, they have in
all respects equal privileges with them that were free-born, the angels that are
the natives and aborigines of that country. They shall be companions with the
angels, and converse with those blessed spirits that love them dearly, and with an
innumerable company, to whom they are now come in faith, hope, and love. [4.]
They are the children of God, and so they are as the angels, who are called the
sons of God. In the inheritance of sons, the adoption of sons will be completed.
Hence believers are said to wait for the adoption, even the redemption of the
body, Romans 8:23. For till the body is redeemed from the grave the adoption is
not completed. Now are we the sons of God, 1 John 3:2. We have the nature and
disposition of sons, but that will not be perfected till we come to heaven. [5.]
They are the children of the resurrection, that is, they are made capable of the
employments and enjoyments of the future state they are born to that world,
belong to that family, had their education for it here, and shall there have their
inheritance in it. They are the children of God, being the children of the
resurrection. Note, God owns those only for his children that are the children of
the resurrection, that are born from above, are allied to the world of spirits, and
prepared for that world, the children of that family.
IV. It is an undoubted truth that there is another life after this, and there were
eminent discoveries made of this truth in the early ages of the church (Luke
20:37,38): Moses showed this, as it was shown to Moses at the bush, and he hath
shown it to us, when he calleth the Lord, as the Lord calleth himself, the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, were then dead as to our world they had departed out of it many years
before, and their bodies were turned into dust in the cave of Machpelah how
then could God say, not I was, but I am the God or Abraham? It is absurd that
the living God and Fountain of life should continue related to them as their God,
if there were no more of them in being than what lay in that cave,
undistinguished from common dust. We must therefore conclude that they were
then in being in another world for God is not the God of the dead, but of the
living. Luke here adds, For all live unto him, that is, all who, like them, are true
believers though they are dead, yet they do live their souls, which return to God
who gave them (Ecclesiastes 12:7), live to him as the Father of spirits: and their
bodies shall live again at the end of time by the power of God for he calleth
things that are not as though they were, because he is the God that quickens the
dead, Romans 4:17. But there is more in it yet when God called himself the God
of these patriarchs, he meant that he was their felicity and portion, a God all-
sufficient to them (Genesis 17:1), their exceeding great reward, Genesis 15:1.
Now it is plain by their history that he never did that for them in this world
which would answer the true intent and full extent of that great undertaking,
and therefore there must be another life after this, in which he will do that for
them that will amount to a discharge in full of that promise--that he would be to
them a God, which he is able to do, for all live to him, and he has wherewithal to
79
make every soul happy that lives to him enough for all, enough for each.
BARCLAY, "THE SADDUCEES' QUESTION (Luke 20:27-40)
20:27-40 Some of the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, came to
Jesus and asked him, "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that, if a man's married
brother dies without leaving any children, his brother must take his wife and
raise up descendants for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first
took a wife and died childless. The second and the third also took her; and in the
same way the whole seven left no children and died. Later the wife died, too.
Whose wife will she be at the resurrection, for the seven had her to wife?" Jesus
said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are married. But those who are
deemed worthy to obtain that age and the resurrection from the dead neither
marry nor are married, for they cannot die any more, for they are like angels
and they are sons of God, for they are the sons of the resurrection. That the dead
are raised even Moses indicated in the passage about the bush, when he called
the Lord, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. God is
not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to him." Some of the scribes
said, "Teacher, you have spoken well"; and they no longer dared to ask him any
question.
When the emissaries of the Sanhedrin had been finally silenced, the Sadducees
appeared on the scene. The whole point of their question depends on two things.
(i) It depends upon the levirate law of marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5). According
to that law if a man died childless, his brother must marry the widow and beget
children to carry on the line. It is far from likely that it was operative in the time
of Jesus, but it was included in the Mosaic regulations and therefore the
Sadducees regarded it as binding.
(ii) It depends upon the beliefs of the Sadducees. Sadducees and Pharisees are
often mentioned together but in beliefs they were poles apart.
(a) The Pharisees were entirely a religious body. They had no political ambitions
and were content with any government which allowed them to carry out the
ceremonial law. The Sadducees were few but very wealthy. The priests and the
aristocrats were nearly all Sadducees. They were the governing class; and they
were largely collaborationist with Rome, being unwilling to risk losing their
wealth, their comfort and their place.
(b) The Pharisees accepted the scriptures plus all the thousand detailed
regulations and rules of the oral and ceremonial law, such as the Sabbath law
and the laws about hand washing. The Sadducees accepted only the written law
of the Old Testament; and in the Old Testament they stressed only the law of
Moses and set no store on the prophetic books.
(c) The Pharisees believed in the resurrection from the dead and in angels and
spirits. The Sadducees held that there was no resurrection from the dead and
that there were no angels or spirits.
80
(d) The Pharisees believed in fate; and that a man's life was planned and ordered
by God. The Sadducees believed in unrestricted free-will.
(e) The Pharisees believed in and hoped for the coming of the Messiah; the
Sadducees did not. For them the coming of the Messiah would have been a
disturbance of their carefully ordered lives.
The Sadducees, then, came with this question about who would be the husband
in heaven of the woman who was married to seven different men. They regarded
such a question as the kind of thing that made belief in the resurrection of the
body ridiculous. Jesus gave them an answer which has a permanently valid truth
in it. He said that we must not think of heaven in terms of this earth. Life there
will be quite different, because we will be quite different. It would save a mass of
misdirected ingenuity, and not a little heartbreak, if we ceased to speculate on
what heaven is like and left things to the love of God.
Jesus went further. As we have said, the Sadducees did not believe in the
resurrection of the body. They declared they could not believe in it because there
was no information about it, still less any proof of it, in the books of the law
which Moses was held to have written. So far no Rabbi had been able to meet
them on that ground; but Jesus did. He pointed out that Moses himself had
heard God say, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac and the God of Jacob" (Exodus 3:1-6), and that it was impossible that God
should be the God of the dead. Therefore Abraham and Isaac and Jacob must be
still alive. Therefore there was such a thing as the resurrection of the body. No
wonder the scribes declared it to be a good answer, for Jesus had met the
Sadducees on their own ground and defeated them.
It may well be that we find this an arid passage. It deals with burning questions
of the time by means of arguments which a Rabbi would find completely
convincing but which are not convincing to the modern mind. But out of this
very aridity there emerges a great truth for anyone who teaches or who wishes to
commend Christianity to his fellows. Jesus used arguments that the people he
was arguing with could understand. He talked to them in their own language; he
met them on their own ground; and that is precisely why the common people
heard him gladly.
Sometimes, when one reads religious and theological books, one feels that all this
may be true but it would be quite impossible to present it to the non-theologically
minded man who, after all, is in an overwhelming majority. Jesus used language
and arguments which people could and did understand; he met people with their
own vocabulary, on their own ground, and with their own ideas. We will be far
better teachers of Christianity and far better witnesses for Christ when we learn
to do the same.
PETT, "The Pharisees having been defeated in their attempts to discredit Jesus,
the Sadducees now approached Him in order to dispute His teaching on the
resurrection of the body. Like many Greeks they did not believe in such a
resurrection. They did it by an appeal to levirate marriage. The principle of that
81
is that if a man dies having no children to inherit his property, with the result
that his wife is childless and has no one to care for her, His brother who lives in
the same household should marry and impregnate the widow and thus produce
seed to his brother’s name (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). The child will then grow
up to look after his ageing mother, and to inherit the dead brother’s inheritance.
It is questionable, although not certainly so, whether levirate marriage was
actually practised in New Testament days, but whether it was or not it had
certainly been practised in the past, and was even more certainly spoken of in the
Law.
This is the only mention of the Sadducees in Luke’s Gospel, but see Acts 4:1;
Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6-8. They do not seem to feature in Galilee and Peraea. We
can only pick up something of what their teaching was from such passages as
this, and from the literature of their opponents. They appear to have founded
their teaching on the first five books of the Bible (the Torah, the Books of
Moses), having a secondary view of the prophets. This included the rejection of
the idea of either the resurrection of the body or of the existence of angels, which
they saw as the newfangled teaching of some of the Prophets (Isaiah 26:19;
Daniel 12:2) and of the Pharisees. They tended to be Hellenistic and to be
politically tolerant of Rome. The leading priests were in fact Sadducees.
PETT, "Verses 27-40
The Sadducees and the Resurrection (20:27-40).
Having made two attempts the Pharisees now withdrew for the time being in
order to nurse their wounds. They were deeply chagrined, but unable to do
anything about it. Jesus had thwarted their every move, and shown them up in
the process. Now, however, came the turn of the Sadducees who were concerned
about His teaching about the resurrection. And they came to Him with what may
well have been a standard conundrum levelled at all who taught and believed in
the resurrection from the dead.
Analysis.
a ‘And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, those who say that there is no
resurrection, and they asked him, saying’ (Luke 20:27-28 a).
b “Teacher, Moses wrote to us, that if a man’s brother die, having a wife, and he
be childless, his brother should take the wife, and raise up seed to his brother.
There were therefore seven brothers, and the first took a wife, and died childless;
and the second, and the third took her, and likewise the seven also left no
children, and died. Afterward the woman also died” (Luke 20:28 b-32).
c “In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be? for the seven
had her to wife” (Luke 20:33).
d And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this world marry, and are given in
marriage, but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the
resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, for neither
can they die any more. (Luke 20:34-35).
c “For they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the
resurrection” (Luke 20:36).
82
b “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the
Bush, when he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob. Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live
to him” (Luke 20:37-38).
a And certain of the scribes answering said, “Teacher, you have well said.” For
they dared not any more ask him any question’ (Luke 20:39-40).
Note that in ‘a’ the Sadducees asked Him a question, and in the parallel the
Scribes say that He has ‘well said’. In ‘b’ there is a continual emphasis on death,
and in the parallel a continual emphasis on the fact that the dead are raised to
new life. In ‘c’ the question is as to prospects in the future life, and in the parallel
those prospects are described. And centrally in ‘d’ the condition of those who
enjoy the future resurrected life is described.
BURKITT, "Our blessed Saviour having put the Pharisees and Herodians to
silence in the foregoing verses, here the Sadducees encounter him. This sect
denied the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and as an
objection against both, they propound a case to our Saviour, of a woman that
had seven husbands; they demanded whose wife of the seven this woman should
be at the resurrection? As if they had said, "If there be a resurrection of bodies
at the great day, surely there will be a resurrection of relations too, and the other
world will be like this, in which men will marry as they do here; and if so, whose
wife of the the seven shall this woman be? They all having an equal claim to
her."
Now our Saviour, for resolving of this question, first shows the different state of
men in this and in the other world: The children of this world, says Christ,
marry and are given in marriage; but in the resurrection they do neither. As if
our Lord had said, "After men have lived a while in this world, they die, and
therefore marriage is necessary to maintain a succession of mankind; but in the
other world, men shall become immortal, and live forever; and then the reason of
marriage will wholly cease; for when men can die no more, there will be no need
of any new supplies of mankind."
Secondly, our Saviour having got clear of the Sadducees' objection, by taking
away the ground and foundation of it, he produces an argument for the proof of
the soul's immortality, and the body's resurrection, thus: those to whom
Almighty God pronounces himself a God, are alive; but God pronounces himself,
a God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, many hundred years after their bodies
were dead; therefore their souls are yet alive, otherwise God could not be their
God." For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
From the whole note, 1. That there is no opinion so absurd, no error so
monstrous, that having had a mother will die for lack of a nurse: the beastly
opinion of the mortality of the soul, and of the annihilation of the body, finds
Sadducees to profess and propagate it.
Learn, 2. The certainty of another life after this, in which men shall be eternally
happy, or intolerably miserable, according as they behave themselves here:
though some men live like beasts, they shall not die like them, neither shall their
83
last end be like theirs.
Note, 3. The glorified saints, in the morning of the resurrection, shall be like unto
the gloruous angels; not like them in essence and nature, but like them in their
properties and qualities, namely, in holiness and purity, in immortality and
incorruptibility; and also like them in their way and manner of living. They shall
no more stand in need of meat or drink than the angels do; but shall live the
same heavenly and immortal lives that the angels live.
Note, 4. That all those that are in covenant with God, whose God the Lord is,
their souls do immediately pass into glory, and their bodies at the resurrection
shall be sharers in the same happiness with their souls. If God be just, the soul
must live, and the body must rise; for good men must be rewarded, and wicked
men punished. God will most certainly, one time or other, plentifully reward the
righteous, and punish the evil doers; but this being not always done in this life,
the justice of God requires it to be done in the next.
BENSON, "Verses 27-40
Luke 20:27-40. Then came to him certain of the Sadducees — These verses are
explained at large, on Matthew 22:23-33, and Mark 12:18-26. The children of
this world — The inhabitants of earth; marry and are given in marriage — As
being all subject to the law of mortality, so that the species is in need of being
continually repaired. But they which obtain that world — The world which holy
souls enter into at death; namely, paradise; and the resurrection from the
dead — It must be observed, our Lord, agreeably to the Jewish style of that
period, calls that only the resurrection which is a resurrection to glory. They are
the children of God — In a more eminent sense when they rise again, having
then received that public manifestation of their adoption, mentioned Romans
8:23; the redemption of their body. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses —
As well as the other prophets; showed, when he calleth, &c. — That is, when he
recites the words which God spoke of himself, I am the God of Abraham, &c. —
It cannot properly be said, that God is the God of any who are totally perished.
He is not a God of the dead, &c. — Or, as the clause may be properly rendered,
There is not a God of the dead, but of the living — That is, the term God implies
such a relation as cannot possibly subsist between him and the dead; who, in the
Sadducees’ sense, are extinguished spirits, who could neither worship him nor
receive good from him. For all live unto him — All who have him for their God,
live to, and enjoy him. This sentence is not an argument for what went before;
but the very proposition which was to be proved. And the consequence is
apparently just. For, as all the faithful are the children of Abraham, and the
divine promise, of being a God to him and his seed, is entailed upon them, it
implies their continued existence and happiness in a future state, as much as
Abraham’s. And as the body is an essential part of man, it implies both his
resurrection and theirs; and so overthrows the entire scheme of the Sadducean
doctrine. They durst not ask him any question — The Sadducees durst not. One
of the scribes did presently after.
PULPIT 27-28, "Luke 20:27, Luke 20:28
84
Then came to him certain of the Saddducees, which deny that there is any
resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any
man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother
should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. This is the only occasion
related in the Gospels where our Lord comes in direct conflict with the
Sadducees. They were a small but very wealthy and powerful sect. The high
priests at this period and their families seem to have belonged generally to this
party. They acknowledged as Divine the books of Moses, but refused to see in
them any proof of the resurrection, or indeed of life after death. To the prophets
and the other books they only attached subordinate importance. Supercilious
worldliness, and a quiet indifference to all spiritual things, characterized them at
this period. They come, comparatively speaking, little in contact with Jesus
during his earthly ministry. While the Pharisee hated the Galilaean Master, the
Sadducee professed to look on him rather with contempt. The question here
seems to have been put with supercilious scorn. SS. Matthew and Mark preface
the Lord's answer with a few words of grave rebuke, exposing the questioners'
utter ignorance of the deep things involved in their query.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:27-38
Foundations of Christian hope.
On what foundation do we build our hope for the future? Not now on any
philosophical deductions; these, may have a certain measure of strength to some
minds, but they are not firm enough to carry such a weight as the hope of
immortality. We build on the Word that cannot be broken—on the promise of
Jesus Christ. Our future depends upon the will of our Divine Creator, on the
purpose of our God, and only he who came from God can tell us what that
purpose is. Here, as elsewhere, we have—
I. THE FIRM GROUND OF CHRISTIAN PROMISE. Our Lord tells us, from
his own knowledge, that there is a future for the sons of men. And he indicates
some features of this future.
1. Our life will be one of perfect purity. There is to be nothing of the grosser
element that enters into our social relations here (Luke 20:35). Great founders of
great faiths have promised to their disciples a paradise of enjoyment of a lower
kind. Christ leads us to hope for a life from which everything that is sensual will
be removed. Love will remain, but it will be spiritual, angelic, absolutely pure.
2. It will be a life without end, and therefore without decay. "Neither can they
die any more" (Luke 20:36). How blessed the life that knows no fear of
interruption, of dissolution, of sudden cessation, and, more particularly, that is
free from the haunting consciousness of passing on to a time when faculty must
fade, or the sadder sense of decline already commenced or even hastening to its
end! What will it be to live a life that becomes ever brighter and fuller as the
periods of celestial service pass away!
3. It will be a life of highest honor and elevation. "They are equal unto the
85
angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection"
(Luke 20:36). "Now are we the sons of God," and when the future life is
disclosed our sonship will mean yet more to us—it will be life on a loftier plane,
in a deeper and fuller sense; we shall be nearer to God, and more like him in our
faculty and in our spirit and our character.
II. THE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF CHRIST'S INFERENCE. To be "the
God of Abraham," he argued, meant to be the God of a living soul; he whose
God was the living God was a living man in the fullest sense. For God to be our
God includes everything we need. The living God is the God of living men; the
loving God of loving men; the blessed God of happy men; the holy God of holy
men. All the highest good for which we long in our noblest hours is guaranteed to
us in that "the everlasting God, the righteous and the faithful and the loving,
One, is our God.
1. The heritage of the future is not promised unconditionally; there are "those
accounted worthy to obtain" it; therefore there are those who are not worthy,
and who will miss it.
2. The condition that is implied is that of a living personal connection with God
himself. Those who can truly claim him as "their God" may confidently look
forward to an eternal home in his presence and in his service. To us, to whom he
has revealed himself in his Son, this means a living union with Jesus Christ our
Savior. To know him, to live unto him, to abide in him,—this is life eternal.—C.
BI 27-38, "There were, therefore, seven brethren
The world to come
I.THAT THERE IS ANOTHER WORLD. Our Lord calls it that world. It is evidently opposed to “this world” (Luk_20:34); “the children of this world.” We know a little of this world. Oh that we knew it aright! Oh that we saw it with the eyes of faith! The world of which we speak is a world of light, and purity, and joy. There is “no night there” (Rev_21:25). Hell is eternal darkness; heaven is eternal light. No ignorance, no errors, no mistakes; but the knowledge of God in Christ begun on earth is there completed; for we shall know even as we are known (1Co_13:12).
II. IT WILL BE A GREAT MATTER TO OBTAIN THAT WORLD. Notice our Saviour’s words, “they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.” Oh, it will be a great matter to obtain that world I It will be a matter of amazing grace and favour. And oh, what a matter of infinite joy will it be!
III. SOME KIND OF WORTHINESS IS NECESSARY TO THE OBTAINING OF THAT WORLD. “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.” This worthiness includes merit and meetness; or, a title to glory, and a fitness for it. Both these are necessary. But where shall we look for merit? Not in man.
IV. THE RELATIONS OF THE PRESENT WORLD WILL NOT SUBSIST IN THE WORLD TO COME. Our Lord says, “They neither marry, nor are given in marriage.” This expression is not intended to disparage that kind of union; for marriage was ordained by God Himself, while yet our first parents retained their original innocence. But in heaven this relation will cease, because the purposes for which it was instituted will also cease. Nor shall the glorified need the aid of that domestic
86
friendship and comfort which result from the married state, and which are well suited to our embodied condition; for even in paradise the Creator judged it was not “good for man to be alone” (Gen_2:18). But in heaven there will be no occasion for the lesser streams of happiness, when believers have arrived at the fountain. Oh, let us learn from hence to sit loose to all creature comforts.
V. IN THAT WORLD DEATH WILL BE FOR EVER ABOLISHED. This is a dying world.
VI. THE BLESSED INHABITANTS OF THAT WORLD SHALL BE LIKE THE ANGELS. “They are equal unto the angels.”
VII. THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY WILL PERFECT THE BLISS OF GOD’S PEOPLE. “They are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection; they shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead.” (G. Burder.)
Lessons
Creatures on the brink of the grave should not forget it, nor refuse to look into it.
1. Be reminded that we have persons resembling the Sadducees in our own times. There are some who seek to subvert the leading truths of religion; and the method they pursue is very like that followed by the Sadducees of old. They rarely make the attack openly, like honest and generous assailants; but they start difficulties, and endeavour to involve the subjects of inquiry in inextricable perplexity.
2. Let us be suitably affected by the doctrines of immortality and the resurrection here taught.
3. Once more, let us improve this passage in reference to the endearing relations of life. We are here reminded that death is coming to break them all up, and that short is the time we are to sustain them. Far be it from us to regard them with indifference. Religion requires us to fulfil their duties with all affection and faithfulness. Yet, they are of very limited duration, and very little value, in comparison with eternity. (James Foote, M. A.)
The Sadducees silenced
I. GIVE SOME ACCOUNT OF THE SADDUCEES:—A small number of men of rank and affluence, who had shaken off such opinions and practices as they deemed a restraint upon their pleasures. They acknowledged the truth of the Pentateuch, but rejected the tradition of the elders. They also denied a future state, and believed that the soul dies with the body.
II. CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT OF THE SADDUCEES.
III. CONSIDER HOW JESUS CHRIST ACTED ON THIS OCCASION.
1. He removed the difficulty which had puzzled the Sadducees. They had not studied the Scriptures with sufficient attention, and a sincere desire of understanding their meaning. If they had done so, they could not have doubted of a future state. If, again, they had reflected on the power of God, they would have concluded that what might appear difficult or impossible to man, is possible and of easy accomplishment with God. He then explained the difficulty. It is to be
87
observed, however, that He speaks only of the righteous. On this subject our Saviour reveals two important truths,—First, that the righteous never die; and, secondly, that they become like the angels.
2. Our Saviour, then, having removed the difficulty which had embarrassed the Sadducees, and having at the same time communicated new and important information concerning the world of spirits, next proceeded to prove from Scripture the certainty of a future state. He argued from a passage in the Book of Exodus, where God is represented as speaking from the burning bush to Moses, and saying, “ I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob” (Exo_3:6). It is here particularly to be observed, that the force of our Saviour’s argument rests upon the words, I am the God. Had the words been I was the God, the argument would be destroyed.
IV. ATTEND TO THE INFERENCES WHICH WE MAY JUSTLY DRAW FROM THIS SUBJECT.
1. A difficulty arising from our ignorance is not sufficient to disprove or weaken direct or positive evidence.
2. Although a future state is not clearly revealed in the Books of Moses, yet it is presupposed, for the passage here selected can be explained only on the assurance that there is such a state.
3. From our Saviour’s declaration here, we also obtain the important information, that the righteous, after their removal from this world by death, do not sink into a state of sleep or insensibility; for the passage which He quotes implies that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, after death, remained alive, and still continued to acknowledge and serve God; for all these things are included in what our Saviour says. Now, the inference we draw is, that what is true respecting the patriarchs we may safely extend to all good men, that they are all in a similar situation.
4. While informed by our Saviour, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, that immediately after death angels are employed to conduct the spirits of the righteous to paradise, we are also assured here by the same authority, that they shall be made like to the angels. When to these we add the passage quoted above, from the Epistle to the Hebrews, respecting the office of angels, it appears necessarily to follow that the righteous shall be elevated in rank and situation; for they shall associate with celestial beings, and consequently will receive all the benefits which can arise from society so pure and exalted. Nor can we help believing that while thus mingled with angels they will be engaged in similar duties and employments. (J. Thompson, D. D.)
The world to come
I. THAT THERE IS ANOTHER STATE OF BEING BESIDE AND BEYOND THE PRESENT STATE. None can deny the importance of the question, “If a man die, shall he live again?”
1. The traditions of universal belief. It is said that there is not, perhaps, a people on the face of the earth which does not hold the opinion, in some form or other, that there is a country beyond the grave, where the weary are at rest. Yet this universality of belief is no proof; it is but a mere presumption at best.
2. Certain transformations which take place in nature around us. Such as that of the butterfly from the grave of the chrysalis, and spring from the grave of winter.
88
Such analogies, however, although appropriate as illustrations, are radically defective as proofs. The chrysalis only seemed dead; the plants and trees only seemed to have lost their vitality.
3. There is, again, the dignity of man. But while much may be said on one side of this question, not a little can be said on the other. “Talk as you will,” it has been said, “of the grandeur of man—why should it not be honour enough for him to have his seventy years’ life-rent of God’s universe?
4. It is by the gospel alone that life and immortality have been brought to light.
II. THAT THE FUTURE STATE IN MANY IMPORTANT PARTICULARS IS WIDELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT STATE. They differ—
1. In their constitution. “The children of this world marry, and arc given in marriage;” but there will be nothing of this kind in heaven. The institution of marriage is intended to accomplish two great objects.
(1) the propagation of mankind. But in that world the number of the redeemed family will be complete, and hence marrying and giving in marriage will be done away.
(2) Mutual help and sympathy.
2. In the blessedness enjoyed.
(1) Negative. “Neither can they die any more.”
(2) Positive. “They shall be equal unto the angels—in nature, immortality, purity, knowledge, happiness.” It is further added, that they will be “the children of God, being children of the resurrection.” To the blessing of adoption several gradations appertain. What is spoken of here is the highest. The apostle refers to it in those striking words, “Because the creature itself shall be delivered,” etc. (Rom_8:21-23).
III. THAT BEFORE THIS GLORIOUS STATE CAN BE ENTERED UPON, CERTAIN PRE-REQUISITES ARE INDISPENSABLY REQUIRED. None can attain the world but those which shall be accounted worthy. Two things may be here noticed.
1. Our guilty persons must be accepted. That can only be done through the Lord Jesus—winning Christ, and being found in Him, not having on our own righteousness.
2. Our sinful nature must be renewed. Worthiness and meetness are often used as synonymous terms. Thus we read in one place, “Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance”; in another, “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” So with the worthiness in the passage before us; it is to be understood as indicating meekness for the heavenly inheritance. Now, nothing that defileth can enter there. Holiness of heart and life is an essential qualification. The pure alone shall see God. (Expository Outlines.)
Mercy weaves the veil of secrecy over the future
Once, we have somewhere read, there was a gallant ship whose crew forgot their duties on board by the distant vision of their native hills. Many long years had passed over them since they had left their fatherland. As soon as one of their number caught, from the top mast, the first glance of his home-scenes, he raised a shout, “Yonder it is! yonder it is!” That shout shot like electricity through every heart on board, all sought to catch the same glance, some climbed the masts, others took the telescope,
89
every eye was on it, and every heart went forth with the eye; every spirit was flooded with old memories and bounded with new hopes. All thoughts of the vessel on which they stood, and which was struggling with the billows, were gone; they were lost in the strange and strong excitement. The vessel might have sprung a leak, run on shore, or sunk to the bottom for ought they thought about her. The idea of home filled and stirred their natures; the thought of the land in which their fathers lived and perhaps their mothers slept; the land of their childhood, and the land of a thousand associations so swallowed up every other thought, that their present duties were utterly neglected. Somewhat thus, perhaps, it would be with us, were the particulars of the heavenly world made clear and palpable to our hearts. The veil of secrecy drawn over them is woven by the hand of mercy. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Reticence of the Bible in regard to heavenly happiness
Casper Hauser was shut up in a narrow, dimly-lighted chamber when a little child. He grew to manhood there. He never saw the earth or the sky. He knew nothing about flowers or stars, mountains or plains, forests or streams. If one had gone to him and tried to tell him of these things, of the life of men in city or country, of the occupations of men in shop or field, the effort would have been a failure. No words could have conveyed to him any idea of the world outside of his cell. And we are like him while shut up in these bodies. The spirit must go out of its clay house before it can begin to know anything definite about life in the spirit world. (Christian Age.)
Equal unto the angels
Equality with angels
Glorified saints are equal to the angels.
I. IN THEIR DIGNIFIED POSITION.
II. IN THEIR SUBLIME WORSHIP.
III. IN THEIR UNDECAYING STRENGTH (Psa_103:20; Zec_12:8). Like angels, the dead in Christ shall henceforth excel in strength. Weariness and fatigue shall be for ever unknown.
IV. IN THEIR MINISTERING SERVICE (Heb_1:14).
V. IN LOVING OBEDIENCE. We read of angels that they “do His commandments, hearkening to the voice of His word.”
VI. IN THEIR EARNEST STUDY OF THE MYSTERY OF REDEEMING LOVE. Speaking of the Gospel and its priceless privileges and blessings, Peter says, “Which things the angels desire to look into” (1Pe_1:12).
VII. IN THE JOYFUL INTEREST WHICH THEY FEEL IN THE SALVATION OF SINNERS.
VIII. IN THEIR IMMORTAL YOUTH. Angels grow not old, as men on earth do. They wear no traces of age; revolving years tell not on them. (P. Morrison.)
Equality of men with angels
I. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF BEING MADE EQUAL TO THE ANGELS. That man is
90
capable of equalling the angels in the duration of their existence, may be very easily shown. Originally he was, like them, immortal. But what man once possessed, he must still be capable of possessing. Equally easy is it to show that man is capable of being made equal to the angels in moral excellence. The moral excellence of creatures, whether human or angelic, consists in their conformity to the law of God. Originally he was perfectly holy; for God made man upright, in His own image, and this image consisted, as inspiration informs us, in righteousness and true holiness. Man is then capable of being made equal to the angels in mural excellence. Man is also capable of being raised to an intellectual equality with the angels, or being made equal to them in wisdom and knowledge. The image of God in whack he was created, included knowledge, as well as righteousness and true holiness. He was, as inspiration informs us, but little lower than the angels. But this small intellectual inferiority, on the part of man, may be satisfactorily accounted for, without supposing that his intellectual faculties are essentially inferior to those of angels, or that his mind is incapable of expanding to the full dimensions of angelic intelligence. It may be accounted for by difference of situation, and of advantages for intellectual improvement. Man was placed on the earth, which is God’s footstool. But angels were placed in heaven, which is His throne, His palace, and the peculiar habitation of His holiness and glory. They were thus enabled approach much nearer, than could earth-born man, to the great Father of lights; and their minds were, in consequence, illuminated with far more than a double portion of that Divine, all-disclosing radiance which diffuses itself around Him. If the mind of an infant can expand, during the lapse of a few years, to the dimensions of a Newton’s mind, notwithstanding all the unfavourable circumstances in which it is here placed, why may it not, during an eternal residence in heaven, with the omniscient, all-wise God for its teacher, expand so far as to embrace any finite circle whatever? Little, if any, less reason have we to believe that he is capable of being made equal to them in power. It has been often remarked that knowledge is power; and observation must convince every one that it is so. Man’s advances in knowledge have ever been accompanied by a proportionate increase of power. A knowledge of metals gave him power to subdue the earth. But we have already seen that man is capable of being made equal to the angels in knowledge. Again, man is capable of being raised to an equality with the angels in glory, honour, and felicity. The glory of a creature must consist principally in the intellectual and moral excellences with which he is endued; and we have already seen that in these respects man is capable of being made equal to the angels.
II. THAT IN THE FUTURE WORLD, GOOD MEN SHALL BE MADE EQUAL TO THEM IN EACH OF THESE PARTICULARS. The fact that men are capable of being made equal to the angels, goes far to prove the truth of this proposition. From the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, it seems evident that they possessed power of various kinds, of which we are destitute. They had power to descend from the mansions of the blessed, and to return, and also, as it should seem, to render themselves visible or invisible, at their pleasure. Indeed it is certain, that in some respects at least, the powers of the righteous must be greatly increased, or they would be unable to sustain that far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, and honour, and felicity, which is reserved for them in the future world. There is a dreadful counterpart to this truth, which, though not mentioned in our text, must be briefly noticed. Every argument, which proves that good men are capable of being made equal to the holy angels, may justly be considered as proving, with equal clearness, that wicked men are capable of equalling the fallen angels, who kept not their first estate. (E. Payson, D. D.)
91
In the resurrection saints are as angels
I. IN HEAVEN THE SAINTS ARE HOLY AS THE ANGELS ARE HOLY.
II. IN HEAVEN THE SAINTS, LIKE THE ANGELS, SHALL ENGAGE IN BECOMING ACTS AND EXERCISES.
1. I say acts and exercises, for while heaven is to be a place of rest, it is not to be a place of idleness. In heaven the saints are to be as angels, and angels, we know, are active in the service of God.
2. In particular, the saints, like the angels, engage in singing the praises of God.
3. Further, the saints, like the angels, are engaged in contemplating the works of God, and especially His wonders in providence and redemption.
4. Yet further, in heaven the saints, like the angels, are engaged in works of love. The angels, we have seen, are actively employed in the service of God. The whole method of the Divine procedure, so far as it comes under our view, seems to be carried on by a system of means or instruments. God fulfils His purposes by agents employed by Him who are blessed themselves and conveying blessings to others, who are happy and diffusing happiness. Even in inanimate creation on earth we find that nothing is useless; everything has a purpose to serve: the stone, the plant, the animal, every part of the plant and animal has a purpose to serve; it may be an end in itself, but it is also a means towards another end. The ear aids the eye, and the touch aids the ear and eye, and every member aids every other; it is good in itself, and is doing good to others. But these inanimate objects perform their work unknowingly, unconsciously. It is different with angels and the spirits of just men made perfect. They perform their allotted work knowing what they are doing, and blessed in the doing of it. Modern science shows us how much material agency can do. Take, as an example, the electric telegraph, which is every day carrying messages past your place. A methodical action is performed at one end of a wire, and in a few moments an intelligent communication is given at the other end, hundreds of miles away. It is a proof of the capacity of body. We know that our Lord’s body after His resurrection appeared and disappeared, and acted no one could tell how. But in the resurrection our bodies will be like His, spiritual and celestial. They will therefore be fit ministers to the perfected spirit—not, as here, hindrances at times, but always helps, and ready to fulfil the will of the spirit. (J. McCosh, D. D.)
The mortal and the immortal
Ours is a dying world, and immortality has no place upon this earth. That which is deathless is beyond these hills. Mortality is here; immortality is yonder! Mortality is below; immortality is above. “Neither can they die any more,” is the prediction of something future, not the announcement of anything either present or past. At every moment one of the sons of Adam passes from this life. And each swing of the pendulum is the death-warrant of some child of time. “Death,” “death,” is the sound of its dismal vibration. “Death,” “death,” it says, unceasingly, as it oscillates to and fro. The gate of death stands ever open, as if it had neither locks nor bars. The river of death flows sullenly past our dwellings, and continually we hear the splash and the cry of one, and another, and another, as they are flung into the rushing torrent, and carried down to the sea of eternity. If, then, we would get beyond death’s circle and shadow, we must look above. Death is here, but life is yonder! Corruption is here,
92
incorruption is yonder. The fading is here, the blooming is yonder. Blessed words are these: “Neither can they die any more.” It is not simply, Neither shall they die any more, but neither can they die any more. Death, which is now a law, an inevitable necessity, shall then be an impossibilty. Blessed impossibility! Neither can they die any more! They are clothed with the immortality Of the Son of God; for as the Head is immortal, so shall the members be. Ah, this is victory over death! 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. All things connected with that new resurrection-state shall be immortal, too. Their inheritance is unfading. Their city, the new Jerusalem, shall never crumble down. Their paradise is as much beyond the power of decay as it is beyond the reach of a second serpent-tempter. Their crowns are all imperishable; and the white raiment in which they shine shall never need cleansing or renewal. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
Moses showed at the bush
The living God of living men
I. GOD IS THE GOD OF ALL MEN, HOWEVER DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER THEY MAY BE. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to name three men so closely related to each other, and yet so conspicuously different from each other, as were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham is of the grandest heroic type—heroic in thought, in action, and, above all, in that faith which is the inspiration both of the highest thinking and of the noblest forms of conduct. But what a falling off is there in Isaac! He hardly seems his father’s son. Quiet, thoughtful, a lover of ease and good fare, with no genius for action, his very wife chosen for him as if he were incompetent even to marry himself, unable to rule his own household, unable even to die—it would almost seem, when his time was come, that he fades out ofhistory years before he slips his mortal coil. Jacob, again, strikes one as unlike both his father and his grandfather. We think of him as timid, selfish, crafty, unscrupulous, with none of the innocence of Isaac, little or none of the splendid courage and generosity of Abraham. What I want you to mark, then, is the grace of God in calling Himself, as He did for more than a thousand years by the mouth of His servants the prophets, the God of each and all of these three men. Different as they were from each other, they are all dear to Him. He has room enough in His heart for them all. Rightly viewed, then, there is hope for us and for all men in this familiar phrase. If God is not ashamed to call Himself their God, may He not, will He not, be our God too, and train us as He trained them, till all that is weak and selfish and subtle in us is chastened out of us, and we recover the image in which He created us?
II. GOD OUR FATHER WILL NEVER LET HIS CHILDREN DIE. The text our Lord quoted was this: To Moses at the bush—between four and five hundred years, that is, after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead—Jehovah had said, “I am,”—not I was—“the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.” But how could He still be the God of these men if they had long been extinct? He is not the God of dead men, but of living men. The three patriarchs were very certainly not living in this world when God spoke to Moses. They must, therefore, have been living in some other world. Dead to men, they must have been alive unto God. Obviously, then, men do not all die when they die.
1. Because our Lord saw in God the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, He inferred that these men could not die; that even when they did die, they must have lived on unto God. And that after all is, I suppose, the argument or conviction on which we all really base our hope of immortality. “Art Thou not
93
from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? We shall not die.” The eternity of God implies the immortality of man.
2. But our Lord at least reminds us by His words of another ground for hope. Nature has many symbols which speak of a life capable of passing through death, a life which grows in volume, in power, in beauty, by its submission to death. Every spring we behold the annual miracle by which the natural world is renewed into a richer, lovelier life. Year by year it emerges from its wintry tomb into the fuller and more fruitful life of summer. We may not care to base any very weighty arguments on these delicate and evanescent yet continually-recurring symbols; but, nevertheless, they speak to our imagination and our hearts with a force and a winning persuasiveness beyond that of logic.
III. What is to hinder us from arguing that, if God is still their God, and they still live unto Him, then GOD MUST EVEN NOW BE CARRYING ON THE DISCIPLINE AND TRAINING WHICH HE COMMENCED UPON THEM HERE, and carrying it on to still larger and happier issues? If they live, and live unto God, must they not be moving into a closer fellowship with Him, rising to a more hearty adoption of His will, a fuller participation of His righteousness and love? No one of you will question the validity of such an argument as that, I think. You will all gladly admit that, since he still lives, Abraham must by this time be a far greater and nobler man than he was when he left the earth, and must be engaged in far nobler discoveries and enterprises.
Christ’s answer to the Sadducees
I. WE WILL CONSIDER IT AS AN ARGUMENT AD HOMINEM, AND SHEW THE FITNESS AND FORCE OF IT TO CONVINCE THOSE WITH WHOM OUR SAVIOUR DISPUTED.
1. We will consider what our Saviour intended directly and immediately to prove by this argument. And that was this, That there is another state after this life, wherein men shall be happy or miserable according as they have lived in this world. And this doth not only suppose the immortality of the soul, but forasmuch as the body is an essential part of man, doth, by consequence, infer the resurrection of the body; because, otherwise, the man would not be happy or miserable in another world.
2. The force of this argument, against those with whom our Saviour disputed, will further appear, if we consider the great veneration which the Jews in general had for the writings of Moses above any other books of the Old Testament, which they (especially the Sadducees) looked upon only as explications and comments upon the law of Moses; but they esteemed nothing as a necessary article of faith, which had not some foundation in the writings of Moses. And this seems to me to be the true reason why our Saviour chose to confute them out of Moses, rather than any other part of the Old Testament.
3. If we consider further the peculiar notion which the Jews had concerning the use of this phrase or expression, of God’s being any one’s God. And that was this” that God is nowhere in Scripture said to be any one’s God while he was alive. And, therefore, they tell us, that while Isaac lived, God is not called the God of Isaac, but the “fear of Isaac.” I will not warrant this observation to be good, because I certainly know it is not true. For God doth expressly call Himself “the God of Isaac,” while Isaac was yet Gen_28:10): “I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac.” It is sufficient to my purpose that this was a notion anciently current among the Jews. And therefore our Saviour’s argument from this expression must be so much the stronger against them: for if the souls of men be extinguished by death (as the Sadducees believed) what did it signify to
94
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to have God called their God, after they were dead?
4. The great respect which the Jews had for these three fathers of their nation, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They, who had so superstitious a veneration for them, would easily believe anything of privilege to belong to them: so that our Saviour doth with great advantage instance in them, in favour of whom they would be inclined to extend the meaning of any promise to the utmost, and allow it to signify as much as the words could possibly bear. So that it is no wonder that the text tells us, that this argument put the Sadducees to silence. They durst not attempt a thing so odious, as to go about to take away anything of privilege from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
II. ENQUIRE WHETHER IT BE MORE THAN AN ARGUMENT AD HOMINEM. The following considerations would appear to indicate that our Lord really meant the matter to be regarded as settled fact.
1. If we consider that for God to be any one’s God doth signify some very extraordinary blessing and happiness to those persons of whom this is said. It is a big word for God to declare Himself to be any one’s God; and the least we can imagine to be meant by it, is that God will, in an extraordinary manner, employ His power and wisdom to do him good: that He will concern Himself more for the happiness of those whose God He declares Himself to be, than for others.
2. If we consider the eminent faith and obedience of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham left his country in obedience to God, not knowing whither he was to go. And, which is one of the most unparalleled and strange instances of faith and obedience that can be almost imagined, he was willing to have sacrificed his only son at the command of God. Isaac and Jacob were also very good men, and devout worshippers of the true God, when almost the whole world was sunk into idolatry and all manner of impiety. Now what can we imagine, but that the good God did design some extraordinary reward to such faithful servants of His? especially if we consider, that He intended this gracious declaration of His concerning them, for a standing encouragement to all those who, in after ages, should follow the faith, and tread in the steps of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
3. If we consider the condition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in this world. The Scripture tells us, that “they were pilgrims and strangers upon the earth,” had no fixed and settled habitation, but were forced to wander from one kingdom and country to another; that they were exposed to many hazards and difficulties, to great troubles and afflictions in this world; so that there was no such peculiar happiness befel them, in this life, above the common rate of men, as may seem to fill up the big words of this promise, that God would be their God.
4. Then, we will consider the general importance of this promise, abstracting from the particular persons specified and named in it, viz., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and that is, that God will make a wide and plain difference between good and bad men; He will be so the God of good men as He is not of the wicked: and some time or other put every good man into a better and happier condition than any wicked man: so that the general importance of this promise is finally resolved into the equity and justice of the Divine Providence.
And now having, I hope, sufficiently cleared this matter, I shall make some improvement of this doctrine of a future state, and that to these three purposes.
1. To raise our minds above this world, and the enjoyments of this present life.
2. The consideration of another life should quicken our preparation for that blessed state which remains for us in the other world.
95
3. Let the consideration of that unspeakable reward which God hath promised to good men at the resurrection, encourage us to obedience and a holy life. We serve a great Prince who is able to promote us to honour; a most gracious Master who will not let the least service we do for Him pass unrewarded. This is the inference which the apostle makes from his large discourse of the doctrine of the resurrection (1Co_15:58). Nothing will make death more welcome to us, than a constant course of service and obedience to God. “Sleep (saith Solomon) is sweet to the labouring man”: so after a great diligence and industry in “ working out our own salvation,” and (as it is said of David) “serving our generation according to the will of God,” how pleasant will it be to fall asleep! And, as an useful and well-spent life will make our death to be sweet, so our resurrection to be glorious. (Archbishop Tillotson.)
Resurrection: an Easter-day Sermon
In the words of the text, the ground on which our Blessed Lord declares the resurrection of men to rest, is well worthy of our deepest attention. He does not say that because He Himself was ere long to be crucified and to rise again, therefore mankind should also rise. He goes down even deeper than this, to the very root of all hope and life for man; to that on which His own incarnation and death and resurrection rest; to the very foundation of being—even the nature of God Himself. Because God is God; the living and unchangeable God; because He has called us into existence, and made us what we are; because He has revealed Himself as our God; and taken us into covenant with Himself, therefore, man shall not—man cannot,-perish. But there is another most blessed and comforting truth taught us in the text; without which resurrection would cease to be a blessing, would lose all power to console and strengthen, would become a dark and dismal phantom. God is the God,—not of solitary and separate souls,—but the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob; the God of father and son and grandson; the God who has appointed and preserves the order of human society, upholds its relationships, and will not disappoint the pure and sweet affections which have been nurtured in them. Would Abraham be the same Abraham if there were no Isaac; Isaac, the same Isaac, if there were no Abraham and Jacob? Nay, if the dishonour of forgetfulness were, in the life beyond the grave, thrown on the human loves and affections which have been born on earth, would God be the same God? (J. N.Bennie, LL. B.)
28 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.
GILL, "Saying, master, Moses wrote unto us,.... In Deuteronomy 25:5 where the
substance of what follows is contained, though not in express words:
96
if any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his
brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother; the meaning of
which is, that if a man died without issue, and left a wife behind him, his next
brother, if unmarried, was to marry his wife, and the first child born of her, was
to be reckoned the deceased's, and to inherit his estate; See Gill on Matthew
22:24.
PETT, "Verses 28-32
‘And they asked him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote to us, that if a man’s
brother die, having a wife, and he be childless, his brother should take the wife,
and raise up seed to his brother. There were therefore seven brothers, and the
first took a wife, and died childless; and the second, and the third took her, and
likewise the seven also left no children, and died. Afterward the woman also
died.”
His questioners cited a case where the levirate principle had been applied to
seven brothers one by one, with each marrying the woman who had been left a
widow by the previous brother when the previous brother died. She had thus
married all seven brothers.
29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless.
GILL, "There were therefore seven brethren,.... In the place where these
Sadducees dwelt; or, however, that were known by them; at least they supposed
such a case, and it might be fact:
and the first took a wife, and died without children; son or daughter, and so had
none to keep up his name, and to possess his inheritance.
PULPIT 29-33, "Luke 20:29-33
There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without
children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third
took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them
is she? for seven had her to wife. The question here put to the Master was a well-
known materialistic objection to the resurrection, and had on several occasions
Been asked by these shallow Epicureans—as the Talmud calls them—to the
great rabbis of the schools of the Pharisees. Their usual answer was that the
woman in question would be the wife of the first husband.
97
30 The second
GILL, "And the second took her to wife,.... As he was obliged by the above law, or pluck off the shoe:
and he died childless: as his eldest brother before him.
31 and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children.
GILL, "And the third took her,.... To wife, by virtue of the same law:
and in like manner the seven also; the other four, one after another, when all seven married her:
and they left no children, and died; or they died, leaving no children behind them.
32 Finally, the woman died too.
GILL, "Last of all the woman died also. Having had no children by either of her seven husbands.
33 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
GILL, "Therefore in the resurrection,.... At the time of the resurrection of the
dead, in that state, supposing there will be such an one, which they denied;
whose wife of them is she? the first, or the last, or any of the intermediate ones?
98
for seven had her to wife; and she had no child by either of them; so that their
claim seems to be alike; this they thought unanswerable, and sufficient to set
aside the notion of a resurrection.
34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.
GILL, "And Jesus answering, said unto them,.... After he had observed that
their error arose from ignorance of the Scriptures, and the power of God:
the children of this world marry, and are given in marriage that is, such who live
in this world, in the present mortal and imperfect state, being mortal men, and
die, and leave their estates and possessions: these marry, and have wives given
them in marriage; and it is very right, and fit, that so it should be, in order to
keep up a succession of men, and that they may have heirs to enjoy their
substance when they are gone.
JAMISON, "said unto them — In Mat_22:29, the reply begins with this important statement: - “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures,” regarding the future state, “nor the power of God,” before which a thousand such difficulties vanish (also Mar_12:24).
PETT, "Verses 34-36
‘And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this world marry, and are given in
marriage, but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the
resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, for neither
can they die any more. For they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God,
being sons of the resurrection.” ’
Jesus’ reply, indicating a detailed knowledge of the afterlife which demonstrated
His heavenly origin, declared that the question was based on the failure of the
questioners to appreciate the truth about the afterlife. For in the afterlife there is
no such thing as marriage and reproduction. Those raised from the dead at the
resurrection become similar to the angels, with spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians
15:44), and become ‘sons of God’ (an Old Testament title used of angels - Genesis
6:2; Genesis 6:4; Job 1:6 to Job 2:7; Job 38:7) indicating their then enjoying a
wholly spiritual nature and body, similar to that of God and the angels. They
cannot die any more, and thus reproduction is unnecessary. They are ‘sons of the
resurrection’, that is products of the results of God’s resurrection power
resulting in eternal life.
‘Those who are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection
99
from the dead.’ Jesus’ emphasises here that not all will experience resurrection to
life, and enjoy the life of the age to come. Only those who will be considered fit
and suitable because God counts them as worthy (e.g. Genesis 15:6) will attain to
that world. (Thus not all of the seven brothers, for example, would necessarily
experience it). And they will thus have become immortal, and will never again
experience death, will not marry or have children, but will enjoy a similar life of
immortality to that of angels enjoying their ecstasy, not in sex, but in enjoying
the presence of God.
(Thus those who teach a millennial kingdom on earth have the problem of having
a mixture of spiritual beings who cannot bear children, mixing with physical
beings who can have children. This is not the impression given by taking all that
is said in the Old Testament in its overly-literal meaning e.g. Isaiah 65:17-25).
COFFMAN, "Parallels: Matthew 22:22-33; Mark 12:18-27.
The Sadducees' question regarded a projection that was theoretically possible,
but actually quite unlikely and ridiculous on the face of it. It is impossible to see
how they considered this any greater problem than if only two brothers had been
involved in the marriage of one woman. Nevertheless, because, under the
Levirate marriage required in Moses' law, such a development was not
impossible, Jesus ignored the unlikelihood of it and answered it.
First, regarding marriage, such an institution will not be found in the eternal
world. In this connection, one cannot help wondering about "marriage for
eternity" as taught in Mormonism! Just as other fleshly relationships shall have
been left behind, so marriage also will not exist in the next world.
Two worlds are clearly spoken of by Jesus in this passage. "This world" (Luke
20:34) and "that world" (Luke 20:35) are the designations Jesus used of the
"here" and the "hereafter," nor is there the slightest hint of anything unreal
about the future world. The Lord spoke with full authority of conditions there;
and his words should illuminate all who heed them.
They are equal to the angels ... The Sadducees had raised no question about
angels, although, of course, as a matter of fact, they denied that any such beings
existed; but Jesus applied the stretchers to their brains in this department also.
The Lord not only spoke of angels as actual beings, but he revealed that men
shall be equal to angels in the hereafter (see my Commentary on Hebrews,
Hebrews 1:14).
Sons of God ... sons of the resurrection ... This use of the two expressions
synonymously is a pledge of a resurrection for the sons of God. The doctrine of
the resurrection is a fundamental of Christianity; and no faith is adequate which
denies it (see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:2).
Even Moses ... taught the resurrection of the dead; and the ignorance of the
Sadducees of this was the reason for their not believing. Jesus said, "Ye do err,
not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).
100
Christ at once cited an example of Moses' teaching on the resurrection; and the
incident referred to brings in focus Exodus 3:6:
And he (God) said, I AM the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
Significantly, Jesus made the argument for the resurrection to turn upon a single
verb, AM, and the tense of the verb at that! Such faith in the Scriptures on the
part of Jesus should inspire his followers to trust the Bible.
It is also significant that Jesus applied these words, I AM, to himself, referring to
himself as "I AM" in Mark 6:30,14:62, and John 18:5; and there can be no
understanding of Jesus' use of this expression except as an affirmation of his
Godhead.
Naturally, after such a devastating defeat at the hands of Jesus, the questioners
withdrew, no more daring to ask any question of the Lord. However, Jesus
would turn the tables and ask them a question.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:34-36
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are
given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that
world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in
marriage: neither can they die any more. How different are the few rare pictures
which our Master draws of the heaven-life to those painted by the great founders
and teachers of other world-wide religions! In his world beyond the grave, while
he tells us of a continuing existence, of varied and ever-increasing activity, in
contradistinction to the Nirvana of Buddha, in these pictures of Jesus the sensual
paradise of Mohammed, for instance, finds no place. Marriage is, according to
our Lord's teaching, but a temporary expedient to preserve the human race, to
which death would soon put an end. But in the world to come there will be no
death and no marriage. We may assume from his words here that the difference
between the sexes will have ceased to exist. They are equal unto the angels. Equal
with the angels in being immortal; no death; no marriage. Jesus in this place
asserts that angels have a body, but are exempt from any difference of sex. The
angels are here introduced because our Lord was speaking with Sadducees, who
(Acts 23:8) denied the existence of these glorious beings. He wished to set the seal
of his teaching on the deeply interesting question of the existence of angels.
35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry
101
nor be given in marriage,
GILL, "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world,.... The
world to come, eternal life and happiness; not by their own works and merits,
but through the blood, sacrifice, and righteousness of the Messiah;
and the resurrection from the dead; that is, the first resurrection, the
resurrection unto life, which only the dead in Christ will enjoy; otherwise all will
be raised: but some to the resurrection of damnation:
these neither marry, nor are given in marriage; there will be no need of any such
practice, for the reasons that follow.
36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.
GILL, "Neither can they die any more,.... Therefore there will be no need of
marrying to procreate children, to keep up a succession of men, any more than
there is among the angels:
for they are equal unto the angels; in spirituality, purity and immortality; See
Gill on Matthew 22:30.
and are the children of God: as they are now by adopting grace; but, as yet, it
does not appear as it will then, what they are and will be:
being the children of the resurrection; as Christ was declared to be the son of
God by his resurrection, so will they appear to be the children of God by their
resurrection to eternal life; for though others will rise, yet not to everlasting life,
and thus appearing to be children of God, they will also be heirs of God, and
enjoy the inheritance, which they will always live to possess in their persons; and
therefore the case being different with them from the children of the world, they
will not marry, nor be given in marriage, as they are.
NISBET, "THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME
‘Neither can they die any more.’
Luke 20:36
It is not to the Lord’s articulated references to the deathless future that we have
102
to appeal alone. Into the whole tissue and texture of His sacred message enters
the thought of ‘that world, and the resurrection of the dead.’ The same, of
course, is the witness of the numberless suggestions in the words of Christ of the
sacred significance of the human soul to the heavenly Father.
I. The significance of the victory over death.—Looked upon from the high point
of sight, the Redeemer’s own victory over death appears at once as the most
necessary and, in a deep sense, the most natural of His works. Setting it apart for
the moment from its unspeakable significance for the forgiveness of our sins, we
see it in a light most magnificent as the representative glorification of our own
immortal nature. The Son of Man challenges the law of death by actually lying
down under its iron grasp; but it is ‘not possible that He should be holden of it.’
He overcomes it. It is a victory whose character as fact is the most historical
thing in history; to its actuality there come out as principal witnesses, but only
principal, leading a ‘great cloud’ of testimony, the glory of the Lord’s Person,
and the existence of the Lord’s universal Church. He Who died lived, to die no
more. Transfigured, yet the same; embodied as truly as ever, in a body none the
less real because now the perfect vehicle of His Spirit, He walked and talked with
His own again. And as the proper, the inevitable sequel (for such it will be seen
to be on reflection) of His Resurrection, He passed in Ascension into the light
invisible. He went up thither, embodied still, leaving the promise (on His own
Divine and human honour) to return again, and meantime lifting the hearts of
His mortal brethren towards the heavens where He was gone. He would not,
indeed, detach them for one moment from the duties at their feet, but He would
invest with an ineffable air of heavenly dignity and heavenly hope the humblest
factors, the most corporeal conditions, of their lot to-day. ‘As is the earthy one,
such are they also that are earthy; as is the heavenly one, such shall the heavenly
ones also be.’
II. Man not for time but for eternity.—This, in some faint and faltering outline,
is the Christian revelation, the revelation by and in the Lord Jesus Christ, of the
immortality of man. By word and by deed, by promise and by warning, by
appeals to our mysterious personality, and to our awful conscience, by His own
astonishing action in taking to Him our whole nature, and in it traversing and
transcending death, He bids us men now know, without a doubt, that we are
made not for time only but eternity. And He does this, such is the majestic
balance and sanity of all He says and does, so as only to accentuate the
importance of time. He dislocates no pure human relation. His doctrine, rightly
understood, is the keystone of the bliss of the family and its precious charities. It
is the law at once of liberty and duty in the social and in the civic and in the
national domains of life. The very leaves of His immortal tree are for the healing
of the nations, as they bring to Him their wounds (see illustration).
III. The inmost necessity of the future life.—In such a Presence and in such a
prospect let us think, let us labour, let us pray, let us live and die. And do we ever
pause or doubt in view of that amazing future when we, in Christ, shall ‘not be
able to die any more’? Do we feel a misgiving of the soul, as though that long to-
morrow would be too much for us, and we should at last even desire to sink out
of ourselves into the dreamless sleep of a personless universe? Such thoughts
103
have crossed the minds even of saints and sages in moments when they have been
awfully conscious of the weight of life. But the question is raised almost
altogether by imagination, and imagination working where it ought to rest—in
regions unknown to us, but guaranteed to faith by God. And the answer to it lies
assuredly in that great Scripture with which we began—‘Neither can they die
any more’; ‘I am the God of Abraham.’ To know Him is the life eternal. To get a
glimpse of Him is to see what makes immortality the inmost necessity—the
sublime sine quâ non—of the living and transfigured soul. It has seen Him; and
its being will be dear to itself for ever as the seer of that sight. To anticipate His
Presence is the answer to every fear beside the timeless ocean of the coming life.
For then, as now, the basis of our immortal personality will lie deep in our
relation to the eternal Love. Not for one instant of the heavenly life shall we be
asked to float in a void; we shall be borne upon the strong, calm tide of the life of
God; we shall repose in all the depth and wonder of our being upon the
everlasting arms; ‘Because I live, ye shall live also.’ ‘God shall be All, and in all’;
not ‘All’ in the sense of being the shadowy and silent Sum of the shadows and
silence of a Nirvana, but ‘All in all,’ the innumerable blessed ones who will be
themselves for ever, but themselves supremely in this, that ‘they see His face, and
His name is on their foreheads.’
Bishop H. C. G. Moule.
Illustration
‘It is Christ Who has been and is the Emancipator of the slave. It is He Who is
the one real Giver to woman of her dignity, her prerogative, her glory; the
weaker vessel, in His estimate, only because the more delicately perfect, the more
sensitive to the lights and voices of the unseen life; and, therefore, how often the
stronger, the far more heroic of the two types of the one humanity in holy purity
and in the courage of self-forgetting love! It is He Who has sown in man’s
troubled society the seed of an endless progress in a path of peace by revealing
the greatness of man as he is related to God, and then by laying it on every man,
in his Maker’s and Redeemer’s Name, to study always the rights of others and
the duties of himself. It is He Who, by His articulation and embodiment of truth
eternal and supernatural, has given to the natural its full significance, so that His
followers, because they have seen Him That is invisible, because they have
handled by faith the things not seen as yet, see in every concrete instance of
humanity around them a thought of God. They look upon men, women, children,
with eyes perfectly human in their perception of common needs and sins and
tears and joys; but they see these things all the while with the sky of immortality
above them, and so with a patience, a tolerance, a reverence, a love, which only
Jesus Christ can teach. Yes, it is He, it is only He, blessed be His Name, Who
gives to our mysterious existence its true continuity, its unity never to be
dissolved, when we see it as re-created in Himself. It is only He Who so unveils
eternity as to illuminate to-day.’
104
37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’[b]
GILL, "Now that the dead are raised,.... Or that there will be a resurrection of
the dead, this is a proof of it:
even Moses showed at the bush: when the Lord appeared to him out of it, and he
saw it burning with fire, and not consumed; when the Lord called to him out of it
by the following name, as he has recorded it in Exodus 3:6. Hence it is said,
when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob; for though the Lord called himself so, yet Moses likewise calls him
by these names, when he gives an account of this affair, and when he went from
him to the children Israel; See Gill on Matthew 22:32.
JAMISON, "even Moses — whom they had just quoted to entangle Him.
CALVIN, "Luke 20:37.But that the dead shall rise. After having refuted the
objection brought against him, Christ confirms, by the testimony of Scripture,
the doctrine of the final resurrection. And this is the order which must always be
observed. Having repelled the calumnies of the enemies of the truth, we must
make them understand that they oppose the word of God; for until they are
convicted by the testimony of Scripture, they will always be at liberty to rebel.
Christ quotes a passage from Moses, because he was dealing with the Sadducees,
who had no great faith in the prophets, or who, at least, held them in no higher
estimation than we do the Book of Ecclesiasticus, or the History of the
Maccabees. Another reason was, that, as they had brought forward Moses, he
chose rather to refer to the same writer than to quote any of the prophets.
Besides, he did not aim at collecting all the passages of Scripture, as we see that
the apostles do not always make use of the same proofs on the same subject.
And yet we must not imagine that there were no good reasons why Christ seized
on this passage (Exodus 3:6) in preference to others; but he selected it with the
best judgment — though it might appear to be some what obscure — because it
ought to have been well known and distinctly remembered by the Jews, being a
declaration that they were redeemed by God, because they were the children of
Abraham. There, indeed, God declares that he is come down to deliver an
afflicted people, but at the same time adds, that he acknowledges that people as
his own, in respect of adoption, on account of the covenant which he had made
with Abraham. How comes it that God regards the dead rather than the living,
105
but because he assigns the first rank of honor to the fathers, in whose hands he
had placed his covenant? And in what respect would they have the preference, if
they had been extinguished by death? This is clearly expressed also by the nature
of the relation; for as no man can be a father without children, nor a king
without a people, so, strictly speaking, the Lord cannot be called the God of any
but the living.
Christ’s argument, however, is drawn not so much from the ordinary form of
expression as from the promise which is contained in these words. For the Lord
offers himself to be our God on the condition of receiving us, on the other hand,
as his people, which alone is sufficient for the assurance of perfect happiness.
Hence that saying of the Church by the prophet Habakkuk, (Habakkuk 1:12,)
Thou art our God from the beginning: we shall not die
Since, therefore, the Lord promises salvation to all to whom he declares that he is
their God, and since he says this respecting Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it
follows that there remains for the dead a hope of life. If it be objected, that souls
may continue to exist, though there be no resurrection of the dead, I replied, a
little before, that those two are connected, because souls aspire to the inheritance
laid up for them, though they do not yet reach that condition.
LIGHTFOOT, "[He calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, &c.] "Why doth
Moses say (Exo 32:13), Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? R. Abin saith,
The Lord said unto Moses, 'I look for ten men from thee, as I looked for that
number in Sodom: find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I
will not destroy thy people.' Then said Moses, 'Behold, here am I, and Aaron,
and Eleazar, and Ithamar, and Phineas, and Caleb, and Joshua.' 'But' saith God,
'these are but seven; where are the other three?' When Moses knew not what to
do, he saith, 'O eternal God, do those live that are dead?' 'Yes,' saith God. Then
saith Moses, 'If those that are dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.'"
PETT, "Verse 37-38
“But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the
Bush, when he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob. Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live
to him.”
Jesus then dealt with the Torah’s basis for the resurrection. In Exodus 3:6 Moses
had spoken of God as ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’. But, says Jesus,
God cannot be the God of the dead, for to be someone’s God they must be able to
appreciate His Godhood. Thus He can only be the God of the living. That must
mean that all who have truly known God, and have entered into covenant
relationship with Him, must have life in Him, and are indeed seen by Him as
having such life. That being so resurrection to life for His own necessarily follows
so that they can fully enjoy God in this way.
Putting it another way. The dead do not praise God (Psalms 88:10; Psalms
106
115:7). He is not their God. So if God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
they must in some way be enjoying life, even though they have apparently died.
For He is the God only of the living. There may also be solidly included in this
the significance of the covenant relationship with God which was indicated by
the title, ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’. God could not be seen as being
in a covenant relationship, which was a deeper one than that of marriage, with
those who were no more. Thus they must in some way have been alive when God
spoke these words. Some of the Psalmists also actually reveal a vague belief in an
afterlife on the same basis, that they could not believe that their positive and
glorious relationship with God, which was in such contrast with those whose
minds were set on earthly things, could cease on death (e.g. Psalms 16:9-11;
Psalms 17:15; Psalms 23:6; Psalms 49:15; Psalms 73:24, see its whole context;
Psalms 139:7-12; Psalms 139:24).
It will be noted that this teaching does away with any possible belief in
reincarnation. In Jesus’ eyes there was no thought that any of them could be
reincarnated. His argument indicated the opposite. Thus it is impossible to take
Jesus seriously and believe in reincarnation.
‘In the Bush.’ In Jesus’ day the Old Testament was split up into sections each of
which had a heading. This was probably for the purpose of synagogue worship.
The section headed ‘the Bush’ contained Exodus 3.
NISBET, "BURNING AND NOT CONSUMED
‘Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth
the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’
Luke 20:37
In ‘the bush,’ flaming but not destroyed, were indeed closely knit together, in
that incident at the foot of Sinai, three signs.
I. The bush.—There was the fact of the shrub, apparently being destroyed, yet
living, and indestructible, and intact.
II. The title.—There were the words which God selected as His very title—‘the
God of the living and the dead’—‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob.’
III. The name.—And there was the grand name by which He named Himself—‘I
AM’—‘I AM!’ Independent of all external things, self-containing—self-existent.
‘I AM,’ in My own, and ‘I AM,’ part of My own eternal nature; they draw it
from Me, and uphold it in Me.
Now, ‘the burning bush’ was a picture and type of many things illustrative of one
fundamental truth.
IV. The Presence in the bush.—You will recollect that—in itself a poor bramble
tree—‘the bush’ was actually in flames, but in it was a Presence. That Presence is
first called ‘the Angel of the Lord’—no doubt ‘the Angel of the Covenant’—the
Lord Jesus Christ, the one great ‘Messenger’ who brought the message of peace
107
and truth to this world. ‘The Angel of the Lord’ called Himself by the very same
name by which He named Himself nearly fifteen hundred years before—‘I AM.’
Where He is, annihilation, destruction, death, can never be. There is an essential
element of perpetuity. As He is for ever, so is that. If He is in it, it is for ever.
Therefore, ‘the bush was not consumed.’
(a) Such as the ‘bush’ was, so at that moment were the Jewish people. They were
a poor, crushed race. But they were the covenant people, covenanted to great
things. And the Lord God was with them, therefore the result was sure—they
could not be consumed. They might be in a ‘furnace of affliction’; but the ‘I AM’
was there.
(b) The same truth has been indicated in the children of Israel ever since. Some
persons would say that a people so oppressed would lose their integrity, must
perish among the nations. But they live, as distinct as ever—they shine, and shall
shine, as God’s witness in the ‘fire,’ and shall ‘not be consumed.’
(c) And as with the Jewish Church, so with our own. Our Church has lived on,
from century to century, amid all that is destructible. It has been ever ‘ready to
perish’—by its afflictions and its martyrdoms—but it lives, and shall live, the
monument of the truth and power of God, because the ‘I AM’ is there—‘God is
in the midst of her, therefore she shall not be moved.’
(d) Many is the child of God who could put his seal to the same truth. ‘My trials
have burned deep, but I have lived through them. I don’t know one real
possession of my soul, not one bud of hope, not one ray, that has ever perished.’
Why? The great ‘I AM’ was with you!
We learn to connect and identify the indestructible with the indwelling of God.
—Rev. James Vaughan.
Illustration
‘There, in the Scriptures, in one short, unfathomable sentence, in the self-
revealing words of Jehovah to Moses by the mysterious bush, Christ finds
immortality, not for the soul only but for the body too, that is to say, not for a
part of humanity only, but for its total. And He finds it in the fact that then and
there the voice of Eternal Personal Life and Love proclaimed a link between
Itself and man, intimate and endeared: “I am the God of Abraham,” said the
Voice, “and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” That amazing relation was,
for our Lord Christ, warrant enough for the certainty of the immortality, whole
and perfect, of those three personalities. If God, if the God of the Bible—Living,
Loving, Holy, Infinite, Alpha and also Omega of existence—can descend into
living relationship with Man and be his God, then man must be so made that he
is capable of sustaining that relationship—capable in the idea of his nature. Then
man is not, because he cannot be, a creature only of the dust. He is born for
immortality.’
108
PULPIT, "Luke 20:37, Luke 20:38
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush. You Sadducees, in
your own arbitrary fashion, set aside the authority of the prophets and all sacred
books save the Pentateuch; well, I will argue with you on your own,
comparatively speaking, narrow ground—the books of Moses. Even he, Moses, is
singularly clear and definite in his teaching on this point of the resurrection,
though you pretend he is not. You are acquainted with the well-known section in
Exodus termed 'the Bush :' what read you there?" When he calleth the Lord the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a
God of the dead, but of the living; more accurately rendered, not a God of dead
beings, but of lividly beings. The meaning of the Lord's argument is, "God would
never have called himself the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, if these
patriarchs, after their short lives, had become mere crumbling dust. God cannot
be the God of a being who does not exist." So Josephus—who, however, no doubt
drew his argument from these words of Christ, for this strong and conclusive
argument from the Pentateuch for the immortality of man does not appear to
have occurred to rabbis before the time of our Lord—so Josephus writes: "They
who die for God's sake live unto God as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the
patriarchs." The expression, "at the bush," should be rendered "in the Bush,"
that is, in that division of Exodus so named. So the Jews termed 2 Samuel 1:1-27.
and following verses "the Bow;" Ezekiel 1:1-28. and following section, "the
Chariot."
38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
CLARKE, "All live unto him - There is a remarkable passage in Josephus's
account of the Maccabees, chap. xvi., which proves that the best informed Jews
believed that the souls of righteous men were in the presence of God in a state of
happiness. "They who lose their lives for the sake of God, Live unto God, as do
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the rest of the patriarchs." And one not less
remarkable in Shemoth Rabba, fol. 159. "Rabbi Abbin saith, The Lord said unto
Moses, Find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I will not
destroy thy people. Then said Moses, Behold, here am I, Aaron, Eleazar,
Ithamar, Phineas, Caleb, and Joshua; but God said, Here are but seven, where
are the other three? When Moses knew not what to do, he said, O Eternal God,
do those live that are dead! Yes, saith God. Then said Moses, If those that are
dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." So the resurrection of the
dead, and the immortality and immateriality of the soul, were not strange or
unknown doctrines among the Jews.
109
GILL, "For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living,.... See Gill on Matthew
22:32.
for all live unto him. The Persic version, reads, "all these live unto him"; namely,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for though they are dead to men, they are not to
God; their souls live with him, and their bodies will be raised by him: he reckons
of them, as if they were now alive, for he quickens the dead, and calls things that
are not, as though they were; and this is the case of all the saints that are dead, as
well as of those patriarchs. The Ethiopic reads, "all live with him"; as the souls
of all departed saints do; the Arabic version reads, all live in him; so all do now,
Acts 17:28.
JAMISON, "not ... of the dead, ... for all, etc. — To God, no human being is dead, or ever will be; but all sustain an abiding conscious relation to Him. But the “all” here meant “those who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.” These sustain a gracious covenant relation to God, which cannot be dissolved. In this sense our Lord affirms that for Moses to call the Lord the “God” of His patriarchal servants if at that moment they had no existence, would be unworthy of Him. He “would be ashamed to be called their God, if He had not prepared for them a city” (Heb_11:16). How precious are these glimpses of the resurrection state!
SBC, "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.
CALVIN, "38.For all live to him. This mode of expression is employed in various
senses in Scripture; but here it means that believers, after that they have died in
110
this world, lead a heavenly life with God; as Paul says that Christ, after having
been admitted to the heavenly glory, liveth to God, (Romans 6:10) because he is
freed from the infirmities and afflictions of this passing life. But here Christ
expressly reminds us, that we must not form a judgment of the life of the godly
according to the perceptions of the flesh, because that life is concealed under the
secret keeping of God. For if, while they are pilgrims in the world, they bear a
close resemblance to dead men, much less does any appearance of life exist in
them after the death of the body. But God is faithful to preserve them alive in his
presence, beyond the comprehension of men.
COKE, "Luke 20:38. For all live unto him.— It is evident that γαρ, for, must
here have the force of an illative particle, and may be rendered therefore, or so
that; for what it introduces is plainly the main proposition to be proved, and not
an argument for what immediately went before. In this connection the
consequence is apparently just: for, as all the faithful saints of God are the
children of Abraham, and the divine promise of being a God to him and his seed
is entailed upon such, it would prove their continual existence and happiness in a
future state, as much as Abraham's: and as the body as well as the soul makes an
essential part of man, it will prove both his resurrection and theirs, and entirely
overthrow the whole Sadducean doctrine on this head. See the note on Matthew
22:31; Matthew 22:46.
NISBET, "ALIVE UNTO GOD
‘He is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him.’
Luke 20:38
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob live; but life, as we hold human life, is the union
of body and soul: therefore there is a union of the soul and body even of the
departed: therefore they must be joined together again, ‘for God is not the God
of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him.’ If these things are so, let us
see some of the consequences.
I. And first, as regards the body.—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. And this is one of the reasons why the disembodied spirit
longs for the Second Advent, that it may have its body back, for the sake of the
integrity of its being, for service, for the perfect image of the Man Christ Jesus,
and for the glory of the Father. Do not, therefore, adopt too loosely what is very
common, the idea of a mortal body, and an immortal soul. Is the body, in its
strictest sense, mortal? Do not disparage the body.
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 no life after
we die, till the day of Christ. For then, could it indeed 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
111
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, and so living, is not it to gladden and animate us? And shall I not do
anything the better, when I remember that they are doing it too?
III. And what is our unity with those who are gone a little way out of our
sight?—Is it not ourselves also to live to Him? Are we not then indeed one, when
we have one focus, and when we point our life to one and the same mark? Nearer
than we to the fountain of life, they doubtless drink in more of its living waters,
and that makes their glory. But farther down the same stream we are drinking,
and that is our grace. And the grace and the glory are one and the same river of
life.
Therefore, whatever presses us closer to Jesus, draws us nearer to them. To live
in Him, from Him, with Him, to Him, this is our fellowship, ‘for all live unto
Him.’
39 Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!”
GILL, "Then certain of the Scribes, answering said,.... Who believed the doctrine of the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied, and so were pleased with our Lord's reasoning on this subject:
master, thou hast well said; thou hast spoken in a beautiful manner, reasoned finely upon this head, and set this matter in a fair and clear light; See Gill on Mar_12:28
HENRY, "Verses 39-47
The Scribes Confounded.
39 Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said. 40
And after that they durst not ask him any question at all. 41And he said unto
them, How say they that Christ is David's son? 42And David himself saith in the
book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 43Till
I make thine enemies thy footstool. 44David therefore calleth him Lord, how is
he then his son? 45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his
disciples, 46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love
greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief
rooms at feasts 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long
prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.
The scribes were students in the law, and expositors of it to the people, men in
112
reputation for wisdom and honour, but the generality of them were enemies to
Christ and his gospel. Now here we have some of them attending him, and four
things we have in these verses concerning them, which we had before:--
I. We have them here commending the reply which Christ made to the Sadducees
concerning the resurrection: Certain of the scribes said, Master, thou hast well
said, Luke 20:39. Christ had the testimony of his adversaries that he said well
and therefore the scribes were his enemies because he would not conform to the
traditions of the elders, but yet when he vindicated the fundamental practices of
religion, and appeared in the defence of them, even the scribes commended his
performance, and owned that he said well. Many that call themselves Christians
come short even of this spirit.
II. We have them here struck with an awe of Christ, and of his wisdom and
authority (Luke 20:40): They durst not ask him any questions at all, because
they say that he was too hard for all that contended with him. His own disciples,
though weak, yet, being willing to receive his doctrine, durst ask him any
question but the Sadducees, who contradicted and cavilled at his doctrine, durst
ask him none.
III. We have them here puzzled and run aground with a question concerning the
Messiah, Luke 20:41. It was plain by many scriptures that Christ was to be the
Son of David even the blind man knew this (Luke 18:39) and yet it was plain that
David called the Messiah his Lord (Luke 20:42,44), his owner, and ruler, and
benefactor: The Lord said to my Lord. God said it to the Messiah, Psalm 110:1.
Now if he be his Son, why doth he call him his Lord? If he be his Lord, why do
we call him his Son? This he left them to consider of, but they could not reconcile
this seeming contradiction thanks be to God, we can that Christ, as God, was
David's Lord, but Christ, as man, was David's Son. He was both the root and the
offspring of David, Revelation 22:16. By his human nature he was the offspring
of David, a branch of his family by his divine nature he was the root of David,
from whom he had his being and life, and all the supplies of grace.
IV. We have them here described in their black characters, and a public caution
given to the disciples to take heed of them, Luke 20:45-47. This we had, just as it
is here, Mark 12:38, and more largely Matthew 23:1-39. Christ bids his disciples
beware of the scribes, that is,
1. "Take heed of being drawn into sin by them, of learning their way, and going
into their measures beware of such a spirit as they are governed by. Be not you
such in the Christian church as they are in the Jewish church."
2. "Take heed of being brought into trouble by them," in the same sense that he
had said (Matthew 10:17), "Beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the
councils beware of the scribes, for they will do so. Beware of them, for," (1.)
"They are proud and haughty. They desire to walk about the streets in long
robes, as those that are above business (for men of business went with their loins
girt up), and as those that take state, and take place." Cedant arma togæ --Let
arms yield to the gown. They loved in their hearts to have people make their
113
obeisance to them in the markets, that many might see what respect was paid
them and were very proud of the precedency that was given them in all places of
concourse. They loved the highest seats in the synagogues and the chief rooms at
feasts, and, when they were placed in them, looked upon themselves with great
conceit and upon all about them with great contempt. I sit as a queen. (2.) "They
are covetous and oppressive, and make their religion a cloak and cover for
crime." They devour widows' houses, get their estates into their hands, and then
by some trick or other make them their own, or they live upon them, and eat up
what they have and widows are an easy prey to them, because they are apt to be
deluded by their specious pretences: for a show they make long prayers, perhaps
long prayers with the widows when they are in sorrow, as if they had not only a
piteous but a pious concern for them, and thus endeavour to ingratiate
themselves with them, and get their money and effects into their hands. Such
devout men may surely be trusted with untold gold but they will give such an
account of it as they think fit.
Christ reads them their doom in a few words: These shall receive a more
abundant judgment, a double damnation, both for their abuse of the poor
widows, whose houses they devoured, and for their abuse of religion, and
particularly of prayer, which they had made use of as a pretence for the more
plausible and effectual carrying on of their worldly and wicked projects for
dissembled piety is double iniquity.
JAMISON, "Then certain of the Scribes, answering said,.... Who believed the doctrine of the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied, and so were pleased with our Lord's reasoning on this subject:
master, thou hast well said; thou hast spoken in a beautiful manner, reasoned finely upon this head, and set this matter in a fair and clear light; See Gill on Mar_12:28
CALVIN, "39.And some of the scribes answering. As it is probable that all of
them were actuated by evil dispositions towards him, this confession was
extorted, by a secret exercise of divine power, from some of them, that is, from
the Pharisees. It may be that, though they could have wished that Christ had
been disgracefully vanquished and silenced, when they perceived that his reply
has fortified them against the opposite sect, (69) ambition led them to
congratulate him on having obtained a victory. Perhaps, too, they burned with
envy, and did not wish that Christ should be put down by the Sadducees. (70)
Meanwhile, it was brought about by the wonderful providence of God, that even
his most deadly enemies assented to his doctrine. Their insolence, to was
restrained, not only because they saw that Christ was prepared to sustain every
kind of attack, but because they feared that they would be driven back with
disgrace, which already had frequently occurred; and because they were
ashamed of allowing him, by their silence, to carry off the victory, by which his
influence over the people would be greatly increased. When Matthew says that
all were astonished at his doctrine, we ought to observe that the doctrine of
religion was at that time corrupted by so many wicked or frivolous opinions, that
it was justly regarded as a miracle that the hope of the resurrection was so ably
and appropriately proved from the Law.
114
BURKITT, "The design of our blessed Saviour in propounding this question to
the Pharisees, (how Christ could be David's son, when David by inspiration
called him Lord) was two-fold:
1. To confute the people's erroneous opinion touching the person of the Messiah,
who they thought should be a mere man, of the stock and lineage of David only,
and not the Son of God.
2. To strengthen the faith of his disciples touching his Godhead, against the time
that they should see him suffer and rise again: the place Christ alludes to is The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand. Psalms 110:1 The Lord, that
is, to God the Son; who was to be incarnate, whom David calls his Lord, both as
God, and as Mediator, his Lord by a right of creation and redemption also.
Now the question our Saviour puts to the Pharisees is this, how Christ could be
both David's Lord, and David's Son? No son being Lord of his own father;
therefore if Christ were David's Sovereign, he must be more than man, more
than David's son. As man, he was David's son; as God-man was David's Lord.
Note hence, 1. That though Christ was truly and really Man, yet he was more
than a mere man; he was Lord unto, and the salvation of, his own forefathers.
Note, 2. That the only way to reconcile the scriptures which speak concerning
Christ, is to believe and acknowledge him to be both God and Man in one
person. The Messiah, as man, was to come forth out of David's loins; but as God-
man, was David's Lord, his Sovereign and Saviour: as man he was David's son;
as God-man, he was Lord of his own father.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:39, Luke 20:40
Then certain of the scribes answering, said, Master, thou hast well said. And
after that they durst not ask him any question at all. "This prompt and sublime
answer filled with admiration the scribes, who had so often sought this decisive
word in Hoses without finding it; they cannot restrain themselves from testifying
their joyful surprise. Aware from this time forth that every snare laid for him
will be the occasion for a glorious manifestation of his wisdom, they give up this
method of attack" (Godet).
40 And no one dared to ask him any more questions.Whose Son Is the Messiah?
115
CLARKE, "They durst not ask - Or, did not venture to ask any other question, for fear of being again confounded, as they had already been.
GILL, "And after that, they durst not ask him any question at all. Neither the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, nor Herodians.
HENRY, "II. We have them here struck with an awe of Christ, and of his wisdom and authority (Luk_20:40): They durst not ask him any questions at all, because they say that he was too hard for all that contended with him. His own disciples, though weak, yet, being willing to receive his doctrine, durst ask him any question;but the Sadducees, who contradicted and cavilled at his doctrine, durst ask him none.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:40-44
The lowliness and the greatness of Jesus Christ.
This is the subject of these verses; but they are suggestive of minor truths. We
have—
I. A PROOF OF UTTER FALSITY. (Luke 20:40.) How came these men to be
afraid to ask questions of Christ? Others did not shrink from him, or fear to ask
things of him. The children were not afraid of him; nor were "the strangers"—
those not of Israel: nor were the women who waited on him and learned of him;
nor the simple-hearted and genuine inquirers. It was only the men who sought
his overthrow, because they dreaded his exposure; it was only those who shrank
from his heart-searching gaze and his truth-telling words, that dared not
approach him and ask questions of him. No man however ignorant, no child
however young, need shrink from the Lord of love, from asking of him what he
needs; it is only the false who are afraid.
II. THE TIME FOR AGGRESSIVE ACTION. The successful general may act
long on the defensive, but he waits and looks for the moment of attack. Jesus
bore long with the questionings of his enemies, but the time had come for him to
ask something of them. We may well bear long with the enemies of Christ, but
the hour comes when we must bear down upon them with convincing and
humbling power.
III. THE OCCASIONAL DUTY OF PUTTING MEN INTO A DIFFICULTY.
On this occasion our Lord placed his hearers in a difficulty from which he did
not offer to extricate them. His prophetic function was to enlighten, to liberate, to
relieve. But here was an occasion when he best served men by placing them in a
difficulty from which they found no escape. Such service may be rare for a
Christian teacher, but it does occur. There are times when we cannot render a
man a better service than that of humbling him, of showing him that there are
mysteries in presence of which he is a little child.
IV. THE WISDOM OF FURTHER INQUIRY. These Pharisees imagined that
they knew everything about the Scriptures that could be known. They were
116
learned, but they were unwise; they had a large verbal and literal acquaintance
with their sacred books, but they had missed their deepest meaning. They had
not inquired humbly, intelligently, reverently enough. How much more is there
in our New Testament than we have yet found! What depth of wisdom in the
words of Christi What enlightenment in the letters of his apostles! Though we
may not have missed our Way so grievously as the scribes had done, yet may
there be very much of Divine truth we have not yet discovered, which patient
and devout inquiry will disclose.
V. THE LOWLINESS AND THE GREATNESS OF JESUS CHRIST. He is the
Son of David, and he is also his Lord. We understand that better than the most
advanced and enlightened of his disciples could at that point. "As concerning the
flesh" he was "born of a woman, made under Law;" yet is he "exalted to be a
Prince and a Savior;" Son of man and Son of God. Only thus could he be what
he came to be:
1. Our Mediator between God and man.
2. Our Divine Savior, in whom we put our trust and find mercy unto eternal life;
our Divine Friend, of whose perfect sympathy we can be assured; our rightful
Lord, to whom we can bring the offering of our hearts and lives.—C.
41 Then Jesus said to them, “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David?
GILL, "And he said unto them,.... The Ethiopic version reads, "to the
Pharisees"; and so it appears, that it was to them he spoke, from Matthew 22:41
how say they? The Syriac version reads, "how say the Scribes?" as in Mark
12:35 and the Persic version, how say the wise men, the doctors in Israel,
that Christ is David's son? that which nothing was more common among the
Jews.
JAMISON, "Luk_20:41-47. Christ baffles the Pharisees by a question about David and Messiah, and denounces the Scribes.
said, etc. — “What think ye of Christ [the promised and expected Messiah]? Whose son is He [to be]? They say unto Him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit [by the Holy Ghost, Mar_12:36] call Him Lord?” (Mat_22:42, Mat_22:43). The difficulty can only be solved by the higher and lower -the divine and human natures of our Lord (Mat_1:23). Mark the testimony here
117
given to the inspiration of the Old Testament (compare Luk_24:44).
BARCLAY, "THE WARNINGS OF JESUS (Luke 20:41-44)
20:41-44 Jesus said to them, "How does David say that the Christ is his son? For
David himself says in the Book of Psalms, 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at my
right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.' So David calls him Lord, and
how can he be his son?"
It is worth while taking this little passage by itself for it is very difficult to
understand. The most popular title of the Messiah was Son of David. That is
what the blind man at Jericho called Jesus (Luke 18:38-39), and that is how the
crowds addressed him at his entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:9). Here Jesus
seems to cast doubts on the validity of that title. The quotation is from Psalms
110:1. In Jesus' time all the Psalms were attributed to David and this one was
taken to refer to the Messiah. In it David says that he heard God speak to his
Anointed One and tell him to sit at his right hand until his enemies became his
footstool; and in it David calls the Messiah My Lord. How can the Messiah be at
once David's son and David's Lord?
Jesus was doing here what he so often tried to do, trying to correct the popular
idea of the Messiah which was that under him the golden age would come and
Israel would become the greatest nation in the world. It was a dream of political
power. How was that to happen? There were many ideas about it but the
popular one was that some great descendant of David would come to be
invincible captain and king. So then the title Son of David was inextricably
mixed up with world dominion, with military prowess and with material
conquest.
Really what Jesus was saying here was, "You think of the coming Messiah as
Son of David; so he is; but he is far more. He is Lord." He was telling men that
they must revise their ideas of what Son of David meant. They must abandon
these fantastic dreams of world power and visualize the Messiah as Lord of the
hearts and lives of men. He was implicitly blaming them for having too little an
idea of God. It is always man's tendency to make God in his own image, and
thereby to miss his full majesty.
PETT, "Mark has “How do the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?”
We must assume from this, as mentioned above, that some Rabbis, especially
perhaps even with Jesus in mind, were downgrading ‘the Messiah to come’ into a
lesser David, a mere ‘son of David’, in contrast with the glorious figure usually
presented. Their idea may well have been someone who was subservient to the
Pharisees. There were in fact many differing and varying views about the
Messiah as is especially witnessed by the Dead Sea Scrolls where the Messiah of
David appears in some cases to be inferior to the Messiah of Aaron. In contrast
some of the apocalyptists endowed him with the highest honours.
Jesus was not by His words denying that He was the son of David, for both
Matthew and Luke have already made clear in their genealogies that He was. See
also Luke 1:27; Luke 1:32; Luke 1:69; Luke 2:11; Luke 18:38-39; Acts 13:34.
118
What He was arguing against was the idea that that was all that He was. As we
have seen earlier (on Luke 18:38) ‘Son of David’ was not a prominent Messianic
title at this time, even though clearly used by some, although as far as Luke is
concerned it was certainly used by the blind man whose eyes were opened (Luke
18:38).
COFFMAN, "V. Jesus himself asks his questioners a question.
As seen from the parallels, this is an abbreviation of a very significant question
which Jesus' questioners were utterly unable to answer. Its importance merits
some further study of it.
1. The question itself. This was simple enough. In Psalms 110:1, which Jesus
quoted, David had referred to the coming Messiah as "My Lord," and, despite
this, the most widely received title of the Messiah, and one used throughout
Israel in those times, was that which entered into the first verse of the New
Testament, "Jesus, the Son of David." This was the title used by the Syro-
Phoenician woman, and the beggar at Jericho. Jesus, therefore, said to the
religious leaders, "How can the Christ be BOTH the Lord of David and the Son
of David at the same time?"
2. The true answer to the question. AS GOD, Jesus is the Lord of David; and in
the flesh, he is the Son of David. In God's great promise of the Saviour coming
into the world, the GOD-MAN who would save from sin, it was mandatory that
the prophecies reveal both natures of the Holy One. Implicit in such a revelation
was the built-in necessity of apparent contradiction, due to the antithetical
natures of God and man. He who was BOTH would naturally possess
antithetical attributes. It is this which led to the Old Testament prophecies that
Jesus would be Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince
of Peace, etc., and, at the same time, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
This dual nature of the promised Messiah the Jewish leaders never understood.
Their pride led them to dwell upon the more glorious qualifications of the
Messiah revealed in prophecy and to rationalize the prophecies of Messiah's
sufferings, rejection and death. They even projected two Messiahs, one the
Conquering Hero and the other the Suffering Priest. This misunderstanding of
holy prophecy was the undoing of Israel's leaders, for it led them to reject the
Christ.
3. Jesus' purpose in bringing up this question was apparently that of finding one
last means of breaking through their unbelief; but they would not consent to
learn anything from him. Not knowing the answer to his question, they
nevertheless did not ask him the meaning.
VI. Jesus' question which fingered the precise point of the leaders' ignorance was
scorned by them as something they did not care to know; and in this their
inherent evil was glaringly evident. There could be no divine accommodation
with such willful and arrogant sinners. The Lord responded to their obduracy by
giving the people a warning against them.
119
PETT, "Verses 41-43
Jesus Himself Now Puts a Question: Who Is David’s Lord? (20:41-43).
In the chiasmus of the Section (see above) this statement, where Jesus reveals
Himself as ‘David’s Lord’, and denounces the ostentation and claims of the
Rabbis who set themselves up as false deliverers, a situation in which their
fleecing of widows is prominent, is paralleled with the depiction of Jesus’ entry
into the Temple to cleanse it as its ‘Lord’ (Luke 19:31; Luke 19:34), and the
declaration that the Temple is a ‘den of Robbers (Luke 19:45-46).
The question of Jesus here would seem to be directed at a Rabbinic idea that the
Christ was merely the son of David and therefore not superior to David, thus
making him purely merely political and secondary. But Jesus wanted to bring
out that the Messiah was not only superior to David, but was of a totally higher
status. he was Lord over all. For even David addressed Him as ‘my Lord’, thus
exalting the Messiah high above David. He leaves men to recognise how this
applies to Himself.
The contrast with the Scribes is striking. Jesus, the Messiah, Who is destined
shortly to receive glory, and exaltation to the chief seat from God, walks in
lowliness and meekness on earth, taking on Himself the form of a servant, and
eschewing wealth, awaiting His destiny, while the Scribes strut and prance
around as though they were the Messiah, and seize for themselves the wealth of
the vulnerable, while putting on a pretence of sanctity. For at the time when this
was spoken there was a sense in which these Scribes did rule their religious
world.
The reference here is to Psalms 110 which is headed ‘a psalm of David’.
Reference in that Psalm to the institution of ‘the order of Melchizedek’ (Luke
20:4), referring to the old King of Salem in Genesis 14, may suggest that it was
written not long after the capture of Jerusalem by David, when it would have
been suitable for pacifying the Jebusites, and yet have come before the time when
such an idea would have been looked on as heresy. In it David and his heirs were
to be seen as non-sacrificing priest-kings in Jerusalem, acknowledged by the
Jebusites and Jerusalemites, even if seen as priest-king nowhere else in Judah
and Israel. This would have aided the assimilation of the Jebusites into the faith
of Israel.
Furthermore as David considered the promise that one day his heir would rule
over an everlasting Kingdom (2 Samuel 7:16) and be God’s Anointed,
triumphant over the all the nations of the earth (Psalms 2:8-9), it could well have
raised within him a paean of praise and a declaration that this future son of his
would be greater than he was himself, that he would indeed be his superior, ‘my
Lord’. But what matters in Jesus’ use of it in this passage is not so much its
background, as how the Psalm was seen in His own day (although it is clear in
Mark that Jesus saw it as written by David under inspiration of the Holy Spirit -
Mark 12:36).
There are good grounds for stating that this Psalm was interpreted Messianically
120
in the pre-Christian period. This is confirmed by the Midrash on Psalms 18:36
where Psalms 110:1 is quoted by way of illustration in a Messianic sense. Later
the interpretation was dropped by the Rabbis because the Christians had taken
it over. Now, says Jesus, if David wrote this Psalm with a future king in mind,
now interpreted as the Messiah, then David was addressing the Messiah as
‘Lord’. And indeed he was not only addressing Him as Lord but was portraying
Him as God’s right hand man. That being so he must have recognised the
Messiah as being far superior to himself.
This receives some confirmation in that Psalms 110 is constantly quoted
Messianically in the New Testament. See for example Acts 2:34 where it is cited
of His ascending the throne of God as both Lord and Messiah; Hebrews 10:12
where, after offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, He ‘sat down at the right
hand of God’. See also Acts 7:55-56; Acts 13:33-39; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28;
Ephesians 1:19-23; Hebrews 1:3-14; Hebrews 5-7. With regard to the
Melchizedek priesthood see Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:17; Hebrews 7:21.
So we may see that Jesus was here concerned to bring home to His listeners, in
what was at this time His usual veiled way, that His status in fact far exceeded
that of David and that He was destined to sit at God’s right hand with His
enemies subdued before Him (Acts 2:36) as made clear especially in Psalms 2;
Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-4; Zechariah 14, 3-4, 9.
Analysis.
a He said to them, “How say they that the Christ is David’s son?” (Luke 20:41).
b “For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit
you on my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet’ ”
(Luke 20:42-43).
a “David therefore calls him Lord, and how is He his son?” (Luke 20:44).
The comparisons are simple. In ‘a’ and its parallel are the questions, in ‘b’ is the
answer.
BENSON, "Luke 20:41-47. How say they that Christ is David’s son, &c. — For
an elucidation of these verses, see on Matthew 22:41-46; Matthew 23:5-7;
Matthew 23:14; and Mark 12:35-40. David therefore calleth him Lord: how is he
then his son — “This implies both the existence of David in a future state, and
the authority of the Messiah over that invisible world into which that prince was
removed by death. Else, how great a monarch soever the Messiah might have
been, he could not have been properly called David’s Lord; any more than Julius
Cesar could have been called the lord of Romulus, because he reigned in Rome
seven hundred years after his death, and vastly extended the bounds of that
empire which Romulus founded. Munster’s note on this text shows, in a very
forcible manner, the wretched expedients of some modern Jews to evade the
force of that interpretation of the one hundred and tenth Psalm, which refers it
to the Messiah.” — Doddridge.
PULPIT, "And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's Son? St.
Matthew gives us more details of what went before the following saying of Jesus
121
in which he asserts the Divinity of Messiah. Jesus asked the Pharisees, "What
think ye of Christ? whose Son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He
saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord
said unto my Lord," etc.? (Matthew 22:42-44). This is one of the most
remarkable sayings of our Lord reported by the synoptists; in it he distinctly
claims for himself Divinity, participation in omnipotence. Unmistakably, lately,
under the thinnest veil of parable, Jesus had told the people that he was Messiah
For instance, his words in the parable of the "wicked husbandmen;" in the
parable of "the pounds;" in his late acts in the temple—driving out the sellers
and buyers, allowing the children in the temple to welcome him with Messianic
salutation, receiving as Messiah the welcome of the Passover pilgrims and others
on Palm Sunday as he entered Jerusalem. In his later parables, too, he had with
startling clearness predicted his approaching violent death. Now, Jesus was
aware that the capital charge which would be brought against him would be
blasphemy, that he had called himself, not only the Messiah, but Divine, the Son
of God (John 5:18; John 10:33; Matthew 26:65). He was desirous, then, before
the end came, to show from an acknowledged Messianic psalm that if he was
Messiah—and unquestionably a large proportion of the people received him as
such—he was also Divine. The words of the psalm (110.) indisputably show this,
viz. that the coming Messiah was Divine. This, he pointed out to them, was the
old faith, the doctrine taught in their own inspired Scriptures. But this was not
the doctrine of the Jews in the time of our Lord. They, like the Ebionites in early
Christian days, expected for their Messiah a mere "beloved Man." It is most
noticeable that the Messianic claim of Jesus, although not, of course, conceded by
the scribes, was never protested against by them. That would have been glaringly
unpopular. So many of the people, we know, were persuaded of the truth of these
pretensions; Jesus had evidently the greatest difficulty to stay the people's
enthusiasm in his favour. What the scribes persistently repelled, and in the end
condemned him for, was his assertion of Divinity. In this passage he shows from
their own Scriptures that whoever was Messiah must be Divine. He spoke over
and over again as Messiah; he acted with the power and in the authority of
Messiah; he allowed himself on several public occasions to be saluted as such:
who would venture, then, to question that he was fully conscious of his Divinity?
This conclusion is drawn, not from St. John, but exclusively from the recitals of
the three synoptists.
BI 41-44, "How say they that Christ is David’s son?
David, Christ’s ancestor
“How say they that Christ is David’s son?” Reading David’s history, we might exclaim, “How, indeed!” Son of David, Son of God: is not this like son of sin, son of grace? But if in the ancestor sin abounded, in the descendant grace much more abounded; and wisdom will inquire whether there is any relation between the superabounding grace and the abounding sin. We may think of Christ as a spiritual David, and we may think of David as a natural Christ, in this way: we may suppose a nature like Christ’s, but without what we know He possessed—a governing, harmonizing spirit of holiness. Imagine that. Imagine one whose natural endowments resembled Christ’s, but without the presiding spirit of holiness; then, we say, you would have another variety of David’s life—one more distinguished by nobleness, but one marked and saddened with many an act of dishonour. On the
122
other hand, if you suppose David to become perfectly spiritual, to have that presiding holiness which Christ had; amongst all the ancient saints, there would have been none so like the Lord Jesus Christ, though still less than He. And thus it is that we have in David the nature of Christ, but without the Divine harmonic regulation; and we have in Christ the nature of David, but not now with the fleshly irregularities, not sullied by blots, not made the shame as well as in part the glory of Israel, but utterly free from evil. Christ is, then, considered as David’s descendant, the inheritor of his sensibilities, which shine in our Lord with completest lustre. He is also the inheritor of his contests; and our Lord overcomes with unvaried and complete victory those temptations which assaulted His ancestor. And by being at once the possessor of his sensibilities and the inheritor of his contests, He becomes the expiation of his sins. You will often find in the history of families that troubles accumulate, and as it were ripen, until they are “laid upon” some one individual; that on this individual rests the burden of evil which has been slowly accumulating. Now, you may have a case in which it seems that the burden of evil so rests that the man is borne down, crushed, and destroyed; and here you say, through the wickedness of his House, this, the last descendant, is utterly shaken and ruined. But you may also have a successful fight; the burden is on the back, but the strength is in the man. This is at once the most burdened and most powerful individual sprung from the race. It is he who, grappling with the evil in its fullest strength, shall retrieve the fortunes of the family. There are historic cases which illustrate that principle. In every family history evil goes on worsening, or good goes on strengthening; and we may have instances of men borne down by the evil, and other instances of men oppressed very greatly and yet triumphing, and so retrieving honour and fortune. Now our Lord Jesus Christ was a spiritual David; He shares—possesses, indeed, to the full—David’s sensibilities; He engages in the moral contests in which David so often failed; and He becomes the expiation of David’s sins—that is to say, He utterly annuls that power of sin so manifest and hateful in David, and brings in a strength of holiness which, as gradually diffused in the breasts of men, shall cause the instrument that else would be discordant to be a harp of joy—shall refine from earthly alloys that sacred metal which, as God’s gold, he will work up into the ornaments and harps of heaven. (T. T. Lynch.)
42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand
GILL, "And David himself saith in the book Psalms,.... In Psalm 110:1
the Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand; which words were
delivered by David, as inspired by the Spirit of God; and contain a speech of God
123
the Father to his son Jesus Christ, upon his ascension to heaven, after his
sufferings, death, and resurrection from the dead; when he was bid to sit down
in human nature, at the right hand of God, in token of having done his work on
earth to full satisfaction; and in the relation of which David calls Christ his
Lord; and is the reason of their being mentioned.
LIGHTFOOT, "[The Lord said unto my Lord, &c.] Whereas St. Matthew tells
us, That "no man was able to answer him a word" to that argument, whereby he
asserted the divinity of the Messias, it is plain that those evasions were not yet
thought of, by which the Jews have since endeavoured to shift off this place. For
the Talmudists apply the psalm to Abraham; the Targumist (as it seems) to
David; others (as Justin Martyr tells us) to Hezekiah; which yet I do not
remember I have observed in the Jewish authors. His words are in his Dialogue
with Tryphon: I am not ignorant, that you venture to explain this psalm (when
he had recited the whole psalm) as if it were to be understood of king Hezekiah.
The Jewish authors have it thus: "Sem the Great said unto Eliezer [Abraham's
servant], 'When the kings of the east and of the west came against you, what did
you?' He answered and said, 'The Holy Blessed God took Abraham, and made
him to sit on his right hand.'" And again: "The Holy Blessed God had purposed
to have derived the priesthood from Shem; according as it is said, Thou art the
priest of the most high God: but because he blessed Abraham before he blessed
God, God derived the priesthood from Abraham. For so it is said, And he blessed
him and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, possessor of heaven
and earth, and blessed be the most high God. Abraham saith unto him, Who
useth to bless the servant before his Lord? Upon this God gave the priesthood to
Abraham, according as it is said, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my
right hand. And afterward it is written, The Lord sware and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever for the speaking of Melchizedek." Midras Tillin and
others also, in the explication of this psalm, refer it to Abraham. Worshipful
commentators indeed!
PETT, "Verse 42-43
“For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit
you on my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.’ ”
Jesus here took the Psalm to be Davidic, as His opponents did, and His argument
was based on what David had said of the coming King in his psalm. In it he had
declared that the coming King Who would sit at God’s right hand until all His
foes were subjected to Him, was also his (David’s) Lord, One Who had
demonstrated Himself to be superior to David. He thus foresaw a more exalted
position for Him as sitting on God’s right hand in the seat of divine power and
authority, until all his foes submitted to Him and were subjected before Him.
We note here how once again Luke omits the reference to the Holy Spirit
included by Mark. This non-reference to the Holy Spirit is his studied purpose in
these final chapters of his Gospel, ready for the transformation that will take
place at the commencement of Acts.
124
PULPIT, "And David himself saith in the Book of Psalms, The Lord said unto
my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand. The Hebrew runs thus: "Jehovah said to
my Lord (Adonai)." The Eternal is represented as speaking to Davids Lord, who
is also David's Son (this appears clearer in St. Matthew's account, Matthew
22:41-46). The Eternal addresses this Person as One raised to sit by him, that is,
as a Participator in his all-power, and yet this one is also David's Son! The
scribes are asked to explain this mystery; alone this can be done by referring to
the golden chain of Hebrew Messianic prophecy; no scribe in the days of our
Lord would do this. Such passages as Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 9:7; Micah 5:2; and
Malachi 3:1, give a complete and exhaustive answer to the question of Jesus.
43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’[c]
CLARKE, "Thy footstool - Literally, the footstool of thy feet. They shall not only be so far humbled that the feet may be set on them; but they shall be actually subjected, and put completely under that Christ whom they now despise, and are about to crucify.
GILL, "Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Which words are a continuation of the citation out of the above Psalm Psa_110:1; and for the application of these words, with the preceding, to the Messiah; see Gill on Mat_22:44.
44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
GILL, "David therefore called him Lord,.... Or, "my Lord", as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions read; or, "his Lord", as the Arabic version. This is the inference from the words before cited Psa_110:1, upon which the following question is asked,
how is he then his son? how can these things be reconciled? in what sense can he be both his Lord and son? See Gill on Mat_22:45.
PETT, "Now if this were the case, asks Jesus, how can He be limited to being
described merely as David’s son, when He is in fact declared to be David’s Lord?
Whatever else this therefore demonstrates it certainly reveals Jesus’ exalted view
of His own position as Greater than David, and as One Whom He declares to all
125
who heard Him to be ‘David’s Lord’. It thus reveals why He had the authority
which gave Him the right to cleanse the Temple, which, following the examples
of Hezekiah and Josiah, would be seen as a Messianic task. And all this in One
Who walked humbly and graciously among men, with nowhere to lay His head.
He made no attempt to ape His future glory.
PULPIT, "David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his Son? That Jesus
was the acknowledged descendant of David during his earthly ministry, is
indisputable; we need but refer to the cries of the populace on Palm Sunday, the
words of the woman of Canaan, of blind Bartimaeus, and others. History bears
its witness to the same fact. The Emperor Domitian, it is well known, summoned
the kinsmen of Jesus, the sons of Jude, his so-called brother, to Rome as "the
sons of David,"
COKE, "Luke 20:44. David therefore calleth him Lord, &c.— This implies both
the existence of David in a future state, and the authority of the Messiah over
that invisible world, into which this prince was removed by death. Else, how
great a monarch soever the Messiah might have been, he could not have been
properly called David's Lord, any more than Julius Caesar could have been
called the Lord of Romulus, because he reigned in Rome 700 years after his
death, and vastly extended the bounds of that empire which Romulus founded.
See on Matthew 22:42; Matthew 22:46.
Inferences drawn from the parable of the vineyard and husbandmen. Luke
20:9-18. When we read the parable before us, and consider it as levelled at the
Jews, we applaud the righteous judgment of God, in revenging so severely upon
them the quarrel of his covenant, and the Blood of his Son. But let us take heed
to ourselves, lest we also fall, after the same example of unbelief.
We learn from this parable,—and what part of the blessed scripture, nay, what
part of universal nature does not bear witness to the same delightful truth?—
that our God is a God of love, of forbearance, and long-suffering kindness; like a
father pitying his own children; like a benevolent master willing and wishing the
welfare of all his servants. Had any tenants of ours used the messengers whom
we sent, as these husbandmen used the messengers of our God, which of us
would not have been moved in such a case? Which of us would have proceeded
to such lengths of loving-kindness, as to send our only and beloved son to reclaim
and bring them to a better mind? Alas! a very small indignity presently swells us
with angry resentments,—poor, imperfect, sinful mortals! and were our God like
us, extreme to mark what is done amiss, who of us could stand one moment
before him? But St. John tells us, that he is Love; not merely Loving, but perfect
Love itself—an unbiassed Will to benevolence and the happiness of his creatures.
Nothing can magnify his love so much, (would to God we were so wise as duly to
consider it!) as the sending his only beloved Son, in the likeness of our sinful
flesh, to live and die afflicted and despised: we do not enough contemplate this
astonishing instance of the divine philanthropy. We should doubtless be very
sensibly affected, were but any thing of the like nature with this parable to
happen in our sight,—even though a father should send a son solely for his own
126
interest; and yet we are but too insensible as to that which faith teaches us,
concerning the only Son of God, sent into the world and infinitely humbled,
purely for our salvation. This ought to convince us, that our faith is in general
very weak, and that our salvation is but little regarded by us: would we increase
the one, and be happy in a greater anxiety for the other, we can fix our thoughts
on nothing so likely to attain that end, as the great object of divine love, the Son
sent into the world, and thus humbled for our salvation.
Which of our hearts feels not a just indignation against these wicked
husbandmen, who, after their Lord had favoured them with so choice a
vineyard, yet ungratefully refused him the fruits; and not only so, but abused
and killed his servants, and, adding iniquity to iniquity, at length rose up against
the son and heir himself, slew him, and cast him out of the vineyard?—Let us ask
our own hearts, could any of us have acted thus basely, thus cruelly? or, to speak
of the facts which this parable presents, could any of us have had a hand in
shedding the innocent blood of the prophets? or have joined the horrid cry at
Jerusalem, Crucify him! crucify him!—his blood be upon us and our children!—
I doubt not, but every reader shudders at the thought, and trembles even at the
most distant apprehension of being an accessary in such atrocious deeds.
Take we heed, therefore, that, while we condemn the Jews, we condemn not
ourselves. The vineyard is now with us; the church of Christ is taken from the
Jews, and planted among us; fruits are required of us; the only acceptable fruits
of repentance, faith, and living works. The sacred scriptures are as the
messengers demanding them; and the ministers unfolding these scriptures, are as
the servants of God sent to receive the fruits in their season. If we despise and
reject those scriptures, disregard their holy instructions, and the rule of faith and
life which they propose; if we neglect to hear the ministers of our God, the
servants of the heavenly King, demanding fruit in their Master's name, and
throw contempt upon the Son by evil lives,—then, like these husbandmen, do we
prove ungrateful to our Supreme Benefactor, and shall be esteemed in his sight
but as those wicked tenants who withheld the fruits, abused the servants, and
murdered the heir. See Hebrews 10:29-31.
Awed by the dread of these things, may we unite our utmost efforts through
divine grace to bring forth unto God the fruits of his holy love; and in obedience
to his commands, do honour to his Son, and strictly conform to all the holy and
pure precepts of his divine gospel. This is the only way to secure our souls from
that eternal destruction, which will certainly fall on the ungrateful and obstinate
sinner, as was figured out by the destruction of the Jews: and this is the only
way, as to secure our personal happiness, so also to secure the happiness of the
state, and to discharge our duty, not only to ourselves, but to our country, on
which inevitable ruin must indisputably fall, if the servants of the Lord of
heaven, his messengers, and his word, be reviled, despised, and scorned; if his
Son himself be mocked, cast out, and crucified afresh.
And all wilful sins are so many murders of Jesus Christ. It seems as if sinners
had conspired to kill him by innumerable deaths: the Jews killed him while he
was mortal, in respect to his human nature; wicked Christians crucify him
127
afresh, now that he is become immortal and all-glorious. Wicked Christians kill
and cast him out of the vineyard, when they cast him out of their hearts, or deny
him an entrance into them. How many hearts are guilty of this murder in the
sight of God! And if so great destruction overwhelmed the Jewish state and
nation for that one crime, what may we imagine will overwhelm those persons,
and that place, who live in a continual act of murdering of their Saviour, by
living in continual sin! May the gracious Father of mercy give us all a due sense
of this important truth; and may we, who profess his faith and love, increase in
our zeal towards him, as we find the presumption of sinners increase! May we,
by their negligence, be stirred up to more watchfulness; by their contempt of the
things of God, be more filled with thankfulness with regard to them; and by their
reviling be animated to more fervent prayers; that ere it be too late, they may
know and pursue the things, which belong to their everlasting peace!
REFLECTIONS.—1st, While Jesus was engaged in the blessed work of
preaching to the people the glad tidings of salvation, the chief priests, scribes,
and elders came upon him, to interrupt him in these labours of love. Note; We
may not wonder, if in the service of the gospel we meet with many interruptions
from the great enemy of souls, and his emissaries.
They demanded his authority for what he said and did; insinuating, that as it
belonged to them to judge of the pretensions of those who assumed the
prophetical character, unless he produced his commission, they must proceed
against him as a deceiver. He answers their question by another, respecting the
baptism of John; but they not choosing to answer for fear of the people, and
unwilling to own the divine mission of the Baptist, pretended ignorance, and
gave him a just reason to refuse them a farther account of himself, seeing they
had already rejected the plainest evidence. Note; It is but lost labour to
endeavour to persuade those, who are before resolved not to be convinced.
2nd, The parable contained in Luke 20:9-18 is designed for a warning to the
priests and rulers, of the ruin coming upon them and their nation, for their
persecutions of the messengers of God, and their rejection of the Messiah.
1. The vineyard was the Jewish people, who had been taken under God's
peculiar care; and he having instituted a magistracy and ministry among them,
expected suitable returns of love and duty from them; but instead of that, they
treated with the greater cruelty those divinely-appointed messengers, whom he
sent to remind them of his just expectations, and now were about to murder the
Son, who was come on the same errand; the consequence of which would be, the
ruin of the nation, and the eternal destruction of these miscreants. Note; (1.) The
best of men have often met with the cruellest usage from those, whose good alone
was the object of their labours. (2.) The end of obstinate transgressors is to be
rooted out at the last.
2. Struck with the denunciation of vengeance, they could not but deprecate the
wrath threatened, and express their abhorrence of such a crime as the murder of
the Messiah; but Christ with deepest concern beheld them, assured of their
determined obstinacy, and approaching ruin.—Though their efforts would all be
128
fruitless; for that stone which these Jewish builders rejected, would,
notwithstanding, become the head of the corner. This Jesus, whom they despised,
would be exalted to the right hand of Majesty on high, and invested with all
power and authority in heaven and in earth; and his enemies, who were offended
at him, and on whom his vengeance would light, must terribly perish.
3. The chief priests plainly perceived the design of the parable, and rage boiled in
their bosoms. They would gladly have seized and murdered him on the spot, but
were deterred through fear of the people, and forced reluctantly to defer their
bloody purpose to a more convenient opportunity. So little effect have the fairer
warnings upon those who harden their hearts against conviction.
3rdly, Resolved, if possible, to destroy him, and not having the power in their
own hands, they determined to try if they could not ensnare him, and render him
obnoxious to the Roman government, as a seditious person; for which purpose
we have,
1. The insidious question proposed to him by certain of the Pharisees and
Herodians, who, under the guise of conscientious regard to their duty, pretended
a great concern to know whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, and
thereby acknowledge themselves the subjects of a foreign power. They suggest
their fullest confidence in the rectitude of his decisions, their opinion of his
integrity, unawed by the fear of men, and their confidence in that divine
commission under which he acted; and thus they endeavoured to flatter him into
an unguarded freedom, which either must embroil him with the civil powers, or
render him odious to the people. Note; (1.) The garb of piety has often served to
cover the vilest designs. We need be on our guard against some who feign
themselves just men, and not credulously trust to every specious professor. To be
wise as serpents is our duty, as well as to be harmless as doves. (2.) It has been
the common artifice of persecutors, to endeavour to represent the faithful as
enemies to the state, and thus to gain the civil powers to oppress them.
2. His answer confounds and silences his enemies. He perceived their craftiness;
for from him nothing is hid, nothing is secret; and out of their own mouth draws
a decision of the question, to which they cannot object. As they own that their
money bore Caesar's image and superscription, he had certainly a right to his
own; though this interfered not with God's demands, to whose worship and
service their hearts and lives must be devoted. Unable to object, in sullen silence
they held their peace, marvelling at his wisdom, yet obstinate in their infidelity.
4thly, The confutation of the Sadducean objection to the resurrection of the
dead, was considered before, Matthew 22:23; Matthew 22:46. Mark 12:18; Mark
12:44. But our Lord here enlarges a little concerning that awful state which after
death succeeds. The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
necessary it is that the world should thus be supplied with inhabitants, and the
ravages of death be repaired by the rising generation: but they which shall be
accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, have
higher joys than the marriage-state can afford, and need not to increase, where
death is swallowed up in victory. They are said to be accounted worthy, not that
129
in and of ourselves we have any merit; our worthiness consists in being found in
Christ, justified by his blood, and sanctified by his Spirit. In that unseen world to
which the blessed go, [1.] They neither marry, nor are given in marriage; their
holiness and happiness are complete without it: the delights of sense are
swallowed up in the infinitely surpassing ecstacies of the soul. [2.] Neither can
they die any more: that world needs not to be replenished with new inhabitants,
where life eternal reigns, and death never enters, [3.] They are equal to the
angels; partaking in their service, enjoying the same bliss; glorious and immortal
as those seraphic spirits. [4.] They are the children of God, being the children of
the resurrection; they are instated in full possession of the purchased
inheritance.
5thly, The scribes, the established expositors of the law, expressed their high
approbation of his answer to their Sadducean opponents, whom our Lord had
entirely silenced. But though they had done with him, Christ has not done with
them.
1. He proposes to them a question, which seemed of easy solution, but which
quite disconcerted them for an answer. Ignorant of the mystery of the person of
the Messiah, in whom the divine and human natures were united, they could not
account how David's Son should be David's Lord. To us this mystery is
unfolded: we behold God and man in one Christ.
2. He condemns the hypocrisy and covetousness of the scribes, and cautions his
disciples against them. They made a vast parade of profession, and with flowing
robes in solemn stateliness as they passed, expected homage, as due to their
superiority; delighted in hearing the incense offered to their vanity; proudly
affected precedency; and while by their long prayers they insinuated themselves
into the confidence of widows, they basely and wickedly abused the trust reposed
in them, and devoured their substance. These shall receive greater damnation:
wickedness committed under such a veil of piety, brings the most aggravated
guilt on the conscience, and must be attended with the most terrible vengeance of
God.
Warning Against the Teachers of the Law
45 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples,
GILL, "Then in the audience of all the people,.... Whilst they were about him, and hearing him, and for their sakes too;
130
he said unto his disciples; yea, he spake to the multitude, as well as to the disciples, as appears from Mat_23:1.
BARCLAY, "THE LOVE OF HONOUR AMONG MEN (Luke 20:45-47)
20:45-47 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware
of the scribes who like to walk about in long robes, and who love greetings in the
market places, and the chief seats in synagogues, and the top place at banquets.
They devour widows' houses and pretend to offer long prayers. These will
receive the greater condemnation."
The honours which the scribes and Rabbis expected to receive were quite
extraordinary. They had rules of precedence all carefully drawn up. In the
college the most learned Rabbi took precedence; at a banquet, the oldest. It is on
record that two Rabbis came in, after walking on the street, grieved and
bewildered because more than one person had greeted them with, "May your
peace be great," without adding, "My masters!" They claimed to rank even
above parents. They said, "Let your esteem for your friend border on your
esteem for your teacher, and let your respect for your teacher border on your
reverence for God." "Respect for a teacher should exceed respect for a father,
for both father and son owe respect to a teacher." "If a man's father and teacher
have lost anything, the teacher's loss has the precedence, for a man's father only
brought him into this world; his teacher, who taught him wisdom, brought him
into the life of the world to come.... If a man's father and teacher are carrying
burdens, he must first help his teacher, and afterwards his father. If his father
and teacher are in captivity, he must first ransom his teacher, and afterwards his
father." Such claims are almost incredible; it was not good for a man to make
them; it was still less good for him to have them conceded. But it was claims like
that the scribes and Rabbis made.
Jesus also accused the scribes of devouring widows' houses. A Rabbi was legally
bound to teach for nothing. All Rabbis were supposed to have trades and to
support themselves by the work of their hands, while their teaching was given
free. That sounds very noble but it was deliberately taught that to support a
Rabbi was an act of the greatest piety. "Whoever," they said, "puts part of his
income into the purse of the wise is counted worthy of a seat in the heavenly
academy." "Whosoever harbours a disciple of the wise in his house is counted as
if he offered a daily sacrifice." "Let thy house be a place of resort to wise men."
It is by no means extraordinary that impressionable women were the legitimate
prey of the less scrupulous and more comfort-loving rabbis. At their worst, they
did devour widows' houses.
The whole unhealthy business shocked and revolted Jesus. It was all the worse
because these men knew so much better and held so responsible a place within
the life of the community. God will always condemn the man who uses a position
of trust to further his own ends and to pander to his own comfort.
BURKITT, "Observe here, what it is that our Saviour condemns; not civil
salutations in the market-place, not the chief seats in the synagogue, not the
uppermost rooms at feasts, but their fond affecting of these things, and their
131
ambitious aspiring after them; it was not their taking, but their loving, the
uppermost rooms at feasts, which our Saviour condemns. God is the God of
order, there may and ought to be a precedency among persons; God commands
us to give honor to whom honor is due, but pride and ambition are detestable
and hateful vices, especially in such as are preachers, and ought to be patterns of
humility.
Observe, 2. How our Saviour condemns the Pharisees for their gross hypocrisy,
in coloring over their abominable covetousness with a specious pretence of
religion, making long prayers in the temple and synagogues for widows, and
thereupon persuading them to give bountifully to Corban, that is, the common
treasury for the temple; some part of which was employed for their maintenance.
Whence we learn, that it is no new thing for designing hypocrites to cover the
foulest transgressions with the cloak of religion: thus the Pharisees made their
prayers a cloak and cover for their covetousness.
PETT, "Having established His position over against Pharisaic teaching, Jesus
now warned further against following the ways of the Pharisees, who did ape
such ways. Just as in the parallel in the Section chiasmus above, the Temple was
a Den of Robbers, thus condemning the chief priests, so are the Rabbis
hypocritical seekers of glory in the eyes of the world, and despoilers of widows.
And an example of one such widow is then given, who in spite of her poverty,
gives all that she has to God, her consecration highlighting the godliness of such
people in contrast with the unscrupulousness and greed of these Rabbis.
We can compare His condemnation here with that in Luke 11:39-52, but there it
was the Pharisees who received the initial assault, whereas here all was reserved
for the Scribes. It will be noted that unusually for Luke, who generally avoids
repetitions, there is almost a ‘repetition’ of Luke 11:43, for there He accuses the
Pharisees of loving the best seats in the synagogues and the salutations in the
marketplaces, whereas here He applies the same accusations to the Scribes.
Clearly He felt that this typified what they were truly like. Spiritual pride has
been the downfall of far too many for it not to be taken with the deepest
seriousness.
Analysis.
a ‘And in the hearing of all the people He said to His disciples, “Beware of the
scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and love salutations in the
marketplaces, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts” (Luke
20:45-46).
b “Who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers” (Luke
20:47 a).
c “These will receive greater condemnation” (Luke 20:47 b).
b And he looked up, and saw the rich men who were casting their gifts into the
treasury. And he saw a certain poor widow casting in there two mites (Luke
21:1-2).
a And he said, “Of a truth I say to you, This poor widow cast in more than they
132
all, for all these did of their superfluity cast in to the gifts, but she of her want
did cast in all the living that she had” (Luke 21:3).
Note that in ‘a’ the Scribes make a great show of their own importance, and in
the parallel, where men continue to make a show, they are shown up in contrast
with a poor widow. In ‘b’ the Scribes devour widow’s houses and yet make a
pretence of sanctity by praying long prayers, and in the parallel their giving is
contrasted with that of a widow who in what she is represents all whom they
have despoiled. In ‘c’, and centrally, their great condemnation is declared.
Verse 45
‘And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples,’
Jesus now turns to teaching His disciples, but in such a way that all the people
overhear Him. It will then be up to them how they take it.
COFFMAN, "How trifling are the things men love. Honorable greetings in the
markets of the world, seats at "the head table" at dinners, "the Amen Corner"
in churches, medals, titles, a ribbon, a red hat, or a surplice. Looking across
nineteen centuries, how insignificant do those special seats at the front of ancient
synagogues appear! Yet it was for things like these that the priestly hierarchy of
Israel bartered away their love for the Lord of Glory.
Nor were such embellishments of their vanity the only trouble with those leaders.
With bold selfishness they "devoured widows' houses." Just how they did this is
not known but there may be a glimpse of this in the parable of the unrighteous
judge, who for private reasons heard a widow's plea; but left in the background
is the impression that this instance of "justice" stood isolated in his conduct.
Through their influence with such men, the Pharisees had many opportunities to
pervert justice.
Long prayers ... Capping the picture of Israel's self-serving rulers is this detail of
the "long prayer," uttered on street corners or other public stands, full of
hypocritical piety, an affront to God and man alike.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:45, Luke 20:46
Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, Beware of the
scribes. Here, in St. Matthew, follows the great denunciation of the Sanhedrist
authorities with the other rabbis, Pharisees, and public teachers and leaders of
the people. It fills the whole of the twenty-third chapter of the First Gospel. The
details would be scarcely interesting to St. Luke's Gentile readers, so be thus
briefly summarizes them. Which desire to walk in long robes. "With special
conspicuousness of fringes (Numbers 15:38-40). 'The supreme tribunal,' said R.
Nachman, 'will duly punish hypocrites who wrap their talliths round them to
appear, what they are not, true Pharisees '" (Farrar).
PULPIT, "Luke 20:45-47
Character and precept, etc.
133
These verses suggest five truths of practical importance.
I. THAT CHARACTER IS OF MORE CONSEQUENCE THAN PRECEPT.
"Beware of the scribes;" they "sit in Moses' seat, and teach things that you
should do" (Matthew 23:2); but their conduct is such that they are to be avoided
rather than sought after. Beware of the bad man, though he be a good teacher;
the influence of his life will be stronger than the effect of his doctrine; the one
will do more harm than the other will do good. In a religious teacher, character
is the principal thing; if that be unsound, proceed no further; seek some one else,
one that you can respect, one that will raise you by the purity of his heart and the
beauty of his behavior.
II. THAT UNGODLY MEN FALL INTO A FOOLISHNESS THE DEPTH OF
WHICH THEY DO NOT SUSPECT. How childish and even contemptible it is
for men to find gratification in such display on their own part and in such
obsequiousness on the part of others as is here described (Luke 20:46)! To sink
to such vanity is wholly unworthy of a man who fears God, and who professes to
find his hope and his heritage in him and in his service. They who thus let
themselves down do not know how poor and small is the spirit they cherish and
the behavior in which they indulge; they do not suspect that, in the estimate of
wisdom, it is at the very bottom of the scale of manliness.
III. THAT FAMILIARITY WITH DIVINE TRUTH IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMMISSION OF THE WORST OFFENCES. The scribes themselves,
familiar with every letter of the Law, could descend to heartless
misappropriation in conjunction with a despicable hypocrisy (Luke 20:47). Guilt
and condemnation could go no further than this. It is solemnizing thought that
we may have the clearest view of the goodness and the righteousness of God, and
yet may be very far on the road to perdition. Paul felt the solemnity of this
thought (1 Corinthians 9:27). It is well that the children of privilege and the
preachers of righteousness should take this truth to heart and test their own
integrity.
IV. THAT THE AFFECTATION OF PIETY IS A SERIOUS AGGRAVATION
OF GUILT. The "making long prayers" entailed a "greater condemnation."
Infinitely offensive to the Pure and Holy One must be the use of his Name and
the affectation of devotedness to his service as a mere means of selfish
acquisition. The fraud which wears the garb of piety is the ugliest guilt that
shows its face to heaven. If men will be transgressors, let them, for their own
sake, forbear to weight their wrong-doing with a simulated piety. The converse
of this thought may well be added; for it is truth on the positive side, viz.—
V. THAT DEVOUT BENEVOLENCE IS GOODNESS AT ITS BEST. TO serve
our fellow-men because we love Christ, their Lord and ours, and because we
believe that he would have us succor them in their need, is to do the right thing
under the purest and worthiest prompting; it is goodness at its best.—C.
BI 45-47, "Beware of the scribes
134
The sins of the scribes and Pharisees
The scribes were doctors of the law, who read and expounded the Scripture to the people.They were possessed of the key of knowledge, and occupied the seat of Moses. The Pharisees were a kind of separatists among the Jews, as their name indeed denotes. When Jesus speaks to these men, He no longer wears His wonted aspect. His language is not that of compassion and tenderness, but of stern denunciation. It is important that Jesus should be presented to us under these two aspects, of forgiving mercy and of relentless wrath, in order to stimulate hope and to repress presumption. In the text Jesus proceeds to indicate the grounds of that woe He had denounced upon the scribes and Pharisees. He points out to the people the crimes with which they were chargeable, and the hypocrisy of their conduct. It is worthy of notice that He does not content Himself with speaking to the guilty parties alone. He unveils their character before the face of the world. They were deceiving the people by their pretences, and therefore the people must he warned against them. The same thing is true of all pretenders in religion. Truth and justice, and love for the souls of men, alike demand that such pretences should be made manifest. The first charge adduced against the scribes and Pharisees in the text is, that they shut up the kingdom of heaven against men—that they neither entered into it themselves, nor suffered those who were entering to go in. When the question is put, what methods did they take to accomplish this? the easiest and perhaps the most natural answer would be, that it was by their extraordinary strictness and outward purity. The mass of the people were regarded by them as little better than heathens. They abjured the society of such men; and one special ground of offence against Jesus was, that He did not imitate them in this respect. It might be readily presumed, then, that by such austerities as marked their outward conduct, they rendered religion altogether so repulsive as to deter the common people from inquiring into its claims, rather than to invite them to submit themselves to its authority. Thus, it may be supposed, they shut up the kingdom of heaven against men. It is notorious that such an accusation as this has been always preferred against the pure ministers of a pure religion. The duty of the minister is to declare the truth as he finds it in the Bible, and to act upon the directions he has there received. In thus preaching and acting, however, many may be shut out from the kingdom of heaven; it is not he who has dosed its gates against them, but God Himself. But the supposition is very far from being correct, that the Pharisees were accused of shutting the kingdom of heaven against men by the strictness and austerity to which they pretended. We shall discover the real grounds of the accusation by comparing the text with the parallel passage in the Gospel according to Luke. It is there said (Luk_11:52): “Woe unto you lawyers, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye enter not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” The way, then, in which they shut the kingdom of heaven against themselves and others, was by taking away the key of knowledge. In order to this, let us endeavour to ascertain the precise position of the Pharisee, and the place which he assigned to the word of God. Let us observe how he used the key of knowledge, and by what precise instrumentality he shut up the kingdom of heaven against men. The Pharisees did not deny men the use of the Bible. They did not conceal the knowledge of its contents. The people heard it read from year to year in their synagogues. It was explained to them, and their attention solicited to its truths. How, then, could it be said that they had taken away the key of knowledge? The answer to the question is to be found in the fact, not that they withheld the word of God, but that they made the commandment of God of none effect by their tradition. They refused to acknowledge the fact that God is the only teacher and director of His Church. They added to His word instructions of their own. The Divine authority, if it is to be preserved at all, must stand apart from and be superior to all other authority.
135
The claims of God are paramount, and so soon as they cease to be so, they cease to be Divine. In other words, God is no longer God—His worship is rendered vain—and His commandments become of none effect. Thus the key of knowledge is altogether taken away, and the kingdom of heaven is shut against men. The fact that the commandments of men occupied such a place at all vitiated their whole doctrine and worship, deprived men of the key of knowledge, and shut up the kingdom of heaven against them. Such a Church ceased to be a blessing, and had become a curse to the nation. It was a Church not to be reformed, but to be destroyed. It was rotten at the very heart, and nothing remained for it but woe. But the text is pregnant with instruction and admonition to all the professed disciples of Christ. It impresses upon us the doctrine that the kingdom of heaven is opened by knowledge. This is the key that unlocks the celestial gates. We cannot obtain an entrance to it in any other way. The lock will not yield to any other power. Not that all kinds of knowledge are equally available. This is life eternal, to know God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent. To be ignorant of Christ is to be shut out o! heaven. To know Jesus Christ is to open up the kingdom of heaven. The highest gifts, the most shining acquirements, cannot bring us a footstep nearer heaven. Nothing else avails to open up the kingdom to men but the knowledge of Jesus Christ. From the text also we learn this doctrine, that the ministers of the Church have in a certain sense the power of shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men. They are set up as lights of the world. Their business is to instruct the ignorant. If they neglect the duties or pervert the designs of their office, how are men to acquire the knowledge of the truth? From the doctrines set forth in the text, let us lay to heart the following practical instructions:
1. Let us learn to read the Bible, and to listen to its truths, in the assurance that our eternal destiny depends upon the knowledge of them.
2. Let ministers also learn their proper vocation as porters to the kingdom of heaven, and let them beware of handling the Word of God deceitfully. Let us now proceed to examine the second charge which Jesus brings against the scribes and Pharisees. It is conveyed in these words “Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” The crime of the Pharisees was not one, but manifold, and Jesus, in faithfulness, accumulates His charges against them. Lest for a moment they should forget the heinous character of these charges, He recapitulates with each the coming doom which awaited them. This second sin which Jesus charges against the Pharisees is of a very aggravated kind. It is devouring the houses of widows. Not contented with making void the commandments of God, these men were guilty of the most hateful practices. Having usurped a treasonable authority in Divine things, their lives were characterized by acts of atrocious oppression and cruelty. Insinuating themselves into the confidence of the weak and the defenceless, they made their high religious profession a covert for the basest covetousness. They become robbers of the widow and the fatherless. Such wickedness of conduct might have been expected as the sure result of the corruptions they had introduced into the Divine worship. Purity of faith is the surest guardian of integrity of life. In the case of the Pharisees the wickedness was peculiarly hateful. The sin of which they were guilty was devouring houses, or, in other words, involving families in ruin, by appropriating and devouring the substance which belonged to them. But this sin was accompanied with a threefold aggravation. First, the houses they involved in ruin were the houses of widows. Secondly, their sin was yet farther aggravated by being committed under the pretext of religion. They committed robbery under the guise of piety. Thirdly, they made an extraordinary profession of religious zeal. They not only prayed with a view to the more easy perpetration of robbery,
136
but their prayers were long. Widows were their easy dupes. Thus we are directed to one of the marks which indicate the mere pretender to godliness, and by which we shall be able to detect and expose the hypocrite. For the pretender in religion, having necessarily some selfish object in view, and not being animated by a love of the truth, may be expected to turn his profession to the best possible account. And whether for the purpose of gratifying his vanity, of acquiring power and influence, or of increasing wealth, he will always find his readiest instruments in silly and restless women. Hence, too readily, among despisers of religion, the reproach has been taken up against the true and living Church, that its most active promoters, and most zealous adherents, are women, and that the prayers of its members are only for a pretence. Surely it would be to infer rashly to conclude, that because the ministers or members of a Church were signalized by fervent and frequent prayer, and because devout and honourable women, not a few, were among its most zealous friends, such a Church was guilty of the Pharisaic crime, and justly lay under the reproach and the woe denounced in the text. Let us examine and see. No one can read the personal history of Jesus without perceiving how, in the days of His earthly ministry, He had among His most honoured and endeared disciples devout women not a few, whose rich gifts He did not despise, and whose devoted love He did not spurn. Who was it that blamed the expenditure of a very precious box of ointment? Is it, on the other hand, an unfailing mark of a hypocrite to make long prayers? Doubtless there have been many, in every age, who have assumed the form of godliness while denying its power, who have drawn near to God with the mouth, and honoured Him with the lips, while their hearts have been far from Him. But if hypocritical pretenders affect this devotion, is it not an evidence that prayer is the proper and true life Of the believer? Why should the Pharisee pretend to it, if the religious propriety of the thing itself were not felt and acknowledged? The hypocrite does not affect that which does not essentially belong to godliness. Jesus did not accuse the Pharisees, and pronounce a woe upon them, because they received the support of women, even of widows, nor because of the frequency or length of their prayers. Abstracted, however, from the peculiar circumstances and aggravations with which the sin was accompanied in the actual practice of the Pharisees, the thing condemned in the text is, prayer which is uttered only in pretence, and prayer which has a selfish and worldly end in view. Widows were the objects against whom the Pharisees put in practice their artful hypocrisy. But it is obvious that whosoever may be the objects of the deception, the essential character of the sin remains the same. Nor is the nature of the sin affected by the extent of the pretended devotion. The pretence is the thing blameworthy. It is true the sin becomes more heinous in proportion to the height of the profession, and the Pharisees are worthy of greater damnation, because they not only pretended to devotion, but to very high flights of it. Leaving out of view, however, such aggravating circumstances as these, that their prayer was long, and that the widows and the fatherless were their prey, we have the essential character of the sin set before us, as at least worthy of damnation, namely, making a profession of religion for the purpose of advancing worldly interests, and securing the ends of earthly ambition. The Pharisees of our day, then, who lie under the woe pronounced by Jesus, are—
1. Those ministers who enter upon and continue in their office for a piece of bread. The most pitiable being among all the afflicted sons of humanity is he who has assumed the holy office of the ministry for the sake of worldly ends and objects.
2. But the Pharisaic crime is by no means limited to ministers. Those people are
137
guilty of it, in whatever position they are placed, who, for the sake of good repute, from fear of worldly loss, or from the desire of worldly gain—or who, actuated by any earthly or selfish motive whatever, make profession of a religion which they do not believe. We have yet to examine a third charge which Jesus brings against the scribes and Pharisees. He accompanies the recital of it with a denunciation of the same woe he had already twice invoked upon them. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” The apostles of deceit and falsehood have often manifested a zeal in the propagation of their principles which is fitted to minister a severe reproof to those who know and who believe the truth. This does not arise from the circumstance that the apostles of error are possessed of more energy and activity of mind than the friends of truth, but because they have frequently a more hearty interest in the advancement of their cause. Let there be an opening for worldly advancement, and the gratification of worldly ambition, and the way is crowded with rival and eager candidates. There is no remissness of effort among them. The conquests of early Christianity were rapid and wide, because its apostles had strong faith and untiring zeal. From what has been stated, it will be manifest that it is not the fact of making proselytes or converts against which the woe of Christ is denounced. This, on the contrary, is the great duty which He has laid upon all His disciples; and the illustrious reward He hath promised to the work is, that they who turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever. A church is doing nothing if it be not making proselytes. It is a dead trunk ready for the fire. They did not care to make their converts holier and better and happier men. They made them twofold more the children of hell than themselves. It was enough that they assumed the name and made the outward profession. It will be instructive to examine for a little the methods they adopted for preserving their influence, extending their power, and crushing the truth.
We will thus be able to understand more perfectly the grounds of the condemnation pronounced against them, and how their zeal should have produced such fruits.
1. In the ninth chapter of the Gospel according to John we find the record of a miraculous work of Jesus, in opening the eyes of a man who had been blind from his birth. The Pharisees became aware that such a miracle had been wrought, and with great propriety made immediate and diligent inquiry into the reality of the fact. The means, then, by which they sought to quench the truth—to induce a denial of the manifest power of God, and to retain the people as their proselytes and followers—were to bring against Jesus the accusation of breaking the law of the land. He who did so, they argued, must be a sinner—he could not come from God, and to follow him would be certain destruction.
2. Throughout the narratives of the evangelists there are scattered abundant evidences of another instrument of proselytizing employed by the Pharisees. It is the language of reviling and scorn. They ridiculed the poverty of the disciples. Doubtless by such reviling and mockery they might attain a certain measure of success.
3. Another instrument of the Pharisees for making and retaining proselytes, was misrepresentation and calumny. They watched the words of Jesus that they might have something to report to His disadvantage.
4. The Pharisees made converts by force. They took up the weapons of persecution and vigorously employed them. The charge as expressed, pronounces woe against them, because of their great zeal in making proselytes, and because of the lamentable results which followed upon their conversion. (W. Wilson.).
138
46 “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.
CLARKE, "Beware of the scribes - Take heed that ye be not seduced by those
who should show you the way of salvation. See on Matthew 23:4-14; (note).
How it can be supposed that the ancient Jewish Church had no distinct notion of
the resurrection of the dead is to me truly surprising. The justice of God, so
peculiarly conspicuous under the old covenant, might have led the people to infer
that there must be a resurrection of the dead, if even the passage to which our
Lord refers had not made a part of their law. As the body makes a part of the
man, justice requires that not only they who are martyrs for the testimony of
God, but also all those who have devoted their lives to his service, and died in his
yoke, should have their bodies raised again. The justice of God is as much
concerned in the resurrection of the dead, as either his power or mercy. To be
freed from earthly incumbrances, earthly passions, bodily infirmities, sickness;
and death, to be brought into a state of conscious existence, with a refined body
and a sublime soul, both immortal, and both ineffably happy - how glorious the
privilege! But of this, who shall be counted worthy in that day? Only those who
have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, and
who, by patient continuing in well doing, have sought for glory and honor and
immortality.
A bad example, supported by the authority, reputation, and majesty of religion,
is a very subtle poison, from which it is very difficult for men to preserve
themselves. It is a great misfortune for any people to be obliged to beware of
those very persons who ought to be their rule and pattern. This is a reflection of
pious Father Quesnel; and, while we admire its depth, we may justly lament that
the evil he refers to should be so prevalent as to render the observation, and the
caution on which it is founded, so necessary. But let no man imagine that bad
and immoral ministers are to be found among one class of persons only. They are
to be found in the branches as well as in the root: in the different sects and
parties as well as in the mother or national Churches, from which the others
have separated. On either hand there is little room for glorying. - Professors and
ministers may change, but the truth of the Lord abideth for ever!
GILL, "Beware of the Scribes,.... And also of the Pharisees; for they are joined
139
together in Matthew:
which desire to walk in long robes: the rule for the length of a scholar's garment
was thisF1;
"his flesh must not appear under his garments, as the light linen garments, and
the like, they make in Egypt; nor must his garments be drawn upon the ground,
as the garments of proud men, but must reach to his heel, and his glove must
reach the top of his fingers.'
According to this rule, the garments of the doctors were to be so long as to cover
the whole body, even down to their heels, but were not to be any longer; and by
this it appears their garments were very long; but they did not always go by this
rule; some had their garments so long as to have a train after them; See Gill on
Matthew 23:5.
and love greetings in the markets; or in courts of judicature; they loved to be
saluted with the titles of Rabbi, Master, and the like:
and the highest seats in the synagogues; which were next to the place where the
book of the law was read and expounded, and where they might be seen by the
people:
and the chief rooms at feasts; the uppermost; See Gill on Matthew 23:6 and See
Gill on Matthew 23:7.
LIGHTFOOT, "[Which desire to walk in long robes.] In garments to the feet; in
long robes: which their own Rabbins sufficiently testify. "R. Jochanan asked R.
Banaah, What kind of garment is the inner garment of the disciple of the wise
men? It is such a one, that the flesh may not be seen underneath him." The Gloss
is, It is to reach to the very sole of the foot, that it may not be discerned when he
goes barefoot. "What is the 'talith,' that the disciple of the wise wears? That the
inner garment may not be seen below it to a handbreadth."
What is that, Luke 15:22, the first robe? [the best robe, AV]. Is it the former
robe, that is, that which the prodigal had worn formerly? or the first, i.e. the
chief and best robe? It may be queried, whether it may not be particularly
understood the talith as what was in more esteem than the chaluk, and that
which is the first garment in view to the beholders. "I saw amongst the spoils a
Babylonish garment, Joshua 7. Rabh saith, A long garment called melotes." The
Gloss is, "a 'talith' of purest wool."
PETT, "His warning is that they beware of a particular type of Scribe of whom
there were far too many (not all Scribes could be put on the same level), the
showy and ostentatious ones whom everyone noticed, and not be like them. The
wearing of long robes was an indication that someone was wealthy enough not to
need to work, or it may mainly have in mind special and distinctive festal
garments worn on the Sabbath, or the long robes of the teacher. But whichever is
in mind (and more than one may be), they were worn in order to draw attention
140
to themselves. We know that special salutations were given to Rabbis, and a
certain type of Rabbi loved going through the marketplace so that he would
receive the deference that he felt was his due. And they would be offered the
chief seats in the synagogues, sitting facing the ordinary worshippers (with the
chief one taking ‘Moses’ seat’ - Matthew 23:2). All this was in order to draw
attention to themselves and make them feel good. They loved it. The disciples
were to avoid such behaviour, and probably continued to succeed in doing so,
but as the centuries went by the so-called Christian leadership would mainly go
the way of the Jewish leadership. It is but a short step from deserved distinction
to spiritual pride. The pride of life is regularly a huge stumblingblock that stands
in the way of those who serve Christ, as it was to the Pharisees and Scribes, and
if not checked it eventually produces the worst types of behaviour.
Note how all this apes the picture of the Messiah drawn in the previous passage.
Their distinctive clothing, their love of being hailed, their taking of ‘chief seats’,
their being honoured at feasts, which will be followed by their devouring of
widow’s houses, is all similar to the behaviour of kings. In their own way they
were setting themselves up as messiahs to whom the people should look for
deliverance. We are reminded of Paul’s words in another context, ‘You have
reigned as king’s without us, would to God that you did reign’ (1 Corinthians
4:8).
47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
GILL, "Which devour widows' houses,.... As the characters of them, in the
preceding verse, expose their pride, this shows their avarice; they were very
voracious and cruel; they did not spare widows, but devoured their substance:
and for a show make long prayers; to cover their wickedness, pretending great
devotion and religion;
the same shall receive greater damnation: than openly profane sinners; doing
such wickedness under a cloak of religion, will aggravate their condemnation;
See Gill on Matthew 23:14.
JAMISON, "devour, etc. — taking advantage of their helpless condition and confiding character, to obtain possession of their property, while by their “long prayers” they made them believe they were raised far above “filthy lucre.” So much “the greater damnation” awaits them. What a lifelike description of the Romish
141
clergy, the true successors of “the scribes!”
PETT, "And these will receive greater condemnation because they have abused
the trust given to them, and the trust that others have in them (compare Luke
17:1-2). In what way would it be greater?
1). It will be greater than the condemnation of Chorazin and Bethsaida, greater
than that of Capernaum (Luke 10:13-15), because they had received greater
privileges and had failed to take advantage of them in order to become truly
spiritual (compare Luke 12:47).
2). It will also be greater than the high estimation that they have of themselves.
3). It will be greater even than their hypocrisy.
PULPIT, "Which devour widows' houses. Josephus specially alludes to the
influence which certain of the Pharisees had acquired over women as directors of
the conscience. For a show; rather, in pretence. "Their hypocrisy was so
notorious that even the Talmud records the warning given by Alexander
Jannaeus to his wife on his deathbed against painted Pharisees. And in their
seven classes of Pharisees, the Talmudic writers place 'Shechemites,' Pharisees
from self-interest; 'Stumblers,' so mock-humble that they will not raise their feet
from the ground; 'Bleeders,' so mock-modest that, because they will not raise
their eyes, they run against walls, etc. Thus the Jewish writers themselves depict
the Pharisees as the Tartuffes of antiquity" (Farrar). Shall receive greater
damnation; rather, judgment. The translators of our beautiful English version
are most unhappy in their usual rendering of κρίμα.
142