Text -- Luke 20:1-30 (NET)

The Authority of Jesus

20:1 Now one day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the gospel, the chief priests and the experts in the law with the elders came up 20:2 and said to him, “Tell us: By what authority are you doing these things? Or who it is who gave you this authority?” 20:3 He answered answered them, “I will also ask you a question, and you tell me: 20:4 John’s baptism– was it from heaven or from people?” 20:5 So they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 20:6 But if we say, ‘From people,’ all the people will stone us, because they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 20:7 So they replied that they did not know where it came from. 20:8 Then Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by whose authority I do these things.”

The Parable of the Tenants

20:9 Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. 20:10 When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. 20:11 So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. 20:12 So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one, and threw him out. 20:13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.’ 20:14 But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours!’ 20:15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 20:16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” 20:17 But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? 20:18 Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” 20:19 Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour, because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

Paying Taxes to Caesar

20:20 Then they watched him carefully and sent spies who pretended to be sincere. They wanted to take advantage of what he might say so that they could deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor. 20:21 Thus they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach correctly, and show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 20:22 Is it right for us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar or not?” 20:23 But Jesus perceived their deceit and said to them, 20:24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” They said, “Caesar’s.” 20:25 So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 20:26 Thus they were unable unable in the presence of the people to trap him with his own words. And stunned by his answer, they fell silent.

Marriage and the Resurrection

20:27 Now some Sadducees (who contend that there is no resurrection) came to him. 20:28 They asked him, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies leaving a wife but no children, that man must marry the widow and father children for his brother. 20:29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died without children. 20:30 The second

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Luk 20:1

On one of the days ( en miāi tōn hēmerōn ).

Luke’ s favourite way of indicating time. It was the last day of the temple teaching (Tuesday). Luke 20:1-19 is to be compared with Mark 11:27-12:12; Matthew 21:23-46.

Robertson: Luk 20:1

There came upon him ( epestēsan ).

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

Robertson: Luk 20:2

Tell us ( eipon hēmin ).

Luke adds these words to what Mark and Matthew have. Second aorist active imperative for the old form eipe and with ending -on of the first aorist active. Westcott and Hort punctuate the rest of the sentence as an indirect question after eipon , but the Revised Version puts a semicolon after "us"and retains the direct question. The Greek manuscripts have no punctuation.

Robertson: Luk 20:3

Question ( logon ).

Literally, word. So in Mar 11:29; Mat 21:24.

Robertson: Luk 20:5

They reasoned with themselves ( sunelogisanto ).

First aorist middle of sullogizomai , to bring together accounts, an old word, only here in the N.T. Mark and Matthew have dielogizonto (imperfect middle of dialogizomai , a kindred verb, to reckon between one another, confer). This form (dielogizonto ) in Luk 20:14 below.

Robertson: Luk 20:5

If we shall say ( ean eipōmen ).

Third-class condition with second aorist active subjunctive. Suppose we say! So in Luk 20:6.

Robertson: Luk 20:6

Will stone us ( katalithasei ).

Late verb and here only in the N.T. Literally, will throw stones down on us, stone us down, overwhelm us with stones.

Robertson: Luk 20:6

They be persuaded ( pepeismenos estin ).

Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of peithō , to persuade, a settled state of persuasion, "is persuaded"(no reason for use of "be"here).

Robertson: Luk 20:6

That John was a prophet ( Iōanēn prophētēn einai ).

Accusative and infinitive in indirect assertion.

Robertson: Luk 20:7

That they knew not ( mē eidenai ).

Accusative and infinitive in indirect assertion again with the negative mē rather than ou .

Robertson: Luk 20:9

Vineyard ( ampelōna ).

Late word from ampelos (vine), place of vines. So in Mar 12:1; Mat 21:33.

Robertson: Luk 20:9

Let it out ( exedeto ).

Second aorist middle of ekdidōmi , but with variable vowel e in place of o of the stem do (exedoto ). Same form in Mark and Matthew.

Robertson: Luk 20:9

For a long time ( chronous hikanous ).

Accusative of extent of time, considerable times or periods of time. Not in Mark and Matthew, though all three have apedēmēsen (went off from home). See note on Luk 7:6 for hikanos .

Robertson: Luk 20:10

At the season ( kairōi ).

The definite season for the fruit like ho kairos tōn karpōn (Mat 21:34). That they should give (hina dōsousin ). Future indicative with hina for purpose like the aorist subjunctive, though not so frequent.

Robertson: Luk 20:11

He sent yet another ( prosetheto heteron pempsai ).

Literally, he added to send another. A clear Hebraism repeated in Luk 20:12 and also in Luk 19:11.

Robertson: Luk 20:12

They wounded ( traumatisantes ).

First aorist active participle of traumatizō . An old verb, from trauma , a wound, but in the N.T. only here and Act 19:16.

Robertson: Luk 20:13

What shall I do? ( Ti poiēsō̱ ).

Deliberative future indicative or aorist subjunctive (same form). This detail only in Luke. Note the variations in all three Gospels. All three have "will reverence"(entrapēsontai ) for which see Matthew and Mark.

Robertson: Luk 20:13

It may be ( isōs ).

Perhaps, from isos , equal. Old adverb, but only here in the N.T.

Robertson: Luk 20:14

That the inheritance may be ours ( hina hēmōn genētai hē klēronomia ).

That the inheritance may become (genētai , second aorist middle subjunctive of ginomai ). Here Mat 21:39 has schōmen "let us get, ingressive aorist active subjunctive."Cf. echōmen , present subjunctive of the same verb echō in Rom 5:1; Mar 12:7 has "and it will be ours"(estai ).

Robertson: Luk 20:16

God forbid ( mē genoito ).

Optative of wish about the future with mē . Literally, may it not happen. No word "God"in the Greek. This was the pious protest of the defeated members of the Sanhedrin who began to see the turn of the parable against themselves.

Robertson: Luk 20:17

He looked upon them ( emblepsas autois ).

Not in Mark and Matthew. First aorist active participle of emblepō , to look on. It was a piercing glance. The scripture quoted is from Psa 118:22 and is in Mar 11:10; see Mat 21:42 for the inverted attraction of the case lithon (stone) to that of the relative hon (which).

Robertson: Luk 20:18

Shall be broken to pieces ( sunthlasthēsetai ).

Future passive indicative of sunthlaō , a rather late compound, only here in the N.T. unless Mat 21:44 is genuine. It means to shatter.

Robertson: Luk 20:18

Will scatter him as dust ( likmēsei ).

From likmaō , an old verb to winnow and then to grind to powder. Only here in the N.T. unless in Mat 21:44 is genuine, which see note.

Robertson: Luk 20:19

To lay hands on him ( epibalein ep' auton tas cheiras ).

Second aorist active infinitive of epiballō , an old verb and either transitively as here or intransitively as in Mar 4:37. Vivid picture here where Mar 12:12; Mat 21:46 has "to seize"(kratēsai ).

Robertson: Luk 20:19

In that very hour ( en autēi tēi hōrāi ).

Luke’ s favourite idiom, in the hour itself. Not in Mark or Matthew and shows that the Sanhedrin were angry enough to force the climax then.

Robertson: Luk 20:19

And they feared ( kai ephobēthēsan ).

Adversative use of kai = but they feared. Hence they refrained.

Robertson: Luk 20:19

For they perceived ( egnōsan gar ).

The reason for their rage. Second aorist active indicative of ginōskō .

Robertson: Luk 20:19

Against them ( pros autous ).

As in Mar 12:12. The cap fitted them and they saw it.

Robertson: Luk 20:20

They watched him ( paratērēsantes ).

First aorist active participle of paratēreō , a common Greek verb to watch on the side or insidiously or with evil intent as in Luk 6:7 (paretērounto ) of the scribes and Pharisees. See note on Mar 3:2. There is no "him"in the Greek. They were watching their chance.

Robertson: Luk 20:20

Spies ( enkathetous ).

An old verbal adjective from enkathiēmi , to send down in or secretly. It means liers in wait who are suborned to spy out, one who is hired to trap one by crafty words. Only here in the N.T.

Robertson: Luk 20:20

Feigned themselves ( hupokrinomenous heautous ).

Hypocritically professing to be "righteous"(dikaious ). "They posed as scrupulous persons with a difficulty of conscience"(Plummer).

Robertson: Luk 20:20

That they might take hold of his speech ( hina epilabōntai autou logou ).

Second aorist middle of epilambanō , an old verb for seizing hold with the hands and uses as here the genitive case. These spies are for the purpose of (hina ) catching hold of the talk of Jesus if they can get a grip anywhere. This is their direct purpose and the ultimate purpose or result is also stated, "so as to deliver him up"(hōste paradounai auton ). Second aorist active infinitive of paradidōmi , to hand over, to give from one’ s side to another. The trap is all set now and ready to be sprung by these "spies."

Robertson: Luk 20:20

Of the governor ( tou hēgemonos ).

The Sanhedrin knew that Pilate would have to condemn Jesus if he were put to death. So then all their plans focus on this point as the goal. Luke alone mentions this item here.

Robertson: Luk 20:21

Rightly ( orthōs ).

Matthew (Mat 22:16) notes that these "spies"were "disciples"(students) of the Pharisees and Mark (Mar 12:13) adds that the Herodians are also involved in the plot. These bright theologues are full of palaver and flattery and openly endorse the teaching of Jesus as part of their scheme.

Robertson: Luk 20:21

Acceptest not the person of any ( ou lambaneis prosōpon ).

Dost not take the face (or personal appearance) as the test. It is a Hebraism from which the word prosōpolempsia (Jam 2:1) comes. Originally it meant to lift the face, to lift the countenance, to regard the face, to accept the face value. See Mar 12:13-17; and Mat 22:15-22 for discussion of details here. They both have blepeis here.

Robertson: Luk 20:22

Tribute ( phoron ).

Old word for the annual tax on land, houses, etc. Mark and Matthew have kēnson . The picture on the coin may have been that of Tiberius.

Robertson: Luk 20:23

Perceived ( katanoēsas ).

From katanoeō , to put the mind down on. Mark has eidōs , "knowing,"and Matthew gnous , coming to know or grasping (second aorist active participle of ginōskō ).

Robertson: Luk 20:23

Craftiness ( panourgian ).

Old word for doing any deed. Matthew has "wickedness"(ponērian ) and Mark "hypocrisy"(hupokrisin ). Unscrupulous they certainly were. They would stoop to any trick and go the limit.

Robertson: Luk 20:26

They were not able ( ouk ischusan ).

They did not have strength. An old verb ischuō from ischus (strength). They failed "to take hold (cf. Luk 20:20) of the saying before the people."These "crack"students had made an ignominious failure and were not able to make a case for the surrender of Jesus to Pilate. He had slipped through their net with the utmost ease.

Robertson: Luk 20:26

Held their peace ( esigēsan ).

Ingressive aorist active of sigaō . They became silent as they went back with the "dry grins."

Robertson: Luk 20:27

There is no resurrection ( anastasin mē einai ).

Accusative and infinitive with negative mē in indirect assertion. The Sadducees rally after the complete discomfiture of the Pharisees and Herodians. They had a stock conundrum with which they had often gotten a laugh on the Pharisees. So they volunteer to try it on Jesus. For discussion of details here see Mat 22:23-33; and notes on Mar 12:18-27. Only a few striking items remain for Luke.

Vincent: Luk 20:5

They reasoned ( συνελογίσαντο )

Only here in New Testament. The preposition, σύν , together, and the additional with themselves, denote a very close conference.

Vincent: Luk 20:6

Will stone ( καταλιθάσει )

Only here in New Testament. " Stone us down " (κατά ); i.e., stone us to death.

Vincent: Luk 20:6

They be persuaded ( πεπεισμένος ἐστιν )

Lit., It (the people collectively) is hawing been persuaded. Denoting a long-standing and settled persuasion.

Vincent: Luk 20:9

Let it out

See on Mat 21:33.

Vincent: Luk 20:9

Went into a far country

Not necessarily far , but as Rev., another country. See on Mar 13:34.

Vincent: Luk 20:9

A long time ( ἱκανούς )

See on ch. Luk 7:6.

Vincent: Luk 20:10

Of the fruit

See on Mar 12:2.

Vincent: Luk 20:11

He sent yet ( προσέθετο πέμψαι )

Lit., he added to send. A Hebrew form of expression.

Vincent: Luk 20:12

Wounded ( τραυματίσαντες )

Only here and Act 19:16.

Vincent: Luk 20:13

It may be ( ἴσως )

Only here in New Testament. The adverb of ἴσος , equal. It expresses more than perhaps, implying rather a strong probability. Compare the phrase, it is an even chance that .

Vincent: Luk 20:13

Reverence

See on Mat 21:37.

Vincent: Luk 20:16

Destroy

See on Mat 21:41.

Vincent: Luk 20:16

God forbid ( μὴ γένοιτο )

Lit., may it not be.

Vincent: Luk 20:17

The stone, etc

See on 1Pe 2:4-7.

Vincent: Luk 20:18

Shall be broken ( συνθλασθήσεται )

Rev., rightly, broken to pieces. See on Mat 21:44.

Vincent: Luk 20:18

Grind him to powder ( λικμήσει )

See on Mat 21:44

Vincent: Luk 20:20

Watched

See on Mar 3:2.

Vincent: Luk 20:20

Spies ( ἐγκαθέτους )

Only here in New Testament. From ἐγκαθίμηι , to send in, as a garrison into a city. Hence of persons sent in for the purpose of espionage.

Vincent: Luk 20:20

Which should feign ( ὑποκρινομένους )

Lit., feigning. Rev., which feigned. Only here in New Testament. See on hypocr ites, Mat 23:13.

Vincent: Luk 20:20

The power and authority ( τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ )

The former, the Roman power in general; the latter, the specific authority of the official.

Vincent: Luk 20:21

Acceptest not the person

See on Jam 2:1.

Vincent: Luk 20:22

Tribute ( φόρον )

From φέρω , to bring. Something, therefore, which is brought in by way of payment. Luke uses the Greek word instead of the Latin κῆνσον , census , in Matthew and Mark.

Vincent: Luk 20:23

Perceived

See on considerest, Mat 7:3.

Vincent: Luk 20:23

Craftiness ( πανουργίαν )

From πᾶν , every , and ἔργον , deed. Readiness for every and any deed. Hence unscrupulousness, and so, generally, knavery.

Vincent: Luk 20:24

Penny

See on Mat 20:2.

Vincent: Luk 20:24

Image and superscription

See on Mat 22:20.

Vincent: Luk 20:26

His words ( ῥήματος )

Singular number. Rev., properly, saying. See on Luk 1:37.

Vincent: Luk 20:27

Asked

See on Mar 12:18.

Wesley: Luk 20:1

Mat 21:23; Mar 11:27.

Wesley: Luk 20:9

It was a long time from the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan to the birth of Christ. Mat 21:33; Mar 12:1.

Wesley: Luk 20:16

Probably he pointed to the scribes, chief priests, and elders: who allowed, he will miserably destroy those wicked men, Mat 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 answers, But yet will ye do it, as is prophesied of you.

Wesley: Luk 20:17

To sharpen their attention. Psa 118:22.

Wesley: Luk 20:18

Mat 21:45.

Wesley: Luk 20:20

Men of a tender conscience.

Wesley: Luk 20:20

If he answered as they hoped he would. Mat 22:16; Mar 12:12.

Wesley: Luk 20:21

In private, and teachest - In public.

Wesley: Luk 20:24

A Roman penny, which was the money that was usually paid on that occasion.

Wesley: Luk 20:26

As they did afterward before the sanhedrim, in the absence of the people, Luk 22:67, &c.

Wesley: Luk 20:27

Mat 22:23; Mar 12:18.

Wesley: Luk 20:28

Deu 25:5.

JFB: Luk 20:2

Particularly the clearing of the temple.

JFB: Luk 20:4

His whole ministry and mission, of which baptism was the seal.

JFB: Luk 20:5

That is, in his testimony to Jesus, the sum of his whole witness.

JFB: Luk 20:7

Crooked, cringing hypocrites! No wonder Jesus gave you no answer (Mat 7:6). But what dignity and composure does our Lord display as He turns their question upon themselves!

JFB: Luk 20:9-13

(See on Luk 13:6). In Mat 21:33 additional points are given, taken literally from Isa 5:2, to fix down the application and sustain it by Old Testament authority.

JFB: Luk 20:9-13

The ordinary spiritual guides of the people, under whose care and culture the fruits of righteousness might be yielded.

JFB: Luk 20:9-13

Leaving it to the laws of the spiritual husbandry during the whole length of the Jewish economy. (See on Mar 4:26.)

JFB: Luk 20:10

(Mat 21:35); that is, the prophets, extraordinary messengers raised up from time to time. (See on Mat 23:37.)

JFB: Luk 20:13

Mark (Mar 12:6) still more affectingly, "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 Heb 3:3-6.)

JFB: Luk 20:13

"surely"; implying the almost unimaginable guilt of not doing so.

JFB: Luk 20:14

(Compare Gen 37:18-20; Joh 11:47-53).

JFB: Luk 20:14

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 (Heb 1:2).

JFB: Luk 20:14

And so from mere servants we may become lords; the deep aim of the depraved heart, and literally "the root of all evil."

JFB: Luk 20:15

(Compare Heb 13:11-13; 1Ki 21:13; Joh 19:17).

JFB: Luk 20:16

This answer was given by the Pharisees themselves (Mat 21:41), thus pronouncing their own righteous doom. Matthew alone (Mat 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.

JFB: Luk 20:16

His whole meaning now bursting upon them.

JFB: Luk 20:17-19

(in Psa 118:22-23. See on Luk 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" (Isa 8:15), "sustaining great spiritual hurt; but soon that Stone should fall upon them and grind them to powder" (Dan 2:34-35; Zec 12:3) --in their corporate capacity in the tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, but personally, as unbelievers, in a more awful sense still.

JFB: Luk 20:19

Hardly able to restrain their rage.

JFB: Luk 20:20-26

After consulting (Mat 22:15) on the best plan.

JFB: Luk 20:20-26

"of the Pharisees and Herodians" (Mar 12:13). See Mar 3:6.

JFB: Luk 20:21

Hoping by flattery to throw Him off His guard.

JFB: Luk 20:22

(See on Mat 17:24).

JFB: Luk 20:25

Putting it in this general form, it was impossible for sedition itself to dispute it, and yet it dissolved the snare.

JFB: Luk 20:25

How much there is in this profound but to them startling addition to the maxim, and how incomparable is the whole for fulness, brevity, clearness, weight!

JFB: Luk 20:27-34

"nor angel nor spirit" (Act 23:8); the materialists of the day.

Clarke: Luk 20:1

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

Clarke: Luk 20:2

By what authority, etc. - See the note on Mat 21:23-27 (note).

Clarke: Luk 20:9

A certain man planted a vineyard, etc. - See this parable largely explained, Mat 21:33-46 (note). See also on Mar 12:4-9 (note).

Clarke: Luk 20:10

That they should give him of the fruit - The Hindoo corn-merchants, that have lent money to husbandmen, send persons in harvest-time to collect their share of the produce of the ground.

Clarke: Luk 20:16

God forbid - Or, Let it not be, μη γενοιτο . Our phrase, God forbid, answers pretty well to the meaning of the Greek, but it is no translation.

Clarke: Luk 20:18

Grind him to powder - See on Mat 21:44 (note).

Clarke: Luk 20:20

They watched him - Παρατηρησαντες, Insidiously watching. See on Luk 14:1 (note)

Clarke: Luk 20:20

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.

Clarke: Luk 20:22

Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar - See this insidious but important question considered at large on Mat 22:16-22 (note).

Clarke: Luk 20:29

There were therefore seven brethren - See on Mat 22:23-33 (note).

Defender: Luk 20:9

Mat 21:33-46 and Mar 12:1-12 both report this same parable, representing the dealings of Christ with Israel as shown by the relations of a man and the caretakers of his vineyard. Only Luke, however, indicates that the owner of the vineyard would be in the "far country for a long time." God was longsuffering with Israel and her rejection of His prophets. When they also rejected His Son, He finally "gave their vineyard to others" (Luk 20:16)."

Defender: Luk 20:25

"Caesar" was the name of the Roman emperor, but here his name is used to mean governmental authority in general. This well-known saying was the answer given by Christ to the "spies, which should feign themselves just men" (Luk 20:20) sent by the hypocritical chief priests and scribes looking for an excuse to accuse Him of subversive teachings against the Romans. Jesus not only silenced them (Luk 20:26), but also confirms the fact that Christians should pay legitimate taxes to support the legitimate government (Rom 13:6, Rom 13:7)."

Defender: Luk 20:27

This encounter with the Sadducees, who were trying to trap Jesus, is given also in Matthew 22 and Mark 12. The same is true for most of the other events and conversations here in Luke 20."

TSK: Luk 20:1

that : Luk 19:47, Luk 19:48; Mar 11:27; Joh 18:20

the chief : 1Chr. 24:1-31

TSK: Luk 20:2

Tell : Luk 19:35-40,Luk 19:45, Luk 19:46; Mat 21:23-27; Mar 11:28-33

who : Exo 2:14; Joh 2:18, Joh 5:22-27; Act 4:7-10, Act 7:27, Act 7:35-39, Act 7:51

TSK: Luk 20:3

I will : Luk 22:68; Mat 15:2, Mat 15:3; Col 4:6

TSK: Luk 20:4

baptism : Luk 7:28-35; Mat 11:7-19, Mat 17:11, Mat 17:12, Mat 21:25-32; Joh 1:6, Joh 1:19-28

from : Luk 15:18; Dan 4:25, Dan 4:26

TSK: Luk 20:5

Why : Joh 1:15-18, Joh 1:30,Joh 1:34, Joh 3:26, Joh 3:36, Joh 3:26, Joh 3:36, Joh 5:33-35; Act 13:25

TSK: Luk 20:6

all : Mat 21:26, Mat 21:46, Mat 26:5; Mar 12:12; Act 5:26

for : Luk 1:76, Luk 7:26-29; Mat 14:5, Mat 21:26; Joh 10:41

TSK: Luk 20:7

that : Isa 6:9, Isa 6:10, Isa 26:11, Isa 29:9-12, Isa 29:14, Isa 41:28, Isa 42:19, Isa 42:20, Isa 44:18; Jer 8:7-9; Zec 11:15, Zec 11:17; Mal 2:7-9; Joh 3:19, Joh 3:20, Joh 9:39; 2Th 2:10-12; 2Ti 3:8, 2Ti 3:9; 2Pe 3:3

TSK: Luk 20:8

Luk 22:68; Job 5:12, Job 5:13; Pro 26:4, Pro 26:5; Mat 15:14, Mat 16:4, Mat 21:27; Mar 11:33

TSK: Luk 20:9

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

planted : Psa 80:8-14; Isa 5:1-7; Jer 2:21; Joh 15:1-8; 1Co 3:6-9

and let : Son 8:11, Son 8:12

husbandmen : Deu 1:15-18, Deu 16:18, Deu 17:8-15

went : Luk 19:12

TSK: Luk 20:10

the season : Psa 1:3; Jer 5:24; Mat 21:34-36; Mar 12:2-5

sent : Jdg 6:8-10; 2Ki 17:13; 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:16; Neh 9:30; Jer 25:3-7, Jer 26:2-6; Jer 35:15, Jer 44:4, Jer 44:5; Hos 6:4-6; Zec 1:3-6, Zec 7:9-13; Joh 15:16; Rom 7:4

beat : Luk 11:47-50, Luk 13:34; 1Ki 22:24; 2Ch 16:10, 2Ch 24:19-21; Neh 9:26; Jer 2:30; Jer 20:2, Jer 26:20-24, Jer 29:26, Jer 29:27, Jer 37:15, Jer 37:16, Jer 38:4-6

TSK: Luk 20:11

entreated : Mat 23:30-37; Act 7:52; 1Th 2:2; Heb 11:36, Heb 11:37

and sent : Hos 10:1

TSK: Luk 20:13

What : Isa 5:4; Hos 6:4, Hos 11:8

I will : Luk 9:35; Mat 3:17, Mat 17:5; Joh 1:34, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:17, Joh 3:35, Joh 3:36; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1Jo 4:9-15

it may : Jer 36:3, Jer 36:7

TSK: Luk 20:14

reasoned : Luk 20:5; Mat 16:7, Mat 21:25

the heir : Psa 2:1-6, Psa 2:8, Psa 89:27; Mat 2:2-16; Rom 8:17; Heb 1:2

let : Luk 20:19, Luk 19:47, Luk 22:2; Gen 37:18-20; Mat 27:21-25; Joh 11:47-50; Act 2:23; Act 3:15

TSK: Luk 20:15

they : Heb 13:12

What : Mat 21:37-40; Mar 12:6-9

TSK: Luk 20:16

destroy : Luk 19:27; Psa 2:8, Psa 2:9, Psa 21:8-10; Mat 21:41, Mat 22:7; Act 13:46

shall give : Neh 9:36, Neh 9:37

TSK: Luk 20:17

beheld : Luk 19:41, Luk 22:61; Mar 3:5, Mar 10:23

What : Luk 22:37, Luk 24:44; Joh 15:25

The stone : Psa 118:22; Isa 28:16; Zec 3:9; Mat 21:42; Mar 12:10; Act 4:11; 1Pe 2:7, 1Pe 2:8

TSK: Luk 20:18

shall fall : This is an allusion to the Jewish mode of stoning. ""The place of stoning was twice as high as a man. From the top of this one of the witnesses struck the culprit on the loins, and felled him to the groundcaps1 . icaps0 f he died of this, well; if not, the other witness threw a stone upon his heart,""etc. Our Lord seems to refer not only to the dreadful crushing of the Jews by the Romans, but also to their general dispersion to the present day. Isa 8:14, Isa 8:15; Dan 2:34, Dan 2:35, Dan 2:44, Dan 2:45; Zec 12:3; Mat 21:34; 1Th 2:16

TSK: Luk 20:19

the same : Luk 20:14, Luk 19:47, Luk 19:48; Mat 21:45, Mat 21:46, Mat 26:3, Mat 26:4; Mar 12:12

TSK: Luk 20:20

they watched : Psa 37:32, Psa 37:33, Psa 38:12; Isa 29:20,Isa 29:21; Jer 11:19, Jer 18:18, Jer 20:10; Mat 22:15, Mat 22:18; Mar 12:13, Mar 12:15

feign : 2Sa 14:2; 1Ki 14:2-6; Psa 66:3, Psa 81:15 *marg. 2Pe 2:3

they might deliver : Mat 27:2; Joh 18:28-32

TSK: Luk 20:21

Master : Psa 12:2, Psa 55:21; Jer 42:2, Jer 42:3; Mat 22:16, Mat 26:49, Mat 26:50; Mar 12:14; Joh 3:2

sayest : 2Co 2:17; Gal 1:10; 1Th 2:4, 1Th 2:5

acceptest : 2Ch 19:7; Job 34:19; Act 10:34, Act 10:35; Gal 2:6

truly : or, of a truth

TSK: Luk 20:22

Deu 17:15; Ezr 4:13, Ezr 4:19-22, Ezr 9:7; Neh 5:4, Neh 9:37; Mat 22:17-21; Mar 12:14-17; Act 5:37

TSK: Luk 20:23

he : Luk 5:22, Luk 6:8, Luk 11:17; Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25; 1Co 3:19; Heb 4:13

Why : Luk 20:20, Luk 11:16, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54; Psa 95:9; Mat 16:1, Mat 22:18; 1Co 10:9

TSK: Luk 20:24

a penny : Mat 18:28, Mat 20:2

image : This was the head of the emperor; the superscription his titles. Julius Cesar was the first who caused his image to be struck on the Roman coin; and Tiberius was emperor at this time. This therefore was a denarius of Cesar, דינרא קיסר אנה , as it is termed in the Talmud; and consequently this was respecting the tribute required by the Roman government.

Caesar’ s : Luk 20:22, Luk 2:1, Luk 3:1, Luk 23:2; Act 11:28, Act 25:8-12, Act 26:32; Phi 4:22

TSK: Luk 20:25

Render : Pro 24:21; Mat 17:27, Mat 22:21; Mar 12:17; Rom 13:6, Rom 13:7; 1Pe 2:13-17

unto God : Act 4:19, Act 4:20, Act 5:29; 1Co 10:31; 1Pe 4:11

TSK: Luk 20:26

they could : Luk 20:20,Luk 20:39, Luk 20:40; Job 5:12, Job 5:13; Pro 26:4, Pro 26:5; 2Ti 3:8, 2Ti 3:9

and they marvelled : Luk 13:17; Mat 22:12, Mat 22:22, Mat 22:34; Rom 3:19; Tit 1:10

TSK: Luk 20:27

the Sadducees : Mat 16:1, Mat 16:6, Mat 16:12, Mat 22:23-33; Mar 12:18-27; Act 4:1, Act 4:2, Act 5:17, Act 23:6-8; 1Co 15:12; 2Ti 2:17, 2Ti 2:18

TSK: Luk 20:28

Gen 38:8, Gen 38:11, Gen 38:26; Deu 25:5-10; Rth 1:11, Rth 1:12

TSK: Luk 20:29

and died : Lev 20:20; Jer 22:30

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Luk 20:1-8

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

Barnes: Luk 20:9-19

See this parable explained in the notes at Mat 21:33-45.

Barnes: Luk 20:20-38

See this explained in the Mat. 22:15-33 notes, and Mar 12:13-27 notes.

Poole: Luk 20:1

Luk 20:1-8 Christ silences those who questioned his authority.

Luk 20:9-18 The parable of the vineyard let out to wicked husbandmen.

Luk 20:19-26 The chief priests and scribes seek matter against

him: his reply to their insidious question

concerning: paying tribute to Caesar.

Luk 20:27-40 He confuteth the Sadducees concerning the resurrection.

Luk 20:41-44 He propounds a difficulty concerning the character of Christ.

Luk 20:45-47 He warns his disciples against the ambition and

hypocrisy of the scribes.

Ver. 1,2. We have along the history of the gospel observed, that the scribes and Pharisees took all advantages imaginable against our Saviour: failing in all their acts, they now come to question his authority, which seemeth not so much to have respect to his preaching, as to his act in casting of the buyers and sellers out of the temple; for as to preaching, they seem, by the history of Scripture, to have given a great liberty, especially if any had the repute of a prophet.

Poole: Luk 20:3-8

Ver. 3-8. See Poole on "Mat 21:24" , and following verses to Mat 21:27 . See Poole on "Mar 11:29" , and following verses to Mar 11:33 . The substance of our Saviour’ s answer is this: From whence had John his authority? He preached and baptized; who gave him his authority? They had sent much such another message to John, Joh 1:19-22 . Was John’ s authority ordinary or extraordinary? It is plain that he had no authority from them, for then they would not have sent to him to know who he was. He must therefore have it from heaven. Now if they had allowed John’ s call extraordinary, why should not they allow Christ’ s to be such, to whom John gave so large a testimony, and who confirmed his extraordinary mission by miraculous operations, which we do not read that John ever did? Besides, the Pharisees saw that if they allowed John’ s mission to be extraordinary, and from heaven, they had obviously exposed themselves to a check for not believing what he said; they therefore refuse to make any answer, and Christ refuseth also to satisfy them.

Poole: Luk 20:9-18

Ver. 9-18. We met with this parable at large both in Mat 21:33-41 , and in Mar 12:1-11 . Its obvious scope is to let them know, that God in righteous judgment, for the Jews’ abusing the Lord’ s prophets, John the Baptist, and himself, who was in a few days to be killed by them, would unchurch and destroy them, and raise up to himself a church amongst the Gentiles; and that this was no more than was prophesied of, Psa 118:22 .

Poole: Luk 20:19-20

Ver. 19,20. There is nothing in these verses, but what we before met with, and is opened in the notes on Mat 21:45,46 , or Mar 12:12,13 . They let us see as in a glass the spirit and genius of wicked men filled with malice against the gospel. They are continually seeking to destroy such as have any relation to Christ, and, to effect their ends, they will judge no means unfair; and their great art is to represent them as dangerous persons to the civil government: so as if good men find the same things still, they have this to comfort them, that the disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Poole: Luk 20:21-26

Ver. 21-26 This piece of history we have likewise met with, both in Mat 22:16-22 , and Mar 12:14-17 .

Poole: Luk 20:27-38

Ver. 27-38. See Poole on "Mat 22:23" , and following verses to Mat 22:32 , See Poole on "Mar 12:18" , and following verses to Mar 12:27 , where all the passages in this piece of history are fully opened. By

equal unto the angels in Luk 20:36 , we must not understand in all things, but in the thing mentioned:

1. The number of the elect shall be perfect, so there shall be no need of marrying, or giving in marriage, to multiply the number of men.

2. There shall be no more marriages amongst men than amongst angels; all live unto God Luk 20:38 . Though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead at the speaking of those words, yet they were not so in God’ s eye, who was determined to raise them up in the last day, and who with the same eye beholds things past, present, and to come. But see more in the notes before mentioned.

Lightfoot: Luk 20:1

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

[The chief priests and the scribes with the elders.] So it is in Mar 11:27; but in Mat 21:23; it is the chief priests and elders of the people. Now the question is, who these elders should be, as they are distinguished from the chief priests and the scribes. The Sanhedrim consisted chiefly of priests, Levites, and Israelites, although the original precept was for the priests and Levites only. "The command is, that the priests and Levites should be of the great council; as it is said, Thou shalt go unto the priests and Levites: but if such be not to be found, although they were all Israelites, behold, it is allowed."  

None will imagine that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were Israelites only, and no priests or Levites; nor, on the other hand, that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were only priests and Levites, and no Israelites. The scribes; therefore, seem in this place to denote either the Levites; or else, together with the Levites, those inferior ranks of priests who were not the chief priests; and then the elders; may be the Israelites, or those elders of the laity that were not of the Levitical tribe. Such a one was Gamaliel the present president of the Sanhedrim, and Simeon his son, of the tribe of Judah.

Haydock: Luk 20:1

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

Haydock: Luk 20:2

Authority? By what authority do you make yourself a teacher of the people, a censor of the priests, a reformer of the laws and customs? If Jesus Christ had not publicly given undeniable proofs of his mission, by his miracles, the Pharisees would have had a right to demand an answer to this question; but, after what had been done in their own sight, it was no longer excusable to oppose the preaching of the Son of God. (Calmet) ---

Our Saviour himself teaches, that if he had not proved the divinity of his mission by his doctrine and works, it had been no sin to disbelieve or reject him. (John v. 31. and 36. and also x. 25, 37, and xv. 22, 24.

Haydock: Luk 20:4

Jesus does not gratify them by a direct answer; they did not deserve it, because they only interrogated him through captious and improper motives. He only replies by casting on them the very difficulties with which they sought to entangle him. (Calmet) ---

Our divine Redeemer proposes to the chief priests a question concerning St. John the Baptist, to shew them how inconsistent was their uniform opposition to the ways of God. Because, though they believed in what was preached by St. John, (at least outwardly, through fear of the Jews) yet they would not believe him, or his doctrines, to whom St. John had given testimony, "That he was the Lamb of God, that had come to take away the sins of the world." (Theophylactus)

Haydock: Luk 20:9

A long time. Not that God (who is here represented by the man that planted a vineyard) confines himself to any particular place, either distant or near; but he only seems to absent himself in order that when he comes to receive the fruit of the vineyard, he may punish the negligent more severely, and reward the diligent with greater liberality. Likewise God is more intimately present with the good, by continually showering down upon them his special graces; and less so with the wicked, by refusing them, on account of their indispositions, any of his favours. (St. Ambrose)

Haydock: Luk 20:15

As this whole parable may be applied exactly to the Jews, to the prophets and Christ; so may this last part, with no less accuracy, be applied to our Saviour. The husbandmen, before they killed the lord's beloved son, first cast him out of the vineyard. So the Jews did not kill the Son of God immediately themselves: they first cast him out from themselves, into the hands of Pilate, a Gentile, and then procured his death. (Theophylactus) ---

Thus sinners likewise act, by casting Christ out of their hearts, and crucifying him by sin. (Ven. Bede) ---

To reconcile St. Matthew and St. Luke, we must observe, says St. Augustine that this parable was not only spoken to those who questioned his authority, but to the people themselves; as St. Luke tells us.

Haydock: Luk 20:18

Fall upon. That is, whosoever sins against God, yet believes, will be spared by God for a short time to repent, though he kills his own soul by mortal sin: but, upon whomsoever it shall fall, that is, he who denies Christ, and continues on hardened in his sin, upon him the fury of God shall fall, and he shall be utterly destroyed. It will grind him to powder, like the dust which the wind driveth from the face of the earth. (Psalm i.) (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Luk 20:19

Lay hands on him. Thus they themselves proved him to be the Lord's beloved Son, as he had just described himself in the preceding parable. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Luk 20:20

Of the governor, &c. Of the governor, Pilate, who in the name of the Romans, exercised absolute authority in the country: for the Jews had lost the power of life and death, which was put into the hands of their presidents. (Calmet)

Haydock: Luk 20:22

If our divine Saviour had returned them for answer, that they ought to give tribute to Cæsar, they would have accused him of being an enemy to the law; but if, on the contrary, he said it was not lawful, they would have accused him to Pilate as an enemy of the state. (Theophylactus) ---

For there was then a great misunderstanding among the Jews: some, who wished to keep peace with the Romans, said that it was lawful; but the Pharisees denied it, and said: "The people of God ought to be exempt from such a tax. They were bound by the law to give tithes and first-fruits to God; therefore they ought not to be bound by human laws to give likewise tax to men who were heathens." (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Luk 20:26

We may here be astonished at the incredulity of the chiefs of the Jews, who, though they ought to have admired his wisdom, as something divine, and believed in him, are only surprised that he should have escaped their duplicity and snares. (Ven. Bede) ---

Their pride must have been a good deal hurt, to have been thus publicly refuted and confused by the wisdom of our Saviour's answer. (Theophylactus)

Gill: Luk 20:1

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.

Gill: Luk 20:2

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 Mat 21:23.

Gill: Luk 20:3

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 Mat 21:24.

Gill: Luk 20:4

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 Mat 21:25.

Gill: Luk 20:5

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 Mat 21:25.

Gill: Luk 20:6

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 and stone them. The Ethiopic version adds, "whom we fear"; see Mat 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.

Gill: Luk 20:7

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.

Gill: Luk 20:8

And Jesus said unto them,.... Since they would not give him a direct answer to his question:

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 Mat 21:27.

Gill: Luk 20:9

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, Mat 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 Mat 21:33 and See Gill on Mar 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.

Gill: Luk 20:10

And at the season,.... Or "when it the time of fruit", as the Ethiopic version renders it, agreeably to See Gill on Mat 21:34,

he sent a servant to the husbandmen; or servants, as in Mat 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, 2Ch 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 Mat 21:35 and See Gill on Mar 12:3.

Gill: Luk 20:11

And again he sent another servant,.... Or set of prophets in after times, and yet before the Babylonish captivity:

and they beat him also; as they had done the other; they continued in their malpractices, yea increased in them:

and entreated him shamefully; putting him to open shame, using him in a very ignominious and shameful manner, which it was a shame to relate, and which was shameful for them to do:

and sent him away empty; as they had done the other.

Gill: Luk 20:12

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, Heb 11:37

and they wounded him also; by casting stones at him; see Mar 12:4

and cast him out; of the vineyard.

Gill: Luk 20:13

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? Isa 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.

Gill: Luk 20:14

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.

Gill: Luk 20:15

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 Act 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.

Gill: Luk 20:16

He shall come and destroy these husbandmen,.... Which had its accomplishment at the destruction of Jerusalem: according to the other 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 Luk 5:29 and See Gill on Luk 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.

Gill: Luk 20:17

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? The passage is in Psa 118:22. See Gill on Mat 21:42.

Gill: Luk 20:18

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 Mat 21:44.

Gill: Luk 20:19

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 Luk 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 Luk 20:16 God forbid; that we should kill the 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.

Gill: Luk 20:20

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 Mat 22:16.

Gill: Luk 20:21

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 Mat 22:16.

Gill: Luk 20:22

Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? The Syriac and Persic versions here, as in the other evangelists, render it, "head money". The phrase, "for us", is here added, and on it lies the emphasis, and stress of the question; for the doubt pretended, was not whether it was lawful for the Romans to pay tribute to Caesar, but whether it was lawful for them who were Jews, were Abraham's seed, and, as they boasted, were never in bondage, but were the Lord's free people, to pay tribute to an Heathen emperor, or no.

Gill: Luk 20:23

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.

Gill: Luk 20:24

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 Mat 22:20 and See Gill on Mat 22:21.

Gill: Luk 20:25

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 Mat 22:21.

Gill: Luk 20:26

And they could not take hold of his words before the people,.... Which 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.

Gill: Luk 20:27

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: Mat 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 Act 23:8

and they asked him, the following question, after they had put a case to him.

Gill: Luk 20:28

Saying, master, Moses wrote unto us,.... In Deu 25:5 where the substance of what follows is contained, though not in express words:

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 Mat 22:24.

Gill: Luk 20:29

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.

Gill: Luk 20:30

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.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Luk 20:1

¹ tn Grk “Now it happened that one.” The introductory phrase ἐγένετο (egeneto, “it happened that”), common in Luke (69 times) and Acts (54 times), is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated. Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Grk “the temple.”

⁴ tn Or “preaching.”

⁵ tn Or “and the scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 5:21.

⁶ sn The chief priests and the experts in the law with the elders came up. The description is similar to Luke 19:47. The leaders are really watching Jesus at this point.

NET Notes: Luk 20:2

¹ tn Grk “and said, saying to him.” This is redundant in English and has been simplified in the translation.

² tn On this phrase, see BDAG 844 s.v. ποῖος 2.a.γ.

³ sn The leadership is looking back to acts like the temple cleansing (19:45-48). How could a Galilean preacher do these things?

NET Notes: Luk 20:3

¹ tn Grk “answering, he said to them.” This is redundant in English and has been simplified in the translation.

NET Notes: Luk 20:4

¹ sn John, like Jesus, was not a part of the official rabbinic order. So the question “John’s baptism – was it from heaven or from men?” draws an analogy between John the Baptist and Jesus. See Luke 3:1-20; 7:24-27. The phrase John’s baptism refers to the baptism practiced by John.

² tn The plural Greek term ἀνθρώπων (anqrwpwn) is used here (and in v. 6) in a generic sense, referring to both men and women (cf. NAB, NRSV, “of human origin”; TEV, “from human beings”; NLT, “merely human”).

sn The question is whether John’s ministry was of divine or human origin.

NET Notes: Luk 20:5

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of Jesus’ question.

NET Notes: Luk 20:7

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of the dilemma Jesus’ opponents faced.

² sn Very few questions could have so completely revealed the wicked intentions of the religious leaders. Jesus’ question revealed the motivation of the religious leaders and exposed them for what they really were – hypocrites. They indicted themselves when they cited only two options and chose neither of them. The point of Luke 20:1-8 is that no matter what Jesus said in response to their question they were not going to believe it and would in the end use it against him.

NET Notes: Luk 20:8

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² sn Neither will I tell you. Though Jesus gave no answer, the analogy he used to their own question makes his view clear. His authority came from heaven.

³ tn On this phrase, see BDAG 844 s.v. ποῖος 2.a.γ. This is exactly the same phrase as in v. 2.

NET Notes: Luk 20:9

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative. The parable Jesus tells here actually addresses the question put to him by the leaders.

² tc ‡ There are several variants here, most of which involve variations in word order that do not affect translation. However, the presence or absence of τις (ti") after ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo"), which would be translated “a certain man,” does affect translation. The witnesses that have τις include A W Θ Ë¹³ 1241 2542 al sy. Those that lack it include א B C D L Ψ Ë¹ 33 Ï it. Externally, the evidence is significantly stronger for the omission. Internally, however, there is some pause. A feature unique to Luke-Acts in the NT is to use the construction ἄνθρωπος τις (cf. 10:30; 12:16; 14:2, 16; 15:11; 16:1; 19:12; Acts 9:33). However, scribes who were familiar with this idiom may have inserted it here. In light of the overwhelming external support for the omission of τις, the shorter reading is preferred. NA²⁷ places τις in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

³ sn The vineyard is a figure for Israel in the OT (Isa 5:1-7). The nation and its leaders are the tenants, so the vineyard here may well refer to the promise that resides within the nation. The imagery is like that in Rom 11:11-24.

⁴ sn The leasing of land to tenant farmers was common in this period.

NET Notes: Luk 20:10

¹ sn This slave (along with the next two) represent the prophets God sent to the nation, who were mistreated and rejected.

² tc Instead of the future indicative δώσουσιν (dwsousin, “they will give”), most witnesses (C D W Θ Ψ Ë¹ Ï) have the aorist subjunctive δῶσιν (dwsin, “they might give”). The aorist subjunctive is expected following ἵνα ({ina, “so that”), so it is almost surely a motivated reading. Further, early and excellent witnesses, as well as a few others (א A B ˹³ 33 579 1241 2542 al), have δώσουσιν. It is thus more likely that the future indicative is authentic. For a discussion of this construction, see BDF §369.2.

³ tn Grk “from the fruit of the vineyard.”

⁴ tn Grk “him”; the referent (the slave sent by the owner) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

sn The image of the tenants beating up the owner’s slave pictures the nation’s rejection of the prophets and their message.

NET Notes: Luk 20:11

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of the tenants’ mistreatment of the first slave.

² sn The slaves being sent empty-handed suggests that the vineyard was not producing any fruit – and thus neither was the nation of Israel.

NET Notes: Luk 20:12

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of the tenants’ mistreatment of the first two slaves.

NET Notes: Luk 20:13

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² tn Grk “my beloved son.” See comment at Luke 3:22.

sn The owner’s decision to send his one dear son represents God sending Jesus.

NET Notes: Luk 20:15

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of the tenants’ decision to kill the son.

² sn Throwing the heir out of the vineyard pictures Jesus’ death outside of Jerusalem.

NET Notes: Luk 20:16

¹ sn The statement that the owner will come and destroy those tenants is a promise of judgment; see Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44.

² sn The warning that the owner would give the vineyard to others suggests that the care of the promise and the nation’s hope would be passed to others. This eventually looks to Gentile inclusion; see Eph 2:11-22.

³ tn Grk “they”; the referent (the people addressed in v. 9) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ sn May this never happen! Jesus’ audience got the point and did not want to consider a story where the nation would suffer judgment.

NET Notes: Luk 20:17

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Or “capstone,” “keystone.” Although these meanings are lexically possible, the imagery in Eph 2:20-22 and 1 Cor 3:11 indicates that the term κεφαλὴ γωνίας (kefalh gwnia") refers to a cornerstone, not a capstone.

sn The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. The use of Ps 118:22-23 and the “stone imagery” as a reference to Christ and his suffering and exaltation is common in the NT (see also Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:6-8; cf. also Eph 2:20). The irony in the use of Ps 118:22-23 here is that in the OT, Israel was the one rejected (or perhaps her king) by the Gentiles, but in the NT it is Jesus who is rejected by Israel.

NET Notes: Luk 20:18

¹ tn On this term, see BDAG 972 s.v. συνθλάω.

² tn Grk “on whomever it falls, it will crush him.”

sn This proverb basically means that the stone crushes, without regard to whether it falls on someone or someone falls on it. On the stone as a messianic image, see Isa 28:16 and Dan 2:44-45.

NET Notes: Luk 20:19

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² tn Or “The scribes” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 5:21.

³ tn Grk “tried to lay hands on him.”

⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

NET Notes: Luk 20:20

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² tn Grk “righteous,” but in this context the point is their false sincerity.

³ tn Grk “so that they might catch him in some word.”

⁴ tn This word is often translated “authority” in other contexts, but here, in combination with ἀρχή (arch), it refers to the domain or sphere of the governor’s rule (L&N 37.36).

NET Notes: Luk 20:21

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “thus” to indicate the implied result of the plans by the spies.

² tn Or “precisely”; Grk “rightly.” Jesus teaches exactly, the straight and narrow.

³ sn Teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Very few comments are as deceitful as this one; they did not really believe this at all. The question was specifically designed to trap Jesus.

NET Notes: Luk 20:22

¹ tn Or “lawful,” that is, in accordance with God’s divine law. On the syntax of ἔξεστιν (exestin) with an infinitive and accusative, see BDF §409.3.

² tn This was a “poll tax.” L&N 57.182 states this was “a payment made by the people of one nation to another, with the implication that this is a symbol of submission and dependence – ‘tribute tax.’”

³ tn Or “to the emperor” (“Caesar” is a title for the Roman emperor).

NET Notes: Luk 20:23

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Or “craftiness.” The term always has negative connotations in the NT (1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 4:2; 11:3; Eph 4:14).

NET Notes: Luk 20:24

¹ tn Here the specific name of the coin was retained in the translation, because not all coins in circulation in Palestine at the time carried the image of Caesar. In other places δηνάριον (dhnarion) has been translated simply as “silver coin” with an explanatory note.

sn A denarius was a silver coin worth approximately one day’s wage for a laborer. The fact that the leaders had such a coin showed that they already operated in the economic world of Rome. The denarius would have had a picture of Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor, on it.

² tn Or “whose likeness.”

sn In this passage Jesus points to the image (Grk εἰκών, eikwn) of Caesar on the coin. This same Greek word is used in Gen 1:26 (LXX) to state that humanity is made in the “image” of God. Jesus is making a subtle yet powerful contrast: Caesar’s image is on the denarius, so he can lay claim to money through taxation, but God’s image is on humanity, so he can lay claim to each individual life.

³ tn Grk “whose likeness and inscription does it have?”

NET Notes: Luk 20:25

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate that Jesus’ pronouncement results from the opponents’ answer to his question.

² sn Jesus’ answer to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s was a both/and, not the questioners’ either/or. So he slipped out of their trap.

NET Notes: Luk 20:26

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “thus” to indicate the implied result of Jesus’ unexpected answer.

² tn On this term, see BDAG 374 s.v. ἐπιλαμβάνομαι 3.

³ tn Grk “to trap him in a saying.”

⁴ tn Or “amazed.”

NET Notes: Luk 20:27

¹ sn The Sadducees controlled the official political structures of Judaism at this time, being the majority members of the Sanhedrin. They were known as extremely strict on law and order issues (Josephus, J. W. 2.8.2 [2.119], 2.8.14 [2.164-166]; Ant. 13.5.9 [13.171-173], 13.10.6 [13.293-298], 18.1.2 [18.11], 18.1.4 [18.16-17], 20.9.1 [20.199]; Life 2 [10-11]). They also did not believe in resurrection or in angels, an important detail in v. 36. See also Matt 3:7, 16:1-12, 22:23-34; Mark 12:18-27; Acts 4:1, 5:17, 23:6-8.

² sn This remark is best regarded as a parenthetical note by the author.

NET Notes: Luk 20:28

¹ tn Grk “asked him, saying.” The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

² tn Grk “his brother”; but this would be redundant in English with the same phrase “his brother” at the end of the verse, so most modern translations render this phrase “the man” (so NIV, NRSV).

³ tn The use of ἵνα (Jina) with imperatival force is unusual (BDF §470.1).

⁴ tn Grk “and raise up seed,” an idiom for procreating children (L&N 23.59).

⁵ sn A quotation from Deut 25:5. Because the OT quotation does not include “a wife” as the object of the verb, it has been left as normal type. This practice is called levirate marriage (see also Ruth 4:1-12; Mishnah, m. Yevamot; Josephus, Ant. 4.8.23 [4.254-256]). The levirate law is described in Deut 25:5-10. The brother of a man who died without a son had an obligation to marry his brother’s widow. This served several purposes: It provided for the widow in a society where a widow with no children to care for her would be reduced to begging, and it preserved the name of the deceased, who would be regarded as the legal father of the first son produced from that marriage.

NET Notes: Luk 20:29

¹ tn Grk “took a wife” (an idiom for marrying a woman).

NET Notes: Luk 20:30

¹ tc Most mss (A W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat) have the words, “took the wife and this one died childless” after “the second.” But this looks like a clarifying addition, assimilating the text to Mark 12:21. In light of the early and diverse witnesses that lack the expression (א B D L 0266 892 1241 co), the shorter reading should be considered authentic.

Geneva Bible: Luk 20:1

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

^{( 1 )} The Pharisees, being overcome with the truth of Christ's doctrine, propose a question about his outward calling, and are overcome by the witness of their own conscience.

Geneva Bible: Luk 20:9

^{( 2 )} 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.

^{( 2 )} It is nothing new for those who are knowledgable of the very sanctuary of God's holy place to be the greatest enemies of Christ, but in due time they will be punished.

Geneva Bible: Luk 20:20

^{( 3 )} And they ^{( a )} watched [him], and sent forth ^{( b )} spies, which should feign themselves just men, ^{( c )} that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and ^{( d )} authority of the governor.

^{( 3 )} The last refuge the false prophets have to destroy the true prophets is to charge them with rebellion and treason against the state.

^{( a )} An appropriate time to take him in.

^{( b )} Whom they had hired deceitfully.

^{( c )} That they might latch on to something he said, and by this forge some false accusation against him.

^{( d )} Put him to death.

Geneva Bible: Luk 20:21

And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the ^{( e )} person [of any], but teachest the way of God truly:

^{( e )} You are not moved by favour of any man: and by "person" he means outward circumstances, for if a man judges according to these, there will be those who are truly alike whom he will judge to be different.

Geneva Bible: Luk 20:23

But he perceived their ^{( f )} craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?

^{( f )} Craftiness is a certain diligence and subtle knowledge to do evil, which is achieved by much use and great practise in matters.

Geneva Bible: Luk 20:27

^{( 4 )} Then came to [him] certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

^{( 4 )} The resurrection of the flesh is affirmed against the Sadducees.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Luk 20:1-47

1 Christ avouches his authority by a question of John's baptism.

9 The parable of the vineyard.

19 Of giving tribute to Caesar.

27 He convinces the Sadducees, that denied the resurrection.

41 How Christ is the Son of David.

45 He warns his disciples to beware of the scribes.

Maclaren: Luk 20:9-19

Tenants Who Wanted To Be Owners

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 thy 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, 11. And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 12. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. 14. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be our's. 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 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.'--Luke 20:9-19.

AS the crisis came near, Jesus increased His severity and plainness of speech. This parable, which was spoken very near the end of the protracted duel with the officials in the Temple, is transparent in its application, and hit its mark immediately. The rulers at once perceived that it was directed against them. The cap fitted too well not to be put on. But it contains prophecy as well as history, and the reference to Jesus' impending fate is almost as transparent as the indictment of the rulers, while the prediction of the transference of the vineyard to others is as easy of translation as either of the other points.

Such plain speaking was fitting for last words. The urgency of Christ's pleading love, as much as the intensity of His moral indignation, made them plain.

I. We Note, First, The Vineyard, Its Lord And Its Tenants.

The metaphor was familiar, for Isaiah had sung a song touching' Israel as God's vineyard, and other prophets had caught up the emblem, so that it had become a commonplace, known by all. The parable distinctly alludes to Isaiah's words, and almost reproduces them. Matthew's version enlarges on details of the appliances provided by the owner, which makes the parallel with Isaiah still more noticeable. But Luke summarises these into the simple planted.' That covers the whole ground.

God had given Israel a system of revelation, law, and worship, which was competent to produce in those who received it, the fruit of obedience and thankfulness. The husbandmen are primarily the rulers, as the scribes and chief priests perceived; but the nation which endorsed, by permitting their action, is included. The picture drawn applies to us as truly as to the Jews. The transference of the vineyard to another set of tenants, which Christ threatened at the close of the parable, has been accomplished, and so we, by our possession of the Gospel, are entrusted with the vineyard, and are responsible for rendering the fruits of holy living and love.

The owner' let it out, and went into another country for a long time.' That is a picturesque way of saying that we have apparent possession, and are left free to act, God not being manifestly close to us. He stands off, as it were, from the creatures whom He has made, and gives them room to do as they will. But all our possessions, as well as the revelation of Himself in Christ, are only let to us, and we have rent to pay.

The collectors sent for the fruit are, of course, the series of prophets. Luke specifies three--a round number, indicating completeness, He says nothing about the times between their missions, but implies that the three covered the whole period till the sending of the son. Their treatment was uniform, as the history of Israel proved. The habit of rejecting the prophets was hereditary.

There is such a thing as national solidarity stretching through ages. The bold charge made by Stephen was only an echo of this parable, when he cried, As your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?' Each generation made the ancestral sin its own, and staggered under a heavier burden of guilt, till, at last, came a generation which had to bear the penalty of all the blood of prophets shed from the beginning. Nations live, though their component atoms die, and only national repudiation of bequeathed sins can avert the crash which, sooner or later, avenges them.

The husbandmen treated the messengers with increasing contumely and cruelty. Content with beating the first, they added shameful treatment in the second case, and proceeded to wounding in the third. If God's repeated appeals do not melt, they harden, the heart. The persistence of His messengers leads to fiercer hatred, if it does not produce yielding love. There is no bitterness equal to that of the man who has often stiffened conscience against the truth.

II. So Far, No Doubt Could Be Entertained Of The Meaning Of The Scathing Parable.

There was probably as little about that of the next part. We cannot but notice the broad distinction which Jesus draws between Himself and the mightiest of the prophets. They were the owner's' slaves'; He was His beloved Son.' The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews begins his letter with the same contrast, which he may have learned from the parable. It is a commonplace for us, but let us ponder how it must have sounded to that hostile, eager crowd, and ask ourselves how such assumptions can be reconciled with the sweet reasonableness' of Jesus if he belonged to the same category as an Isaiah or a Micah.

The yearning of divine love for the fruit of reverence and obedience is wonderfully expressed by the bold putting of an uncertain hope into the owner's mouth. He must have known that he was running a risk in sending his son, but he so much desires to bring the dishonest workmen back to their duty that he is Willing to run it. The highly figurative expression is meant to emphasise God's longing for men's hearts, and His patient love which hopeth all things,' and will not cease from effort to win us so long as an arrow remains in His quiver.

III. Our Lord Now Passes To Prophecy.

Deep sadness is in His tone as He tells how the only effect of His coming had been to stir up opposition. They saw Him,' and were they touched? No, they only gripped their privileges the tighter, and determined more fiercely to assert their ownership.

Nothing is more remarkable in the parable than the calmness of Jesus in announcing His impending fate. He knows it all, and His voice has no tremor, as He tells it as though He were speaking of another. The very announcement that He penetrated the murderous designs hidden in many of the hearers' hearts would tend to precipitate their execution of these; but He is ready for the Cross, and its nearness has no terror, not because He was impassive, or free from the shrinking proper to flesh, but because He was resolved to save. Therefore He was resolved to suffer.

The husbandmen's reasonings with one another bring into "plain words thoughts which probably were not consciously held by any even of the rulers. They open the question as to how far the rulers knew the truth of Christ's claims. They at least knew what these were, and they had fought down dawning convictions which, fairly dealt with, would have broadened into daylight. They would not have been so fiercely antagonistic if they had not been pricked by an uneasy doubt whether, after all, perhaps there was something in these claims.

Nothing steels men against admitting a truth so surely as the suspicion that, if they were to inquire a little farther, they might find themselves believing it. Knowledge and ignorance blended in these rulers as in us all. If they had not known at all, they would not have needed the Saviour's dying prayer for their forgiveness; if they had known fully, its very ground would have been taken away.

The motive put into their mouths is the wish to seize the vineyard for their own; and was not the very soul of the rulers' hostility the determination to keep hold of the prerogatives of their offices, while priests and people alike were deaf to Jesus, because they wished to be no more troubled by being reminded of their obligations to render obedience to God? The root of all rejection of Christ is the desire of self-will to reign supreme. Men resent being reminded that they are tenants, and are determined to assert ownership.

Jesus carries the hearers beyond the final crime which filled the measure of sin, and exhausted the resources of God. The sharp turn from narrative to question, in Luke 20:15, not only is like the sudden thrust of a spear, but marks the transition from the present and immediate future to a more distant day. The slaying of the heir was the last act of the vine-dressers. The owner would act next. Luke, like Mark, puts the threatening of retribution into Christ's lips, while Matthew makes it the answer of the rulers to his question. Luke alone gives the exclamation, God forbid!' The ready answer in Matthew, and the pious interjection in Luke, have the same purpose,--to blunt the application of the parable to themselves by appearing to be unconcerned.

Their levity and reluctance to take home the lesson moved our Lord to sternness, which burned in His steadfast eyes as He looked on them, and must have been remembered by some disciple whose memory has preserved that look for us. It was the prelude to a still less veiled prophecy of the fall of Israel. Jesus lays His hand on the ancient prophecy of the stone rejected by the builders, and applies it to Himself. He is the sure foundation of which Isaiah had spoken. He is the stone rejected by Israel, but elevated to the summit of the building, and there joining two diverging walls.

The solemn warning closing the parable had its special meaning in regard to Israel, but its dread force extends to us. To fall on the stone while it lies lowly on the earth is to lame one's self, but to have it fall on a man when it rushes down from its elevation is ruin utter and irremediable. If they escaped not who refused Him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven.'

Maclaren: Luk 20:24

Whose Image And Superscription?

Whose image and superscription hath it? '--Luke 20:24.

IT is no unusual thing for antagonists to join forces in order to crush a third person obnoxious to both. So in this incident we have an unnatural alliance of the two parties in Jewish politics who were at daggers drawn. The representatives of the narrow conservative Judaism, which loathed a foreign yoke, in the person of the Pharisees and Scribes, and the Herodians, the partisans of a foreigner and a usurper, lay their heads together to propose a question to Christ which they think will discredit or destroy Him. They would have answered their own question in opposite ways. One would have said, It is lawful to give tribute to Caesar'; the other would have said, It is not.' But that is a small matter when' malice prompts. They calculate, If He says, No! we will denounce Him to Pilate as a rebel. If He says, Yes! we will go to the people and say, Here is a pretty Messiah for you, that has no objection to the foreign yoke. Either way we shall end Him.'

Jesus Christ serenely walks through the cobwebs, and lays His hand upon the fact. Let Me see a silver penny!'--which, by the bye, was the amount of the tribute--Whose head is that?' The currency of the country proclaims the monarch of the country. To stamp his image on the coin is an act of sovereignty. Caesar's head declares that you are Caesar's subjects, whether you like it or not, and it is too late to ask questions about tribute when you pay your bills in his money.' Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.'

Does not the other side of Christ's answer--to God the things that are God's'--rest upon a similar fact? Does not the parallelism require that we should suppose that the destiny of things to be devoted to God is stamped upon them, whatever they are, at least as plainly as the right of Caesar to exact tribute was inferred from the fact that his money was the currency of the country? The thought widens out in a great many directions, but I want to confine it to one special line of contemplation, and to take it as suggesting to each of us this great truth, that the very make of men shows that they belong to God, and are bound to yield themselves to Him. If the answer to the question be plain, and the conclusion irresistible, about the penny with the image of Tiberius, the answer is no less plain, nor the conclusion less irresistible, when we turn the interrogation within, and, looking at our own being, say to ourselves, Whose image and superscription hath it?'

I. First, Then, Note The Image Stamped Upon Man, And The Consequent Obligation.

We can very often tell what a thing is for by noticing its make. The instructed eye of an anatomist will, from a bone, divine the sphere in which the creature to whom it belonged was intended to live. Just as plainly as gills or lungs, fins or wings, or legs and arms, declare the element in which the creature that possesses them is intended to move, so plainly stamped upon all our natures is this, that God is our Lord since we are made in a true sense in His image, and that only in Him can we find rest.

I need not remind you, I suppose, of the old word, Let us make man in our own image.' Nor need I, I suppose, insist at any length upon the truth that though, by the fact of man's sin, the whole glory and splendour of the divine image in which he was made is marred and defaced, there still remain such solemn, blessed, and awful resemblances between man and God that there can be no mistake as to which beings in the universe are the most kindred; nor any misunderstanding as to who it is after whose likeness we are formed, and in whose love and life alone we can be blessed.

I am not going to weary you with thoughts for which, perhaps, the pulpit is not the proper place; but let me just remind you of one or two points. Is there any other being on this earth that can say of itself I am'? God says I am that I am.' You and I cannot say that, but we alone, in this order of things, possess that solemn and awful gift, the consciousness of our personal being. And, brethren, whoever is able to say to himself I am' will never know rest until he can turn to God and say Thou art,' and then, laying his hand in the Great Father's hand, venture to say We are.' We are made in His image, in that profoundest of all senses.

But to come to something less recondite. We are like God in that we can love; we are like Him in that we can perceive the right, and that the right is supreme; we are like Him in that we have the power to say I will.' And these great capacities demand that the creature who thus knows himself to be, who thus knows the right, who thus can love, who thus can purpose, resolve, and act, should find his home and his refuge in fellowship with God.

But if you take a coin, and compare it with the die from which it has been struck, you will find that wherever in the die there is a relief, in the coin there is a sunken place; and conversely. So there are not only resemblances in man to the divine nature, which bear upon them the manifest marks of his destiny, but there are correspondences, wants, on our side, being met by gifts upon His; hollow emptinesses in us being filled, when we are brought into contact with Him, by the abundance of His outstanding supplies and gifts. So the poorest, narrowest, meanest life has in it a depth of desire, an ardour, and sometimes a pain and a madness of yearning and longing which nothing but God can fill. Though we often misunderstand the voice, and so make ourselves miserable by vain efforts, our heart and our flesh,' in every fibre of our being, cry out for the living God.' And what we all want is some one Pearl of great price into which all the dispersed preciousness and fragmentary brilliances that dazzle the eye shah be gathered. We want a Person, a living Person, a present Person, a sufficient Person, who shall satisfy our hearts, our whole hearts, and that at one and the same time, or else we shah never be at rest.

Because, then, we are made dependent, because we possess these wild desires, because immortal thirst attaches to our nature, because we have consciences that need illuminating, wills that are only free when they are absolutely submissive, hearts that are dissatisfied, and left yearning, after all the sweetnesses of limited, transient, and creatural affections, we bear on our very fronts the image of God; and any man that wisely looks at himself can answer the question, Whose image and superscription hath it?' in but one way. In the image of God created He him.'

Therefore by loving fellowship, by lowly trust, by ardour of love, by submissiveness of obedience, by continuity of contemplation, by the sacrifice of self, we must yield ourselves to God if we would pay the tribute manifestly owing to the Emperor by the fact that His image and superscription are upon the coin.

II. The Defacement Of The Image And The Wrong Expenditure Of The Coin.

And so let me ask you to look, in the next place, at the defacement of the image and the wrong expenditure of the coin.

You sometimes get into your hands money on which there has been stamped, by mischief, or for some selfish purpose, the name of some one else than the king's or queen's which surrounds the head upon it. And in like manner our nature has gone through the stamping-press again, and another likeness has been deeply imprinted upon it. The image of God, which every man has, is in some senses and aspects ineffaceable by any course of conduct of theirs. But in another aspect it is not like the permanent similitude stamped upon the solid metal of the penny, but like the reflection, rather, that falls upon some polished plate, or that is cast upon the white sheet from a lantern. If the polished plate be rusty and stained, the image is faint and indistinct; if it be turned away from the light the image passes. And that is what some of you are doing. By living to yourselves, by living day in and day out without ever remembering God, by yielding to passions, lusts, ambitions, low desires, and the like, you are doing your very best to erase the likeness which still lingers in your nature. Is there any one here that has yielded to some lust of the flesh, some appetite, drunkenness, gluttony, impurity, or the like, and has so sold himself to it, as that that part of the divine image, the power of saying I will,' has pretty nearly gone? I am afraid there must be some who, by long submission to passion, have lost the control that reason and conscience and a firm steady purpose ought to give. Is there any man here who, by long course of utter neglect of the divine love, has ceased to feel that there is a heart at the centre of the. universe, or that He has anything to do with it? Brethren, the awful power that is given to men of degrading themselves till, lineament by lineament, the likeness in which they are made vanishes, is the saddest and most tragical thing in the world. Like the beasts that perish,' says one of the psalms, the men become who, by the acids and the files of worldliness and sensuality and passion, have so rubbed away the likeness of God that it is scarcely perceptible in them. Do I speak to some such now? If there is nothing else left there is this, a hunger for absolute good and for the satisfaction of your desires. That is part of the proof that you are made for God, and that only in Him can you find rest.

All occupations of heart and mind and will and active life with other things to the exclusion of supreme devotion to God are, then, sacrilege and rebellion. The emperor's head was the token of sovereignty and carried with it the obligation to pay tribute. Every fibre in your nature protests against the prostitution of itself to anything short of God. You remember the story in the Old Testament about that saturnalia of debauchery, the night when Babylon fell, when Belshazzar, in the very wantonness of godless insolence, could not be satisfied with drinking his wine out of anything less sacred than the vessels that had been brought from the Temple at Jerusalem. That is what many of us are doing, taking the sacred cup which is meant to be filled with the wine of the kingdom and pouring into it the foaming but poisonous beverages which steal away our brains and make us drunk, the moment before our empire totters to its fall and we to our ruin. All the consecrated things of the house of the Lord they dedicated to Baal,' says one of the narratives in the Book of Chronicles. That is what some of us are doing, taking the soul that is meant to be consecrated to God and find its blessedness there, and offering it to false gods in whose service there is no blessedness.

For, dear friends, I beseech you, lay this to heart that you cannot thus use the Godlike being that you possess without bringing down upon your heads miseries and unrest. The raven, that black bird of evil omen, went out from the ark, and flew homeless over the weltering ocean. The souls that seek not God fly thus, strangers and restless, through a drowned and lifeless world. The dove came back with an olive branch in its beak. Souls that are wise and have made their nests in the sanctuary can there fold their wings and be at peace. As the ancient saint said, We are made for God, and only in God have we rest.' Oh, that thou hadst hearkened to me, then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea.' Cannot you see the blessed, gentle gliding of the full stream through the meadows with the sunshine upon its ripples? Such is the heart that has yielded itself to God. In solemn contrast to that lovely image, the same prophet has for a repeated refrain in his book, The wicked is like the troubled sea which cannot rest,' but goes moaning round the world, and breaking in idle foam upon every shore, and still is unquiet for evermore. Brethren, only when we render to God the thing that is God's--our hearts and our-selves--have we repose.

III. Now, Lastly, Notice The Restoration And Perfecting Of The Defaced Image.

Because man is like God, it is possible for God to become like man. The possibility of Revelation and of Redemption by an incarnate Saviour depend upon the reality of the fact that man is made in the image of God. Thus there comes to us that divine Christ, who lays' His hands upon both,' and being on the one hand the express image of His person, so that He can say, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,' on the other hand was in all points made like unto His brethren,' with only the exception that the defacement which had obliterated the divine image in them left it clear, untarnished, and sharply cut in Him.

Therefore, because Jesus Christ has come, our Brother, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh,' made like unto us, and in our likeness presenting to us the very image of God and eradiation of His light, therefore no defacement that it is possible for men or devils to make on this poor humanity of ours need be irrevocable and final. All the stains may be blotted out, all the usurping superscriptions may he removed and the original imprint restored. The dints may be elevated, the too lofty points may be lowered, the tarnish and the rust may be rubbed off, and, fairer than before, the likeness of God may be stamped on every one of us, after the image of Him that created us,' if only we will turn ourselves to that dear Lord. and cast our souls upon Him. Christ hath become like us that we might become like Him, and therein be partakers of the divine nature. We all, reflecting as a glass does the glory of the Lord, may be changed into the same image from glory to glory.'

Nor do the possibilities stop there, for we look forward to a time when, if I might pursue the metaphor of my text, the coinage shall be called in and reminted, in new forms of nobleness and of likeness. We have before us this great prospect, that we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is'; and in all the glories of that heaven we shall partake, for all that is Christ's is ours, and we that have borne the image of the earthly shall also bear the image of the heavenly.'

I come to you, then, with this old question: Whose image and superscription hath it?' and the old exhortation founded thereupon: Render therefore to God the thing that is God's'; and yield yourselves to Him. Another question I would ask, and pray that you may lay it to heart, To what purpose is this waste?' What are you doing with the silver penny of your own soul? Wherefore do ye spend it for that which is not bread?' Give yourselves to God; trust yourselves to the Christ who is like you, and like Him. And, resting upon His great love you will be saved from the prostitution of capacities, and the vain attempts to satisfy your souls with the husks of earth; and whilst you remain here will be made partakers of Christ's life, and growingly of His likeness, and when you remove yonder, your body, soul, and spirit will be conformed to His image, and transformed into the likeness of His glory, according to the mighty working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself.'

MHCC: Luk 20:1-8

Men often pretend to examine the evidences of revelation, and the truth of the gospel, when only seeking excuses for their own unbelief and disobedience. Christ answered these priests and scribes with a plain question about the baptism of John, which the common people could answer. They all knew it was from heaven, nothing in it had an earthly tendency. Those that bury the knowledge they have, are justly denied further knowledge. It was just with Christ to refuse to give account of his authority, to those who knew the baptism of John to be from heaven, yet would not believe in him, nor own their knowledge.

MHCC: Luk 20:9-19

Christ spake this parable against those who resolved not to own his authority, though the evidence of it was so full. How many resemble the Jews who murdered the prophets and crucified Christ, in their enmity to God, and aversion to his service, desiring to live according to their lusts, without control! Let all who are favoured with God's word, look to it that they make proper use of their advantages. Awful will be the doom, both of those who reject the Son, and of those who profess to reverence Him, yet render not the fruits in due season. Though they could not but own that for such a sin, such a punishment was just, yet they could not bear to hear of it. It is the folly of sinners, that they persevere in sinful ways, though they dread the destruction at the end of those ways.

MHCC: Luk 20:20-26

Those who are most crafty in their designs against Christ and his gospel, cannot hide them. He did not give a direct answer, but reproved them for offering to impose upon him; and they could not fasten upon any thing wherewith to stir up either the governor or the people against him. The wisdom which is from above, will direct all who teach the way of God truly, to avoid the snares laid for them by wicked men; and will teach our duty to God, to our rulers, and to all men, so clearly, that opposers will have no evil to say of us.

MHCC: Luk 20:27-38

It is common for those who design to undermine any truth of God, to load it with difficulties. But we wrong ourselves, and wrong the truth of Christ, when we form our notions of the world of spirits by this world of sense. There are more worlds than one; a present visible world, and a future unseen world; and let every one compare this world and that world, and give the preference in his thoughts and cares to that which deserves them. Believers shall obtain the resurrection from the dead, that is the blessed resurrection. What shall be the happy state of the inhabitants of that world, we cannot express or conceive, 1Co 2:9. Those that are entered into the joy of their Lord, are entirely taken up therewith; when there is perfection of holiness there will be no occasion for preservatives from sin. And when God called himself the God of these patriarchs, he meant that he was a God all-sufficient to them, Gen 17:1, their exceeding great Reward, Gen 15:1. He never did that for them in this world, which answered the full extent of his undertaking; therefore there must be another life, in which he will do that for them, which will completely fulfil the promise.

Matthew Henry: Luk 20:1-8

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Henry: Luk 20:9-19

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, Luk 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, Luk 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 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 (Luk 20:16): When they heart it, they said, God forbid, Mē 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, Luk 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 (Luk 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 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.

Matthew Henry: Luk 20:20-26

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, Luk 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, Luk 20:21. Thus they thought to flatter him into an incautious freedom and 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 Caesar - for us Jews, us the free-born seed of Abraham, us that pay the Lord's tribute, may give tribute to Caesar?"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 Caesar. 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, Luk 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 Caesar's money.""Why them,"saith Christ, "you should first have asked whether it was lawful to pay and receive Caesar'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 Caesar the things that are Caesar's. In civil things you ought to submit to the civil powers, and so, if Caesar 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 Caesar'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 Caesar sets up;"and we must worship and adore him in such way as he had appointed, and not according to the inventions of Caesar. It is God only that has authority to say My son, give me thy heart.

V. The confusion they were hereby put into, Luk 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 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.

Matthew Henry: Luk 20:27-38

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, huioi tou aiōnos 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 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 (Mal 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; kataxiōthentes , 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, Joh 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, 1Co 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, They are as the angels - ōs 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, Rom 8:23. For till the body is redeemed from the grave the adoption is not completed. Now are we the sons of God, 1Jo 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 (Luk 20:37, Luk 20:38): 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 (Ecc 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, Rom 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 (Gen 17:1), their exceeding great reward, Gen 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 make every soul happy that lives to him; enough for all, enough for each.

Barclay: Luk 20:1-8

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

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

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

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

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

Barclay: Luk 20:9-18

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parable tells us certain things about God.

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

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

The parable tells us something about Jesus.

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

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

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

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

the Word;

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

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

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

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

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

Barclay: Luk 20:19-26

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

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

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

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

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

Barclay: Luk 20:27-40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constable: Luk 19:28--22:1

VI. Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:28--21:38

Luke's account of Jesus' passion highlights Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and His teaching there before His arrest.

Constable: Luk 20:1--21:5

C. Jesus' teachings in the temple 20:1-21:4

Luke presented Jesus' teachings in the temple as beginning with opposition from the religious leaders and leading on to Jesus' condemnation of them. He evidently wanted to highlight the reasons for God's passing over Israel and working with Gentiles equally in the present era. All of what follows in this section happened on Wednesday of "passion week."

Constable: Luk 20:1-8

1. The controversy over authority 20:1-8 (cf. Matt. 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33)

Jesus' authority was crucial not only for the Jewish leaders who opposed Him but for Luke's readers. This passage established Jesus' authority beyond reasonable doubt.

20:1-2 Luke's reference to Jesus preaching the gospel as well as the question of His authority to do so preview the experiences of Peter and Paul (cf. Acts 4:7). Individuals from the chief priests, scribes or lawyers, and elders made up the Sanhedrin. Thus their question constituted an official inquiry. The critics' first question dealt with who Jesus claimed to be and the second with whom He represented, Himself or some group.

"Jesus had upset the normal religious' atmosphere of the temple, which led the religious leaders to question His authority."⁴⁴⁶

20:3-6 Jesus' reply with a counter-question was common in rabbinic discussions.⁴⁴⁷ He used "heaven" as a synonym for God. Luke recorded many instances of this practice. The Jewish leaders had opposed John the Baptist though the people followed him. Luke alone mentioned the leaders' fear of stoning. Stoning was the penalty for prophesying falsely (Deut. 13:1-11). Here the leaders feared that they might suffer the same fate for denying the legitimacy of a true prophet. Luke therefore hinted that the people who listened to Jesus were the faithful Israelites and that their leaders who rejected Him were worthy of stoning.

20:7-8 Luke recorded the leaders' confession that they did not know from where John received his authority. This was, of course, a deliberate evasion of Jesus' question. However their answer condemned them because as Israel's leaders they were responsible to evaluate the claims of professing prophets. Jesus used their refusal to answer His question as a reason not to answer theirs, but the implication was clear to everyone. He claimed the same authority as John, namely God. There was ample evidence of that in Jesus' ministry even though the critics refused to accept it.

Constable: Luk 20:9-19

2. The parable of the wicked tenant farmers 20:9-19 (cf. Matt. 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12)

This parable taught that Israel's religious leaders who had authority were mismanaging their authority. It also affirmed Jesus' authority, not just as a prophet, but as God's Son. The leaders had expressed fear of death (v. 6). Jesus now revealed that He would die but would experience divine vindication. The parable contains further teaching on the subject of proper stewardship as well (cf. 19:11-27).

20:9-12 Jesus directed his teaching to the people who generally responded positively to His instruction. A positive response to revelation results in more insight. Those in the crowd who did not believe in Jesus would have found this teaching less illuminating.

The owner of the vineyard in the parable represents God, the vineyard is Israel (cf. Ps. 80:8-16; Isa. 5:1-7), and the tenant farmers are Israel's religious leaders. The harvest stands for the inauguration of the kingdom, and the servants represent the prophets. The produce of the vineyard symbolizes the fruits of righteousness that God hoped to find in His people. Luke simplified the story compared with Matthew and Mark's versions probably to stress the main points and to avoid distraction from too much detail.

20:13-14 Luke cast the owner's thought in the form of a soliloquy, which he liked to do (cf. 16:3-4; 18:4-5). This literary device adds pathos to the story. The term "beloved" (Gr. agepeton) son identifies the owner's son as unique from his viewpoint, but it also identified him as God's Son to perceptive listeners and to Luke's readers (cf. 3:22). Evidently the tenants believed they could conceal the murder, and the owner would turn the vineyard over to them having no other heir. This was very bad stewardship of what belonged to the owner.

20:15 Matthew and Luke have the tenants casting the son out of the vineyard and then killing him whereas Mark has them doing these things in the reverse order. Probably they removed him from the vineyard, killed him, and then cast his corpse farther from the vineyard. The order of Matthew and Luke makes the killing the climax, and Mark's point seems to be the insults that the son suffered.

20:16 Only Luke recorded the verbal response of the people to the vineyard owner's action: "may it never be" (Gr. me genoito, cf. Rom. 3:4, 6, 31, et al.). This was a strong statement expressing firm rejection. They understood that Jesus was predicting that God would condemn Israel's leaders and turn the nation over to other people. They foresaw the end of Judaism as they knew it, and this prospect upset them.

20:17 By looking at His hearers Jesus captivated their attention for a very important statement. Jesus' response corrected the crowd's resistance to the idea that God would judge Israel's present leaders and allow Israel to fall under other presumably Gentile leadership. He now changed the figure from a vineyard to a building. Luke recorded Him quoting only Psalm 118:22, not verse 23, which the other evangelists included (cf. 19:38; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7). This has the effect of highlighting the stone, namely Jesus, without reference to God.

An apparently insignificant stone that builders discarded as being unfit would become the most important stone of all. Jesus would become the most important feature in what God was building. Luke's original readers would have understood this as a reference to Jesus being the head of the church. The statement was a further indictment against the current builders, Israel's leaders.

20:18 Jesus next referred to other Old Testament passages that also referred to a stone (Dan. 2:34, 44-45; cf. Isa. 8:14-15). They taught that a capstone would be God's agent of judgment. Those who opposed it would only destroy themselves, and it would crush those on whom it fell. The stone in Daniel 2 represents a kingdom. Likewise Jesus as the King of the kingdom of God would serve as God's agent of judgment in the future. However even now Jesus was the stone that would bring judgment on God's enemies.

20:19 The religious leaders understood Jesus' meaning and wanted to silence Him but decided not to do anything publicly then because so many of the people supported Jesus (cf. 19:47-48; 22:2).

Constable: Luk 20:20-26

3. The question of tribute to Caesar 20:20-26 (cf. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17)

Luke showed how the religious leaders' antagonism was intensifying against Jesus. This was another attempt to discredit Him (cf. vv. 1-8). Luke may have included it also because it shows that Jesus did not teach hostility toward the state. The early Christians likewise suffered because of false accusations that they opposed their government, but this was generally untrue.

20:20 Luke revealed the motives of Israel's leaders on this occasion more clearly than the other evangelists did. They watched for and made opportunities to trap Jesus. The Greek word egkathetos, translated "spy," means one hired to lie in wait. A private detective or secret agent might be closer to the ancient equivalent than a military spy. These spies feigned righteous behavior though their real purpose was to get Jesus to say something for which they might accuse Him before Pilate, the Roman governor. Later they resorted to telling Pilate that Jesus taught the people not to pay their taxes (23:2), but that was a lie.

20:21-22 The spies' preamble was both flattering and devious (cf. Acts 24:2-3). They claimed to accept Jesus' teaching and to desire a clarification of a point of law. Probably they hoped that their preamble would give Jesus a feeling of self-confidence that would lead to a foolish answer. They wanted to know if Jesus believed that the Mosaic Law required the Jews to pay taxes (Gr. phoros, a general word for tribute) to the occupying Romans. They thought that if Jesus said yes He would alienate the common people, especially the Zealots, who objected strongly to paying. If Jesus said no, He would incur the wrath of Rome, and the Sanhedrin could tell Pilate that He taught the people not to pay their taxes.

20:23-25 Jesus perceived the malicious intentions of His questioners rather than falling before their flattery. He proceeded to lead them into a trap of His own. He used an object lesson to reinforce and clarify His answer rather than side-stepping the controversial question. He answered by appealing to principle.

The Roman denarius bore the image of Caesar, probably that of Tiberius (14-37 A.D.) at this time. The image indicated that the money ultimately belonged to him and the government that he headed and represented. He had issued it, though, of course, in another sense it belonged to the person who currently possessed it. The fact that the Jews used Roman money indicated that Rome ruled over them. This rule involved providing services for them as well as extracting payment for those services from them. Therefore the demand for taxes was legitimate.

Jesus added that His questioners and all people who bear the image of God should also give Him what is His due, namely their worship and service (cf. Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Roman coins also bore inscriptions claiming that the emperor was divine.⁴⁴⁸ Jesus repudiated that idea by referring to God as the person to whom people owed their primary allegiance.

Jesus was not setting up two parallel and separate realms in which He wanted people to live, namely the political and the spiritual. Rather He was showing that paying earthly rulers what is their due is only a logical extension of paying the heavenly Ruler what is His due. The earthly political sphere lies within the larger spiritual sphere. When political and spiritual responsibilities conflict, we must give precedence to our larger spiritual responsibility (cf. Acts 5:29).

"Jesus is not a political revolutionary who rails against Rome, nor is he an ardent nationalist. . . .

"This text is the closest to a political statement Jesus makes. . . . In many ways Jesus' handling of this question shows that he is not interested in the political agenda of changing Rome. He is not a zealot. He is more interested that Israel be a people who honor the God they claim to know than being concerned with their relationship to Rome."⁴⁴⁹

20:26 Jesus' answer in verse 25 has become so commonplace to us that we fail to appreciate the impact it must have had on those who heard it for the first time. Jesus' critics could not criticize either His logic or His statement. Wisely they kept quiet (cf. 14:6; 20:40), a fact that only Luke noted. Luke also drew attention to their failure to "catch" (NIV "trap," Gr. epilambanomai) Jesus, which he earlier identified as their purpose (v. 20).

This teaching would have been helpful to Luke's original readers who, as all Christians do, had responsibilities to pagan political authorities as well as to God.

Constable: Luk 20:27-40

4. The problem of the resurrection 20:27-40 (cf. Matt. 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27)

This incident was also relevant for Luke's original Greek readers. The question of the resurrection of the body was important in Greek philosophy (cf. 1 Cor. 15). Luke used this incident in his narrative to bring Jesus' confrontations with His critics in the temple courtyard to a climax.

20:27 Luke had not identified the party affiliations of Jesus' former critics as Matthew and Mark did. These Jewish parties would not have been of much interest to his original readers. However here he identified the Sadducees by name. He needed to do this because of their denial of the resurrection that was the central problem that they brought to Jesus. Most Greeks denied the resurrection of the body too (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12). Greek psychology viewed the body as the temporary prison of the soul that was immortal.

Jesus had taught much about the future and had implied that He believed in the resurrection of the body (e.g., 19:11-28). The Sadducees opposed the Pharisees at many points because they believed the Pharisees had departed too far from the teachings of the Old Testament. In one sense the Sadducees were liberal in their theology since they denied much that is supernatural (e.g., the resurrection, angels, and spirits; Acts 23:8). On the other hand they were quite conservative in that they based their views on a strict interpretation of Old Testament teachings.

20:28 The Sadducees' commitment to the Old Testament was evident in their approach to Jesus. They began by quoting Deuteronomy 25:5 (cf. Gen. 38:8). The practice in question was levirate marriage.⁴⁵⁰

20:29-33 Jesus' critics posed a possible but far-fetched case of levirate marriage. Their obvious purpose was to show that belief in the resurrection of the body was ludicrous and that Jesus was wrong to advocate it. However, they made the unwarranted assumption that life in a resurrected body would involve sexual relations as we know them now. The problem was that none of the woman's seven husbands had fathered a child by her. Consequently none of them had any special claim on her as his wife.

20:34-36 Jesus contrasted the present age with the kingdom age. People resurrected to live in the kingdom, sons or products of the resurrection (v. 36), will not marry (as men do) nor be given in marriage (as women are). They will be immortal, as the angels.

Like the angels they will also be "sons of God," a common designation for the angels in the Old Testament (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; et al.). This title stresses the God-like characteristic of the angels and the resurrected saints that is in view, namely their immortality. Even though believers are already sons of God we will become sons of God in a fuller sense through resurrection. Similarly Jesus was always God's Son in the administrative structure of the Trinity, but He became the Son of God in a fuller sense by resurrection (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33).

God considers these people worthy to attain to the resurrection of believers because of their faith, not because of any personal merit of their own (cf. Acts 5:41).

There will be people living in the kingdom who have not yet died and experienced resurrection. Jesus was not speaking about them, only about "sons of the resurrection," namely those who had died and experienced resurrection (cf. Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; 1 Cor. 15:50-57; 1 Thess. 4:13-17).

This explanation was important for Hellenistic readers. The Greeks believed that specially worthy mortals became gods, but this is not what Jesus taught. Rather He said that worthy mortals who are already sons of God will become immortal and incapable of reproducing following their resurrection.

20:37-38 Jesus also corrected the Sadducees by affirming that the dead rise. There is not just continuing conscious existence after death, as the Greeks believed. To prove His point Jesus cited a verse from the Pentateuch, which his critics respected greatly (Exod. 3:6; cf. Acts 7:32). However the Sadducees had misinterpreted what Moses had written about God's relationship to the patriarchs.

His point was that Moses spoke of God as presently being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom had died. God could only be their God then if they would rise from the dead eventually. God will raise all people eventually. All live to Him in that sense. Therefore "to Him all are alive" (NIV). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will experience resurrection at the Second Coming and will live in the kingdom as "sons of the resurrection" (v. 36).

20:39 Luke is the only evangelist who recorded the verbal reaction of certain scribes, presumably Pharisees. They agreed with Jesus about the resurrection and disagreed with the Sadducees. Their comment confirmed the truthfulness of Jesus' teaching about the resurrection and affirmed Him.

20:40 Luke omitted the discussion about the greatest commandment that followed (Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34). He had recorded a similar conversation earlier in his Gospel (10:25-28) and may have wanted to avoid repetition. He jumped ahead to the end of Jesus' teaching in the temple that day and wrote that Jesus' answer ended the attempts to trap Him in His words.

College: Luk 20:1-47

LUKE 20

C. THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED (20:1-8)

¹ One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. ²" Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. " Who gave you this authority?"

³ He replied, " I will also ask you a question. Tell me, ⁴ John's baptism - was it from heaven, or from men?"

⁵ They discussed it among themselves and said, " If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' ⁶ But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet."

⁷ So they answered, " We don't know where it was from."

⁸ Jesus said, " Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."

This story is the first of three stories in which Jerusalem's leadership attempts to discredit Jesus in public (see also 20:20-26, 27-40). Jesus answers them wisely each time, with the result that they look foolish rather than he. In this first instance, Jesus places them in the same dilemma in which they attempt to place him. The story is one more example of the failure of official Judaism to accept the Messiah sent to them.

1-2. Jesus continues to teach in the temple courts and to preach the gospel , the same phrase used throughout the Gospel and Acts to describe the message of Jesus and the early church. The elders are the " leaders of the people" mentioned in 19:47. Jesus predicted their involvement along with the " chief priests and teachers of the law" in 9:22. In other words, Jesus' predictions are coming true. The elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law largely comprise the Sanhedrin, the supreme authority in official Judaism at the time. (Luke's term for this body is " the council" ). We should probably see the group that comes to question Jesus as a delegation from the Sanhedrin. They want to know what right ( by what authority ) Jesus has to do these things . " These things" probably looks back to the last episode, in which Jesus drove out the merchants from the temple courts, in addition to his teaching with such " authority" (see 4:32). Their pointed question, " Who gave you this authority?" is a loaded question which is meant to force him into a dilemma. If he claims that God gave him his authority, they would try to turn the people against him for claiming to speak for God. If he claims to be acting on his own authority, they would dismiss him as just another pretender.

3-8. Jesus understands their ploy and quickly turns the tables on them. Jesus' question for them places them in the same dilemma they planned for him, as their private conversation in verses 5-6 indicates.

The reader should recognize that this is the seventh story in the Gospel in which John is mentioned. He will be mentioned frequently also in Acts. Jesus in this story recognizes that he is very much like John, in that the people accept him while the leadership rejects him. Rather than give their actual opinion (that John's baptism was from men ), Jesus' opponents plead ignorance. Jesus follows their cue, proves himself wiser than they, and escapes their trap.

D. THE PARABLE OF THE TENANTS (20:9-19)

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. 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. ¹¹ He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. ¹² He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.

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.'

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.' ¹⁵ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

" What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? ¹⁶ He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others."

When the people heard this, they said, " May this never be!"

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 capstone ^a ' ^b ?

¹⁸ Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

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.

^a 17 Or cornerstone ^b 17 Psalm 118:22

The parable of the tenants is really more of an allegory than a traditional parable. In other words, many individual elements in the story represent the reality about which Jesus is speaking. The meaning of the parable is that Jesus will be rejected just as many other prophets were before him. However, he is more than a prophet - he is God's Son. Those who kill the Son will themselves be killed, and the kingdom will be given to the Gentiles.

Jesus offers a transparent hint concerning his identity and demonstrates that he knows what is to happen to him. Luke's first readers were very likely pleased to be reminded that Jesus had spoken of their full inclusion in the kingdom of God.

9-12. Jesus speaks this parable to the people , but it functions to warn the people about the wickedness of their leaders. The vineyard was a common symbol of the Jewish nation. Here the vineyard represents the kingdom made up of God's people. The farmers who rented it represent the Jewish people. The fact that the owner of the vineyard went away for a long time recalls the fact that God had been sending prophets for many centuries. The " servants" who were sent at harvest time stand for the prophets whom God sent to Israel to collect the " fruits of repentance" (to use the words of the prophet John in 3:8). The servants' being beat, treated shamefully , and wounded is a transparent way of speaking about how God's prophets were treated through the centuries. This theme has been a major one throughout Luke's narrative (see the supplemental study on the " Prophet Theme" ).

13. The most surprising part of the parable occurs when the owner of the vineyard determines to send his beloved son . Although this part of the story does not represent what a vineyard owner would actually do in such a situation, it speaks volumes about the love of God for his people. Before punishing them, he offers them the opportunity to accept his own Son. It is difficult to know to what extent Jesus' listeners would have understood that he was claiming to be God's Son. But Luke's readers would have immediately grasped the point.

14-16a. The decision of the tenants to throw the heir out of the vineyard (outside the city of Jerusalem) and kill him (after previously rejecting so many servants) is more than sufficient warrant for the owner's response. The question, " What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?" almost needs no answer. Every hearer knows that he will come and kill those tenants . This is another reference to the events of A.D. 70. That he will give the vineyard to others may be more of a surprise to Jesus' hearers, who can scarcely conceive of the coming mission to the Gentiles. Luke's readers, however, know well of what may be already a Gentile majority in the kingdom. The book of Acts, of course, tells the story.

16b-18. Jesus hearers understand the story well enough to perceive that it promises destruction for the Jewish nation, and they respond in horror. When they say, " May this never be," Jesus looks to Psalm 118:22 for evidence that these events were prophesied in Scripture. " The stone which the builders rejected has become the capstone." This " capstone" actually refers to the cornerstone, the most important part of the foundation. It was the first and bottom stone placed when building, the stone which bore the weight of the first two walls. The metaphor means that the Jewish leadership rejected the very one whom God had chosen to be the foundation of his kingdom. Jesus' next words, taken from Isaiah 8:14-15, also utilize stone imagery to warn about what happens to those who stumble upon it and those upon whom it falls. In either case (and it is difficult to know what the difference would be) the result is destruction.

19. The teachers of the law and the chief priests knew that Jesus was accusing them of rejecting those God was sending them. They wanted to arrest him immediately , but they could not. They needed a reasonable charge against him if they were to avoid the disfavor of the people .

E. PAYING TAXES TO CAESAR (20:20-26)

²⁰ Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 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. ²² Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

²³ He saw through their duplicity and said to them, ²⁴" Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"

²⁵" Caesar's," they replied.

He said to them, " Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

²⁶ They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

This controversy is very much like the last (20:1-8). The leaders attempt to force Jesus to give a " yes or no" answer to a question, knowing that either answer will hurt him. Their hope is for a " no" answer, so that they can turn him over to the Romans for being a revolutionary. Jesus sees through their scheme, and once again their plan backfires, leaving them looking foolish.

20. Since their trap was so obvious last time, this time they sent spies, who pretended to be honest and sincere, as if they were truly looking for a resolution to this common Jewish question. The dilemma was a very understandable one in Jewish thinking. Devout Jews claimed ultimate allegiance only to God, since Israel was supposed to be a theocracy, a nation led by God alone. The king, if there was one, was only given the position in order to enforce the commandments of God. People who shared this strong conviction had a problem of conscience in paying taxes to a pagan government ruled by a polytheistic emperor who demanded absolute allegiance. Most of these emperors in fact were proclaimed to be divine after their deaths, some even before death.

If Jesus were to endorse fully the paying of taxes to Caesar, he would lose the respect of many of the people. Most people paid the taxes but did so reluctantly. They did it because they had to, but they never felt good about it. If, on the other hand, Jesus were to oppose the payment of Roman taxes, these spies would quickly hand him over to the authorities, who would immediately arrest Jesus. Revolutionary talk was especially dangerous at the time of Passover. The governor who would handle such matters at this time is Pontius Pilate.

21. The spies do not actually believe that Jesus teaches what is right , but they know that this is his reputation and that he does not show partiality . That is, they know that he refuses to cater to the interests of the " wise and learned" or the rich and influential in order to promote himself. All of this flattery is intended to encourage Jesus to give an honest and sincere answer to their insincere question. The question, " Is it right for us (Jews) to pay taxes to Caesar?" refers to the poll taxes (on goods) collected by " tax collectors." The " Caesar" at the time was Tiberius, who reigned from A.D. 14-37.

23-25a. Jesus saw through their duplicity and asked them to show him a denarius , demonstrating that they were using this Roman coin. A denarius had the portrait and the name of the emperor during whose reign it was minted. Jesus' answer, " Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," is an acknowledgment of the right of Rome to govern in certain areas of life. To say much more than this is speculation. Jesus does not explain his comments, and it is a mistake to read very much into them.

25b-26. Most importantly, Jesus does not fall into their trap even with regard to the people, because he continues, " . . . and [give] to God what is God's." He makes it clear that one must not give to Caesar what is God's (glory, worship, faith). Jesus does not offer enough teaching here on which one might base a complex doctrine of church and state. He only offers the basic premise, and in doing so defeats his enemies in this battle of words. They were unable to trap him. Being astonished by his answer, they became silent. This is the last attempt of this group to trap Jesus. Only the Sadducees will attempt to humiliate Jesus in public again. Then the questioning will cease.

It is very likely that this passage has an added importance for Luke in light of his apologetic aims of demonstrating to the governing powers that followers of Jesus are no threat to the empire. The final chapters of Acts are most important in this regard, as Paul is declared innocent by numerous Roman officials. See the introduction under " Purpose."

F. THE RESURRECTION AND MARRIAGE (20:27-40)

²⁷ Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 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 have children for his brother. ²⁹ Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. ³⁰ The second ³¹ and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. ³² Finally, the woman died too. ³³ Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"

³⁴ Jesus replied, " The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. ³⁵ But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 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. ³⁷ But in the account of the 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.' ^{a 38} He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

³⁹ Some of the teachers of the law responded, " Well said, teacher!" ⁴⁰ And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

^a 37 Exodus 3:6

For the last time a group of Jewish leaders ask Jesus a question in order to make them look wise and make him look foolish. Again Jesus gives an answer which has the opposite effect. After this they will take a different approach in their efforts to silence Jesus. The next time we see the Jewish leadership they are plotting with Judas so that they may put him to death.

The content of this controversy story is also important, since it deals with the reality of the coming resurrection. While there have been only brief predictions about Jesus' resurrection thus far, the resurrection will dominate the story from Luke 24 to the end of Acts.

Supplemental Study:

The Sadducees

The Sadducees appear for the first time in the Gospel. Not nearly as much is known about the Sadducees as is known about other groups among first-century Jews, such as Pharisees and Essenes. Furthermore, since we do not possess any Sadducean writings, what little we do know about them comes from their opponents, Pharisees and Christians. Their name seems to have come from Zadok, the high priest under David and Solomon (see 1 Kgs 1-2). They were therefore a priestly group for the most part, although they probably had some non-priestly members as well. They were the most powerful group of priests, which Luke calls the " chief priests." They were also the group which had control of the temple. The historian Josephus writes that they were an aristocratic sect, and there is reason to believe that they had the majority membership in the Sanhedrin, the highest ruling council among the Jews. The high priest himself was a Sadducee, and it was he who presided over the Sanhedrin.

It is difficult to say more than a few sentences regarding the beliefs of the Sadducees. Luke gives us our best information about their doctrine. As suggested in the current text, they did not believe in resurrection, and Acts 23:8 suggests that they believed " there are neither angels nor spirits." This would not mean that they did not believe in heavenly messengers, such as those who visited Abraham in Genesis 18. Rather, it appears that they did not believe in all of the unseen angelic beings which had become such an important part of much Jewish thinking during the intertestamental period. The reason for these beliefs is their acceptance of only the Pentateuch and not all of what Christians would call the Old Testament. This probably explains also their denial of future punishments and rewards in the afterlife.

The Sadducees tended to be very conservative and favored preserving the status quo. They were probably supporters of the Herods and were comfortable with Roman rule. They were not, however, as popular as the Pharisees with the people. They therefore had to share some power in the Sanhedrin with their enemies, the Pharisees. After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Sadducees disappeared completely from the scene.

27-33. In this story some of the Sadducees come to Jesus to attempt to make his belief in resurrection look ridiculous. Their method in this instance is to make the practical implications of such a doctrine appear to be so difficult that the whole doctrine becomes laughable. Their proposed scenario relies on the Jewish levirate marriage custom, in which a woman whose husband dies childless bears children by the dead husband's brother (see Gen 38:8; Deut 25:5; Ruth 4:1-12). The children are then regarded for inheritance purposes as the children of the dead man. The Sadducees' almost humorous example involves a woman whose husband dies childless, so that she then becomes the " wife" of his oldest brother. He also dies childless, as do five other brothers. The question, then, is, " At the resurrection whose wife will she be?"

34-35a. Jesus responds with two counter-arguments. The first explains that the marriage relationship is a part of this age but not the next. The people of this age marry . . . but in the resurrection age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Jesus' reasoning is apparently that in the age to come there will be no need for procreation (see Gen 1:28) since there will be no more death ( they can no longer die ).

35b-36. Relationships will be different, and people will be like the angels . Being " like the angels" is most likely a way of saying that people " can no longer die," since the Sadducees believed neither in angels nor in resurrection. People will live for eternity since they are God's children and are like him in this regard. Paul provides an interesting parallel in Romans 8:23: " We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons."

37-38. Jesus' second argument is a proof for resurrection from Exodus 3:6. Since the Sadducees would not accept references to the resurrection from such passages as Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19, Jesus calls on them to consider the account of the bush . In that story written by Moses , he shows that the dead rise because he writes that the Lord is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. The implication is that God is still their God at the time Moses is at the bush, which is long past the time these three patriarchs died. Therefore they must not be dead - he is the God of the living .

39-40. Jesus has argued from texts accepted by Sadducees and has used their methods to defeat them. His wisdom is plain to all who hear, so that even his critics, the teachers of the law (perhaps Pharisees who agree with him on resurrection) say, " Well said, teacher!" All Jesus' opponents learn their lesson at this point. No one dared to ask him any more questions.

G. WHOSE SON IS THE CHRIST? (20:41-47)

⁴¹ Then Jesus said to them, " How is it that they say the Christ ^a is the Son of David? ⁴² David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

" 'The Lord said to my Lord:

" Sit at my right hand

⁴³ until I make your enemies

a footstool for your feet." ' ^b

⁴⁴ David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"

⁴⁵ While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, ⁴⁶" Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. ⁴⁷ They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

^a 41 Or Messiah ^b 43 Psalm 110:1

41. This time Jesus asks the question rather than his opponents. Like the triumphal entry and the parable of the tenants, it deals with his messianic status. For most Jews, Messiah meant " king," and David was the greatest in Israel's history. Therefore most Jews were looking for a new David to ascend the throne in Israel. Jesus' question, " How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David?" is meant to deny the adequacy of the term " Son of David" for the Messiah. The Messiah is the Son of David in terms of lineage, and to some degree Jesus resembles David. The term is used with approval in Luke 18:38 and is implied in 1:27, 32 and 2:4. So, the term is not inaccurate. However, in the most important sense, David provides an inadequate model for understanding who Jesus is. The coming rejection and death of Jesus will demonstrate just how much Jesus is unlike David, and the effect of his death and resurrection will show how much greater Jesus is.

42a. Jesus cites Psalm 110:1 in support of his higher view of the Messiah. This psalm is understood in a messianic sense by the early Christians, and it may have been interpreted similarly by pre-Christian Jews. The belief that David wrote Psalm 110 is central to the argument. The reasoning is that if David calls the Messiah his " Lord," how can the Messiah be simply the " Son of David," a title which implies his equality or even subordination to David?

42b-44. The psalm also implies that God gives the highest position to the Messiah, because God invites him to " Sit at my right hand." This quotation will be used again in Acts 2:34 to speak of Jesus' place after his ascension. Finally, the psalm also looks forward to the coming punishment of Jesus' enemies, as it speaks of God making Jesus' enemies a footstool for his feet.

Jesus therefore speaks what must have been a mysterious riddle to his hearers. It prepares them to understand his role, but only after the resurrection and ascension. This text will become a central part of the early Christian preaching (see Acts 2:34-36).

45-47. It may be the reference to " making [his] enemies [his] footstool" (20:43) that leads Jesus to offer this final warning about the Jewish leaders. In very similar terms to the " woes" against the Pharisees and teachers of the Law in 11:37-54, Jesus criticizes these teachers of the law . Their flowing robes were apparently meant to draw attention to themselves. They love to be treated like important people in the marketplace, in the synagogues , and at banquets . However, Jesus wants his hearers to know that, while they appear to be important and righteous, they actually devour widow's houses , and their prayers are lengthy not because they are sincere but because they want to be seen praying. It is unclear just what it means to " devour widow's houses," but it probably means that they are willing to oppress helpless widows and take what belongs to them.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Luk 20:1-8

CVIII.
IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS AUTHORITY,
JESUS GIVES THE THIRD GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.
(In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision A.
INTRODUCTION
^aMATT. XXI. 23-27; ^bMARK XI. 27-33; ^cLUKE XX. 1-8.

   ^c1 And it came to pass, on one of the days, bthey [Jesus and the disciples] come again to Jerusalem:  ^a23 And when he was come into the temple, band as he was walking in the temple [The large outer court of the temple, known as the court of the Gentiles, was thronged during the feasts, and was no doubt the part selected by Jesus and his apostles when they taught or preached in the temple. We thrice find them on that side of it where Solomon's porch was located -- Joh 10:23, Act 3:11, Act 5:23], cas he was teaching the people and preaching the gospel [viz.: "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye" -- Mar 1:15], there came upon him {bcome aunto him} bthe chief priests and the scribes, and {cwith} the elders; {aof the people} [the Sanhedrin (see Joh 10:24.]  ^a24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, ^cI also will ask you a {aone} question, which if ye tell me, band answer me, ^aI likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things.  25 The baptism of John, whence was it? ^bWas it from heaven, or from men? answer me. [The question which Jesus asked was intimately and inseparably connected with the question which they had asked. Jesus, of course, did not derive his authority from John the Baptist, but John had testified plainly to the Messiahship of Jesus, and had, in no uncertain terms, designated Jesus as immeasurably greater than himself. Now, if the Pharisees admitted that John was a heaven-sent messenger or witness (of which fact his baptism was propounded as a test, since it was a religious ordinance introduced on his authority), then John had already answered the Sanhedrin that Jesus derived his authority from his Messiahship, and hence, all that the Sanhedrin had to do to satisfy their minds was simply to believe John. But if, on the other hand, the Pharisees rejected John's pretensions and claims as a heaven-sent messenger in the face of the almost universal popular conviction, then what was there for Jesus to present his claims to so blind, bigoted, and unreasoning a body?]  31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, aunto us, Why then did ye not believe him? [When he testified to the Messiahship of Jesus (Joh 1:7, Joh 1:15, Joh 1:34, Joh 3:26-36, Joh 10:40-42). The Sanhedrin could not admit that the messenger was heaven-sent and yet deny his testimony.]  26 But if we shall {bshould we} say, From men -- call the people will stone us: awe fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. cfor they are persuaded that John was a prophet. bthey feared the people: for all verily held John to be a prophet.  33 And they answered [587] Jesus cthat they knew not whence it was. aand said, {bsay,} We know not. [It should be noted in their consultation there was no effort either to ascertain or to speak the truth. The question as to whether John really was or was not a prophet was in no sense the subject of their investigation. They were merely deciding what to say. They were seeking for the most expedient answer, and as neither truthful answer was expedient, they resolved to falsely deny any knowledge of the case. Men of such brazen dishonesty could not be dealt with openly and fairly as could sincere seekers after truth.] And Jesus, aalso said {bsaith} unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. [Their spoken lie was, "We know not," but their inward and true answer was, "We will not tell," and Jesus answered the suppressed truth saying, "Neither tell I." How readily the subtle minds of the Jewish people would justify Jesus in thus declining to submit the question of his authority to judges who at that very moment publicly confessed their inability to even hazard an opinion, much less render a decision, as to the authority of John the Baptist, who claims were in popular estimation so obvious. It was plain that however well these men might judge human credentials, the divine testimonials of a prophet or of the Messiah were above their carnal sphere. Thus Jesus put his enemies to confusion in the first of man conflicts of that perilous Tuesday. But we may well imagine that they were rendered more bitter by the evidence of a wisdom so much beyond any which they possessed.]

[FFG 586-588]

McGarvey: Luk 20:9-19

CVIII.
IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS AUTHORITY,
JESUS GIVES THE THIRD GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.
(In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision C.
PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN.
^aMATT. XXI. 33-46; ^bMARK XII. 1-12; ^cLUKE XX. 9-19.

   ^b1 And he began to speak unto them cthe people [not the rulers] bin parables. {cthis parable:}  ^a33 Hear another parable: There was a man that was a householder [this party represents God], who planted a vineyard [this represents the Hebrew nationality], and set a hedge about it, and digged a bpit for the awinepress in it [The winepress consisted of two tub-shaped cavities dug in the rock at different levels, the upper being connected with the lower by an orifice cut through from its bottom. Grapes were placed in the upper cavity, or trough, and were trodden by foot. The juice thus squeezed from them ran through the orifice to the trough below, from which it was taken and stored in leather bottles until it fermented and formed wine], and built a tower [a place where watchmen could be stationed to protect the vineyard from thieves as the grapes ripened for the vintage], and let it out to husbandmen [the rulers are here [590] represented; and the rental was, as usual, a part of the fruits], and went into another country. cfor a long time. [Jesus frequently refers to this withdrawal of the visible presence of God from the world, always bringing out the point that the withdrawal tests faithfulness. God had come down upon Mt. Sinai, given the law and established the Hebrew nation, after which he had withdrawn. That had indeed been a long time ago; and for four hundred years before the appearance of John the Baptist, God had not even sent a messenger to demand fruit. Some think the hedge refers to the manner in which Palestine was protected by sea and desert and mountain, but the hedge and the winepress and the tower are mere parabolic drapery, for every man who planted a vineyard did all three.]  ^a34 And when {cat} the season aof the fruits drew near, che sent unto the husbandmen a servant, {ahis servants} i. e., the prophets] cthat they should give him {bthat he might receive ato receive from the husbandmen} of the {ahis} bfruits of the vineyard. [Luk 3:8 -- He expected the children of Israel to bring forth joy, love, peace, and all the other goodly fruit of a godly life. And he looked to those in authority to bring forth such results, and the prophets were sent to the rulers to encourage them to do this.]  3 And {cbut} the husbandmen btook him, and beat him, and sent him away empty,  4 And again he sent unto them cyet another servant: him also they beat, bwounded in his head, and handled shamefully. cand sent him away empty.  ^b5 And he sent cyet banother; ca third: and him also they wounded, band him they killed: cand cast him forth. band many others; beating some, and killing some.  ^a35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.  36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner. [For the treatment of the prophets, see such passages as 1Ki 18:13, 1Ki 22:24-27, 2Ki 6:31, 2Ch 24:19-22, 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:16. For a summary of the treatment of the prophets or messengers of God, [591] see Heb 11:35-38.]  37 But  ^b6 He had yet one, a beloved son: aafterward bhe sent him last unto them,  ^c13 And the lord of the vineyard said, {bsaying,} ^cWhat shall I do? [Isa 5:4.] I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him. ^bThey will reverence my son. [The lord of the vineyard was thoroughly perplexed. The conduct of his husbandmen was outrageous beyond all expectation. He had no better servants to send them unless his only son should take upon him the form of a servant and visit them (Phi 2:5-8). Being tender and forgiving, and unwilling to resort to extreme measures, the lord of the vineyard resolved to thus send his son, feeling sure that the son would represent the person, authority and rights of the father so much better than any other messenger (Heb 1:1-5, Heb 2:1-3), that it would be well-nigh impossible for the husbandmen to fail of reverence towards him. In striking contrast, however, with this expectation of the Father, the rulers, or the husbandmen, had just now harshly demanded of the Son that he tell by what authority he did anything in the vineyard.]  ^a38 But the {bthose} ahusbandmen, when they saw {chim} athe son, cthey reasoned one with another, asaid among themselves, {csaying,} ^aThis is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance. cthat the inheritance may be ours. band the inheritance shall be ours. [In thus bringing the story down to the immediate present, and stating a counsel which his enemies had just spoken privately in each other's ears, Jesus must have startled them greatly. He showed them, too, that those things which made them deem it necessary to kill him were the very things which proved his heirship. They regarded the Jewish nation as their property, and they were plotting to kill Jesus that they might withhold it from him (Joh 12:19, Joh 11:47-50). That men might hope by such high-handed lawlessness to obtain a title to a vineyard seems incredible to us who have always been familiar with the even-balanced justice of constitutional government; but in the East the looseness of governments, the selfish apathy and lack [592] of public spirit among the people, and the corrupt bribe-receiving habits of the judges makes our Lord's picture even to this day, though rather exceptional, still true to life. At this point Jesus turns from history to prophecy.]  8 And they took him,  ^c15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. [After two intervening days the Jews would fulfill this detail by thrusting Jesus outside the walls of Jerusalem and crucifying him there.]  ^a40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?  41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.  ^c16 [Jesus said] He will come and destroy these {bthe} husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. ^cAnd when they heard it, they said, God forbid. [Part of the multitude, hearing only the story, pronounced unhesitatingly the judgment which ought to be inflicted upon such evil-doers, and Jesus confirmed their judgment. But others, perceiving the meaning underlying the parable, shrank from accepting what would otherwise have been to them a very proper ending, and said, Mee genoito, which means literally, Be it not so, and which might properly be paraphrased by our emphatic "Never!" but which the revisers in translating have, with small warrant, seen fit to paraphrase by using the semi-profane expression, "God forbid." There are fourteen such mistranslations in the epistles of Paul according to the King James version and only one of them (Gal 6:14) is corrected in the Revised version. In defense of these translations it is asserted that the phrase is an idiomatic invocation of the Deity, but the case can not be made out, since the Deity is not addressed.]  17 But he looked upon them [Thus emphasizing the fact that they had repudiated a most just decree. His look, doubtless, resembled that of a parent surprised at the outspoken rebellion of his children], and  ^a42 Jesus saith {csaid,} aunto them, ^cWhat then is this that is written,  ^b10 Have ye not read even this scripture: ^aDid ye never [593] read in the scriptures, ^cThe stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? ^aThis was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes? [The quotation is from Psa 118:22, Psa 118:23, which is here by Jesus applied as a prophecy to the Pharisees, who, in their treatment of him, were like unskilled builders who reject the very corner-stone of the building which they seek to erect. The Pharisees were eager enough in their desire to set up a Messianic kingdom, but were so blindly foolish that they did not see that this kingdom could not be set up unless it rested upon Christ Jesus, its corner-stone. They blundered in constructing their theory of the coming kingdom, and could find no room for one such as Jesus in it.]  43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.  44 And he {^c18 Every one} athat falleth on this {cthat} astone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust. [The stone, of course, represents Jesus, and the two fallings set forth his passive and active state. In the day when he passively submitted to be judged, those who condemned him were broken (Mat 27:3-5, Luk 23:48, Act 2:37); but in the great day when he himself becomes the acting party and calls his enemies to judgment, they shall prefer, and pray, that a mountain fall upon them -- Rev 6:15-17.]  45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees,  ^c19 And the scribes aheard his parables, they csought to lay hands on him in that very hour, bfor they perceived that he aspake of them. bspake the {cthis} parable against them.  ^a46 And when they sought to lay hands on him, cthey feared the people: {bmultitude; amultitudes,} because they took him for a prophet. band they left him, and went away. [Despite the warning which Jesus gave them that they were killing the Son and would reap the consequences, and despite the fact that he showed that the Psalm which the people had used so recently with regard to him foretold a great rejection which would prove to be a [594] mistake, yet the rulers persisted in their evil intention to take his life, and were only restrained by fear of the people, many of whom were Galilæans, men of rugged courage, ready to draw swords on Jesus' behalf. Since they could neither arrest nor answer him, they withdrew as a committee, but returned again in the person of their spies.]

[FFG 590-595]

McGarvey: Luk 20:20-26

CIX.
JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS.
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision A.
PHARISEES AND HERODIANS ASK ABOUT TRIBUTE.
^aMATT. XXII. 15-22; ^bMARK XII. 13-17; ^cLUKE XX. 20-26.

   ^a15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.  ^c20 And they watched him, and sent forth {bsend unto him} atheir disciples, bcertain of the Pharisees and of {awith} bthe Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. [Perceiving that Jesus, when on his guard, was too wise for them, the Pharisees thought it best to speak their cunning through the mouths of their young disciples, whose youth and apparent desire to know the truth would, according to their calculation, take Jesus off his guard. Having no ancient statement giving us the tenets or principles of the Herodians, we are left to judge them solely by their name, which shows that they were partisans of Herod Antipas. Whether they were out-and-out supporters of the Roman government, or whether they clung to Herod as one whose intervening sovereignty saved them from the worse fate of being directly under a Roman procurator (as Judæa and Samaria then were), would not, as some suppose, affect their views as to the payment of tribute. If they accepted Herod merely for policy's sake, policy would also compel them to favor the tribute, for Antipas, being appointed [597] by Rome, would have to favor the tribute, and could count none as his adherents who opposed it.] cspies, who feigned themselves to righteous [sincere seekers after truth], that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor. [Pontius Pilate was the governor. We are not surprised at the destruction of Jerusalem when we see the religious teachers of the nation employing their young disciples in such a work as this. To play detective and entrap a rogue in his speech and thus become a man-hunter is debasing enough; but to seek thus to entrap a righteous man is simply diabolical.]  ^b14 And when they were come, they say unto him, {csaying,} Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, bwe know that thou art true, and carest not for any one; for thou regardest not the person of men, cand acceptest not the person of any, but of a truth teachest the way of God: ain truth [The meaning of their preface is this: "We see that neither fear nor respect for the Pharisees or the rulers prevents you from speaking the plain, disagreeable truth; and we are persuaded that your courage and love of truth will lead you to speak the same way in political matters, and that you will not be deterred therefrom by any fear or reverence for Cæsar." Fearless loyalty to truth is indeed one of the noblest attributes of man. But instead of honoring this most admirable quality in Jesus, these hardened reprobates were endeavoring to employ it as an instrument for his destruction],  17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou?  ^c22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?  ^b15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? [The Jews were required to pay annually a large sum of money to the Roman government as an acknowledgment of their subjection. About twenty years before this Judas of Galilee had stirred up the people to resist this tribute, and the mass of the Jews was bitterly opposed to it. To decide in favor of this tribute was therefore to alienate the affection and confidence of the throng in the temple who stood listening to him -- an end most desirable to the Pharisees. If, [598] on the other hand, Jesus said that the tribute should not be paid, the Herodians were present to hear it, and would be witnesses sanctioned by Herod, and therefore such as Pilate would be compelled to respect. What but divine wisdom could escape from so cunningly devised a dilemma!]  ^a18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, ccraftiness, bknowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, {aand said} Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? [Thus, before answering, Jesus exposes the meanness and hypocrisy in their question, thereby emphasizing the important fact that he did not dodge, but answered it.]  19 Show me the tribute money.  ^c24 Show me a denarius. bbring me a denarius, that I may see it. [Religious dues and tributes had been paid in shekels or old Jewish coin, but the tribute to Rome was paid in Roman coin of which the denarius was a sample.] ^aAnd they brought unto him a denarius. [See Rom 13:1, Rom 13:7.]  ^c26 And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people:  ^a22 And when they heard it, they marvelled, bgreatly at him. cat his answer, and held their peace. aand left him, and went away. [They were amazed to find how far his wisdom transcended that of the teachers in whom they had such supreme confidence.]

[FFG 597-600]

McGarvey: Luk 20:27-39

CIX.
JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS.
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision B.
SADDUCEES ASK ABOUT THE RESURRECTION.
^aMATT. XXII. 23-33; ^bMARK XII. 18-27; ^cLUKE XX. 27-39.

   ^a23 On that day there came {bcome} unto him ccertain of the the Sadducees, they that {bwho} say there is no resurrection [As to the Sadducees, see Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. The object of this law was to preserve families. But the custom was older than the law -- Gen 38:6-11], cthat ^bIf a man's brother die, chaving a wife, and he be childless, {band leave a wife behind him, and leave no child,} that his brother should take his {cthe} wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. ^aMoses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.  25 Now there were ctherefore awith us seven brethren: and the first ctook a wife, amarried and deceased, band dying left no seed; {cand died childless;} aand, having no seed left his wife unto his brother:  ^b21 And  ^a26 In like manner the second also, btook her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third likewise: ctook her; aunto the seventh. cand likewise the seven also left no children, {bleft no seed.} cand died.  32 Afterward [600] ^bLast of all  ^a27 And after them all, bthe woman also died.  ^a28 In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the seven? {bof them?} for the seven aall had her. bto wife. [This was evidently a favorite Sadducean argument against the resurrection. On the assumption that the marital state is continued after the resurrection, it makes the doctrine of a resurrection appear ridiculous, because, seemingly, it involves difficulties which even brothers could hardly settle amicably, and which even God would have in a sense to settle arbitrarily.]  ^c34 And {^a29 But} Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do not err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. ^bIs it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? [The relevancy of these statements will be discussed in the treatment of Act 23:8), but the basal principle of their infidelity was the denial of spirits. It was, as it were, the tree trunk from which their other errors sprang as branches. If there were such things as spirits, it was not worth while to deny that there was an order of them known as angels. If man had a spirit which could survive his body, it was reasonable to believe that God, having so fashioned him that a body is essential to his activity and happiness, would in some manner restore a body to him. Jesus therefore does not pursue the argument until he has proved a resurrection; but rests when he has proved that man has a spirit. Jesus proves that man has a spirit by a reference from the Pentateuch, that part of Scripture which the Sadducees accepted as derived from God through Moses. The reference shows that God was spoken of and spoke of himself as the God of those who were, humanly speaking, long since dead. But the Sadducees held that a dead man had ceased to exist, that he had vanished to nothingness. According to their view, therefore, God had styled himself the God of nothing, which is absurd. The Sadducees could not thus have erred had they known or understood the significance of this Scripture, and they could not have doubted the resurrection had they known the absolute power with which God deals with material such as that of which the body is formed. See verses 24 and 39 supra.]  ^a33 And when the multitude heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.  ^c39 And certain of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast well said. [Some of the scribes of less bitter spirit could not refrain from expressing their admiration at the ease with which Jesus answered an argument which their own wisdom could not refute.] [602]

[FFG 600-602]

Lapide: Luk 20:1-47

CHAPTER 20

Ver. 36.— They are equal unto the angels. So the Arabic, Syriac, Egyptian, Persian, and Ethiopic; equal in celibacy, immortality, glory. As therefore the angels do not marry nor generate, so neither do the Blessed, because, being immortal per se, and glorious, they will remain for ever. For generation is desired in this life, because of death; as a mortal father might, as it were, survive and endure in the son whom he leaves alive. So S. Cyril: "As the angels are not of generation, so they who rise again will have no need of marriage." S. Chrysostom on Matt. xxiii: "Wives are married that the diminution, which is by death, may be supplied by birth. But death will not be there, and, in consequence, neither marriages, nor wives, nor generation."

And are, &c. "They are called the children of God," says Theophylact, "as being born again through the Resurrection, not only through grace, but also through glory, that they may thus resemble God most closely, as is taught by S. John, 1 Ep. iii. 2. Then as sons they shall enter into the inheritance of God the Father."

"They are called the sons of the Resurrection," says Theophylact, "because they appear to be as it were born to a new, happy, and divine life."

2. They will be the sons of the Resurrection, that is, worthy of the Resurrection, for the word "son" when it is added in Hebrew to the genitive of reward or punishment, means one subject to, one who deserves, or who is destined to, such a punishment or reward. Thus men are called the sons of Death and Gehenna, that is, men subject to death and hell; and the sons of the kingdom and the Resurrection, that is, they who are worthy of the kingdom of heaven, and of the Resurrection of the blessed.

Ver. 40 . — And after that they durst not ask Him any question at all. That is the Sadducees, for the Pharisees asked Him afterwards which was the greatest commandment, as we find from Mat 22:35.

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Luk 20:20

I would freely give my eyes if you might but see Christ, and I would willingly give my hands if you might but lay hold on Him. CHARLES SPURGEON

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

By Way of Introduction

There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer’s volume on Luke’s Gospel in the International and Critical Commentary , in the Introduction to Ragg’s volume on Luke’s Gospel in the Westminster Commentaries , in the Introduction to Easton’s Gospel According to St. Luke , Hayes’ Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , Ramsay’s Luke the Physician , Harnack’s Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake’s Beginnings of Christianity , Carpenter’s Christianity According to St. Luke , Cadbury’s The Making of Luke-Acts , McLachlan’s St. Luke: The Man and His Work , Robertson’s Luke the Historian in the Light of Research , to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

The Same Author for Gospel and Acts

The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as " the first treatise," ton prōton logon , (Act_1:1) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luk_1:3; Act_1:1). He speaks of himself in both books as " me" ( kamoi , Luk_1:3) and I made ( epoiēsamēn , Act_1:1). He refers to himself with others as " we" and " us" as in Act_16:10, the " we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author’s statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luk_1:1-4) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: " In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: " They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author’s original plan and purpose."

The Author of Acts a Companion of Paul

The proof of this position belongs to the treatment of Acts, but a word is needed here. The use of " we" and " us" in Act_16:10 and from Act_20:6 to the end of chapter Acts 28 shows it beyond controversy if the same man wrote the " we" sections and the rest of the Acts. This proof Harnack has produced with painstaking detail in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels and in his volume The Acts of the Apostles and in his Luke the Physician .

This Companion of Paul A Physician

The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his Style and Literary Method of Luke denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke " the beloved physician" ( ho iatros ho agapētos , Col_4:14), " my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Act_28:8-10) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who " came and were healed ( etherapeuonto ) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing ( iasato ), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician’s interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark’s apparent discredit of physicians (Mar_5:26) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luk_8:43).

This Companion and Author Luke

All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: " There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

A Sketch of Luke

His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of Lukios and Lukanos . Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title Kata Lukanon . Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. So this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a " we" passage after Act_11:27 which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul’s converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

The Date of the Gospel

There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in Act_1:1. Unfortunately the precise date of both termini is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the Antiquities of Josephus and so is after a.d. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luk_21:20.), which is interpreted as a prophecy post eventum instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul’s later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about a.d. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in Luk_1:1-4. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between a.d. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark’s Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark’s Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by a.d. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before a.d. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as a.d. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae , by Sanday and others in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem , by Streeter in his The Four Gospels , by Hayes in his The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , by Harnack in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , by Stanton in his The Gospels as Historical Documents , and by many others. My own views are given at length in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel and in Luke the Historian in the Light of Research .

The Sources of the Gospel

In his Preface or Prologue (Luk_1:1-4) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark’s Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke’s Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of " many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from " eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? shows the likelihood of Luke’s contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

The Character of the Book

Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write. It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian’s method of research, with a physician’s care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John’s Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke’s Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark’s is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew’s for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful. Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul’s Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows ( Intr. to Lit. of the N.T. , p. 281). The Prologue is in literary Koiné and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite Luk_2:1-7 as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament . The main feature of this proof appears also in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research . So many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

JFB: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE writer of this Gospel is universally allowed to have been Lucas (an abbreviated form of Lucanus, as Silas of Silvanus), though he is not expressly named either in the Gospel or in the Acts. From Col 4:14 we learn that he was a "physician"; and by comparing that verse with Col 4:10-11 --in which the apostle enumerates all those of the circumcision who were then with him, but does not mention Luke, though he immediately afterwards sends a salutation from him--we gather that Luke was not a born Jew. Some have thought he was a freed-man (libertinus), as the Romans devolved the healing art on persons of this class and on their slaves, as an occupation beneath themselves. His intimate acquaintance with Jewish customs, and his facility in Hebraic Greek, seem to show that he was an early convert to the Jewish faith; and this is curiously confirmed by Act 21:27-29, where we find the Jews enraged at Paul's supposed introduction of Greeks into the temple, because they had seen "Trophimus the Ephesian" with him; and as we know that Luke was with Paul on that occasion, it would seem that they had taken him for a Jew, as they made no mention of him. On the other hand, his fluency in classical Greek confirms his Gentile origin. The time when he joined Paul's company is clearly indicated in the Acts by his changing (at Act 16:10) from the third person singular ("he") to the first person plural ("we"). From that time he hardly ever left the apostle till near the period of his martyrdom (2Ti 4:11). EUSEBIUS makes him a native of Antioch. If so, he would have every advantage for cultivating the literature of Greece and such medical knowledge as was then possessed. That he died a natural death is generally agreed among the ancients; GREGORY NAZIANZEN alone affirming that he died a martyr.

The time and place of the publication of his Gospel are alike uncertain. But we can approximate to it. It must at any rate have been issued before the Acts, for there the 'Gospel' is expressly referred to as the same author's "former treatise" (Act 1:1). Now the Book of the Acts was not published for two whole years after Paul's arrival as a prisoner at Rome, for it concludes with a reference to this period; but probably it was published soon after that, which would appear to have been early in the year 63. Before that time, then, we have reason to believe that the Gospel of Luke was in circulation, though the majority of critics make it later. If we date it somewhere between A.D. 50 and 60, we shall probably be near the truth; but nearer it we cannot with any certainty come. Conjectures as to the place of publication are too uncertain to be mentioned here.

That it was addressed, in the first instance, to Gentile readers, is beyond doubt. This is no more, as DAVIDSON remarks [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 186], than was to have been expected from the companion of an "apostle of the Gentiles," who had witnessed marvellous changes in the condition of many heathens by the reception of the Gospel. But the explanations in his Gospel of things known to every Jew, and which could only be intended for Gentile readers, make this quite plain--see Luk 1:26; Luk 4:31; Luk 8:26; Luk 21:37; Luk 22:1; Luk 24:13. A number of other minute particulars, both of things inserted and of things omitted, confirm the conclusion that it was Gentiles whom this Evangelist had in the first instance in view.

We have already adverted to the classical style of Greek which this Evangelist writes--just what might have been expected from an educated Greek and travelled physician. But we have also observed that along with this he shows a wonderful flexibility of style, so much so, that when he comes to relate transactions wholly Jewish, where the speakers and actors and incidents are all Jewish, he writes in such Jewish Greek as one would do who had never been out of Palestine or mixed with any but Jews. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses will be found some traces of "the beloved physician" in this Gospel. But far more striking and important are the traces in it of his intimate connection with the apostle of the Gentiles. That one who was so long and so constantly in the society of that master mind has in such a work as this shown no traces of that connection, no stamp of that mind, is hardly to be believed. Writers of Introductions seem not to see it, and take no notice of it. But those who look into the interior of it will soon discover evidences enough in it of a Pauline cast of mind. Referring for a number of details to DA COSTA, we notice here only two examples: In 1Co 11:23, Paul ascribes to an express revelation from Christ Himself the account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper which he there gives. Now, if we find this account differing in small yet striking particulars from the accounts given by Matthew and Mark, but agreeing to the letter with Luke's account, it can hardly admit of a doubt that the one had it from the other; and in that case, of course, it was Luke that had it from Paul. Now Matthew and Mark both say of the Cup, "This is my blood of the New Testament"; while Paul and Luke say, in identical terms, "This cup is the New Testament in My blood" (1Co 11:25; Luk 22:20). Further, Luke says, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying," &c.; while Paul says, "After the same manner He took the cup when He had supped, saying," &c.; whereas neither Matthew nor Mark mention that this was after supper. But still more striking is another point of coincidence in this case. Matthew and Mark both say of the Bread merely this: "Take, eat; this is My body" (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22); whereas Paul says, "Take, eat, this is My body, which is broken for you" (1Co 11:24), and Luke, "This is My body, which is given for you" (Luk 22:19). And while Paul adds the precious clause, "This do in remembrance of Me," Luke does the same, in identical terms. How can one who reflects on this resist the conviction of a Pauline stamp in this Gospel? The other proof of this to which we ask the reader's attention is in the fact that Paul, in enumerating the parties by whom Christ was seen after His resurrection, begins, singularly enough, with Peter--"And that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve" (1Co 15:4-5) --coupled with the remarkable fact, that Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who mentions that Christ appeared to Peter at all. When the disciples had returned from Emmaus to tell their brethren how the Lord had appeared to them in the way, and how He had made Himself known to them in the breaking of bread, they were met, as Luke relates, ere they had time to utter a word, with this wonderful piece of news, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Luk 24:34).

Other points connected with this Gospel will be adverted to in the Commentary.

JFB: Luke (Outline)

• ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FORERUNNER. (Luke 1:5-25)
• ANNUNCIATION OF CHRIST. (Luk 1:26-38)
• VISIT OF MARY TO ELISABETH. (Luke 1:39-56)
• BIRTH AND CIRCUMCISION OF JOHN--SONG OF ZACHARIAS AND PROGRESS OF THE CHILD. (Luke 1:57-80)
• BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Luk 2:1-7)
• ANGELIC ANNUNCIATION TO THE SHEPHERDS--THEIR VISIT TO THE NEWBORN BABE. (Luk 2:8-20)
• PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN--PRESENTATION OF THE BABE IN THE TEMPLE-SCENE THERE WITH SIMEON AND ANNA. (Luke 2:22-40)
• FIRST CONSCIOUS VISIT TO JERUSALEM. (Luk 2:41-52)
• PREACHING, BAPTISM, AND IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN. (Luke 3:1-20) Here the curtain of the New Testament is, as it were, drawn up, and the greatest of all epochs of the Church commences. Even our Lord's own age (Luk 3:23) is determined by it [BENGEL]. No such elaborate chronological precision is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, and it comes fitly from him who claims it as the peculiar recommendation of his Gospel, that he had "accurately traced down all things from the first" (Luk 1:3). Here, evidently, commences his proper narrative. Also see on Mat 3:1.
• BAPTISM OF AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON JESUS. (Luk 3:21-22)
• GENEALOGY OF JESUS. (Luke 3:23-38)
• JESUS ENTERING ON HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY, MAKES A CIRCUIT OF GALILEE--REJECTION AT NAZARETH. (Luke 4:14-32)
• DEMONIAC HEALED. (Luk 4:33-37)
• PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS, HEALED. (Luk 4:38-41)
• JESUS SOUGHT OUT AT MORNING PRAYER, AND ENTREATED TO STAY, DECLINES FROM THE URGENCY OF HIS WORK. (Luk 4:42-44)
• MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES--CALL OF PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN. (Luk 5:1-11)
• LEPER HEALED. (Luk 5:12-16)
• PARALYTIC HEALED. (Luk 5:17-26)
• LEVI'S CALL AND FEAST. (Luk 5:27-32)
• PLUCKING CORN-EARS ON THE SABBATH. (Luk 6:1-5)
• WITHERED HAND HEALED. (Luk 6:6-11)
• THE TWELVE APOSTLES CHOSEN--GATHERING MULTITUDES--GLORIOUS HEALING. (Luke 6:12-49)
• CENTURION'S SERVANT HEALED. (Luk 7:1-10)
• WIDOW OF NAIN'S SON RAISED TO LIFE. (In Luke only). (Luk 7:11-17)
• THE BAPTIST'S MESSAGE THE REPLY, AND CONSEQUENT DISCOURSE. (Luke 7:18-35)
• CHRIST'S FEET WASHED WITH TEARS. (Luk 7:36-50)
• A GALILEAN CIRCUIT, WITH THE TWELVE AND CERTAIN MINISTERING WOMEN. (In Luke only). (Luk 8:1-3)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER. (Luk 8:4-18)
• JESUS CROSSING THE LAKE, STILLS THE STORM. (Luk 8:22-25)
• JAIRUS' DAUGHTER RAISED AND ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. (Luke 8:40-56)
• MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Luk 9:1-6)
• HEROD TROUBLED AT WHAT HE HEARS OF CHRIST DESIRES TO SEE HIM. (Luk 9:7-9)
• PETER'S CONFESSION OF CHRIST--OUR LORD'S FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH, AND WARNINGS ARISING OUT OF IT. (Luk 9:18-27)
• JESUS TRANSFIGURED. (Luk 9:28-36)
• DEMONIAC AND LUNATIC BOY HEALED--CHRIST'S SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. (Luk 9:37-45)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST--JOHN REBUKED FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. (Luk 9:46-48) (See on Mat 18:1-5).
• THE PERIOD OF HIS ASSUMPTION APPROACHING CHRIST TAKES HIS LAST LEAVE OF GALILEE--THE SAMARITANS REFUSE TO RECEIVE HIM. (Luk 9:51-56)
• INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP. (Luk 9:57-62)
• MISSION OF THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES, AND THEIR RETURN. (Luke 10:1-24)
• QUESTION OF A LAWYER AND PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. (Luk 10:25-37)
• MARTHA AND MARY. (Luk 10:38-42)
• THE DISCIPLES TAUGHT TO PRAY. (Luk 11:1-13)
• BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED--CHARGE OF BEING IN LEAGUE WITH HELL, AND REPLY--DEMAND OF A SIGN, AND REPLY. (Luke 11:14-36)
• DENUNCIATION OF THE PHARISEES. (Luke 11:37-54)
• WARNING AGAINST HYPOCRISY. (Luk 12:1-12)
• COVETOUSNESS--WATCHFULNESS--SUPERIORITY TO EARTHLY TIES. (Luke 12:13-53)
• NOT DISCERNING THE SIGNS OF THE TIME. (Luk 12:54-59)
• THE LESSON, "REPENT OR PERISH," SUGGESTED BY TWO RECENT INCIDENTS, AND ILLUSTRATED BY THE PARABLE OF THE BARREN FIG TREE. (Luk 13:1-9)
• WOMAN OF EIGHTEEN YEAR'S INFIRMITY HEALED ON THE SABBATH. (Luk 13:10-17)
• MISCELLANEOUS TEACHINGS. (Luk 13:18-30)
• MESSAGE TO HEROD. (Luk 13:31-35)
• HEALING OF A DROPSICAL MAN, AND MANIFOLD TEACHINGS AT A SABBATH FEAST. (Luke 14:1-24)
• ADDRESS TO GREAT MULTITUDES TRAVELLING WITH HIM. (Luk 14:25-35)
• PUBLICANS AND SINNERS WELCOMED BY CHRIST--THREE PARABLES TO EXPLAIN THIS. (Luke 15:1-32)
• I. THE LOST SHEEP. (Luk 15:3-7) Occurring again (Mat 18:12-14); but there to show how precious one of His sheep is to the Good Shepherd; here, to show that the shepherd, though the sheep stray never so widely, will seek it out, and when he hath found, will rejoice over it.
• II. THE LOST COIN. (Luk 15:8-10)
• III. THE PRODIGAL SON. (Luke 15:11-32)
• PARABLES OF THE UNJUST STEWARD AND OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS, OR, THE RIGHT USE OF MONEY. (Luke 16:1-31)
• OFFENSES--FAITH--HUMILITY. (Luk 17:1-10) (See Mat 18:6-7).
• TEN LEPERS CLEANSED. (Luk 17:11-19)
• COMING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND OF THE SON OF MAN. (Luke 17:20-37)
• PARABLE OF THE IMPORTUNATE WIDOW. (Luk 18:1-8)
• PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. (Luk 18:9-14)
• LITTLE CHILDREN BROUGHT TO CHRIST. (Luk 18:15-17)
• THE RICH YOUNG RULER AND DISCOURSE THEREON. (Luk 18:18-30)
• FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. (Luk 18:31-34)
• BLIND MAN HEALED. (Luk 18:35-43)
• ZACCHEUS THE PUBLICAN. (Luk 19:1-10)
• PARABLE OF THE POUNDS. (Luke 19:11-27)
• SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE AND SUBSEQUENT TEACHING. (Luk 19:45-48) As the first cleansing was on His first visit to Jerusalem (Joh 2:13-22), so this second cleansing was on His last.
• THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED, AND HIS REPLY--PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN. (Luke 20:1-19)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE AND THE RESURRECTION--THE REPLIES. (Luke 20:20-40)
• CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID AND MESSIAH, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. (Luk 20:41-47)
• THE WIDOW'S TWO MITES. (Luk 21:1-4)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND WARNINGS TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING, SUGGESTED BY IT--HIS DAYS AND NIGHTS DURING HIS LAST WEEK. (Luke 21:5-38) (See on Mat 24:1-3.)
• CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--COMPACT WITH JUDAS. (Luk 22:1-6) (See on Mat 26:1-5.)
• LAST PASSOVER--INSTITUTION OF THE SUPPER--DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE. (Luke 22:7-38)
• AGONY IN THE GARDEN. (Luk 22:39-46)
• JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Luk 22:55-62)
• JESUS BEFORE HEROD. (Luk 23:6-12)
• JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE--DELIVERED UP--LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (Luke 23:13-38)
• THE TWO THIEVES. (Luk 23:39-43)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--PETER'S VISIT TO THE EMPTY SEPULCHRE. (Luk 24:1-12)
• CHRIST APPEARS TO THE TWO GOING TO EMMAUS. (Luke 24:13-35)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES--HIS ASCENSION. (Luke 24:36-53)

TSK: Luke (Book Introduction)

Luke, to whom this Gospel has been uniformly attributed from the earliest ages of the Christian church, is generally allowed to have been " the beloved physician" mentioned by Paul (Col 4:14); and as he was the companion of that apostle, in all his labours and sufferings, for many years (Act 16:12; Act 20:1-6; Act 27:1, Act 27:2; Act 28:13-16. 2Ti 4:11. Phm 1:24), and wrote " the Acts of the Apostles," which conclude with a brief account of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, we may be assured that he had the Apostle’s sanction to what he did; and probably this Gospel was written some time before that event, about ad 63 or 64, as is generally supposed. He would appear, from Col 4:10, Col 4:11, and his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, as well as from his Greek name Λουκας [Strong’s 3065], to have been of Gentile extraction; and according to Eusebius and others, he was a native of Antioch. But, from the Hebraisms occurring in his writings, and especially from his accurate knowledge of the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and custom, it is highly probable that he was a Jewish proselyte, and afterwards converted to Christianity. Though he may not have been, as some have affirmed, one of the seventy disciples, and an eye-witness of our Saviour’s miracles, yet his intercourse with the apostles, and those who were eye-witnesses of the works and ear witnesses of the words of Christ, renders him an unexceptional witness, if considered merely as an historian; and the early and unanimous reception of his Gospel as divinely inspired is sufficient to satisfy every reasonable person.

TSK: Luke 20 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Luk 20:1, Christ avouches his authority by a question of John’s baptism; Luk 20:9, The parable of the vineyard; Luk 20:19, Of giving tribute to Caesar; Luk 20:27, He convinces the Sadducees, that denied the resurrection; Luk 20:41, How Christ is the Son of David; Luk 20:45, He warns his disciples to beware of the scribes.

Poole: Luke 20 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 20

MHCC: Luke (Book Introduction)

This evangelist is generally supposed to have been a physician, and a companion of the apostle Paul. The style of his writings, and his acquaintance with the Jewish rites and usages, sufficiently show that he was a Jew, while his knowledge of the Greek language and his name, speak his Gentile origin. He is first mentioned Act 16:10, Act 16:11, as with Paul at Troas, whence he attended him to Jerusalem, and was with him in his voyage, and in his imprisonment at Rome. This Gospel appears to be designed to supersede many defective and unauthentic narratives in circulation, and to give a genuine and inspired account of the life, miracles, and doctrines of our Lord, learned from those who heard and witnessed his discourses and miracles.

MHCC: Luke 20 (Chapter Introduction)

(Luk 20:1-8) The priests and scribes question Christ's authority.

(Luk 20:9-19) The parable of the vineyard and husbandmen.

(Luk 20:20-26) Of giving tribute.

(Luk 20:27-38) Concerning the resurrection.

(Luk 20:39-47) The scribes silenced.

Matthew Henry: Luke (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Luke

We are now entering into the labours of another evangelist; his name Luke, which some take to be a contraction of Lucilius; born at Antioch, so St. Jerome. Some think that he was the only one of all the penmen of the scripture that was not of the seed of Israel. He was a Jewish proselyte, and, as some conjecture, converted to Christianity by the ministry of St. Paul at Antioch; and after his coming into Macedonia (Act 16:10) he was his constant companion. He had employed himself in the study and practice of physic; hence, Paul calls him Luke the beloved Physician, Col 4:14. Some of the pretended ancients tell you that he was a painter, and drew a picture of the virgin Mary. But Dr. Whitby thinks that there is nothing certain to the contrary, and that therefore it is probable that he was one of the seventy disciples, and a follower of Christ when he was here upon earth; and, if so, he was a native Israelite. I see not what can be objected against this, except some uncertain traditions of the ancients, which we can build nothing upon, and against which may be opposed the testimonies of Origen and Epiphanius, who both say that he was one of the seventy disciples. He is supposed to have written this gospel when he was associated with St. Paul in his travels, and by direction from him: and some think that this is the brother whom Paul speaks of (2Co 8:18), whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches of Christ; as if the meaning of it were, that he was celebrated in all the churches for writing this gospel; and that St. Paul means this when he speaks sometimes of his gospel, as Rom 2:16. But there is no ground at all for this. Dr. Cave observes that his way and manner of writing are accurate and exact, his style polite and elegant, sublime and lofty, yet perspicuous; and that he expresses himself in a vein of purer Greek than is to be found in the other writers of the holy story. Thus he relates divers things more copiously than the other evangelists; and thus he especially treats of those things which relate to the priestly office of Christ. It is uncertain when, or about what time, this gospel was written. Some think that it was written in Achaia, during his travels with Paul, seventeen years (twenty-two years, say others) after Christ's ascension; others, that it was written at Rome, a little before he wrote his history of the Acts of the Apostles (which is a continuation of this), when he was there with Paul, while he was a prisoner, and preaching in his own hired house, with which the history of the Acts concludes; and then Paul saith that only Luke was with him, 2Ti 4:11. When he was under that voluntary confinement with Paul, he had leisure to compile these two histories (and many excellent writings the church has been indebted to a prison for): if so, it was written about twenty-seven years after Christ's ascension, and about the fourth year of Nero. Jerome says, He died when he was eighty-four years of age, and was never married. Some write that he suffered martyrdom; but, if he did, where and when is uncertain. Nor indeed is there much more credit to be given to the Christian traditions concerning the writers of the New Testament than to the Jewish traditions concerning those of the Old Testament.

Matthew Henry: Luke 20 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's answer to the chief priests' question concerning his authority (Luk 20:1-8). II. The parable of the vineyard let out to the unjust and rebellious husbandmen (Luk 20:9-19). III. Christ's answer to the question proposed to him concerning the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar (Luk 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 (Luk 20:27-38). V. His puzzling the scribes with a question concerning the Messiah's being the Son of David (Luk 20:39-44). VI. The caution he gave his disciples to take heed of the scribes (Luk 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 there.

Barclay: Luke (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT LUKE

A Lovely Book And Its Author

The gospel according to St. Luke has been called the loveliest book in the world. When once an American asked him if he could recommend a good life of Christ, Denney answered, "Have you tried the one that Luke wrote?" There is a legend that Luke was a skilled painter; there is even a painting of Mary in a Spanish cathedral to this day which purports to be by him. Certainly he had an eye for vivid things. It would not be far wrong to say that the third gospel is the best life of Christ ever written. Tradition has always believed that Luke was the author and we need have no qualms in accepting that tradition. In the ancient world it was the regular thing to attach books to famous names; no one thought it wrong. But Luke was never one of the famous figures of the early Church. If he had not written the gospel no one would have attached it to his name.

Luke was a gentile; and he has the unique distinction of being the only New Testament writer who was not a Jew. He was a doctor by profession (Col_4:14 ) and maybe that very fact gave him the wide sympathy he possessed. It has been said that a minister sees men at their best; a lawyer sees men at their worst; and a doctor sees men as they are. Luke saw men and loved them all.

The book was written to a man called Theophilus. He is called most excellent Theophilus and the title given him is the normal title for a high official in the Roman government. No doubt Luke wrote it to tell an earnest inquirer more about Jesus; and he succeeded in giving Theophilus a picture which must have thrilled his heart closer to the Jesus of whom he had heard.

The Symbols Of The Gospels

Every one of the four gospels was written from a certain point of view. Very often on stained glass windows the writers of the gospels are pictured; and usually to each there is attached a symbol. The symbols vary but one of the commonest allocations is this.

The emblem of Mark is a man. Mark is the simplest and most straightforward of the gospels. It has been well said that its characteristic is realism. It is the nearest to being a report of Jesusife.

The emblem of Matthew is a lion. Matthew was a Jew writing for Jews and he saw in Jesus the Messiah, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the one whom all the prophets had predicted.

The emblem of John is the eagle. The eagle can fly higher than any other bird. It is said that of all creatures only the eagle can look straight into the sun. John is the theological gospel; its flights of thought are higher than those of any of the others. It is the gospel where the philosopher can find themes to think about for a lifetime and to solve only in eternity.

The symbol of Luke is the calf The calf is the animal for sacrifice; and Luke saw in Jesus the sacrifice for all the world. In Luke above all, the barriers are broken down and Jesus is for Jew and gentile, saint and sinner alike. He is the saviour of the world. Keeping that in mind, let us now set down the characteristics of this gospel.

An HistorianCare

First and foremost, Lukegospel is an exceedingly careful bit of work. His Greek is notably good. The first four verses are well-nigh the best Greek in the New Testament. In them he claims that his work is the product of the most careful research. His opportunities were ample and his sources must have been good. As the trusted companion of Paul he must have known all the great figures of the church, and we may be sure that he had them tell their stories to him. For two years he was Paulcompanion in imprisonment in Caesarea. In those long days he had every opportunity for study and research and he must have used them well.

An example of Lukecare is the way in which he dates the emergence of John the Baptist. He does so by no fewer than six contemporary datings. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (1), Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea (2), Herod being tetrarch of Galilee (3), and his brother Philip being tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis (4), and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (5) in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (6), the word of God came to John" (Luk_3:1-2 ). Here is a man who is writing with care and who will be as accurate as it is possible for him to be.

The Gospel For The Gentiles

It is clear that Luke wrote mainly for gentiles. Theophilus was a gentile, as was Luke himself, and there is nothing in the gospel that a gentile could not grasp and understand. (a) As we have seen, Luke begins his dating from the reigning Roman emperor and the current Roman governor. The Roman date comes first. (b) Unlike Matthew, he is not greatly interested in the life of Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. (c) He very seldom quotes the Old Testament at all. (d) He has a habit of giving Hebrew words in their Greek equivalent so that a Greek would understand. Simon the Cananaean becomes Simon the Zealot. (compare Luk_6:15 and Mat_10:4 ). Calvary is called not by its Hebrew name, Golgotha (compare H1538 and H1556), but by its Greek name, Kranion (G2898). Both mean the place of a skull. He never uses the Jewish term Rabbi (H7227) of Jesus but always a Greek word meaning Master. When he is tracing the descent of Jesus, he traces it not to Abraham, the founder of the Jewish race, as Matthew does, but to Adam, the founder of the human race. (compare Mat_1:2 and Luk_3:38 ).

Because of this Luke is the easiest of all the gospels to read. He was writing, not for Jews, but for people very like ourselves.

The Gospel Of Prayer

Lukegospel is specially the gospel of prayer. At all the great moments of his life, Luke shows us Jesus at prayer. He prayed at his baptism (Luk_3:21 ); before his first collision with the Pharisees (Luk_5:16 ); before he chose the Twelve (Luk_6:12 ); before he questioned his disciples as to who they thought he was; before his first prediction of his own death (Luk_9:18 ); at the Transfiguration (Luk_9:29 ); and upon the Cross (Luk_23:46 ). Only Luke tells us that Jesus prayed for Peter in his hour of testing (Luk_22:32 ). Only he tells us the prayer parables of the Friend at Midnight (Luk_11:5-13 ) and the Unjust Judge (Luk_18:1-8 ). To Luke the unclosed door of prayer was one of the most precious in all the world.

The Gospel Of Women

In Palestine the place of women was low. In the Jewish morning prayer a man thanks God that he has not made him "a gentile, a slave or a woman." But Luke gives a very special place to women. The birth narrative is told from Marypoint of view. It is in Luke that we read of Elizabeth, of Anna, of the widow at Nain, of the woman who anointed Jesuseet in the house of Simon the Pharisee. It is Luke who makes vivid the pictures of Martha and Mary and of Mary Magdalene. It is very likely that Luke was a native of Macedonia where women held a more emancipated position than anywhere else; and that may have something to do with it.

The Gospel Of Praise

In Luke the phrase "praising God" occurs oftener than in all the rest of the New Testament put together. This praise reaches its peak in the three great hymns that the church has sung throughout all her generations--the Magnificat (Luk_1:46-55 ); the Benediclus (Luk_1:68-79 ); and the Nunc Dimittis (Luk_2:29-32 ). There is a radiance in Lukegospel which is a lovely thing, as if the sheen of heaven had touched the things of earth.

The Universal Gospel

But the outstanding characteristic of Luke is that it is the universal gospel. All the barriers are down; Jesus Christ is for all men without distinction.

(a) The kingdom of heaven is not shut to the Samaritans (Luk_9:51-56 ). Luke alone tells the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luk_10:30-37 ). The one grateful leper is a Samaritan (Luk_17:11-19 ). John can record a saying that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans (Joh_4:9 ). But Luke refuses to shut the door on any man.

(b) Luke shows Jesus speaking with approval of gentiles whom the orthodox Jew would have considered unclean. He shows us Jesus citing the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian as shining examples (Luk_4:25-27 ). The Roman centurion is praised for the greatness of his faith (Luk_7:9 ). Luke tells us of that great word of Jesus, "Men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at the table in the kingdom of God" (Luk_13:29 ).

(c) Luke is supremely interested in the poor. When Mary brings the offering for her purification it is the offering of the poor (Luk_2:24 ). When Jesus is, as it were, setting out his credentials to the emissaries of John, the climax is, "The poor have good news preached to them" (Luk_7:22 ). He alone tells the parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man (Luk_16:19-31 ). In Lukeaccount of the Beatitudes the saying of Jesus runs, not, as in Matthew (Mat_5:3 ), "Blessed are the poor in spirit," but simply, "Blessed are you poor" (Luk_6:20 ). Lukegospel has been called "the gospel of the underdog." His heart runs out to everyone for whom life is an unequal struggle.

(d) Above all Luke shows Jesus as the friend of outcasts and sinners. He alone tells of the woman who anointed Jesuseet and bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luk_7:36-50 ); of Zacchaeus, the quisling tax-gatherer (Luk_19:1-10 ); of the Penitent Thief (Luk_23:43 ); and he alone has the immortal story of the prodigal son and the loving father (Luk_15:11-32 ). When Matthew tells how Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, he says that Jesus told them not to go to the Samaritans or the gentiles (Mat_10:5 ); but Luke omits that altogether. All four gospel writers quote from Isa 40 when they give the message of John the Baptist, "Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God"; but only Luke continues the quotation to its triumphant conclusion, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Isa_40:3-5 ; Mat_3:3 ; Mar_1:3 ; Joh_1:23 ; Luk_3:4 , Luk_3:6 ). Luke of all the gospel writers sees no limits to the love of God.

The Book Beautiful

As we study this book we must look for these characteristics. Somehow of all the gospel writers one would have liked to meet Luke best of all, for this gentile doctor with the tremendous vision of the infinite sweep of the love of God must have been a lovely soul. Faber wrote the lines,

Therea wideness in Godmercy,

Like the wideness of the sea;

Therea kindness in his justice,

Which is more than liberty.

For the love of God is broader

Than the measures of manmind;

And the heart of the Eternal

Is most wonderfully kind.

Lukegospel is the demonstration that this is true.

Barclay: Luke 20 (Chapter Introduction)

By What Authority? (Luk_20:1-8)

A Parable Which Was A Condemnation (Luk_20:9-18)

Caesar And God (Luk_20:19-26)

The Sadducees' Question (Luk_20:27-40)

The Warnings Of Jesus (Luk_20:41-44)

The Love Of Honour Among Men (Luk_20:45-47)

Constable: Luke (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

Several factors indicate that the writer of this Gospel was the same person who wrote the Book of Acts. First, a man named Theophilus was the recipient of both books (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Second, Acts refers to a previous work by the same writer. Third, both books have several common themes some of which do not receive the same emphasis elsewhere in the New Testament. Fourth, there are general structural and stylistic similarities including the use of chiasms and the tendency to focus on specific individuals.

The writer also acquired his knowledge of Jesus' life and ministry from research rather than from eyewitness observations (Luke 1:1-4). Therefore he was not one of the disciples who travelled with Jesus.

The early church identified the writer as Luke. The heretic Marcion is the earliest witness we have to Luke's authorship (c. 135 A.D.). The Muratorian Canon (c. 180 A.D.) mentioned Luke as the writer too. It described him as the physician who accompanied Paul on his journey (cf. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; Col. 4:14; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.) also believed Luke wrote this Gospel and called him the "inseparable" companion of Paul.¹ Later church fathers referred to Luke as the writer of this Gospel. Luke was evidently a Gentile (cf. Col. 4:10-14).² Church tradition identified Antioch of Syria as Luke's hometown, but this is impossible to validate.

Distinctive Features

The main doctrines of systematic theology that Luke stressed were Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, and eschatology. There is much emphasis on the glory of God, prayer, miracles, the divine plan that Jesus fulfilled, Israel, believing, discipleship, forgiveness, and God's Word.³

Luke stressed Jesus' concern for all people, especially for individuals that society of His day despised such as the poor, women, children, and "sinners." He used the Greek term nomikos, which means "lawyer," rather than the Hebrew term grammateus, meaning "scribe." He emphasized Jesus' practical teachings, such as what He taught about money (cf. chs. 12 and 16).

"In terms of its worldview, its theology, and its practical presentation of principles, this Gospel explains how we can serve God better."⁴

Luke showed interest in purpose, fulfillment, and accomplishment. He documented the joy that resulted from Jesus' saving and healing works. He stressed Jesus' call for people to become His disciples. He portrayed Jesus as dependent on the Holy Spirit and on the Father through prayer. Finally, Luke recorded many examples of Jesus' power.

"Luke's Gospel gives a reader a more comprehensive grasp of the history of the period than the other Gospels. He presented more facts about the earthly life of Jesus than did Matthew, Mark, or John."⁵

This is the longest book in the New Testament. Together with Acts it comprises about 27% of the Greek New Testament.⁶ Luke is the longest book in the New Testament, Matthew is second, and Acts is third, but only slightly shorter than Matthew.

Purposes

The Gospel of Luke is one of the books of the Bible that states the purpose of the writer. Luke said that he wrote to inform Theophilus about the truthfulness of the gospel that he had heard (1:4). In Acts, Luke said he had written previously about the things that Jesus began to do and teach before His ascension (Acts 1:1-2). He then proceeded to record the things Jesus continued to do and teach after His ascension through His apostles in Acts. Presumably Luke wrote both his Gospel and Acts with a larger audience than just Theophilus in view.

The distinctive emphases of the Gospel help us to identify secondary purposes. Luke demonstrated a zeal to convince his readers of the reliability of the facts that he recorded so they would believe in Jesus and become Christians. This concern is also clear in Acts.⁷ Obviously he wrote to preserve the record of events that happened during Jesus' earthly ministry, but few ancient writers wrote simply to narrate a chronicle of events.⁸ They wrote to convince their readers of something, and they used history to do that. Notwithstanding historical accuracy was important to them.⁹ We believe that Luke's Gospel is an accurate continuation of biblical history that God preserved in Scripture. This Gospel constitutes an apologetic for Christianity that would have been of special interest to Greeks because of Luke's selection of material, vocabulary, and style.¹⁰

Original Audience

Evidently Theophilus was a real person.¹¹ His name is Greek and means "friend of God." He appears to have been a fairly recent convert to Christianity from Greek paganism. Consequently it appears that Luke wrote for people such as Theophilus originally. Before his conversion, Theophilus may have been one of the Gentile God-fearers to which Luke referred several times in Acts. The God-fearers were Gentiles who had a certain respect for and who wanted to learn more about the God of the Jews. They came to the Jewish synagogues and listened to the Jewish Scriptures read there. Luke's orientation of his Gospel to the secular world and his references to Judaism also suggest that he wrote his Gospel with these people in mind. His use of the Septuagint version and his interest in the God-fearers suggest this too. The God-fearers had turned from Greek polytheism to Jewish monotheism, but many of them were not familiar with Palestinian geography and culture. Luke clarified these matters for his readers when necessary. The God-fearers were the Gentiles whom Paul found to be the most receptive soil for the gospel seed. Luke himself may have been one of this group, though there is no way to prove or to disprove that possibility.

"[Luke] writes to reassure the Christians of his day that their faith in Jesus is no aberration, but the authentic goal towards which God's ancient dealings with Israel were driving."¹²

By the first century most of the pagan Greeks had stopped believing in the gods and goddesses of their mythology and had abandoned fatalism. Many of them were following Eastern "mystery" religions that competed with Christianity for their allegiance. Both beliefs offered saviors, but the Savior of Christianity was a personal resurrected Lord whereas the savior of the mystery religions was impersonal and ideal. Luke evidently wrote to persuade these people to believe in Jesus and to give them a solid factual basis for their faith.

"That he wrote for an urban church community in the Hellenistic world is fairly certain."¹³

Literary Characteristics

Experts in Greek literary styles acknowledge Luke's style and structure as superb.¹⁴ No one knows Luke's educational background, but clearly he had training in Greek composition as well as medicine and a talent for writing. Luke used many words that the other Gospel writers did not, and many of them show a wide literary background. He also used several medical and theological terms that are unique. Luke's use of Semiticisms shows that he knew the Hebrew Old Testament well. However, his preference for the Septuagint suggests that it was the version his readers used most. Probably Luke was a Gentile who had much exposure to Semitic idioms from Paul and other Jews. He was a skillful enough writer to use chiasms as a major structural device.¹⁵ Chiasms were both Jewish and Greek literary devices that gave unity to a composition or section of text. Acts also contains them. Luke also repeated similar stories with variations (cf. 1:80; 2:40; 2:52). This literary device aids learning while giving additional new insights. He also tended to use a particular term frequently in one or more passages and then rarely or never after that. This makes the term stand out and calls attention to it where it occurs.¹⁶

Date

Practically all scholars believe that Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts. Many conservative scholars hold that he wrote Acts during Paul's first Roman imprisonment during which the book ends (60-62 A.D.). Luke accompanied Paul during much of that apostle's missionary ministry. At times Luke was not with Paul, but he was ministering as Paul's representative in one or another of the churches that Paul had founded. Evidently Paul was Luke's primary source of information for his Gospel and Acts as Peter was Mark's primary source for the second Gospel. Luke may have written his Gospel during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome along with Acts. However, it seems more likely in view of how Luke introduced these two books that he wrote the Gospel sometime earlier than Acts. Luke had the most time to write this Gospel during Paul's Caesarean imprisonment (57-59 A.D., cf. Acts 24:1-26:32). This seems to me to be the most probable date of writing.¹⁷

Message¹⁸

The first Gospel presented Jesus as the King. The second Gospel presented Him as the Servant. The third Gospel presents Him as the perfect Man. Matthew wrote to Jews about their King. Mark wrote to Romans about a Servant. Luke wrote to Greeks about the ideal Man. The title "Messiah" is most fitting for Jesus in Matthew. The title "Suffering Servant" is most appropriate in Mark. "Son of Man" is the title most characteristic of Luke's presentation of Jesus.

Luke stressed the saving work of Jesus in His Gospel. He presented Jesus as the Savior of mankind. He also proclaimed Jesus' work of providing salvation for mankind. Let us consider first the Savior that Luke presents and then the salvation that the Savior came to provide.

Luke presented Jesus as the Savior in three different relationships. He presented Him as the first-born of a new race. Second, He presented Him as the older brother in a new family. Third, He presented Him as the redeemer of a lost humanity.

Let us consider first Luke's concept of Jesus as the first-born of a new race. Luke's genealogy reveals how the writer wanted the reader to regard Jesus. Matthew traced Jesus' lineage back to David and Abraham in his genealogy to show His right to rule as Israel's Messiah. Luke traced Jesus' ancestry back to Adam. He did this to show Jesus' humanity.

However, Luke went back even farther than that to God. This indicates that Jesus was not just like other humans who descended from Adam. He was, as the Apostle Paul called Him, the "Last Adam." The first Adam that God placed on this earth failed and plunged his race into sin and death. The last Adam that God placed on the earth did not fail but saved His race from sin and brought it new life. The first man begins the Old Testament, but the "Second Man," to use another Pauline title, begins the New Testament. As Adam headed one race, so Jesus heads a new race. Both Adams were real men. Thus both men head real races of mankind. Luke viewed Jesus as succeeding where Adam failed, as atoning for Adam's transgression.

For Jesus to undue the consequences of Adam's fall, He had to be more than just a good man. He had to be a perfect man, a sinless man. Therefore Luke stressed Jesus' sinlessness. He did this primarily in his account of Jesus' birth. Luke stressed the virgin conception of Jesus. The Holy Spirit, not a sinful human, fathered Jesus. God regards the male as responsible in the human family. Husbands are responsible for their wives. Fathers are responsible for their children. God held Adam, not Eve, responsible for his descendants.

Human beings are sinners for three separate reasons. First, we are sinners because we commit acts of sin. However even if we never committed one act of sin we would still be sinners because we, second, inherited a sinful human nature. This nature apparently comes through our fathers (cf. Heb. 7:9-10).¹⁹ Third, we are sinners because God has imputed the guilt of Adam's sin to us because he is the head of the race to which we belong.

Jesus was not a sinner. He did not commit any acts of sin. Second, He did not inherit a sinful nature from His human father because God was His real Father. Third, God did not impute Adam's sin to Jesus because Jesus was the direct descendant of God and therefore the head of a new race. God gave the first Adam life by breathing the breath of life into the body that He had created. Likewise God gave the second Adam life by implanting His divine life into a body that He had created, namely Mary's body.

The doctrine of the virgin birth is extremely important because it establishes the sinlessness of Jesus in two of the three ways whereby people become sinners. If a virgin did not conceive Jesus, then He was a sinner. If Jesus was a sinner, then He cannot be the Savior.

The third way a person becomes a sinner is by committing acts of sin. Luke showed that Jesus did not do this in his account of Jesus' temptations.

In the wilderness Satan subjected Jesus to the strongest temptations that humans face. Satan directed Jesus' three tests at the three areas of human personality that constitute the totality of human existence. These areas are doing (the lust of the flesh), having (the lust of the eyes), and being (the pride of life). These are the same three areas in which Satan attacked Eve.

The first man fell in a garden, an environment conducive to withstanding temptation. The Second Man overcame temptation in a wilderness, an environment conducive to yielding to temptation. Rather than showing at every turn in Jesus' life that He did not sin, Luke showed that in the supreme test of His life Jesus did not sin. However, he continued to note Jesus' conflict with Satan, demons, and sin throughout His life. Luke's record of these encounters also demonstrates Jesus' sinlessness.

At the Transfiguration, God declared His Son acceptable to Him. This meant that He was sinless.

Second, Luke presented Jesus as the older brother in a new family. Since Jesus was the head of a new race we might think that Luke would have presented Jesus as a father. Jesus was the first and therefore the source of all that follow in the race that He established. Nevertheless Luke stressed Jesus' likeness with those in the new race. He is as an elder brother to us who have new life through Him. This is not to deny His deity. In one sense Jesus is completely different from us since He is God. However, Luke stressed the sense in which He is like us, namely in His humanity. He is one of us, fully human.

Luke presented Jesus as a man among men. He of all the Gospel writers wanted his readers to appreciate the fact that Jesus was a real person. There are many small indications of this throughout this Gospel that I have tried to identify in the notes. Luke did this because he was evidently writing to Greeks. Greeks had a background in polytheism and mythology. Because of their cultural background they tended to think of gods as superhumans. They were not real people, but they had the characteristics of people expanded into superhuman proportions. Luke wanted his readers to realize that Jesus was not that type of god. He was fully human, but He was also sinless. He had superhuman powers, but He was not the type of superman that the Greeks imagined.

Jesus was a fellow human being albeit sinless. This is very hard for us to imagine. Therefore Luke put much in his Gospel that helps us understand Jesus, from His birth announcements to His ascension into heaven.

Third, Luke presented Jesus as the redeemer of a lost humanity. Since he was writing to Greeks, Luke did not identify many allusions to the Old Testament or to Jewish life and history. These allusions are in the text, but Luke did not draw attention to them. One of the outstanding concepts in Israelite life that Luke did not identify as such, but which overshadows his portrait of Jesus, is the kinsman redeemer. His presentation of Jesus fits the image of the Jewish kinsman redeemer remarkably.

The kinsman redeemer had to be the next of kin to the person he redeemed. Luke presented Jesus as qualifying as our redeemer in this respect. He was a man as we are. Therefore He could provide redemption for His needy brothers.

The kinsman redeemer also had to accept personal responsibility for those he purposed to save from their miserable estate. Luke presented Jesus as taking personal responsibility for lost sinners. He recorded Jesus saying that He had to go to the Cross. He viewed the salvation of mankind as something that He needed to accomplish because He had made a personal commitment to do so. That commitment began in heaven but continued on earth throughout Jesus' life.

The kinsman redeemer had to overcome those who opposed his brethren. Luke presented Jesus as conflicting with Satan and his hosts. He showed Him interceding for the Father's help for His tempted brethren, Peter in particular. Jesus won the victory over mankind's great enemy for His brethren.

The kinsman redeemer had to create an opportunity for his brother's redemption. Luke presented Jesus as doing this. Luke's distinctive presentation of Jerusalem as Jesus' city of destiny contributes to this theme. Jesus deliberately advanced toward Jerusalem and the Cross because He was creating an opportunity for mankind's redemption.

The kinsman redeemer turned his back on his personal rights and privileges to provide redemption for his brother. Luke presented Jesus doing this as well. Jesus modeled this strongly for His disciples in this Gospel. He also taught the importance of disciples doing this so we can bring salvation to our brothers.

These themes are very strong in Luke. Jesus is the head of an entirely new race of people, the redeemed. He is the elder brother who provides an example for His brethren to follow. He is the Savior who has come "to seek and to save the lost."

We have considered how Luke presents Jesus as the Savior. Now let us turn to what he revealed about salvation. The key verse in the Gospel is 19:10: "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save the lost." We have been looking at the Son of Man. Now let us look as seeking and saving the lost.

Luke reveals that the Son of Man has redeemed mankind. This Gospel is a record of God's redeeming work in Jesus Christ. Jesus' work on the Cross is the climax of this Gospel as it is the climax of all the Gospels and history itself. Jesus was born to die. By His death Jesus purchased mankind's freedom at the cost of His own life. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper so His disciples would always keep the memory of the significance of His death freshly before them. The Christian mission is to tell the world about this redemption.

Through redemption God regenerates those who are dead in sin. This is the second step in God's plan of seeking and saving the lost. Believers receive new life when they believe on Jesus. Comprehending what this new life involves, learning how to live in view of its reality, and appreciating its great potential are all things that Luke stressed in this Gospel. Jesus' disciples struggled with learning this as we do. Luke recorded many of Jesus' teachings that are helpful in understanding and appreciating regeneration.

Through regeneration God brings believers into relationship with Himself. This is the third step in this great salvation process. Luke helps the reader understand the difference between trusting for salvation and working for rewards. What is our relationship to Jesus as His followers? What are our privileges and our responsibilities? How does prayer enter into our relationship? Luke has more to say to disciples about our relationship to the Father and the Son than any other Gospel evangelist.

Then through relationship with Himself, God prepares believers for life after death as members of a new race. Luke recorded much that is of great help for us as readers here too. What is the next phase of our life with God going to be like? How should we prepare for it? What is ahead in the future? Luke teaches us what it means to be a member of the new redeemed race of humanity.

In addition to the central teaching of this Gospel let me also point out what I believe are the reasons for its abiding appeal. These are two: the personality of Jesus and the presentation of discipleship.

The personality of Jesus as Luke presents Him in this Gospel is very appealing. Possibly three things make Him so.

First, we feel that we can identify with the Jesus of Luke's Gospel. This is probably because Luke presented Him as a real man. It may be harder to identify with a King or with a Suffering Servant to say nothing about God, John's emphasis. Even though He is perfect He is someone with whom we feel a natural kinship because we share humanity together. Jesus faced what we do yet He was pleasing to God. This is very encouraging.

Second, the Jesus of Luke's Gospel is attractive because He is different from us. Even though we are of the same kind, He holds a fascination for us because He was the personification of ideal humanity. He was everything that God intended man to be. It is thrilling to view someone like that since we all fall so far short of what we should be.

Third, this Jesus is attractive because He was so sympathetic. One of the characteristic features of Luke's Gospel is the many references it contains to Jesus' concern for the needy including women, the poor, the sick, and outcasts of society. We read of the social outcasts of Jesus' day flocking to Him and feeling at home in His presence. We see Him welcoming children, and we feel ourselves drawn to Him.

Another reason for the appeal of this book is its presentation of discipleship. It contains some of the most straight talk and challenging demands for followers of Jesus that the New Testament holds. We read Jesus telling us that unless we hate our family members we cannot be His disciples, (14:26). He taught that we have to deny ourselves (14:27). We have to renounce all that we have (14:33). Interestingly these three conditions correspond to the three things that we mentioned earlier that Luke pointed out about Jesus.

Jesus calls us to sever our connections with our old race because we have become members of a new race. Jesus taught that our spiritual relations are really closer than our physical relations. Therefore we should let these old relations go if they interfere with our participation in the affairs of our new race.

Jesus calls us to accept the same responsibility that He accepted since we are now brothers. He denied Himself and took up His cross for us. Now we are brothers so we need to do the same for Him. Brothers sacrifice for each other.

Jesus also calls us to give up everything for Him. Having received the benefits of redemption because of the work of our Kinsman Redeemer who paid a great price for us, we need to pay a great price too. The price He calls us to pay is not to earn redemption. He has given that to us as a gift. It is to express our gratitude to Him for His grace and to advance the mission that He has given us to fulfill. He had a mission from God, and He gave up everything to fulfill it. We, too, have a mission from God, and we need to give up everything to fulfill it.

Finally this Gospel has a two-fold application, to the church and to the world.

To the church Luke says, "Be witnesses" (24:48).

We are to be such in view of the relationship that we now enjoy with the Son of Man. We should be such for three reasons. We have experienced redemption. We enjoy His fellowship. We have a future as members of a new race.

We are to be His witnesses also in view of the lost condition of mankind. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. Our fellowship with Jesus requires participation in His mission to seek and to save the lost. We can do this for three reasons. He has transformed our lives. He will open people's eyes with His Word. He has empowered us with His Spirit (cf. ch. 24).

To the world Luke says, "You are lost, but the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost." A Redeemer has come. A brother is available. A new life is possible. Behold the Man! He understands you. Yet He is different from you. But He will receive you.

Constable: Luke (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-4

II. The birth and childhood of Jesus 1:5-2:52

A. The announcement of John the Baptist's birth 1:5-25

1. The introduction of John's parents 1:5-7

2. The angel's announcement to Zechariah 1:8-23

3. The pregnancy of Elizabeth 1:24-25

B. The announcement of Jesus' birth 1:26-56

1. The introduction of Mary and Joseph 1:26-27

2. The angel's announcement to Mary 1:28-38

3. Mary's visit to Elizabeth 1:39-56

C. The birth and early life of John the Baptist 1:57-80

1. The naming of John 1:57-66

2. Zechariah's song of praise 1:67-79

3. The preparation of John 1:80

D. The birth and early life of Jesus ch. 2

1. The setting of Jesus' birth 2:1-7

2. The announcement to the shepherds 2:8-20

3. Jesus' circumcision 2:21

4. Jesus' presentation in the temple 2:22-38

5. Jesus' development in Nazareth 2:39-40

6. Jesus' visit to the temple as a boy 2:41-50

7. Jesus' continuing growth 2:51-52

III. The preparation for Jesus' ministry 3:1-4:13

A. The ministry of John the Baptist 3:1-20

1. The beginning of John's ministry 3:1-6

2. John's preaching 3:7-18

3. The end of John's ministry 3:19-20

B. The baptism of Jesus 3:21-22

C. The genealogy of Jesus 3:23-38

D. The temptation of Jesus 4:1-13

IV. Jesus' ministry in and around Galilee 4:14-9:50

A. Jesus' teaching ministry and the response to it 4:14-5:11

1. An introduction to Jesus' Galilean ministry 4:14-15

2. Jesus' teaching in Nazareth 4:16-30

3. Jesus' ministry in and around Capernaum 4:31-44

4. The call of Peter, James, and John 5:1-11

B. The beginning of controversy with the Pharisees 5:12-6:11

1. Jesus' cleansing of a leprous Jew 5:12-16

2. Jesus' authority to forgive sins 5:17-26

3. Jesus' attitude toward sinners 5:27-32

4. Jesus' attitude toward fasting 5:33-39

5. Jesus' authority over the Sabbath 6:1-5

6. Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath 6:6-11

C. Jesus' teaching of His disciples 6:12-49

1. The selection of 12 disciples 6:12-16

2. The assembling of the people 6:17-19

3. The Sermon on the Mount 6:20-49

D. Jesus' compassion for people ch. 7

1. The healing of a centurion's servant 7:1-10

2. The raising of a widow's son 7:11-17

3. The confusion about Jesus' identity 7:18-35

4. The anointing by a sinful woman 7:36-50

E. Jesus' teaching in parables 8:1-21

1. The companions and supporters of Jesus 8:1-3

2. The parable of the soils 8:4-15

3. The parable of the lamp 8:16-18

4. The true family of Jesus 8:19-21

F. Jesus' mighty works 8:22-56

1. The stilling of the storm 8:22-25

2. The deliverance of a demoniac in Gadara 8:26-39

3. The healing of a woman with a hemorrhage and the raising of Jairus' daughter 8:40-56

G. Jesus' preparation of the Twelve 9:1-50

1. The mission of the Twelve to Israel 9:1-6

2. Herod's question about Jesus' identity 9:7-9

3. The feeding of the 5000 9:10-17

4. Peter's confession of faith 9:18-27

5. The Transfiguration 9:28-36

6. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:37-43a

7. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 9:43b-45

8. The pride of the disciples 9:46-50

V. Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

A. The responsibilities and rewards of discipleship 9:51-10:24

1. The importance of toleration 9:51-56

2. The importance of self-denial 9:57-62

3. The importance of participation 10:1-16

4. The joy of participation 10:17-20

5. The joy of comprehension 10:21-24

B. The relationships of disciples 10:25-11:13

1. The relation of disciples to their neighbors 10:25-37

2. The relation of disciples to Jesus 10:38-42

3. The relation of disciples to God the Father 11:1-13

C. The results of popular opposition 11:14-54

1. The Beelzebul controversy 11:14-26

2. The importance of observing God's Word 11:27-28

3. The sign of Jonah 11:29-32

4. The importance of responding to the light 11:33-36

5. The climax of Pharisaic opposition 11:37-54

D. The instruction of the disciples in view of Jesus' rejection 12:1-13:17

1. The importance of fearless confession 12:1-12

2. The importance of the eternal perspective 12:13-21

3. God's provisions for disciples 12:22-34

4. The coming of the Son of 12:35-48

5. The coming crisis 12:49-59

6. A call to repentance 13:1-9

7. A sign of Jesus' ability to affect change 13:10-17

E. Instruction about the kingdom 13:18-14:35

1. Parables of the kingdom 13:18-21

2. Entrance into the kingdom 13:22-30

3. Jesus' postponement of the kingdom 13:31-35

4. Participants in the kingdom 14:1-24

5. The cost of discipleship 14:25-35

F. God's attitude toward sinners ch. 15

1. The setting for Jesus' teaching 15:1-2

2. The parable of the lost sheep 15:3-7

3. The parable of the lost coin 15:8-10

4. The parable of the lost son 15:11-32

G. Jesus' warnings about riches ch. 16

1. Discipleship as stewardship 16:1-13

2. Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for their greed 16:14-31

H. Jesus' warning about disciples' actions and attitudes 17:1-19

1. The prevention of sin and the restoration of sinners 17:1-4

2. The disciples' attitude toward their duty 17:5-10

3. The importance of gratitude 17:11-19

I. Jesus' teaching about His return 17:20-18:8

1. A short lesson for the Pharisees 17:20-21

2. A longer explanation for the disciples 17:22-37

3. The parable of the persistent widow 18:1-8

J. The recipients of salvation 18:9-19:27

1. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector 18:9-14

2. An illustration of humility 18:15-17

3. The handicap of wealth 18:18-30

4. Jesus' passion announcement and the disciples' lack of perception 18:31-34

5. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 18:35-43

6. Zaccheus' ideal response to Jesus 19:1-10

7. The parable of the minas 19:11-27

VI. Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

A. The Triumphal Entry 19:28-40

B. The beginning of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:41-48

1. Jesus' sorrow over Jerusalem 19:42-44

2. Jesus' cleansing of the temple 19:45-46

3. A synopsis of Jesus' teaching in the temple 19:47-48

C. Jesus' teachings in the temple 20:1-21:4

1. The controversy over authority 20:1-8

2. The parable of the wicked tenant farmers 20:9-19

3. The question of tribute to Caesar 20:20-26

4. The problem of the resurrection 20:27-40

5. Jesus' question about David's son 20:41-44

6. Jesus' condemnation of the scribes 20:45-47

7. Jesus' commendation of a widow 21:1-4

D. Jesus' teaching about the destruction of the temple 21:5-36

1. The setting and the warning about being misled 21:5-9

2. The need for faithful perseverance 21:10-19

3. The judgment coming on Jerusalem 21:20-24

4. The second coming of the Son of 21:25-28

5. The certainty of these events 21:29-33

6. The concluding exhortation to watchfulness 21:34-36

E. A summary of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 21:37-38

VII. Jesus' passion, resurrection, and ascension 22:1-24:53

A. The plot to arrest Jesus 22:1-6

1. The leaders' desire 22:1-2

2. Judas' offer 22:3-6

B. The preparations for the Passover 22:7-13

C. Events in the upper room 22:14-38

1. The Passover meal 22:14-18

2. The institution of the Lord's Supper 22:19-20

3. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 22:21-23

4. Teaching about the disciples' service 22:24-30

5. Jesus' announcement of Peter's denial 22:31-34

6. The opposition to come 22:35-38

D. The arrest of Jesus 22:39-53

1. Jesus' preparation in Gethsemane 22:39-46

2. Judas' betrayal 22:47-53

E. The trials of Jesus 22:54-23:25

1. Peter's denial of Jesus 22:54-62

2. The mockery of the soldiers 22:63-65

3. Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin 22:66-71

4. Jesus' first appearance before Pilate 23:1-7

5. Jesus' appearance before Herod 23:8-12

6. Jesus' second appearance before Pilate 23:13-25

F. The crucifixion of Jesus 23:26-49

1. Events on the way to Golgotha 23:26-32

2. Jesus' death 23:33-49

G. The burial of Jesus 23:50-56

H. The resurrection of Jesus 24:1-12

I. The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus 24:13-49

1. The appearance to the disciples walking to Emmaus 24:13-35

2. The appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem 24:36-49

J. The ascension of Jesus 24:50-53

Constable: Luke

Luke

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. New ed. 4 vols. London: Rivingtons, 1880.

Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke. The NIV Application Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

_____. "A Theology of Luke-Acts." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 87-166. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Boslooper, Thomas. The Virgin Birth. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.

Bowman, John. "The Parable of the Good Samaritan." Expository Times 59 (1947-48):151-53, 248-49.

Brown, R. E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

_____. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurection of Jesus. New York: Paulist Press, 1973.

Brown, Schuyler. Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

_____. "Justification by Faith in the non-Pauline Writings of the New Testament." Evangelical Quarterly 24 (1952):66-77.

Burrows, Millar. "Levirate Marriage in Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):23-33.

_____. "The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth." Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):445-54.

Cadbury, Henry J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920.

Cairns, Earle E. "Luke As a Historian." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July-September 1965):220-26.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In Matthew--Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Cave, C. H. "Lazarus and the Lucan Deuteronomy." New Testament Studies 15 (1968-67):319-25.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Creed, J. M. The Gospel According to St. Luke. A Commentary on the Third Gospel. London: Macmillan and Co., 1930.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956.

Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age. Proclamation Commentaries series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Davis, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Deatrick, Eugene P. "Salt, Soil, Savor." Biblical Archaeologist 25 (1962):41-48.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. "Eating up the Houses of Widows': Jesus's Comment on Lawyers?" Novum Testamentum 14 (1972):1-9.

_____. "Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. II. Dives and Lazarus and the preceding Sayings." New Testament Studies, 7 (1960-61):364-80.

_____. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970.

_____. "Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt." Novum Testamentum 13 (1971):241-58.

_____. "Law in the New Testament: The Unjust Judge." New Testament Studies 18 (1071-72):178-91.

_____. "Take thy Bond . . . and Write Fifty' (Luke xvi. 6) The nature of the Bond." Journal of New Testament Studies NS23 (1972):438-40.

_____. "You Build the Tombs of the Prophets' [Luke 11:47-51; Matt. 23:29-31]." Studia Evangelica 4 (1968):187-93.

Dillon, Richard J. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24. Analecta Biblica 82. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

_____. "Previewing Luke's Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1-4)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981):205-27.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Doeve, J. W. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Easton, Burton Scott. The Gospel according to St. Luke. International Critical Commentaries series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellis, Earle E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible series. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1966.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Erickson, Richard J. "The Jailing of John and the Baptism of Jesus: Luke 3:19-21." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:4 (December 1993):455-66.

Findlay, J. A. "Luke." In Abingdon Bible Commentary, pp. 1022-59. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1929.

Finegan, Jack. The Archaeology of the New Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

_____. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971.

_____. The Gospel according to Luke I--IX. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1981.

_____. "The Story of the Dishonest Manager." Theological Studies 25 (1964):23-42.

Flender, Helmut. St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History. London: SPCK, 1967.

Foakes-Jackson, F. J., and Lake, Kirsopp, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity. 5 vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1920-33.

Forbes, Greg. "Repentance and Conflict in the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:2 (June 1999):211-229.

Ford, J. Massingbyrde. "The Meaning of Virgin.'" New Testament Studies 12:3 (1966):293-99.

France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Freyne, Sean. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, Inc. and Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Gaston, Lloyd. Horae Synopticae Electonicae; Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973.

Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1950.

Gerhardsson, Birger.The Testing of God's Son. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament series 2:1. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1966.

Geyser, A. S. "The Youth of John the Baptist." Novum Testamentum 1 (1956):70-75.

Goodspeed, E. J. "Some Greek Notes: I. Was Theophilus Luke's Publisher?" Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (1954):84.

Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of Deity. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1974.

Han, Kyu Sam. "Theology of Prayer in the Gospel of Luke." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:4 (December 2000):675-93.

Harvey, A. E. The New English Bible: Companion to the New Testament. Cambridge: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Hawkins, John Caesas. Horae Synopticae; Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. 1909. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.

Helyer, Larry R. "Luke and the Restoration of Israel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):317-29.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Centurion's Faith in Matthew and Luke." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):321-32.

_____. "Stop and Think! (Luke 14:13-14), Rewardable Hospitality." The KERUGMA Message 3:1 (Spring 1993):1, 3.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Inrig, Gary. The Parables: Understanding What Jesus Meant. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1991.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1986 ed. Edited by Geoffrey E. Bromiley. S.v. "money," by H. W. Perkin.

Jellicoe, S. "St Luke and the Seventy-two." New Testament Studies 6 (1960):319-21.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. New Testament Library series. 3rd ed. Revised. London: SCM Press, 1966.

_____. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Rev. ed. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: Scribner, 1963.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keck, Leander E. "The Spirit and the Dove." New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):41-67.

Keck, Leander, and Martyn, J. Louis, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Larkin, William J., Jr. "The Recovery of Luke-Acts as Grand Narrative' for the Church's Evangelistic and Edification Tasks in a Postmodern Age." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):405-15.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel. 1946. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lewis, Clive Staples. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan Co., 1959.

Liefeld, Walter L. "Luke." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

_____. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 162-79. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lindsey, F. Duane. "Lucan Theology in Contemporary Perspective." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):346-51.

Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second series 17. London: SCM, 1970.

Lövestam, E. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lund: Gleerup, 1963.

Luce, H. K. The Gospel according to S. Luke. Cambridge Greek Testament series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Machen, J. Greshem. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982.

Malick, David E. "A Literary Approach to the Birth Narratives in Luke 1-2." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 93-107. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Manek, J. "The New Exodus in the Books of Luke." Novum Testamentum 2 (1955):8-23.

_____. "On the Mount - on the Plain (Mt. V. 1 - Lk. VI. 17)." Novum Testamentum 9 (1967):124-31.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1949.

Marshall, I. Howard. "The Divine Sonship of Jesus." Interpretation 21 (1967):87-103.

_____. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.

_____. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971.

Martin, John A. "Luke." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 199-265. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Martin, R. P. Colossians: The Church's Lord and the Christian's Liberty. Exeter, Eng.: Paternoster Press, 1972.

Mason, Steve. "Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 115-77. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Mathewson, Dave L. "The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13): A Reexamination of the Traditional View in Light of Recent Challenges." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):29-39.

Mattill, A. J., Jr. "Representative Universalism and the Conquest of Canaan." Concordia Theological Monthly 35:1 (1967):8-17.

McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Cal.: Thru the Bible Radio, 1983.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Remembering: A Central Theme in Biblical Worship." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):27-36.

Mills, Montague Stephen. "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978.

Minear, P. S. "A Note on Luke xxii. 36." Novum Testamentum 7 (1964):128-34.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moore, Thomas S. "The Lucan Great Commission and the Isaianic Servant." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):47-60.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Mosley, A. W. "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66):10-26.

Neil, William, The Acts of the Apostles. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1973; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1981.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. S.v. "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," by F. F. Bruce.

_____. S.v. "Quirinius," by F. F. Bruce.

Oliver, H. H. "The Lucan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke-Acts." New Testaments Studies 10 (1963-64):215-26.

O'Neill, J. C. "The Six Amen Sayings in Luke." Journal of Theological Studies NS10 (1959):1-9.

Orr, James. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Scribner's, 1907.

Overstreet, R. Larry "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Packer, J. I. "The Comfort of Conservatism." In Power Religion, pp. 283-99. Edited by Michael Scott Horton. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Pagenkemper, Karl E. "Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):179-98; 611 (July-September 1996):308-31.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Biblical Covenants and the Birth Narratives." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 257-70. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Reicke, Bo. "Jesus in Nazareth -- Lk 4, 14-30." In Das Wort und die Wörter, pp. 47-55. Edited by H. Balz and S. Schulz. Stuttgart: n. p., 1973.

Roberts, C. H. "The Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. xvii. 21)." Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948):1-8.

Robinson, J. A. T. Twelve New Testament Studies. Studies in Biblical Theology No. 14. London: SCM Press, 1962.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Schurer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Clark's Foreign Theological Library series. 6 vols. Translated by John Macpherson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895-1905.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sneed, R. J. "The Kingdom of God is within you' (Lk. 17, 21)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962):363-82.

Stanton, G. N. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton, Il.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Strugnell, J. "Amen I say unto you' in the Sayings of Jesus and in Early Christian Literature." Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):177-90.

Summers, Ray. Commentary on Luke. Waco: Word Books, 1972.

Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 20. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974.

_____. "The Lukan Presentation of Jesus' Ministry in Galilee." Review and Expositor 64 (1967):485-97.

_____. "Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15." In The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God's Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, pp. 129-41. Edited by James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1980.

_____. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1982.

Tannehill, Robert C. "Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story." Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985):69-85.

_____. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Tenney, Merrill C. "Historical Verities in the Gospel of Luke." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):126-38.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. "daimon," by W. Foerster.

_____. S.v. "hepta," by K. H. Rengstorf.

_____. S.v. "makarios," by F. Hauck and G. Bertram.

_____. S.v. "nestis," by J. Behm.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

_____. S.v. "paristemi, paristano," by Bo Reicke.

_____. S.v. "pascha," by Joachim Jeremias.

_____. S.v. "stole," by Ulrich Wilckens.

Thompson, G. H. P. "Called -- Proved -- Obedient." Journal of Theological Studies NS11 (1960):1-12.

_____. St. Luke. New Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966.

van Ommeren, Nicholas M. "Was Luke an Accurate Historian?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:589 (January-March 1991):57-71.

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew. London: Collins, 1973.

Walls, A. F. "In the Presence of the Angels' (Luke xv. 10)." Novum Testamentum 3 (1959):314-16.

Walvoord, John F. "The Times of the Gentiles." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):3-9.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wilkinson, J. "The Case of the Bent Woman in Luke 13:10-17." Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977):195-205.

Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Winter, P. "Nazareth' and Jerusalem' in Luke chs. 1 and 2." New Testament Studies 3 (1956-57):136-42.

Witherington, Ben III. Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "The Daily Bread Motif in Antiquity." Westminster Theological Journal 28 (1965-66):147-56.

Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Yates, Gary. "The Use of Isaiah 61:1 (and 58:6) in Luke 4:18-19." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):13-27.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Coins," by Gleason L. Archer.

_____. S.v. "Demon, Demoniac, Demonology," by R. K. Harrison.

_____. S.v. "Diseases of the Bible," by R. H. Pousma.

_____. S.v. "Samaritans," by J. L. Kelso.

_____. S.v. "Quirinius," by E. M. Blaiklock.

Zuck, Roy B. "How Jesus Responded to Questions." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 108-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p42luk-1@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p42luk-2@

Haydock: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE.

INTRODUCTION

St. Luke was a physician, a native of Antioch, the metropolis of Syria, and well skilled in the Greek language, as his writings sufficiently evince. In some ancient manuscripts, he is called Lucius, and Lucanus. Some conjecture that he was at first a Gentile and a pagan, and was converted by the preaching of St. Paul, at Antioch; others, that he was originally a Jew, and one of the seventy-two disciples. Sts. Hippolitus and Epiphanius say, that hearing from our Lord these words, he that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, is not worthy of me, he withdrew, and quitted our Saviour, but returned to the faith at the preaching of St. Paul. But to leave what is uncertain, St. Luke was the disciple, travelling companion, and fellow-labourer of St. Paul. Of him St. Paul is supposed to speak: (2 Corinthians viii. 18.) We have sent also with him (Titus) the brother, whose praise is in the gospel, through all churches: and again, Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you: (Colossians iv.) and, only Luke is with me. (2 Timothy iv.) Some are of opinion that as often as St. Paul, in his Epistles, says according to my gospel, he speaks of the Gospel of St. Luke. This evangelist did not learn his gospel from St. Paul only, (who had never been with our Lord in the flesh) but from the other apostles also, as himself informs us in the beginning of his gospel, when he says, according as they have delivered them unto us; who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses, ( Greek: autoptai ) and ministers of the word. His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that St. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world. It does not appear, as Calmet observes, that he had ever read the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. ... He chiefly insists in his gospel, upon what relates to Christ's priestly office; hence the ancients gave, of the four symbolical representations, mentioned in Ezechiel, that of the ox, or calf, to St. Luke, as an emblem of sacrifices. He lived 84 years in the state of celibacy, was crucified at Elœa, in Peloponnesus, near Achaia, and was buried in the church of the apostles, at Constantinople, to which city his remains were translated, together with those of St. Andrew and St. Timothy, in the year 357, by order of the emperor Constantius. When this church was repaired, by an order of Justinian, the masons found three wooden chests, in which the bodies of these saints were interred. Baronius mentions, that the head of St. Luke was brought by St. Gregory from Constantinople to Rome, in the year of Christ 586. St. Luke writes purer Greek than any of the other hagiographers; yet many Syriac words, and turns of expressions, occur in both his gospel and Acts of the Apostles; some also that imitate the genius of the Latin tongue. He cites Scripture according to the Septuagint, and not after the Hebrew text. St. Paul, in his Epistles, generally quotes the gospel in a manner the most conformable to St. Luke, as may be seen in the following instances; 1 Corinthians xi. 23. and 24. chap. xv. 5. The Marcionites would only receive the gospel of St. Luke, and from this they retrenched the first two chapters, with regard the birth of Jesus Christ, and only admitted ten of St. Paul's Epistles, as Tertullian and St. Epiphanius have remarked. Marcion embraced the errors of Cerdon: to these he added others, the offspring of his own brain. He began to disseminate his novel opinions at Rome, about the year of Christ 144. He could not bring himself to believe how a spirit, such as the human soul, could be shut up in a body, be subject to ignorance, to weakness, to pain; nor in what manner, or for what end, the great and good Lord, the Creator of spirits, could have thus degraded them. Revelation, which teaches us the fall of the first man, did not appear to the Marcionites, to solve the difficulty, since the first man was composed of a spiritual soul and a terrestrial body; they, moreover, imagined that an all-good, an all-powerful God, ought to have prevented the fall of man. No wonder then, that they refused to adopt the first two chapters of St. Luke, which contain the miraculous births of Jesus and his precursor [John the Baptist]; as also sundry texts of the very scanty portions of holy Scriptures which their party chose to retain. But what does this shew? that tradition, in the first instance, must be admitted, to inform us what is authentic scripture; and, secondly, an infallible Church-authority, to inform us what is the genuine interpretation of the genuine text. Without the assistance of apostolical tradition and Church-authority, could any Seeker (even with the assistance of Brown's Self-interpreting Bible, in 2 vols. 4to.) rest secure, that he properly understood the disputed points of holy writ; that his, and no other interpretation, was the genuine sense of these mysterious words, when he was informed that by far the greater part of learned societies, and learned individuals, gave a widely different interpretation to the same texts. This freedom of expounding Scripture, by unassisted reason and private spirit, was the first germ of the daily increasing spread of sects and heresies; this is the nucleus, which, after enveloping itself like the comet, in much nebulous obscurity, terminates in a fiery tail, of portentous magnitude, the ruinous effects of which can only be prevented by a speedy return to first principles, apostolical tradition, and Church-authority.

====================

Gill: Luke (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO LUKE

The writer of this Gospel, Luke, has been, by some, thought, as Origen ^a relates, to be the same with Lucius, mentioned in Rom 16:21, but he seems rather to be, and without doubt is, Luke the beloved physician, who was a companion of the Apostle Paul in great part of his travels in the Gentile world: he came with him to Jerusalem, and from thence accompanied him to Rome, and continued with him when in prison, and was with him to the last; see Act 16:10, &c. Col 4:14. Jerom ^b, and others, say, he was a physician of Antioch in Syria; where it may be the Apostle Paul met with him, and might be the happy instrument of his conversion; so that he seems to be, by nation, a Syrian, as Jerom ^c calls him. Grotius thinks his name is Roman, and that it is the contraction of Lucilius. It is not an Hebrew name, but might be in common use in Syria; for though the Jews reckon owqwl, "Lukus", among foreign names, yet say ^d a it was a very illustrious one, and well known to them, as it may well be thought to be if Syriac, the language being spoke by them: and many Jews lived in Syria, and particularly in Antioch. Some say that this Gospel was written by the advice, and assistance, and under the direction of the Apostle Paul, as the Gospel according to Mark was by that of Peter; though the following preface does not seem so well to accord with this. Eusebius says ^e that it was the sense of the ancients, that whenever the Apostle Paul makes mention of his Gospel, he intends this according to Luke. The time of the writing of it is not certain; some say it was written in the fifteenth year after the ascension of our Lord; others in the twenty second; and others in the twenty seventh. It is commonly thought to have been written after the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, according to the order in which it stands; but this is rejected by some learned men, who rather think that Luke wrote first of all: and indeed, there are some things in his preface which look as if there had not, as yet, been any authentic account published, at least which was come to the knowledge of this evangelist. The place where he wrote it is also uncertain. Jerom says ^f, he wrote it in the parts of Achaia, perhaps at Corinth: according to the titles prefixed to the Syriac and Persic versions, he wrote it in Alexandria: the former of these runs thus;

"the Gospel of Luke, the Evangelist, which he spake and published in Greek in Alexandria the great.''

And the latter thus;

"the Gospel of Luke, which he wrote in the Greek tongue in Alexandria of Egypt.''

However, it is agreed on all hands, that it is genuine, and of divine inspiration. Eusebius ^g relates, that it was affirmed by some, that this Gospel, together with those of Matthew and Mark, were brought to the Apostle John, who approved of them, and bore witness to the truth in them.

College: Luke (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

"Many have undertaken" to write commentaries on the Gospel of Luke, and a large number of these are very good. "It seemed good also to me" to attempt to place in the hands of a popular audience the best of recent scholarship in an easily readable form. My prayer will have been answered if those without specialized training are able to come to a deeper understanding of Luke's message as a result of these efforts.

My debt to those who have written before me will be demonstrated throughout the commentary. I am equally indebted to many who have spent hours reading and making suggestions which have vastly improved my work. To my student assistant, Meg Grandstaff; to my mother, Peggy Black; and to my colleagues, Terry Briley, Brandon Fredenburg, and Gary Holloway, I can only say, "Thank you" and "I owe you one." I must also thank Lipscomb University for the Faculty Summer Grant which gave me the summer of 1996 to work on the book.

My greatest gratitude goes to Margo, Sara, Jessica, and Allison, who have tolerated too many hours taken away from them. They fill all my days with joy, and I must ask with Elizabeth (Luke 1:43), "Why am I so favored" to be their husband and father?

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

TABLE OF

SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES

Anti-Semitism 371

Baptism 84

Destruction of Jerusalem and End of Time 336

Forgiveness and Grace 163

Fulfillment of Scripture 42

Holy Spirit 93

Kingdom of God 112

Law 69

Messiah 88

Miracles and Sign-Seeking 107

Outcasts and Untouchables 127

Parables 167

Pharisees 120

Poor and Rich 142

Prayer 92

Prophet Theme 60

Repentance 83

Sadducees 327

Samaritans 200

Son of Man 124

Table Fellowship 126

Tax Collectors 87

Women 50

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

This commentary is written for serious students of the New Testament, including Bible class teachers, preachers, college students, and other motivated readers. The reader need not be acquainted with the Greek language or scholarly tools and methodology. The single goal of the present commentary is to place modern readers into the shoes of the first readers of Luke's Gospel. Two questions have been constantly asked: What did Luke want his readers to grasp as he penned each section? And what did he want them to believe and to do after they had read the whole? My assumption is that the Gospel of Luke was written for us but not directly to us. Since it was originally written for a people of a different culture almost two thousand years ago, we must attempt to understand it as they understood it in order to be faithful to Luke's intent.

Luke wrote in order to encourage active faith in Jesus, and he did so through the use of narrative literature. To put it differently, Luke has written to tell his readers what to believe, what reasons there are for believing, and what it means to live as a believer. To make his case he has chosen to tell a story, a literary form with few imperatives and exhortations directly to the reader. Since narratives teach indirectly, the reader must learn to "read between the lines" in order to grasp the message.

I have therefore taken a literary and theological approach in this commentary. I believe that Luke has given many clues regarding his intent and that a proper reading will discover that intent. Put simply, his method is to tell the story of Jesus, highlighting those aspects of the story which his readers need most to hear. He has woven many themes into the plot which begins with the birth and ends with the death and resurrection of Jesus. To understand his message, then, the reader must read the whole, paying close attention to the plot and the characters and to the many repeated themes. Therefore I am more concerned with Luke's message in any given story than I am with the attempt to discover how his source(s) told the story. Similarly, I am more concerned with the reasons for Luke's references to various events than I am with our ability to confirm the historicity of those events.

For each episode or section in Luke's Gospel, we will be concerned first with any terms, customs, institutions, places, and beliefs which might be unfamiliar to the modern reader. We will therefore offer brief introductions to Herod Antipas, first-century eating customs, messianic beliefs, and dozens of other matters with which Luke's readers would already be familiar. Our second and most important concern will be to discover the function of each section in the larger story. Does it further the plot, teach a lesson on what it means to be a disciple, encourage deeper faith, or function in some other way?

A third feature of the present commentary is the attempt to summarize Luke's teaching on a variety of topics. Luke had several areas of special concern, evidenced by his dealing with them again and again. The reader will find in the table of contents a list of one- or two-page treatments of special topics such as women, the poor, the Law, the Holy Spirit, prayer, the kingdom of God, and many others.

A final special interest (to be explained further in the introduction below) is the effort to relate the Gospel of Luke to its companion volume, the book of Acts. The reader gains inspired insight into what Luke thinks about the teachings of Jesus when he or she sees Jesus' disciples in Acts carrying out those teachings. We will regularly look ahead to Acts to understand what Jesus means in the Gospel of Luke.

I am greatly indebted to the fine commentaries on Luke's Gospel by Johnson, Nolland, Stein, and Tiede. These works, which have different purposes and perspectives, have been tremendously helpful in my writing. I have tried to footnote them when appropriate. However, having used them for several years, I am no longer sure whether many ideas are my own or borrowed from them. I recommend these four commentaries to the reader who wants more than I have provided herein. I have directed the reader to Stein's work more than the others, because his will prove easiest to understand for the nonspecialist.

AUTHORSHIP

The Gospel of Luke is anonymous. Like the other three Gospels, it makes no claim regarding authorship. However, from the late second century until the 19th, no one seems to have questioned that Luke the physician wrote Luke and Acts.

The Third Gospel was known as "The Gospel of Luke" by at least the late second century in order to distinguish it from the other three. It is impossible to know just why the early church attributed the book to Luke. Some would argue that he indeed wrote the book, and that his name was therefore associated with it from the beginning. Others argue that early Christians derived its authorship from evidence within the book of Acts (to be discussed below).

Supporting this early tradition are the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170-180), Irenaeus (late 2nd century), the earliest actual copy of the Gospel (Bodmer Papyrus XIV, 175-225), an ancient Prologue to the Gospel written against the heretic Marcion (late 2nd), Tertullian (207-208), and later Origen (254), Eusebius (303), and Jerome (398). Such is the external evidence for Lukan authorship, and it is quite strong.

The internal evidence is also strong, and it comes from volume two, the book of Acts. There the author uses the first person plural pronoun ("we") in narrating the events in the life of Paul on three occasions (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; often called the "we-passages" of Acts). These sections imply that the author was with Paul in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Judea, on the Mediterranean, and in Rome.

This of course does not point directly to Luke, but it does encourage some detective work on the part of the reader. Who was with Paul during these times? Paul's letters and Acts suggest a number of traveling companions (see the relevant portions of Acts and especially Col 4, Phlm, and 2 Tim 4). When one eliminates those whom the author mentions by name in Acts, and if one assumes that the author of Luke-Acts was a Gentile (see below), Luke emerges as the most likely author, given the strong weight of tradition.

Given strong external and internal evidence for Lukan authorship, one may wonder why much of contemporary scholarship rejects the notion entirely. The answer is based on internal evidence which is said to disallow Lukan authorship. Quite simply, the book of Acts presents a view of Paul the Christian who appears to be quite different from the Paul who wrote the letters, especially Galatians. The book of Acts does not cite or even mention Paul's letters. More significantly, it is argued that the theological portrait of Paul in Acts could not have been painted by a companion of Paul. Luke's portrait is especially problematic with regard to Paul's stance on keeping the Law. We must admit that it is somewhat surprising when Paul, who wrote that, "All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse," (Gal 3:10), consistently upholds the Law in Acts. Most notably, James in Acts 21:24 encourages Paul to help the four men under a vow in order to show that "you yourself are living in obedience to the Law."

At the risk of oversimplifying a very complex discussion, several points should be noted. First, we should admit and not apologize for the fact that Luke and Paul have very different agendas in writing their works. This has necessarily influenced which events they narrate and what they emphasize theologically. Paul is writing for churches in crises and tends to address only those areas where the church in question needs instruction. Luke on the other hand writes in order to show the unity within the early church and therefore stresses that which all churches shared. So Paul in Galatians writes against Judaizers (those who want Gentiles to keep the Law), whereas Luke writes to Gentiles who may not have enough understanding or appreciation of the Jewish heritage of Christianity. The difference may well be one of audience and perspective rather than theological position. One should remember that Paul in his letters does write that his policy is, "To the Jews I became like a Jew," and, "To those under the Law I became like one under the Law" (1 Cor 9). In other words, Luke in Acts may be showing a side of Paul that the letters largely do not show: Paul customarily lived as a Jew, especially around Jews.

Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Hobart argued that the sheer number of healing stories and the vocabulary demonstrated that Luke was a physician. However, Cadbury later refuted these claims by proving that Luke showed no more "medical" language than other educated writers of his day. Of course, the healing stories and "medical" vocabulary are consistent with authorship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.

While it can never be proven absolutely, I have taken the view that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote Luke and Acts. This is largely because I accept the "we-sections" at face value. The author intended to represent himself as a companion of Paul, and the best candidate is Luke. However, we still know very little about our author, because the New Testament says little about Luke. What can be known about this author other than that he was a companion of Paul (Acts 16-28), a physician (Col 4:14), and a Gentile (Col 4:11)?

We actually learn more about Luke from his writing than from other sources. First, he was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus (1:1-4). He got his information from "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Second, he was a man of some education, as is clearly evidenced by his learned Greek (see esp. 1:1-4) and his ability to imitate the style of the Greek Old Testament. Third, he does appear to have been a Gentile. While this cannot be proven with certainty, his references to "the Jews" probably imply that he was not one of them, especially the reference to "their language" in Acts 1:19. This is, of course, consistent with the statement of Colossians 4:14 (which implies that Luke was a Gentile). Fourth, he was thoroughly conversant with the Scriptures. Although he has been called a Gentile writing to Gentiles, we must not overlook his constant references to every section of the Old Testament (esp. Psalms), his overriding fulfillment theme, and his great concern to show that all of his Jewish characters continue to observe the Law of Moses (even those who become Christians). This Gentile, for example, is the only Gospel writer who tells us of Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day, of Mary's purification on the fortieth day, of the disciples' observance of the Sabbath "according to the commandment" after the death of Jesus (24:1), and of Paul's taking vows (18:18) and participating in the sacrificial system long after becoming a Christian (Acts 21). Perhaps Luke had for some time been a "God-fearer," a Gentile who worshiped God, appreciated Judaism, and attended the synagogue. God-fearers are an important group in Acts who very often become Christians (see 13:16; 16:14; 18:7).

Fortunately, we need not know the author's name to interpret his narrative. In fact, the narrative tells us much more about the author than any theory about the author tells us about the narrative.

DATE

It is fortunate also that the interpreter need not know the date of Luke's writing, because no one knows exactly when it was written. Though some argue that Luke wrote his Gospel long before he wrote Acts, there are many reasons to think the two volumes were written at the same time. If so, the Gospel was written after A.D. 60-62, the date of Paul's imprisonment in Acts 28. Thus the earliest possible date for Luke's Gospel is 62. A few scholars argue that Luke must have written at that time, and that this accounts for the abrupt and frustrating (did Paul live or die?) ending of Acts. Most, however, believe that Luke had other reasons than lack of information for ending Acts as he did. I concur with those who think Luke had simply accomplished his purpose in Acts 28. He wrote to give an account of the spread of the gospel from Jews (only) in Jerusalem to Gentiles (predominantly) in Rome. He did not intend to give a biography of Paul.

Most argue that Luke had to have been written after Mark, because, in their opinions, Luke used Mark's Gospel in writing his own. However, this opinion is not universally accepted; and even if it were, one then has to answer the equally difficult question, When was Mark written? On the other hand, Luke 1:1 does suggest that Luke was probably written relatively late among early Gospels.

Many would argue that the earliest date of writing must be at least A.D. 70 on the basis of likely allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course, Jesus alludes to the coming destruction of Jerusalem in the first two Gospels as well as in Luke. However, in Luke Jesus says, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies," (21:20) instead of, "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong," (Mark 13:14). Many believe that this more specific language suggests that Luke was looking back at the destruction and interpreting for his audience the meaning of Jesus' statement. This is likely, but it is far from certain.

The latest possible date for the writing of Luke's Gospel would be the first allusion to it in other literature. But even that is difficult to determine because allusions are notoriously difficult to ascertain. It could be 1 Clement (95-96), Ignatius (110), Polycarp (135), or 2 Clement (clear allusion but uncertain date, anywhere from 120-170).

The evidence tends to point to the period of A.D. 65-85 for the composition of the Gospel of Luke. Some might like to be more exact, but it matters little for the interpretation of Luke's work.

AUDIENCE

As suggested above, the Gospel of Luke appears to be addressed to Gentile Christians. Though Theophilus is the named recipient and was certainly an intended reader, Luke undoubtedly wrote for a much larger audience. Just as modern "letters to the editor" are meant for the larger public, so was Luke's work. Numerous hints within the work point to a larger audience which is predominantly Gentile. The most important are these: (1) He relates his work to a Greco-Roman literary tradition (1:1-4). (2) He dedicates the work to Theophilus, most likely a Gentile. (3) He is profoundly interested in the Gentile mission. (4) He uses Greek and Roman terms when other Gospel writers use Hebrew ("teacher" for "rabbi;" "lawyer" for "scribe;" "Skull" for "Golgotha"). (5) He refers to the Jews in the third person.

Most agree that the original readers were Christian and that Luke-Acts is intended to build up faith rather than help create it. This is perhaps more difficult to prove, but two factors seem to lead in this direction. First, it appears that the named reader, Theophilus, had already heard the story (1:4). Second, there are simply too many matters left unexplained which would have been far too confusing for the non-Christian. Almost every episode assumes that Luke's readers had a basic knowledge about Jesus and that Luke writes to provide certainty and various additional details.

PURPOSE

Luke tells us his purpose in Luke 1:4: he wants Theophilus to have "certainty" regarding the things he has been taught. This statement is at the same time helpful and ambiguous. On the one hand, it suggests that Luke is written with a quasi-apologetic motive. What it does not tell us, on the other hand, is in what area(s) his readers needed certainty. Did they simply need to be assured of the historicity of the events narrated? Or is it possible that they needed certainty regarding their own position before God? Or could it be that they needed certainty that God was behind all of the events they had heard about and witnessed? Might it even mean that they needed certainty about the proper response to the gospel message?

Luke's purpose has been called apologetic (to defend Christianity to Rome, or, in another sense, to defend God's actions), evangelistic (to engender faith among non-Christians), anti-heretical (to combat Gnosticism), and didactic (to teach Christians what to believe and how to act), to name only the most commonly suggested. In light of the many credible suggestions offered by scholars, we should be very careful about settling upon one purpose. The question of Luke's purpose must be answered by looking not only at Luke's Gospel but also at the Acts of the Apostles, and it can only be answered with reference to the themes which keep recurring throughout both volumes.

Perhaps it is best to suggest that Luke-Acts was written primarily for Gentiles who needed "assurance" in a number of areas, both historical and theological. Perhaps they did need the account of a careful and educated historian to give them confidence that events they heard about had actually occurred. There also may have been some among them who had not yet decided to become Christians. Most likely those who were Christians needed Luke to explain how God had kept his promises to the Jews in light of the fact that there seemed to be fewer and fewer Jews among those being converted. Probably these same Gentile Christians simply needed to understand better their own place in God's plan. And surely these readers, whoever they were, needed to be reminded that being Christian meant sharing possessions, undergoing persecution, welcoming the outcast, serving one another, and generally walking as Jesus walked.

LUKE AND ACTS

Eighteen hundred fifty years ago it was apparent that Luke's first volume was very much like the works of Matthew and Mark. At that time the Gospel was placed beside its peers in the New Testament. John, assumed to be the last Gospel written, was placed between Luke and Acts, and the two works by Luke have been separated ever since. While everyone acknowledges that one author wrote both, few have truly noted the import of that fact. Luke wrote not two independent documents, but a two-volume story, as he well explains.

When Luke is read along with Acts, Acts reads quite differently. No longer do we have the self-contained story of the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem Jews to Roman Gentiles. We have nothing less than the story of Jesus, from his ministry in Galilee to his death and resurrection in Jerusalem to his continuing ministry in the Mediterranean world.

In the tradition of the Restoration Movement it has long been argued that the book of Acts provides a pattern for the later church. My thesis is that there is indeed an intended pattern in Acts, but the pattern is not rooted primarily in the practice of the early church. The pattern is that established by Jesus. Quite simply, the early church does what Jesus did and what Jesus commanded it to do. In fact, Luke insists that it is still Jesus who is carrying out his ministry through the church. In Acts 1:1 when Luke writes of the former book in which he "wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach," what he implies is that Acts will narrate what Jesus continues to do and to teach.

This is especially clear in certain passages: it is Jesus himself who calls Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. Later in that chapter Peter says, "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you." In Acts 16:7 Paul and his companions attempt to enter Bithynia, "but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them." And in 18:9 Jesus himself speaks to Paul, encouraging him to have no fear. It should also be noted that Jesus had already said in Luke 21:15, "I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand." It is clear, of course, that in Acts Jesus is at the right hand of God, but he is active and very much in control as he directs the new movement through his Spirit. Jesus is so bound up with his church that he can tell Paul in 9:5, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."

Consider the following parallels or "patterns" in the ministry of Jesus and that of the early church:

(1) Luke shows Jesus praying at nearly every major event (baptism, choosing disciples, confession, transfiguration, Gethsemane, and on the cross). The early church does the same (waiting before Pentecost, choosing Matthias, Peter before going to Cornelius, sending Paul, healing, and many others).

(2) In Luke Jesus is empowered when the Holy Spirit descends upon him at his baptism. Only then does he begin his ministry of preaching and healing (3:22; see 1:35; 4:1). In Acts the apostles are told to wait until they are baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:5, 8). After the Spirit descends upon them (2:4), they also do signs and wonders and preach, just as did Jesus. All the major characters in Acts, like Jesus, are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Peter - 4:8; Stephen - 6:5; Paul - 13:9, and dozens of other references to the guidance of the Spirit).

(3) In Luke Jesus performs various miracles as part of his ministry. The church leaders in Acts not only perform miracles - they perform miracles which are remarkably similar to those of Jesus. For example, just as Jesus heals the mother-in-law of Peter who had a fever (Luke 4:38), Paul heals the father of Publius, who also had a fever (Acts 28:8). Just as Jesus casts out unclean spirits (Luke 4:36; 6:18, etc.), so do Peter (Acts 5:16), Philip (8:7), and Paul (16:18; 19:13). Jesus heals the lame (Luke 7:22), as do Peter and John (Acts 3:2), Philip (8:7), and Paul (14:8-10).

(4) The message of Jesus and that of the leaders in Acts is the same, emphasizing the kingdom of God (30 times in Luke; see Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23), repentance, and forgiveness of sins. Jesus and the apostles on occasion even use the same Old Testament texts, such as Psalm 110 (Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34).

(5) Jesus suffers at the hands of his own people and the Gentiles, and so do the disciples. Of course, Jesus predicted that they would (12:11-12; 21:12-14). Jesus teaches in the synagogue at Nazareth and is rejected and almost killed. The same will happen on numerous occasions in Acts, as Paul enters synagogue after synagogue, only to be eventually rejected. Suffering is especially the lot of Paul, whose story Luke parallels in detail with that of Jesus. The journeys to Jerusalem and treatment there of both Jesus and Paul occupy the large final sections of Luke and Acts. In 18:32 Jesus announces that he "will be delivered to the Gentiles." In Acts 21:11, speaking of Paul the prophet Agabus predicts that the Jews will "deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Of Jesus, Luke later records that the people "all cried out together, 'Away with this man,'" and of Paul Luke writes, "for the mob of the people followed, crying, 'Away with him!'" Both Jesus and Paul face Jewish accusers, including the High Priest; both appear before Herodian princes as well as Roman procurators; and both are said to be innocent by the Roman leaders.

The Jesus/Stephen parallels are even more obvious. Both are full of the Holy Spirit; both are recipients of wisdom, grace and power; both do signs and wonders; both are led to the council, the eyes of whose members are fixed on them; both are cast outside the city; both pray that God will forgive their accusers; both commit their spirits to God; both are killed; and both are buried by devout persons.

(6) There are also many examples of the apostles obeying the directives of Jesus (Luke 6:22-23: "rejoice [when people persecute you] in that day and leap for joy"- see Acts 5:41; Luke 9:5: "shake the dust off your feet . . . as a testimony against them"- see Acts 13:51; 18:6). In fact, the entire plan of Acts was commanded by the risen Jesus in Acts 1:8, where he says, "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

One of the most important areas in which the church in Acts carries out the teaching of Jesus is that related to wealth and poverty. In Luke as in no other Gospel Jesus encourages the sharing of possessions and condemns the greedy and selfish. Many of these stories and sayings appear only in Luke: Zacchaeus; the rich man and Lazarus; "blessed are you poor;" the parables about inviting the poor, lame, maimed, and blind; the dishonest steward; and the command to all of the disciples, "sell your possessions and give alms." It is not surprising, then, that Acts contains many examples, both positive and negative, of the use of possessions in the early church: the selling of possessions for the needy in chapters 2 and 4; the generosity of Barnabas, Dorcas, Paul, and the Antioch church; and the negative examples of Ananias and Sapphira, Simon the Sorcerer, Felix, and Judas (who bought a field with his money (1:18), over against Barnabas, who sold a field in Acts 4:36).

Having argued this case, it would be a mistake to suggest that Luke had no notion of the church of his day being like the church which he writes about - he surely did. But the goal is not to replicate the church of the earliest decades; it is rather to be like Jesus, and the picture of a church that looked like Jesus could only further that goal. The intent may be very much like that of Paul, who tells the churches, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ." Paul knows the advantage of giving his readers an example which is easily grasped and will lead them toward the goal. Yet he also knows quite well that he has not yet reached the goal (Phil 3:12-13), and he never makes the imitation of himself the primary goal. Luke seems to have the same intent in Acts: the early church is well worthy of imitation, insofar as its members imitate Christ.

This commentary will be written from this perspective. The best commentary on Acts is the Gospel of Luke. And conversely, Luke has made clear what Jesus' statements mean in a later generation. Therefore, to read Acts is to read an inspired commentary on the Gospel of Luke. We will refer to Luke's two-volume work as "Luke-Acts."

HISTORY AND THEOLOGY

Luke has been accused often of being careless as a historian, at least by modern standards. His treatment of the census under Quirinius (Luke 2), the rebellion under Theudas (Acts 5), and several other matters have led many to argue that Luke is a better theologian than historian. While the present commentary cannot look in detail at these matters (there will be brief comments in the appropriate sections), one should keep in mind several things. First, there are many matters about which we will never have enough information to make a final judgment. However, the silence of extrabiblical sources should never be taken as proof that an event never occurred. Secondly, each passage must be evaluated independently. The number of cases in which Luke is clearly out of step with other ancient sources is very small, and those sources always had their own agenda, just as did Luke. Thirdly, most would concede that Luke proves to be accurate when there is sufficient evidence with which to compare his writing. Luke has obviously gone to great lengths in order to have accurate information on John the Baptist and on rulers in Judea and Galilee. Considering the large number of events and people in his narrative, the surprising thing is that there are not more alleged historical inaccuracies. There can be little doubt that Luke went to much trouble to ensure accuracy. Luke is both historian and theologian.

SOURCES

Luke got his information from various sources, as he tells us in 1:1-4. However, we do not know for certain the identity of any of these. Most scholars think that Luke (and Matthew) are somehow dependent on the Gospel of Mark. I have made no such assumption in this commentary. While there is undoubtedly some advantage in knowing any writer's sources, there is no final proof for any theory regarding the relationships between the Gospels. I have, however, made two assumptions about Luke's Gospel. First, I believe it to be inspired and thus completely reliable. Second, I believe that Luke had a great deal of information about Jesus from which to choose and that we gain a great deal by simply comparing what Luke wrote to what other Gospel writers wrote. In other words, Luke has selected and adapted his material, and while we do not have access to all the information he had at his disposal, we will learn a great deal through a comparative reading.

THEMES

There may be no clearer insight into Luke's purpose than that gained by examining those themes which recur with some frequency in Luke-Acts. Narrative writers express what their readers need most by returning to a point again and again. When looked at from this perspective, Luke has many concerns. It is clear that he has much to tell his readers, and there can be no more effective way for them to hear it than from the lips of Jesus. The following list is far from exhaustive, but it at least will steer the reader into some of those areas which apparently were close to Luke's heart. The following topics receive special attention in the commentary at the place where Luke first mentions them (see p. 11 for page numbers). They are listed here in order to give the reader a preview of some of Luke's major themes and in order to show the reader where to look in the commentary for more information.

Anti-Semitism Parables Baptism Pharisees Destruction of Jerusalem Poor and Rich and End of Time Prayer Forgiveness and Grace Prophet Theme Fulfillment of Scripture Repentance Holy Spirit Sadducees Kingdom of God Samaritans Law Son of Man Messiah Table Fellowship Miracles and Sign-Seeking Tax Collectors Outcasts and Untouchables Women

A FINAL WORD ABOUT

INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS

Traditional introductory questions are being given less attention today than they were a generation ago. The reason is twofold. First, it is very difficult to give "sure" answers to many questions of introduction. The evidence is often insufficient to offer more than probabilities, and what is "probable" is evaluated differently by every scholar. Second, the interpretation of many New Testament works and especially the Gospels is not significantly aided by having answers to most of these questions. For example, knowing that the author of Luke was the companion of Paul does not change the understanding of any passage in the Gospel. Similarly, knowing the date aids interpretation very little. The following commentary does not assume sure answers to any of these questions for its interpretation.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha , 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1983, 1985.

Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah . Trans. from the Hebrew with Introductory and Brief Explanatory Notes. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Epstein, I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud . London: Soncino Press, 1935-48.

Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah . London: Soncino Press, 1939-.

Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann.

Martínez, Florentino García. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English . Trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson. Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1994.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Bock, Darrell. Luke . Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995-96.

Craddock, Fred B. Luke . Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1990.

Danker, F.W. Luke . Proclamation Commentaries, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Ellis, E.E. The Gospel of Luke . New Century Bible, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Evans, Craig A. Luke . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke . Anchor Bible 28, 28A. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985.

Green, Joel B., and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.

Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972.

Johnson, Luke T. The Gospel of Luke . Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text . The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. Luke: Historian and Theologian . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

Morris, Leon. Luke . Revised edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Nolland, John. Luke . Word Biblical Commentary, vols. 35A, 35B, 35C. Dallas: Word Books, 1989, 1993.

O'Toole, Robert F. The Unity of Luke's Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts . Good News Studies 9. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984.

Stein, Robert H. Luke . The New American Commentary 24. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation . Vol. I: The Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Tiede, David L. Luke . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

Main Biblical Manuscript Texts:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century A.D.)

A Codex Alexandrinus (5th century A.D.)

B Codex Vaticanus (4th century A.D.)

D Codex Bezae (5th-6th century A.D.)

⁶⁹ Papyrus 69 (3rd century A.D.)

⁷⁵ Papyrus 75 (early 3rd century A.D.)

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Luke (Outline)

OUTLINE

There is general agreement among serious students of Luke's Gospel regarding its structure.

I. Prologue Luke 1:1-4

II. Infancy Narrative 1:5-2:52

III. The Preparation for Jesus' Ministry 3:1-4:13

IV. Jesus' Ministry in Galilee 4:14-9:50

V. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

VI. Jesus' Ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

VII. Jesus' Suffering and Death 22:1-23:56

VIII. Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension 24:1-53

(The Book of Acts)

IX. From Easter to Pentecost (Acts 1)

X. From Jerusalem to Samaria (Acts 2-9)

XI. From Judea to Rome (Acts 10-28)

Those who are familiar with the other Gospels notice immediately several similarities and differences. Like Matthew, Luke begins with birth stories (although Luke's are very different than Matthew's). Like Matthew and Mark, Luke includes Jesus' temptation and baptism and has a large section in which Jesus teaches and heals in Galilee. And like all three other Gospels, Luke has Jesus go to Jerusalem for the final week and ends the Gospel with the trial, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

What is most distinctive about the Gospel of Luke, however, is section V in the above outline, the journey to Jerusalem. It is the largest section in Luke's Gospel and contains a great number of stories found only in Luke. Luke uses this long journey to Jerusalem primarily to teach what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. It means doing what Jesus does: teaching, healing, serving, suffering, and dying to self. In other words, it means following Jesus - all the way to Jerusalem.

Finally, the greatest difference between Luke's writing and that of Matthew, Mark, and John is that Luke continues the story. The book of Acts tells how Jesus continues to teach and heal as he leads the growing kingdom throughout the Mediterranean world.

DETAILED OUTLINE

(Episode Titles Based on NIV Headings)

I. Prologue Luke - 1:1-4

II. Infancy Narrative - 1:5-2:52

A. The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold - 1:5-25

B. The Birth of Jesus Foretold - 1:26-38

C. Mary Visits Elizabeth - 1:39-45

D. Mary's Song - 1:46-56

E. The Birth of John the Baptist - 1:57-66

F. Zechariah's Song - 1:67-80

G. The Birth of Jesus - 2:1-7

H. The Shepherds and the Angels - 2:8-20

I. Jesus Presented in the Temple - 2:21-40

J. The Boy Jesus at the Temple - 2:41-52

III. The Preparation for Jesus' Ministry - 3:1-4:13

A. John the Baptist Prepares the Way - 3:1-20

B. The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus - 3:21-38

C. The Temptation of Jesus - 4:1-13

IV. Jesus' Ministry in Galilee - 4:14-9:50

A. Jesus Rejected at Nazareth - 4:14-30

B. Jesus' Ministry in Capernaum - 4:31-44

1. Jesus Drives Out an Evil Spirit - 4:31-37

2. Jesus Heals Many - 4:38-44

C. The Calling of the First Disciples - 5:1-11

D. The Man with Leprosy - 5:12-16

E. The Beginning of Conflict - 5:17-6:11

1. Jesus Heals a Paralytic - 5:17-26

2. The Calling of Levi - 5:27-32

3. Jesus Questioned About Fasting - 5:33-39

4. Lord of the Sabbath - 6:1-11

F. The Sermon on the Plain - 6:12-49

1. The Twelve Apostles - 6:12-16

2. Blessings and Woes - 6:17-26

3. Love for Enemies - 6:27-36

4. Judging Others - 6:37-42

5. A Tree and Its Fruit - 6:43-45

6. The Wise and Foolish Builders - 6:46-49

G. Jesus the Prophet - 7:1-50

1. The Faith of the Centurion - 7:1-10

2. Jesus Raises a Widow's Son - 7:11-17

3. Jesus and John the Baptist - 7:18-35

4. Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman - 7:36-50

H. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 8:1-21

1. The Parable of the Sower - 8:1-15

2. A Lamp on a Stand - 8:16-18

3. Jesus' Mother and Brothers - 8:19-21

I. Jesus Shows His Divine Power - 8:22-56

1. Jesus Calms a Storm - 8:22-25

2. The Healing of a Demoniac - 8:26-39

3. A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman - 8:40-56

J. Jesus and His Apostles - 9:1-50

1. Jesus Sends Out the Twelve - 9:1-6

2. Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand - 9:7-17

3. Peter's Confession of Christ - 9:18-27

4. The Transfiguration - 9:28-36

5. The Healing of a Boy with a Demon - 9:37-45

6. Who Will Be the Greatest? - 9:46-50

V. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem - 9:51-19:27

A. Jesus Faces Toward Jerusalem - 9:51-13:21

1. Samaritan Opposition - 9:51-56

2. The Cost of Following Jesus - 9:57-62

3. Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two - 10:1-24

4. The Parable of the Good Samaritan - 10:25-37

5. At the Home of Mary and Martha - 10:38-42

6. Jesus' Teaching on Prayer - 11:1-13

7. Jesus and Beelzebub - 11:14-28

8. The Sign of Jonah - 11:29-32

9. The Lamp of the Body - 11:33-36

10. Six Woes - 11:37-54

11. Warnings and Encouragements - 12:1-12

12. The Parable of the Rich Fool - 12:13-21

13. Do Not Worry - 12:22-34

14. Watchfulness - 12:35-48

15. Not Peace but Division - 12:49-53

16. Interpreting the Times - 12:54-59

17. Repent or Perish - 13:1-9

18. A Crippled Woman Healed - 13:10-17

19. Parables of Mustard Seed and Yeast - 13:18-21

B. Jesus Journeys Toward Jerusalem - 13:22-17:10

1. The Narrow Door - 13:22-30

2. Jesus' Sorrow for Jerusalem - 13:31-35

3. Jesus at a Pharisee's House - 14:1-14

4. The Parable of the Great Banquet - 14:15-24

5. The Cost of Being a Disciple - 14:25-35

6. The Parable of the Lost Sheep - 15:1-7

7. The Parable of the Lost Coin - 15:8-10

8. The Parable of the Lost Son - 15:11-32

9. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager - 16:1-15

10. Teachings on the Law and Divorce - 16:16-18

11. The Rich Man and Lazarus - 16:19-31

12. Sin, Faith, Duty - 17:1-10

C. Jesus Approaches Jerusalem - 17:11-19:27

1. Ten Healed of Leprosy - 17:11-19

2. The Coming of the Kingdom of God - 17:20-37

3. The Parable of the Persistent Widow - 18:1-8

4. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector - 18:9-14

5. The Little Children and Jesus - 18:15-17

6. The Rich Ruler - 18:18-30

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

8. A Blind Beggar Receives His Sight - 18:35-43

9. Zacchaeus the Tax Collector - 19:1-10

10. The Parable of the Ten Minas - 19:11-27

VI. Jesus' Ministry in Jerusalem - 19:28-21:38

A. The Triumphal Entry - 19:28-34

B. Jesus at the Temple - 19:45-48

C. The Authority of Jesus Questioned - 20:1-8

D. The Parable of the Tenants - 20:9-19

E. Paying Taxes to Caesar - 20:20-26

F. The Resurrection and Marriage - 20:27-40

G. Whose Son Is the Christ? - 20:41-47

H. The Widow's Offering - 21:1-4

I. Signs of the End of the Age - 21:5-38

VII. Jesus' Suffering and Death - 22:1-23:56

A. Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus - 22:1-6

B. The Last Supper - 22:7-38

C. Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives - 22:39-46

D. Jesus Arrested - 22:47-53

E. Peter Disowns Jesus - 22:54-62

F. The Guards Mock Jesus - 22:63-65

G. Jesus Before Pilate and Herod - 22:66-23:25

H. The Crucifixion - 23:26-43

I. Jesus' Death - 23:44-49

J. Jesus' Burial - 23:50-56

VIII. Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension - 24:1-53

A. The Resurrection - 24:1-12

B. On the Road to Emmaus - 24:13-35

C. Jesus Appears to the Disciples - 24:36-49

D. The Ascension - 24:50-53

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: Luke (Book Introduction)

S. LUKE'S GOSPEL

Third Edition

JOHN HODGES,

AGAR STREET, CHARING CROSS, LONDON.

1892.

INTRODUCTION.

——o——

THE Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to S. Luke , that is, the Holy Evangelical History of the words and acts of Jesus, as described by S. Luke. The Arabic says, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, the Gospel of the Excellent Father, Luke the Evangelist, the laying open of the glorious Gospel." The Syraic, "In the name of the Lord and our God, we Jeschua Mescicho, sign the Gospel, the holy message of Luke the Evangelist, which he spoke and proclaimed in Greek, in Alexandria." From this diversity, it is clear that the above title or inscription was prefixed to the Gospel, not by S. Luke himself, but by the Church which, in like manner, inscribed one Gospel "According to S. Matthew," one "According to S. John," and another "According to S. Mark." Nay, as regards the faith of the future, this title would have been added to no purpose by S. Luke himself, unless the Church had declared his Gospel to be genuine and not supposititious, and had handed it down as such. This speaks for Tradition against the heretics, for why is the Gospel, bearing the name of S. Luke, to be received as truly his, whilst that with the title of "Matthew and Thomas" is not to be considered theirs? Or again, why is the Gospel of S. Luke more canonical than that of Apelles or Basilides? No other reason can be given but the proof, declaration, and tradition of the Church. For we accept it, not because it is written in the sacred books, but because it has been so handed down by the Church. For instance, we believe this to be the Gospel of S. Luke and canonical, not because he wrote it, but because the Church so delivers and teaches. For although its own authority pertains to this Gospel, as to the others, yet this authority would not be plain to us, but for the declaration of the Church. The same is, a pari , to be said of the sense of Scripture. For the true sense of Scripture is not what appears to you or me, for this would be uncertain and doubtful, for Calvin affirms one sense to be the true one, Luther another, and others another, but that which is taught and received by the Church, whose office it is to deliver as well what is the true Scripture as what is its true meaning. For Holy Scripture consists not in the bark (cortice) of letters or words, but in their genuine meaning. So the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, and the Fathers everywhere, especially Tertullian (B. iv. cap. 5 against Marcion). See what I have said on S. Matthew i. 1.

Observe: I. S. Matthew was the first in order of the Evangelists. He wrote in Hebrew to the Jews in Judæa. S. Mark was the second. He wrote in Greek and Latin to the Romans in Italy; then S. Luke wrote to the Greeks in Greek; and S. John last of all, also in Greek; but S. Luke wrote the more elegantly, because he was the more perfect master of Greek. Hear S. Jerome (Ep. 84 to Paulinus): "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the quadriga of the Lord, and true Cherubim (which is interpreted, the 'multitude of knowledge'), through their whole body they are 'full of eyes,' sparks shine from them, lightnings flash forth, their feet are 'straight,' and point upwards, their backs are winged, and they fly hither and thither. They hold themselves mutually one with another, and are 'enfolded' with one another, and are rolled together, like a wheel, and they go wherever the influence of the Holy Spirit directs them." See Ezekiel i. 9, x. 12; Revelation iv. 6-8.

Moreover, among the faces or forms of the four Cherubim, the third, that of the ox, is ascribed to S. Luke, as well because he begins from the priesthood of Zachariah, whose chief sacrifice was an ox, as because he underwent the labours of an ox in the Gospel, and bore about continually in his own body the mortification of the Cross for the honour of the name of Christ, as the Church sings of him. See what has been said on Revelation iv. 7, and Ezekiel i. 10.

II. S. Luke wrote his Gospel against certain gaping, ignorant, perhaps even false Evangelists, who had written, in Syria or Greece, an imperfect, it may be a lying Gospel, as S. Luke himself signifies in the beginning of his work. So say Origen, S. Ambrose, Theophylact, and S. Epiphanius ( Her . l. i), who, however, when he adds that S. Luke wrote against Cerinthus and Meritus, does not seem to speak correctly. For these two, and especially Basilides, were later than S. Luke, as is clear from Eusebius (Hist. B. iii. ch. 32). Theophylact and Bede think, with more truth, that S. Luke wrote against the Apocryphal Gospels of others, such as pass under the names of "Thomas, Matthew, and the Twelve Apostles."

III. S. Luke was not one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as Euthymius and S. Gregory in his preface on Job, chap. i. think, on the authority of Origen; for S. Luke never saw Christ in the flesh, but he wrote what he had heard of Him from the Apostles, as he says himself, i. 2. Hence the Fathers call S. Luke "the disciple of the Apostles," and S. Paul mentions him by name, as his "fellow-labourer." So S. Jerome, on the 65th chapter of Isaiah, and preface to S. Matthew; where he says, "The third" (evangelist) is Luke the physician, by nation a Syrian, of Antioch, whose praise is in the Gospel (2 Cor. viii. 18 and 22), who himself was a disciple of S. Paul. He wrote his Gospel in the neighbourhood of Achaia and Bœotia, relating some things from the beginning, as he says himself, and describing rather what he heard than what he saw. St. Irenæus says the same, i. 20; Theodoret, on the Lives of the holy Fathers; Baronius, and others. Tertullian, also (Book iv. against Marcion, chap. 5), thinks this Gospel not so much S. Luke's as S. Paul's, because S. Luke wrote from the dictation of S. Paul, as S. Mark from that of S. Peter. For he says, "what S. Mark wrote may be ascribed to S. Peter, whose interpreter S. Mark was. And so the Gospel of S. Luke is generally given to S. Paul, for the productions of the disciples began to be ascribed to the masters."

S. Jerome also states that "S. Luke, in the Gospel and Acts, performed the duties of a physician of souls, as he had before done of bodies" (Ep. 103 to Paulinus); and again (in that to Philom). "Luke the physician left in his Gospel, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles to the Churches, how the Apostles from fishers of fish became fishers of men, and from the bodies of men became concerned with their souls, whose Gospel, as often as it is read in the churches, fails not of its medicine."

IV. Baronius thinks that S. Luke wrote in the companionship of S. Paul, anno 58, because S. Jerome says that he wrote his Gospel that year in Achaia and Bœotia, where S. Paul was. Others, however, are of opinion that S. Luke wrote earlier, as we must certainly admit, if we agree with S. Jerome ( Lib. de Scrip. Eccl. in Luc. ), Tertullian (Book iv. against Marcion, c. 5), Primasius, Anselm, and others, on 2 Cor. viii 18, that by, "the brother whose praise is in the Gospel" S. Paul meant S. Luke—as S. Ignatius, his fellow-citizen and contemporary, plainly asserts in his letter to the Ephesians: "As Luke bears witness, whose praise is in the Gospel." For the Second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians was written in the year 58, so that if the praise of S. Luke was in the Gospel at that time, we must necessarily say that it (the Gospel) had been published previously. Hence Euthymius, and Theophylact in his Preface to S. Luke, say that he wrote fifteen years after the ascension of Christ, that is, about the year 49. But S. Luke had not then joined S. Paul, for he came to him in the Troad in the year 51, as Baronius rightly concludes from Acts xvi. 10. It appears, therefore, that S. Luke wrote subsequently to the year 51, but some years before 58, for, as S. Paul says, in that year he was well known and celebrated.

V.  S. Luke, after he had joined S. Paul, passed some time away from him, having been sent by him to other places (as I have shown on Acts xvi. 10), until S. Paul, when he had passed through other countries, came to Greece, thence to Syria, and so to Rome. Acts xx. 3, 4. For S. Paul, with other companions of his voyage, who are named in that verse, took S. Luke also, as S Luke himself states, verses 5, 15. From that time S. Luke became the "diligent" companion of S. Paul, even up to the time of S. Paul's first imprisonment, which was in the second year of Nero, when S. Luke finished the Acts of the Apostles, and, especially, those of S. Paul. Then, as S. Epiphanius says, S. Luke left S. Paul in prison, and went into Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, and Macedonia, and preached the gospel everywhere till he came to Patara, a city of Achaia, where, in his eighty-fourth year, he was crowned with a glorious martyrdom in the year of Christ 61, the fifth of Nero, and the seventeenth of the session of S. Peter at Rome. So Baronius says, from S. Gregory Nazianzen, Paulinus, Gaudentius, Glyca, Nicephorus and others.

Lastly, who S. Luke was—of what rank and ability, I have described at length in the Book of Acts, where I have said that he appears to be the same as Lucius, whom S. Paul calls his kinsman, Rom xvi. 21. But he seems different to Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned in Acts xiii. 3. For S. Luke was of Antioch, not Cyrene. Again, the Roman Martyrology, on April 22, says that Lucius was among the first disciples of Christ, which cannot be said of S. Luke.

VI. The reason of S. Luke's having written a Gospel after SS. Matthew and Mark, was twofold. 1. To confute the false gospels that were then being published in Syria and Greece, as I have said before. 2. To write at length those words and acts of Christ which had been passed over by the other Evangelists, and especially His Infancy and Childhood, the Annunciation of His forerunner John the Baptist, His Conception, Nativity, Presentation in the Temple, Presence among the Doctors, the Conversion of St. Mary Magdalene, Zacchæus, the thief on the cross, the appearance to the two Disciples at Emmaus, the Parables of the Pharisee and Publican, the Good Samaritan, the Strayed Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, Lazarus and the Rich Glutton, and others; which show the mercy and pity of Christ to sinners and the miserable. See S. Irenæus, iii. 4, who recounts each. S. Luke also relates, more fully than the others, the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension.

Lastly, S. Peter Damianus, in his Sermon on S. Matthew, says, "S. Luke observes the proper method and order when he describes the priestly stock of the Lord and His Person, and, with this object and intent, proceeds to describe at length every part of the Temple and the priests, to the end of the history. For, as the Mediator between God and man in His human nature, He pleased to be King and Priest in one, that through His kingly power He might rule, and, by His office of Priest, atone for us. These two "Personæ" of Christ are especially praised by the Fathers, for to Him principally and by singular prerogative God gave the seat of His Father David, that there might be no end of His Kingdom, and that He might be a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek."

S. Anselm again, on Colos. iv., gives two reasons why S. Luke, more than the others, should speak of the mercy of Christ. 1. S. Luke was a physician of bodies; then, when he turned to Christ, he was made a physician of souls. Hence he speaks, more than the other Evangelists, of the mercies of the Redeemer, by which the weaknesses of sins are driven away. 2. In Christ, he describes the person of a Priest, making intercession for the sins of the whole world

Lastly, our own John de la Haye, in his Oparat. Evangel. chap. 68, recounts the twenty-five privileges granted to S. Luke, where, among other things, from S. Jerome, Bede, and Ado, he says that S. Luke never committed mortal sin, but passed a strict life of continual mortification; that he also preserved his virginity to the end, and was therefore beloved by the Blessed Virgin especially and before all others.

S. Ambrose and Titus of Bostra have commented especially on S. Luke. And Tertullian, in his whole work against Marcion (who had declared the Gospel of S. Luke, though adulterated, to be his own), treats of and explains many passages of this Gospel. Cardinal Toletus, also, wrote at length, and with exactness, on the first twelve chapters.