Luke 20:22

20:22 Is it right ¹  for us to pay the tribute tax ²  to Caesar ³  or not?”

Luke 6:2

6:2 But some of the Pharisees ⁴  said, “Why are you ⁵  doing what is against the law ⁶  on the Sabbath?”

Luke 6:9

6:9 Then ⁷  Jesus said to them, “I ask you, ⁸  is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do evil, to save a life or to destroy it?”

Luke 14:3

14:3 So ⁹  Jesus asked ¹⁰  the experts in religious law ¹¹  and the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath ¹²  or not?”

Luke 6:4

6:4 how he entered the house of God, took ¹³  and ate the sacred bread, ¹⁴  which is not lawful ¹⁵  for any to eat but the priests alone, and ¹⁶  gave it to his companions?” ¹⁷ 

[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.

[20:22]  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.’”

[20:22]  ³ tn Or “to the emperor” (“Caesar” is a title for the Roman emperor).

[6:2]  ⁴ sn See the note on Pharisees in 5:17.

[6:2]  ⁵ tn Note that the verb is second person plural (with an understood plural pronominal subject in Greek). The charge is again indirectly made against Jesus by charging the disciples.

[6:2]  ⁶ sn The alleged violation expressed by the phrase what is against the law is performing work on the Sabbath. That the disciples ate from such a field is no problem given Deut 23:25, but Sabbath activity is another matter in the leaders’ view (Exod 20:8-11 and Mishnah, m. Shabbat 7.2). The supposed violation involved reaping, threshing, winnowing, and preparing food. This probably explains why the clause describing the disciples “rubbing” the heads of grain in their hands is mentioned last, in emphatic position. This was preparation of food.

[6:9]  ⁷ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

[6:9]  ⁸ sn With the use of the plural pronoun (“you”), Jesus addressed not just the leaders but the crowd with his question to challenge what the leadership was doing. There is irony as well. As Jesus sought to restore on the Sabbath (but improperly according to the leaders’ complaints) the leaders were seeking to destroy, which surely is wrong. The implied critique recalls the OT: Isa 1:1-17; 58:6-14.

[14:3]  ¹⁰ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the sequence of events (Jesus’ question was prompted by the man’s appearance).

[14:3]  ¹¹ tn Grk “Jesus, answering, said.” This is redundant in contemporary English. In addition, since the context does not describe a previous question to Jesus (although one may well be implied), the phrase has been translated here as “Jesus asked.”

[14:3]  ¹² tn That is, experts in the interpretation of the Mosaic law (traditionally, “lawyers”).

[14:3]  ¹³ sn “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” Will the Pharisees and experts in religious law defend tradition and speak out against doing good on the Sabbath? Has anything at all been learned since Luke 13:10-17? Has repentance come (13:6-9)?

[6:4]  ¹³ tn Grk “and took.”

[6:4]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “the bread of presentation.”

[6:4]  ¹⁵ sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was not lawful is one of analogy: ‘If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.’ Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along.

[6:4]  ¹⁶ tc Most mss (א A D Θ Ë¹³ 33 Ï) read “also” here, but this looks like it is a reading made to agree with Mark 2:26. A better combination of witnesses (B L W Ψ Ë¹ lat sa) lacks the word “also.”

[6:4]  ¹⁷ tc The Western ms D adds here a full saying that reads, “On the same day, as he saw someone working on the Sabbath he said, ‘Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed, but if you do not know, you are cursed and a violator of the law.’” Though this is not well enough attested to be considered authentic, many commentators have debated whether this saying might go back to Jesus. Most reject it, though it does have wording that looks like Rom 2:25, 27 and Jas 2:11.