LUKE 20 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

The Authority of Jesus Questioned

1 One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him.

GILL, "And it came to pass, that on one of those days,.... According to the

account of the Evangelist Mark, it must be the second day, or two days after his

public entrance into Jerusalem; for on the evening of the day he made his entry,

he went out to Bethany with his disciples; the next morning, as he returned from

thence, he cursed the barren fig tree; and when he came to the temple cast out

the buyers and sellers; at evening he went out again, either to Bethany, or the

Mount of Olives; and the next morning, as he and his disciples returned, the fig

tree was observed to be dried up; and when they were come to Jerusalem, as he

was walking in the temple, he was attacked by the sanhedrim, and had the

following discourse with them:

as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the Gospel; for he taught

them by preaching that, and which he did most clearly, faithfully, and publicly,

being abundantly anointed and qualified for it, and sent to do it.

The chief priests, and the Scribes, came upon him, with the elders. The whole

sanhedrim being purposely convened together, came upon him in a body; and it

may be suddenly, and at an unawares, and came open mouthed against him, and

attacked him with great warmth and vehemency.

HENRY, "Introduction

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's answer to the chief priests' question

concerning his authority, Luke 20:1-8. II. The parable of the vineyard let out to

the unjust and rebellious husbandmen, Luke 20:9-19. III. Christ's answer to the

question proposed to him concerning the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæ sar,

Luke 20:20-26. IV. His vindication of that great fundamental doctrine of the

Jewish and Christian institutes--the resurrection of the dead and the future state,

from the foolish cavils of the Sadducees, Luke 20:27-38. V. His puzzling the

scribes with a question concerning the Messiah's being the Son of David, Luke

20:39-44. VI. The caution he gave his disciples to take heed of the scribes, Luke

20:45-47. All which passages we had before in Matthew and Mark, and therefore

need not enlarge upon them here, unless on those particulars which we had not

1

there.

Verses 1-8

Christ's Enemies Nonplussed.

1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the

temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him

with the elders, 2And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest

thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? 3And he answered

and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing and answer me: 4The baptism

of John, was it from heaven, or of men? 5 And they reasoned with themselves,

saying, If we shall say, From heaven he will say, Why then believed ye him not? 6

But and if we say, Of men all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that

John was a prophet. 7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.

8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these

things.

In this passage of story nothing is added here to what we had in the other

evangelists but only in the Luke 20:1, where we are told,

I. That he was now teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel.

Note, Christ was a preacher of his own gospel. He not only purchased the

salvation for us, but published it to us, which is a great confirmation of the truth

of the gospel, and gives abundant encouragement to us to receive it, for it is a

sign that the heart of Christ was much upon it, to have it received. This likewise

puts an honour upon the preachers of the gospel, and upon their office and

work, how much soever they are despised by a vain world. It puts an honour

upon the popular preachers of the gospel Christ condescended to the capacities

of the people in preaching the gospel, and taught them. And observe, when he

was preaching the gospel to the people he had this interruption given him. Note,

Satan and his agents do all they can to hinder the preaching of the gospel to the

people, for nothing weakens the interest of Satan's kingdom more.

II. That his enemies are here said to come upon him--epestesan. The word is used

only here, and it intimates,

1. That they thought to surprise him with this question they came upon him

suddenly, hoping to catch him unprovided with an answer, as if this were not a

thing he had himself thought of.

2. That they thought to frighten him with this question. They came upon him in a

body, with violence. But how could he be terrified with the wrath of men, when it

was in his own power to restrain it, and make it turn to his praise? From this

story itself we may learn, (1.) That it is not to be thought strange, if even that

which is evident to a demonstration be disputed, and called in question, as a

doubtful thing, by those that shut their eyes against the light. Christ's miracles

plainly showed by what authority he did these things, and sealed his commission

and yet this is that which is here arraigned. (2.) Those that question Christ's

authority, if they be but catechized themselves in the plainest and most evident

principles of religion, will have their folly made manifest unto all men. Christ

2

answered these priests and scribes with a question concerning the baptism of

John, a plain question, which the meanest of the common people could answer:

Was it from heaven or of men? They all knew it was from heaven there was

nothing in it that had an earthly relish or tendency, but it was all heavenly and

divine. And this question gravelled them, and ran them aground, and served to

shame them before the people. (3.) It is not strange if those that are governed by

reputation and secular interest imprison the plainest truths, and smother and

stifle the strongest convictions, as these priests and scribes did, who, to save their

credit, would not own that John's baptism was from heaven, and had no other

reason why they did not say it was of men but because they feared the people.

What good can be expected from men of such a spirit? (4.) Those that bury the

knowledge they have are justly denied further knowledge. It was just with Christ

to refuse to give an account of his authority to them that knew the baptism of

John to be from heaven and would not believe in him, nor own their knowledge,

Luke 20:7,8.

LIGHTFOOT, "[The chief priests and the scribes with the elders.] So it is in

Mark 11:27: but in Matthew 21:23, it is the chief priests and elders of the people.

Now the question is, who these elders should be, as they are distinguished from

the chief priests and the scribes. The Sanhedrim consisted chiefly of priests,

Levites, and Israelites, although the original precept was for the priests and

Levites only. "The command is, that the priests and Levites should be of the

great council; as it is said, Thou shalt go unto the priests and Levites: but if such

be not to be found, although they were all Israelites, behold, it is allowed."

None will imagine that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were Israelites

only, and no priests or Levites; nor, on the other hand, that there ever was a

Sanhedrim wherein there were only priests and Levites, and no Israelites. The

scribes, therefore, seem in this place to denote either the Levites, or else, together

with the Levites, those inferior ranks of priests who were not the chief priests:

and then the elders, may be the Israelites, or those elders of the laity that were

not of the Levitical tribe. Such a one was Gamaliel the present president of the

Sanhedrim, and Simeon his son, of the tribe of Judah.

BARCLAY, "BY WHAT AUTHORITY? (Luke 20:1-8)

20:1-8 One day, while Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple and telling

them the good news, the chief priests and scribes with the elders came up and

said to him, "Tell us, by what authority do you do these things? Or, who is it

who gives you this authority?" He said to them, "I, too, will ask you for a

statement. Tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?" They

discussed it with each other. "If," they said to each other, "we say, 'From

heaven,' he will say, 'Why did you not believe in him?' But, if we say, 'From

men,' all the people will stone us, for they are convinced that John was a

prophet." So they answered that they did not know where it was from. Jesus said

to them, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."

This chapter describes what is usually called the Day of Questions. It was a day

when the Jewish authorities, in all their different sections, came to Jesus with

question after question designed to trap him, and when, in his wisdom, he

3

answered them in such a way as routed them and left them speechless.

The first question was put by the chief priests, the scribes and the elders. The

chief priests were a body of men composed of ex-High Priests and of members of

the families from which the High Priests were drawn. The phrase describes the

religious aristocracy of the Temple. The three sets of men--chief priests, scribes

and elders--were the component parts of the Sanhedrin, the supreme council and

governing body of the Jews; and we may well take it that this was a question

concocted by the Sanhedrin with a view to formulating a charge against Jesus.

No wonder they asked him by what authority he did these things! To ride into

Jerusalem as he did and then to take the law into his own hands and cleanse the

Temple, required some explanation. To the orthodox Jews of the day, Jesus'

calm assumption of authority was an amazing thing. No Rabbi ever delivered a

judgment or made a statement without giving his authorities. He would say,

"There is a teaching that . . ." Or he would say, "This was confirmed by Rabbi

So and So when he said . . ." But none would have claimed the utterly

independent authority with which Jesus moved among men. What they wanted

was that Jesus should say bluntly and directly that he was the Messiah and the

Son of God. Then they would have a ready-made charge of blasphemy and could

arrest him on the spot. But he would not give that answer, for his hour was not

yet come.

The reply of Jesus is sometimes described as a clever debating answer, used

simply to score a point. But it is far more than that. He asked them to answer the

question, "Was the authority of John the Baptist human or divine?" The point is

that their answer to Jesus' question would answer their own question. Every one

knew how John had regarded Jesus and how he had considered himself only the

fore-runner of the one who was the Messiah. If they agreed that John's authority

was divine then they had also to agree that Jesus was the Messiah, because John

had said so. If they denied it, the people would rise,, against them. Jesus' answer

in fact asks the question, "Tell me--where do you yourself think I got my

authority?" He did not need to answer their question if they answered his.

To face the truth may confront a man with a sore and difficult situation; but to

refuse to face it confronts him with a tangle out of which there is no escape. The

emissaries of the Pharisees refused to face the truth, and they had to withdraw

frustrated and discredited with the crowd.

PETT, "So one day while He was teaching in the Temple, and preaching the

Good News of the Kingly Rule of God, the members of the Sanhedrin

approached Him. The chief priests were the leading authorities in the Temple

including the High Priest himself, the temple Treasurer, the leaders of the

priestly courses, ex-High Priests, and their blood relations. The Scribes mainly

represented Pharisaic opinion, although there were some Scribes of the

Sadducees. The elders were the wealthy laymen from aristocratic families.\

COFFMAN, "In this chapter, which details Jesus' teachings on Monday of the

final week, there are the following units; the Pharisees questioned Jesus'

4

authority (Luke 20:1-8); he gave the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke

20:9-18); he answered the question of tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:19-26); he

exposed the question of the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (Luke

20:27-40); he confounded them with a question of his own (Luke 20:41-44); and

he uttered a sharp condemnation and warning against the scribes (Luke

20:45-47).

All of this chapter is contained in the parallel accounts of both Matthew and

Mark; and twice already in this series, a line-by-line exegesis of these teachings

has been presented. To avoid needless repetition, the several units of this chapter

are discussed in a more general manner.

I. The Pharisees questioned the authority of Jesus, their purpose no doubt being

to embarrass the Lord. That Jesus had no authority from THEM was certain;

and, supposing that they alone could grant authority to religious teachers, they

must have felt rather smug in propounding their question.

And it came to pass on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the

temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief priests and the

scribes and the elders; and they spake unto him, saying unto him, Tell us: By

what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this

authority? And he answered and said unto them, I also will ask you a question;

and tell me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? And they

reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why

did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone

us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that

they knew not whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by

what authority I do these things. (Luke 20:1-8)

Parallels: Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33.

Their question was snide, as was evident in the malice and dishonesty of them

that asked it; and yet, despite this, the question itself is the most important that

any man may ask concerning the authority of Jesus. Whence is it? That question

must be answered by every person hoping to enter into eternal life.

There is a dramatic contrast in the manner of Jesus' feeding the same words of

those hypocrites back to them. They demanded that Jesus "Tell us"; but Jesus

threw their hand grenade back into their own faces, saying "TELL ME!" By

such a shocking refusal of their rights to pass on the credentials of the Christ, the

Lord exposed them before all the people.

John the Baptist's authority was indeed from God (John 1:5); and the chief

priests, scribes and elders of Israel well knew this; for the mighty herald had

unequivocally identified Jesus thus:

The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29)

He that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33)

5

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom (John 3:29)

He ... cometh from above, is above all (John 3:31)

He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God (John 3:33)

God hath given to the Son all things (John 3:35)

He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life (John 3:36)

He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on

him (John 3:36)SIZE>

With a corpus of testimony like that, well known to all the people, and coming

from a man even the priests recognized as universally hailed a true prophet of

God - the name "John the Baptist" must have struck fear and embarrassment

into the hearts of Jesus' challengers. So great was the impact of Jesus' question

that it appears they withdrew somewhat, and held a council among themselves

on the answer they would give. It quickly appeared that not Jesus, but they, were

trapped. The best thing they could come up with was an open profession of

ignorance, and that before the multitudes!

BURKITT, "The Pharisees having often quarrelled at our Saviour's doctrine

before, they call in question his mission and authority now: although they might

easily have understood his divine mission by his divine miracles; for Almighty

God never impowered any to work miracles that were not sent by him. Our

blessed Saviour, understanding their design, gives them no direct answer, but

replies to their question by asking them another: The baptism of John, was it

from Heaven, or of men? That is, was it of divine institution, or of human

invention? Plainly implying, that the calling of them who call themselves the

ministers of God, ought to be from God: No man ought to take that honor upon

him, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron, Hebrews 5:8

The Pharisees reply, that they could not tell where John had his mission and

authority; which was a manifest untruth: they knew it, but did not own it. By

refusing to tell the truth, they fall into a lie against the truth; thus one sin

ensnares and draws men on to the commission of more: such as will not speak

exact truth according to their knowledge, they fall into the sin of lying against

their knowledge and their conscience. Our Saviour answers them, Neither tell I

you by what authority I do these things: he did not say, I cannot, or I will not tell

you, but I do not, I need not tell you; because the miracles which I work before

you are a sufficient demonstration of my divine commission, that I am sent of

God among you: because God never set the seal of his omnipotency to a lie, nor

impowered any impostor to work real miracles.

PULPIT, "Question of the priests and scribes as to the nature of the authority

under which Jesus was acting.

Luke 20:1, Luke 20:2

6

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the

temple, and preached the gospel. We are now in the midst of the so-called

Passion week. Probably the events related in this chapter took place on the

Tuesday. The first day of the week, Palm Sunday, was the day of the public entry

into the city. The purification of the temple took place on the Monday, on which

day also the barren fig tree was cursed. We are now considering the events of the

Tuesday. The Greek word εὐαγγελιζομένου is especially a Pauline word; we find

it rarely used save in his writings, and of course in those of St. Luke. St. Paul

uses it twenty times, and St. Luke twenty-five. The chief priests and the scribes

came upon him with the elders, and spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what

authority doest thou these things? This appears to have been a formal deputation

from the supreme council of the Sanhedrim The three classes here specified

represented probably the three great sections of the Sanhedrin—

These came upon him evidently with hostile intent, and surrounded him as he

was walking in the temple. The jealous anger of the rulers of the Jews had been

lately specially excited by the triumphant entry on Palm Sunday, and by the stir

and commotion which the presence of Jesus had occasioned in the holy city. And

in the last two or three days Jesus had evidently claimed especial power in the

temple. He had publicly driven out the money-changers and vendors of

sacrificial victims who plied their calling in the sacred courts. He had, in

addition, forbade the carrying vessels across the temple (Mark 11:16), and had

allowed the children in the temple, probably those attached to its choir, to shout

"Hosanna!" to him as the Messiah. From the point of view of the Sanhedrin,

such a question might well have been looked for. His interlocutors made quite

sure that Jesus, in reply, would claim having received a Divine commission. Had

he made openly such a formal claim in reply to their question, then he would

have been cited before the supreme court to give an account of himself and his

commission. Then, as they thought, would have been their opportunity to convict

him out of his own mouth of blasphemy.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:1-8

The great Teacher's silence.

The refusal of Jesus Christ to answer the question proposed to him demands

explanation and suggests remark.

I. THE DIFFICULTY WE FIND IN HIS SILENCE. Had not the Sanhedrin a

right to ask this of him? It was a legally constituted body, and one of its functions

was to guide the people of the land by determining who was to be received as a

true Teacher from God. John had recognized their right to formally interrogate

him (John 1:19-27). As Jesus was claiming and exercising authority (Luke

19:45), it seems natural and right that this council of the nation should send a

deputation to ask the question in the text; and, if that be so, it seems only right

that our Lord should give them a formal and explicit answer. Why did he not?

II. ITS EXPLANATION. There was:

7

1. A formal justification. The Sanhedrin had not yet declared its mind on the

great Prophet who had been before the public, and in regard to whom an official

decision might well be demanded. Jesus Christ, as a Jew, had a right to ask this

question concerning one whose ministry commenced before his own, and had

already been concluded. If they were unwilling or unable to pronounce a

judgment, they ruled themselves unfit or incompetent to do what they undertook

to do. As the event proved, they declined to say, and their refusal justified Jesus

in withdrawing his own case from a tribunal which confessed its own

incompetence. But there was also:

2. A moral ground on which our Lord might base his action. The Sanhedrin was

not solicitous to guide the people in the ways of truth and righteousness; they

wanted to entrap their enemy (see Luke 19:47). Their aim was not holy, but

unholy; not patriotic, but malevolent. They were not seeking the public good, but

their own personal advantage; they desired to crush a rival, and so to maintain

their own position of authority. Such an object as this deserved no regard; it was

one not to be respected, but to be defeated; and our Lord, with Divine wisdom,

adopted a course which cut the ground completely from beneath their feet.

III. ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO OURSELVES. Jesus Christ will not always answer

our questions. Whether or not he will do so depends on the spirit in which he is

approached by us.

1. Mere curiosity has nothing to expect of him (see Luke 13:23, Luke 13:24; Acts

1:6, Acts 1:7).

2. Unmeaning and unspiritual utterance makes no way with him (see Luke

14:15). The formalities and proprieties of religious language fall on his ear, but

they do not touch his heart or move his hand.

3. Malevolent activity can look for nothing but defeat from his wisdom and his

power (see text and following verses of this chapter).

4. Presumption will be turned away unrewarded. To see the Father as he is in

himself is an impossible and impracticable desire; our wisdom is to understand

him as he is revealed in his Son (John 14:8, John 14:9). We may not ask of Christ

those things which are beyond the range of our powers.

5. Impatience must be postponed, and must wait the fitter time (John 16:12).

Christ will sometimes, perhaps often, be silent when we would that he should

speak to us. But there is—

IV. ONE CONDITION UNDER WHICH HE WILL SPEAK TO US. Practical,

spiritual earnestness will draw down his blessing, will command his gracious and

life-giving word. If we earnestly and perseveringly seek our own spiritual well-

being or that of others, we shall not fail to hear him say, "According to your

faith be it unto you."—C.

8

2 “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

GILL, "And spoke unto him, saying, tell us by what authority doest thou these

things?.... The Arabic and Ethiopic versions read, "this thing"; as if the

sanhedrim only referred to his preaching the Gospel, which is mentioned in the

preceding verse, and was what he was about when they came to him: but the

Persic version reads, "all these things"; not only preaching, but working

miracles; and particularly driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, which

especially affected them, they losing their rents thereby:

or who is he that gave thee this authority? God or man? See Gill on Matthew

21:23.

PETT, "Their question, as an official deputation from the leadership, was

twofold. Firstly on what did He base His authority for His actions, and secondly,

who had given Him that authority? Did He, for example, claim Rabbinic

authority, or Prophetic authority, or what? And if any of these, who had so

authorised Him? To them ‘authorisation’ by the right people was all. Unless a

man was authorised he had no right to speak. What authorisation then had

Jesus?

The approach was high handed and officious. ‘By what authority -- who gave

you this authority?’ Their first hope was that He would have no answer and be

caught unprepared. Then the people would see that He was a charlatan.

Alternately they were hoping to make Him declare Himself, and say something

‘foolish’, such as making a claim to Messiahship, and whatever He said they

would use against Him. They could accuse Him of self-exaltation, or even worse,

of being a Messianic claimant and an insurrectionist. So the question was, was

He claiming to be a prophet? Was He claiming to be the Messiah? Was He

claiming to be the coming Elijah? And if He was not claiming to be anyone so

important, how could He then claim to have God’s personal authority? Compare

Luke 9:7-8; Mark 6:15; John 1:19-25.

3 He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me:

9

GILL, "And he answered and said unto them,.... That is, Jesus replied to them,

as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions express it:

I will also ask you one thing, and answer me; when he also promised, that if they

would give him an answer to his question, he would satisfy them in the point they

interrogated him about: and as this was a prudent decline to avoid the snare they

laid for him, so it was not an impertinent reply to them; since it led on to a

proper answer to their question, as appears by the case proposed; See Gill on

Matthew 21:24.

PETT, "Their question, as an official deputation from the leadership, was

twofold. Firstly on what did He base His authority for His actions, and secondly,

who had given Him that authority? Did He, for example, claim Rabbinic

authority, or Prophetic authority, or what? And if any of these, who had so

authorised Him? To them ‘authorisation’ by the right people was all. Unless a

man was authorised he had no right to speak. What authorisation then had

Jesus?

The approach was high handed and officious. ‘By what authority -- who gave

you this authority?’ Their first hope was that He would have no answer and be

caught unprepared. Then the people would see that He was a charlatan.

Alternately they were hoping to make Him declare Himself, and say something

‘foolish’, such as making a claim to Messiahship, and whatever He said they

would use against Him. They could accuse Him of self-exaltation, or even worse,

of being a Messianic claimant and an insurrectionist. So the question was, was

He claiming to be a prophet? Was He claiming to be the Messiah? Was He

claiming to be the coming Elijah? And if He was not claiming to be anyone so

important, how could He then claim to have God’s personal authority? Compare

Luke 9:7-8; Mark 6:15; John 1:19

COKE, "Luke 20:3-8. And he answered, &c.— The great sanhedrim seems to

have been established after the failure of prophesy; and concerning the members

of this body the rabbies tell us there was a tradition, that they were bound to be

skilled in the sciences. So far is certain, that they extended their jurisdiction to

the judging of doctrines and opinions. (see on Matthew 21:23.) as appears by

their deputation to Jesus, to know by what authority he did his works. We are

not to suppose the answer of Christ to this deputation, to be a captious evasion of

the question made by those whose authority he did not acknowledge; on the

contrary, it was a direct reply to an acknowledged institution, (as Jesus was

obedient to all the institutions of his country,) convincing them, that the question

needed not any precise answer, even on the principles of that jurisdiction. They

sent to him to know his authority: he asked them, whether they had yet

determined of John's? They acknowledged that they had not. "Then, (replies

Jesus) I need not tell you of my authority, since the sanhedrim's not having

determined of John's, shews such a determination unnecessary: or, at least, since

both by John's account and mine he is represented as the forerunner of my

mission, it is fit to begin with his pretensions first." The address and reason of

this reply are truly divine.

10

PULPIT, "Luke 20:3-6

And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer

me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men! And they reasoned with

themselves saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed

ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be

persuaded that John was a prophet. The reply of Jesus was one of strange

wisdom. He—Jesus—as was well known, had been introduced to the people by

this very John. If the Sanhedrin acknowledged John the Baptist as a divinely

accredited messenger, then surely they could not question the claims of one

borne special witness to by him, brought forward and introduced to public

notice by him! If, on the other hand, the Sanhedrin refused to acknowledge the

authority of John as a Heaven-sent messenger, which would have been the course

they would have preferred, then the popularity and influence of the Sanhedrin

would have been sorely imperilled, for the people generally held firmly that John

the Baptist was really a prophet of the Lord. They even feared—as we read, "All

the people will stone us"—personal violence on the part of the people whose

favour they so zealously courted.

4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

GILL, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? This was a new

ordinance, and John must have his authority for administering it either from

God, or from men; and Christ is desirous to know from which he derived it in

their opinion; suggesting, that by the same authority John, his forerunner, came

baptizing, he himself came preaching and working miracles; See Gill on

Matthew 21:25.

PETT "Verse 5-6

‘And they reasoned with themselves, saying, “If we shall say, From heaven, he

will say, Why did you not believe him? But if we shall say, From men, all the

people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

His opponents in their discussions together revealed how clearly they themselves

recognised their predicament. They knew that if they said that John’s baptism

was ‘from Heaven’ Jesus would ask why in that case they had not supported

John more, and why they had not listened to him, and promulgated his baptism,

and He would then also point out what John had said of Him, describing Him as

greater than himself. But if they said ‘from men’ they knew very well that the

crowds, who still remembered John vividly, and the method of his death, would

stone them for the equivalent of blasphemy. For all the crowds knew that John

11

was a prophet, and at this time feelings were running high. The principle behind

the crowd’s thinking would be that while it was true that a false prophet had to

be stoned, it was also true that any who falsely accused a true prophet of being a

false prophet was also liable to stoning, the false accuser bearing the penalty that

would have been that of the accused if the charge had been proved. This was an

ancient principle of the Law (see Deuteronomy 13:1-11; Deuteronomy 19:15-21).

And the members of the Sanhedrin were well enough aware of the mood of the

crowd to realise that feelings were such that such a stoning would be a very likely

consequence of any denial.

5 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’

GILL, "And they reasoned with themselves,.... Or "they thought with

themselves", as the Syriac version; or "within themselves", as the Vulgate Latin,

though they did not express it; or "one with another", as the Arabic version;

they took counsel together, and debated the matter among themselves, and

reasoned after this manner:

saying, if we shall say from heaven; which was what, in their own consciences,

they believed to be true,

he will say, why then believed ye him not? in what he said concerning the

Messiah; which if they had, as they should, there would have been no reason for

such a question they had put; See Gill on Matthew 21:25.

6 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

GILL, "But and if we say of men,..... Which they had a good will to, against the

dictates of their own consciences:

all the people will stone us; meaning the common people, that were then in the

temple about Christ, hearing him preach; who would be so enraged at such an

answer, that without any regard to their character and office, they would rise

12

and stone them. The Ethiopic version adds, "whom we fear"; see Matthew 21:26

for it seems that they had not so behaved as to have the good will and esteem of

the people, at least they did not pin their faith on their sleeve:

for they be persuaded that John was a prophet; they were fully assured of it; and

the sentiments and authority of the chief priests could have no weight and

influence upon them to weaken their faith in this point; the evidence was so

strong, and their faith so firm and sure.

7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

GILL, "Whether from heaven, or of men; in this, no doubt, they told an untruth:

but they chose rather to sacrifice their consciences than their interest, and

pretend ignorance rather than profess the truth, when they saw they should be

put to confusion, or be exposed to the resentments of the people.

JAMISON, "could not tell — crooked, cringing hypocrites! No wonder Jesus

gave you no answer (Matthew 7:6). But what dignity and composure does our

Lord display as He turns their question upon themselves!

PETT, "So they replied lamely that they did not know the answer to His

question. Lame though their reply was they were really left with no option. But

we can imagine their sense of extreme humiliation at having to do it. For by

answering like this they would know that they were admitting that they in fact

were in no position to decide on genuine bases of authority when it came to

someone like John. And if they admitted that they could not judge John’s

authority, how could they then be credibly seen as being able to judge any

prophet’s authority?

Furthermore at the same time the crowds, who were not stupid, would know

from their reply exactly what the situation was. To the crowds they would simply

be revealing themselves as treacherous. So their whole position was being

undermined by their inability to answer, and instead of showing up Jesus they

had shown themselves up.

And, of course, the consequence of this was that as they could not decide on what

John’s authority was, it was quite clear that there was no point in Jesus

appealing to that authority. His appeal must await their deciding on John’s

authority. But it had answered the question. For the crowds, who would know of

Jesus’ connection with John would again draw their own conclusions. They

would accept His authority, both because they accepted John’s authority, and

13

because of His own works and teaching.

PULPIT, "And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. The reply

of Jesus, which so perplexed the Sanhedrin, really inflicted a grave blow to their

prestige, thus compelling the grave doctors of the Law, who claimed the right of

deciding all momentous questions, to decline to pronounce a judgment on so

grave a question as "the position of the Baptist," that mighty preacher who had

so stirred and roused Israel and who had with his life paid the forfeit of his

boldness in rebuking crime in high places, thereby no doubt enormously

enlarging his already vast popularity with the people.

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

GILL, "neither tell I you by what authority I do these things; nor was there any

need of it; they might easily perceive by what he had said, from whence he

professed to have received his authority, from God, and not men; See Gill on

Matthew 21:27.

PETT, "So when Jesus then declared that He was not willing to submit His case

to the very people who had admitted that they did not know how to judge a

prophet’s authority, the people would recognise that He had really answered

their question. His claim was that the source of His authority was the same as

that of John, which was what they thought anyway. The Sanhedrin were

stymied, and the belief of the people was thus confirmed.

NISBET, "THE SUFFICIENCY OF REVELATION

‘Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.’

Luke 20:8

What is the truth that is involved in our Lord’s answer—‘Neither tell I you by

what authority I do these things’?

I. The principle of reservation.—God reserves to Himself the right to restrain,

when He sees fit, that full manifestation of Himself which some men nevertheless

demand of Him. There are some men, some women, in whose heart there has

frequently risen up something of this resentment: ‘Why must I live in a state of

imperfect knowledge, which is the result of a limited revelation?’ It was not only

unto the scribes and the Pharisees, and the idle, gaping crowd that our Lord

acted upon this principle of reservation when He was here on earth, it was so

with His own disciples. How is the great central mystery of the Incarnation, for

example, ever present in His teaching, and yet who shall deny that it is ever

shrouded? How guardedly He speaks of the new birth by water and the Word;

14

how mysteriously in the blessed sacrament of His own Blood and Body!

II. The revelation sufficient.—And yet shall we dare to say that the teaching

which God in His mercy has vouchsafed to us, and the revelation that He has

given to us, is insufficient? How much evidence of authority had He already

given to those very scribes and Pharisees! Those who asked Him this very

question as to His authority had never denied the facts—they had never dared to

deny them. Yet you know what they had done—they had hardened their hearts

and shut their eyes against them. It was possible for them to know long ere this

by Whose authority He did these things. So for us it is possible to know, and to

know with great certainty too, of Christ and His authority. What we need is

sufficient knowledge to guide us unto the knowledge of God’s will. And such

knowledge comes to men and women rather through the heart than through the

intellect. ‘If any man will do His will, he shall know the doctrine whether it be of

God.’ Will to do His will, and He tells you that you shall know.

III. Conditions on which knowledge is attainable.—There are conditions on

which this knowledge is attainable.

(a) Purity of heart. It is purity of heart that enables men to see God, it is men

who love God, and men who love each other as the children of God, who have the

most perfect intelligence of God.

(b) Obedience. It has been well said that there is boundless danger in all inquiry

which is merely curious! It is to such our Lord answers, and will ever answer,

‘Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.’ When men ask questions

of Almighty God, by the answer to which they never mean to rule their lives, let

them not think that to them any sign will be given. The will must be set to do the

will of God before the intellect can act with discernment on spiritual truth.

(c) Earnestness. A life of trifling here is not the life of those who are enlightened

by their God. God must be really sought if God is to be truly found.

A life of earnest seeking is a life of finding, but God’s truth is too sacred a thing

to be expounded to superficial worldliness. There are others tried by intellectual

difficulties, yet athirst for the living God, and for a fuller revelation to their

souls. The time of granting this revelation rests with Him, and to them that

revelation will be given. The answer to their cry will come; they shall know the

doctrine whether it be of God; He will tell tell them by what authority He does

these things.

Rev. Prebendary Villiers.

The Parable of the Tenants

15

9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time.

GILL, "Then began he to speak to the people this parable,.... According to the

other evangelists it seems to be spoken to the chief priests, Scribes, and elders;

and certain it is, that they looked upon themselves as struck at in it; it might be

spoken to both. Christ having silenced the sanhedrim, turned himself to the

people, and delivered the parable of the vineyard to them, though his principal

view was to the priests:

a certain man planted a vineyard; the people of the Jews are designed by the

vineyard, and the "certain man", or "householder", as Matthew calls him,

Matthew 21:28 is the Lord of hosts; and the planting of it is to be understood of

his bringing and settling the people Israel in the land of Canaan. Luke omits

certain things which the other evangelists relate, as setting an hedge about it,

digging a winepress, and building a tower in it; and the Persic version here adds,

"and planted trees, and set a wall about it"; all which express the care that was

taken to cultivate and protect it; and signify the various blessings and privileges

the Jew's enjoyed under the former dispensation; see Gill on Matthew 21:33 and

See Gill on Mark 12:1.

and let it forth to husbandmen; put the people of the Jews under the care not

only of civil magistrates, but of ecclesiastical governors, who were to dress this

vine, or instruct these people in matters of religion, that they might be fruitful in

good works:

and went into a far country for a long time; for a long time it was, from the times

of Moses and Joshua, when the first settlement, both of the civil and ecclesiastical

state of the Jews, was made, to the time of Christ; it was fourteen or fifteen

hundred years; see the notes, as above.

HENRY, "9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable A certain man

planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country

for a long time. 10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that

they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him,

and sent him away empty. 11And again he sent another servant: and they beat

him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 12And again

he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13Then said the

lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they

will reverence him when they see him. 14But when the husbandmen saw him,

they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him,

that the inheritance may be ours. 15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and

killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16 He

16

shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.

And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. 17 And he beheld them, and said,

What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same

is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall

be broken but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 19 And

the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him and

they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable

against them.

Christ spoke this parable against those who were resolved not to own his

authority, though the evidence of it was ever so full and convincing and it comes

very seasonably to show that by questioning his authority they forfeited their

own. Their disowning the lord of their vineyard was a defeasance of their lease of

the vineyard, and giving up of all their title.

I. The parable has nothing added here to what we had before in Matthew and

Mark. The scope of it is to show that the Jewish nation, by persecuting the

prophets, and at length Christ himself, had provoked God to take away from

them all their church privileges, and to abandon them to ruin. It teaches us, 1.

That those who enjoy the privileges of the visible church are as tenants and

farmers that have a vineyard to look after, and rent to pay for it. God, by setting

up revealed religion and instituted orders in the world, hath planted a vineyard,

which he lets out to those people among whom his tabernacle is, Luke 20:9. And

they have vineyard-work to do, needful and constant work, but pleasant and

profitable. Whereas man was, for sin, condemned to till the ground, they that

have a place in the church are restored to that which was Adam's work in

innocency, to dress the garden, and to keep it for the church is a paradise, and

Christ the tree of life in it. They have also vineyard-fruits to present to the Lord

of the vineyard. There are rents to be paid and services to be done, which,

though bearing no proportion to the value of the premises, yet must be done and

must be paid. 2. That the work of God's ministers is to call upon those who enjoy

the privileges of the church to bring forth fruit accordingly. They are God's rent-

gatherers, to put the husbandmen in mind of their arrears, or rather to put them

in mind that they have a landlord who expects to hear from them, and to receive

some acknowledgment of their dependence on him, and obligations to him, Luke

20:10. The Old-Testament prophets were sent on this errand to the Jewish

church, to demand from them the duty and obedience they owed to God. 3. That

it has often been the lot of God's faithful servants to be wretchedly abused by his

own tenants they have been beaten and treated shamefully by those that resolved

to send them empty away. They that are resolved not to do their duty to God

cannot bear to be called upon to do it. Some of the best men in the world have

had the hardest usage from it, for their best services. 4. That God sent his Son

into the world to carry on the same work that the prophets were employed in, to

gather the fruits of the vineyard for God and one would have thought that he

would have been reverenced and received. The prophets spoke as servants, Thus

saith the Lord but Christ as a Son, among his own, Verily, I say unto you.

Putting such an honour as this upon them, to send him, one would have thought,

should have won upon them. 5. That those who reject Christ's ministers would

reject Christ himself if he should come to them for it has been tried, and found

17

that the persecutors and murderers of his servants the prophets were the

persecutors and murderers of himself. They said, This is the heir, come let us kill

him. When they slew the servants, there were other servants sent. "But, if we can

but be the death of the son, there is never another son to be sent, and then we

shall be no longer molested with these demands we may have a quiet possession

of the vineyard for ourselves." The scribes and Pharisees promised themselves

that, if they could but get Christ out of the way, they should for ever ride masters

in the Jewish church and therefore they took the bold step, they cast him out of

the vineyard, and killed him. 6. That the putting of Christ to death filled up the

measure of the Jewish iniquity, and brought upon them ruin without remedy. No

other could be expected than that God should destroy those wicked husbandmen.

They began in not paying their rent, but then proceeded to beat and kill the

servants, and at length their young Master himself. Note, Those that live in the

neglect of their duty to God know not what degrees of sin and destruction they

are running themselves into.

II. To the application of the parable is added here, which we had not before,

their deprecation of the doom included in it (Luke 20:16): When they heart it,

they said, God forbid, Me genoito--Let not this be done, so it should be read.

Though they could not but own that for such a sin such a punishment was just,

and what might be expected, yet they could not bear to hear of it. Note, It is an

instance of the folly and stupidity of sinners that they proceed and persevere in

their sinful ways though at the same time they have a foresight and dread of the

destruction that is at the end of those ways. And see what a cheat they put

themselves, to think to avoid it by a cold God forbid, when they do nothing

towards the preventing of it but will this make the threatening of no effect? No,

they shall know whose word shall stand, God's or theirs. Now observe what

Christ said, in answer to this childish deprecation of their ruin. 1. He beheld

them. This is taken notice of only by this evangelist, Luke 20:17. He looked upon

them with pity and compassion, grieved to see them cheat themselves thus to

their own ruin. He beheld them, to see if they would blush at their own folly, or if

he could discern in their countenances any indication of relenting. 2. He referred

them to the scripture: "What is this then that is written? How can you escape the

judgment of God, when you cannot prevent the exaltation of him whom you

despise and reject? The word of God hath said it, that the stone which the

builders rejected is become the head of the corner." The Lord Jesus will be

exalted to the Father's right hand. He has all judgment and all power committed

to him he is the corner-stone and top-stone of the church, and, if so, his enemies

can expect no other than to be destroyed. Even those that slight him, that

stumble at him, and are offended in him, shall be broken--it will be their ruin but

as to those that not only reject him, but hate and persecute him, as the Jews did,

he will fall upon them and crush them to pieces--will grind them to powder. The

condemnation of spiteful persecutors will be much sorer than that of careless

unbelievers.

Lastly, We are told how the chief priests and scribes were exasperated by this

parable (Luke 20:19): They perceived that he had spoken this parable against

them and so he had. A guilty conscience needs no accuser but they, instead of

yielding to the convictions of conscience, fell into a rage at him who awakened

18

that sleeping lion in their bosoms, and sought to lay hands on him. Their

corruptions rebelled against their convictions, and got the victory. And it was not

because they had any fear of God or of his wrath before their eyes, but only

because they feared the people, that they did not now fly in his face, and take

him by the throat. They were just ready to make his words good: This is the heir,

come let us kill him. Note, When the hearts of the sons of men are fully set in

them to do evil, the fairest warnings both of the sin they are about to commit and

of the consequences of it make no impression upon them. Christ tells them that

instead of kissing the Son of God they would kill him, upon which they should

have said, What, is thy servant a dog? But they do, in effect, say this: "And so we

will have at him now." And, though they deprecate the punishment of the sin, in

the next breath they are projecting the commission of it.

JAMISON, "Verses 9-13

vineyard — (See on Luke 13:6). In Matthew 21:33 additional points are given,

taken literally from Isaiah 5:2, to fix down the application and sustain it by Old

Testament authority.

husbandmen — the ordinary spiritual guides of the people, under whose care

and culture the fruits of righteousness might be yielded.

went, etc. — leaving it to the laws of the spiritual husbandry during the whole

length of the Jewish economy. (See on Mark 4:26.)

BARCLAY, "A PARABLE WHICH WAS A CONDEMNATION (Luke 20:9-18)

20:9-18 Jesus began to speak this parable to the people. "A man planted a

vineyard and let it out to tenants, and went away for a long time. At the proper

time he despatched a servant to the tenants so that they might give him his share

of the fruit of the vineyard. The tenants beat him and sent him away empty-

handed. He went on to send another servant. They beat him, too, and maltreated

him, and sent him away empty-handed. He went on to send a third. This one they

wounded and threw out. The owner of the vineyard said, 'What am I to do? I

will send my beloved son. It may be they will respect him.' When the tenants saw

him they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Let us kill him so that the

inheritance will be ours.' And they flung him out of the vineyard and killed him.

What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and he will

destroy these tenants, and will give the vineyard to others." When they heard

this, they said, "God forbid!" He looked at them and said, "What, then, is this

which stands written--'The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the

head of the corner? Everyone who falls against that stone will be shattered; but

if it falls on anyone it will wipe him out as the wind blows the chaff away.'"

This is a parable whose meaning is crystal clear. The vineyard stands for the

nation of Israel (compare Isaiah 5:1-7). The tenants are the rulers of Israel into

whose hands the nation was entrusted. The messengers are the prophets who

were disregarded, persecuted and killed. The son is Jesus himself. And the doom

is that the place which Israel should have occupied is to be given to others.

The story itself is the kind of thing which could and did happen. Judaea in the

19

time of Jesus was in the throes of economic trouble and labour unrest. There was

many an absentee landlord who let out his lands in just such a way. The rent was

seldom paid in money. It was either a fixed amount of produce, irrespective of

the success or failure of the harvest, or it was a percentage of the crop, whatever

it might be.

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

about man.

(i) It tells us of human privilege. The tenants did not make the vineyard. They

entered into possession of it. The owner did not stand over them with a whip. He

went away and left them to work in their own way.

(ii) It tells us of human sin. The sin of the tenants was that they refused to give

the owner his due and wished to control what it was his sole right to control. Sin

consists in the failure to give God his proper place and in usurping the power

which should be his.

(iii) It tells of human responsibility. For long enough the tenants were left to their

own devices; but the day of reckoning came. Soon or late a man is called upon to

give account for that which was committed to his charge.

The parable tells us certain things about God.

(i) It tells us of the patience of God. The owner did not strike at the first sign of

rebellion on the part of the tenants. He gave them chance after chance to do the

right thing. There is nothing so wonderful as the patience of God. If any man

had created the world he would have taken his hand, and, in exasperated

despair, he would have wiped it out long ago.

(ii) It tells us of the judgment of God. The tenants thought they could presume on

the patience of the master and get away with it. But God has not abdicated.

However much a man may seem to get away with it, the day of reckoning comes.

As the Romans put it, "Justice holds the scales with an even and a scrupulous

balance and in the end she will prevail."

The parable tells us something about Jesus.

(i) It tells us that he knew what was coming. He did not come to Jerusalem

hugging a dream that even yet he might escape the cross. Open eyed and

unafraid, he went on. When Achilles, the great Greek hero, was warned by the

prophetess Cassandra that, if he went out to battle, he would surely die, he

answered, "Nevertheless I am for going on." For Jesus there was to be no

turning back.

(ii) It tells us that he never doubted Gods ultimate triumph. Beyond the power of

wicked men stood the undefeatable majesty of God. Wickedness may seem for a

time to prevail, but it cannot in the end escape its punishment.

20

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

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

the Word;

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

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

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

(iii) It lays down most unmistakably his claim to be the Son of God. Deliberately

he removes himself from the succession of the prophets. They were servants; he

is the Son. In this parable he made a claim that none could fail to see to be God's

Chosen King.

The quotation about the stone which the builders rejected comes from Psalms

118:22-23. It was a favourite quotation in the early church as a description of the

death and resurrection of Jesus. (compare Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7.)

PULPIT, "A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen.

Under a very thin parabolic veil, Jesus foretells the awful tragedy of the next few

days. He adopts a well-known imagery, and seems to say, "Listen to Isaiah's

well-known story of the vineyard, the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, which is the

house of Israel. I will expand it a little, that I may show you how it stands with

you as regards this matter of 'authority,' that we may see whether you have as

much respect for the ascertained will of God as ye pretend, so that ye should be

sure to submit to me if only ye were satisfied that I was an accredited Messenger

of God" (Professor Bruce). For a long time. Representing the nearly two

thousand years of Jewish history.

PETT, "Jesus’ words are spoken to the people, but as ever among these were a

number of antagonists, including chief priests and Scribes. The idea of Israel as a

vineyard is found regularly in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 5:1-7 we have a

similar opening to this, ‘My wellbeloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill’

(Isaiah 5:1). And there the choicest vine was planted and it produced wild

grapes, so that it was ripe for judgment. And that vineyard and vine were Israel

and Judah Compare also Psalms 80:8-16; Jeremiah 2:21-22; Hosea 9:10, where

again the vineyard is Israel/Judah.

Here the vineyard is planted (Luke omits the further details) and put under the

control of others who are made responsible for ensuring that a fair rental in

terms of produce is paid to the owner. The owner, Who is clearly the God of

Israel, then leaves it in their hands ‘for a long time’. It would take four years for

the vineyard to become fruitful in such a way that rents (paid in produce) could

be expected (see Leviticus 19:23-25). Even the Jewish leaders recognised that

here He was speaking about them (Luke 20:19). It was they who saw themselves

as having the responsibility for God’s vineyard.

21

PETT, "Verses 9-19

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants of a Vineyard (20:9-19).

But Jesus did not leave it there, He riposted with a parable that connected His

accusers with the slayers of the prophets, by this confirming their connection

with others in the past who had been unable to recognise those who came from

God, and at the same time remarkably laying down His claim to being the

unique and only Son of God, thus answering their question about the source of

His authority indirectly, which is one reason why in both in Mark and Luke the

parable immediately follows the question about authority.

The importance that Luke places on this parable comes out in that he places it

centrally in the chiasmus of the whole Section (see above). It is the message

around which the whole chiasmus is based.

In this parable He spoke of Israel as a vineyard, of God as its owner, and of the

Jewish leaders as the tenants responsible for it. All this would be recognisable

from the Old Testament. Those then sent by the Owner in order to collect the

proceeds from the vineyard could only be the prophets, and Who then must be

the last to come, the only beloved Son? In view of all His earlier claims we can be

in no doubt that it is Jesus. (And yet there are still those who close their eyes and

refuse to see this. Spiritual blindness is still among us).

The parable is based on real life. In Palestine at that time there were many farms

and vineyards tenanted by tenant farmers, with absent landlords who expected

to receive their rents. And we can with regard to some of those farms and

vineyards that there was much skulduggery.

With regard to Luke’s sources for the parable, we need have no doubt that he

had Mark’s Gospel in front of him, and yet he clearly did not just copy from

Mark. It would seem that he also had other sources. This should not surprise us

as he would have spoken with a number of people who were probably

eyewitnesses, including especially some of the Apostles. His concern was not to

ape Mark but to present the truth succintly without altering it, while

emphasising what he saw as important.

Analysis of the passage.

a He began to speak to the people this parable. “A man planted a vineyard, and

let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time” (Luke

20:9).

b “And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that they should give

him of the fruit of the vineyard, but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him

away empty, and he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and

handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty, and he sent yet a third, and

him also they wounded, and cast him out” (Luke 20:10-12).

c “And the lord of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved

son. It may be that they will reverence him” (Luke 20:13).

22

d “But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying,

‘This is the heir. Let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours” (Luke 20:14

a).

e “And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.” (Luke 20:14 b).

d “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and

destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.” And when they

heard it, they said, ‘God forbid’ ” (Luke 20:15-16)

c ‘But He looked on them, and said, “What then is this that is written, The stone

which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? Every

one who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it will

fall, it will scatter him as dust” (Luke 20:17-18).

b And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on Him in that very

hour (Luke 20:19 a).

a And they feared the people, for they perceived that He spoke this parable

against them (Luke 20:19 b).

Note that in ‘a’ he speaks the parable concerning the husbandmen, and in the

parallel the Scribes and Pharisees noted that He spoke it against them. In ‘b’

their ancestors had laid hands on the prophets, and in the parallel they were

seeking to lay hands on Jesus. In ‘c’ the Lord determines to send His only Son,

trusting that they will at least reverence Him as the One Who represents the

owner most closely, and in the parallel they rejected Him with the obvious

consequences. In ‘d’ they make their decision to act against the heir and

prospective owner by killing Him so as to gain possession of the vineyard, and in

the parallel the owner kills them and takes over the vineyard. And centrally in ‘e’

are their acts of deliberate rejection and brutal murder.

COFFMAN, "THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED FARMERS

II. This great parable is the central member of a trilogy of magnificent parables,

all three of which were spoken by Jesus to set forth the rebellious behavior of

official Israel. The full trilogy is found only in Matthew (Matthew 21:28-22:14).

The independence of the synoptic Gospels (and all of them, for that matter) is

nowhere more evident than here. This trilogy of parables is arranged in

ascending order of power and dramatic effect (see full discussion of this in my

Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 22:14). They are the Parable of Two Sons,

the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, and the Parable of the Marriage of the

King's Son. If either Mark or Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel, or if either

one of them had ever seen it, there can be no logical explanation of why they

would have selected the central member of the trilogy and left out the other two.

On the other hand, there is no logical device by which it may be supposed that

Matthew took Mark's (and Luke's) single parable and formed it into a trilogy,

because the trilogy carries within itself the most positive and overwhelming

proof of originality, an originality that plants it undeniably in the authentic

words of Jesus our Lord. The ancient convictions that all of the sacred authors

wrote independently of each other is justified by many such things in the

Gospels.

Analogies in the parable are easily seen. God, the householder, let out his

vineyard, which is the chosen people with their privileges and protection from

23

the Father, to the husbandmen who are the leaders of Israel. Such things as the

planting of the vineyard, the hedge, the winepress, etc., represent the

establishment of Israel as the chosen people and such religious devices as the law,

the temple, etc. The servants whom God sent to Israel to receive the fruits of his

vineyard were the prophets of the Old Testament, leading up to and including

John the Baptist. Maltreatment of the servants represents Israel's rejection,

abuse, and even murder of the prophets. The householder's (God's) desire for

fruits in season was God's desire for true spiritual fruits from Israel, including

especially a recognition on their part of the need of salvation. The beloved Son in

the parable is Jesus Christ. Their casting him forth and killing him prophesied

the hierarchy's crucifixion of Jesus without the camp of Israel. The fact of the

Son's coming last of all shows the finality of God's revelation in Christ who is

God's last word to man. God's taking the vineyard away from the wicked

husbandmen and giving it to others is the replacement of Israel with Gentiles in

the main possession of the gospel. The householder's going into another country

for a long time stands for the absence of God, in a sense, during the long ages

when Israel was left unpunished for countless rebellions against God, in the

period required for the bringing of Christ into the world.

This is the heir; let us kill him ... This parable shows very clearly that the leaders

of Israel recognized Christ as the true heir of the throne of David, the head of the

Theocracy, and as the promised Messiah. The only flaw in their identification of

Christ was in this, that they failed to see that he was GOD come in the flesh.

He will destroy these husbandmen ... is a reference to the destruction of

Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In the third member of the trilogy, this prophecy took the

form of a king sending his armies, killing those murderers, and burning their

city (Matthew 22:7).

The stone which the builders rejected ... By this, Christ referred to himself. He is

the chief cornerstone; the builders (those wicked leaders) rejected him, but they

are not through with him; he will be the head cornerstone of the New Covenant.

For article on "Christ the Living Stone," see my Commentary on Romans,

Romans 9:33.

Every one that falleth on that stone ... This means "all who stumble at the

teachings of Christ."

On whomsoever it shall fall ... The imagery here appears to be from Daniel

2:34,44, in which the little stone "cut without hands" smote the kingdoms of the

world and ground them to powder. The Jews were still dreaming of the secular

kingdom; and by such a word as this Jesus called their attention to what God

would do with their worldly kingdoms. Jesus himself is the little stone; and in the

figure he warned the leaders that, although they were planning to kill him, there

would come the time when he would fall upon them.

Scatter as dust ... The scattering of Israel is in this. Frequently that word appears

in the New Testament, and not a few times it refers to God's judgment and

scattering of the chosen people because of their rejection of Christ. Too little is

24

made of this prophecy, the fulfillment of which is before the eyes of all

generations.

III. The theme of events being narrated in this chapter is that of the leaders of

Israel seeking to "destroy" Christ. In the question regarding authority, they had

been completely frustrated; and likewise in the parable of the wicked

husbandmen, it was quite obvious at last, even to the wicked leaders, that Christ

was speaking about them. They rallied and came back with a series of trick

questions, hoping to procure some word from Jesus that they could use as a

pretext for formal charges against him. The most likely area for them to explore

was the political issues of the day. This they did at once.

BURKITT, "In the parable before us, the Jewish church is compared to a

vineyard, God the father to an householder, his planting, pruning, and fencing

his vineyard, denotes his care to furnish his church with all needful helps and

means to make it fruitful; his letting it out to husbandmen, signifies the

committing the care of his church to the priests and Levites, the public pastors

and governors of the church; his servants are the prophets and apostles whom he

sent from time to time, to admonish them to bring forth answerable fruits to the

cost which God had expended on them; his son is Jesus Christ, whom the rulers

of the Jewish church slew and murdered. So that the design and scope of the

parable is, to discover to the Jews, particularly to the Pharisees, their obstinate

impenitency under all the means of grace, their bloody cruelty towards the

prophets of God, their tremendous guilt in crucifying the Son of God; for all

which God would unchurch them finally, ruin their nation, and set up a church

among the Gentiles, that should bring forth much better fruit than the Jewish

church ever did.

From the whole, note,

1. That the church is God's vineyard; a vineyard is a place inclosed, a place well

planted, well fruited, and exceeding dear and precious to the planter, and the

owner of it.

2. That as dear as God's vineyard is unto him, in case of barrenness and

unfruitfulness, it is in great danger of being destroyed and laid waste by him.

3. That the only way and course to engage God's care over his vineyard, and to

prevent its being given to other husbandmen, is to give him the fruits of it; it is

but a vineyard that God lets out, it is no inheritance: no people ever had so many

promises of God's favor as the Jews; nor ever enjoyed so many privileges while

they continued in his favor, as they did; but for rejecting Christ and his holy

doctrine they are a despised, scattered people throughout the world. See the note

on Matthew 21:39-40

BENSON, "Luke 20:9-19. A certain man planted a vineyard, &c. — See this

paragraph explained on Matthew 21:33-46, and Mark 12:1-12. And went into a

far country for a long time — It was a long time from the entrance of the

Israelites into Canaan to the birth of Christ. He shall destroy those

25

husbandmen — Probably he pointed to the scribes, chief priests, and elders; who

allowed, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, Matthew 21:41, but could

not bear that this should be applied to themselves. They might also mean, God

forbid that we should be guilty of such a crime as your parable seems to charge

us with, namely, rejecting and killing the heir. Our Saviour means, But yet ye

will do it, as is prophesied of you. He looked on them — To sharpen their

attention.

BI 9-19, "A certain man planted a vineyard

Lessons

1. Let us be thankful that God has planted His vineyard among us. We are situated, not in any of the deserts, or wastes, or commons, of the world, but in the vineyard, in “a garden inclosed,” in the very garden of the Lord.

2. Let us inquire whether we be rendering to the Lord of the vineyard the fruit which He expects in its season.

3. Beware of resembling these wicked husbandmen in their conduct, lest you also resemble them in their doom. What reception, then, are you giving to God’s ministers, and especially to God’s beloved Son?

4. In the last place, see that you give to the Lord Jesus that place in your spiritual building which is His due. Let Him be both at its foundation and at its top. Let Him be both “the author and the finisher of your faith.” (J. Foote, M. A.)

God’s manifold mercy

Like the drops of a lustre, which reflect a rainbow of colours when the sun is glittering upon them, and each one, when turned in different ways, from its prismatic form shows all the varieties of colour, so the mercy of God is one and yet many, the same yet ever changing, a combination of all the beauties of love blended harmoniously together. You have only to look at mercy in that light, and that light, and that light, to see how rich, how manifold it is. (C. H.Spurgeon.)

Fruitfulness the test of value

Years ago in Mentone they estimated the value of land by the number of olive-trees upon it. How many bearers of the precious oil were yielding their produce? That was the question which settled the value of the plot. Is not this the true way of estimating the importance of a Christian Church? Mere size is no criterion; wealth is even a more deceiving measure, and rank and education are no better. How many are bearing fruit unto the Lord in holy living, in devout intercession, in earnest efforts for soul winning, and in other methods by which fruit is brought forth unto the Lord? (Sword and Trowel.)

Abused mercy

Nothing so cold as lead, yet nothing more scalding if molten; nothing more blunt than iron, and yet nothing so keen if sharpened; the air is soft and tender, yet out of it are engendered thunderings and lightnings; the sea is calm and smooth, but if tossed

26

with tempests it is rough beyond measure. Thus it is that mercy abused turns to fury; God, as He is a God of mercies, so He is a God of judgment; and it is a fearful thing to fall into His punishing hands. He is loath to strike, but when He strikes, He strikes home. If His wrath be kindled, yea, but a little, woe be to all those on whom it lights; how much more when He is sore displeased with a people or person! (John Trapp.)

The Son rejected

Turning to the parable, notice—

I. THE OWNER’S CLAIM. His right and authority are complete. God presses His right to our love and service. Blessings are privileges, and privileges are obligations.

II. THE OWNER’S LOVING PATIENCE. There never was an earthly employer who showed such persistent kindness towards such persistent rebellion. The account of servants sent again and again, in spite of insults and death, is a faint picture of His forbearance towards Israel. Mercies, deliverances, revelations, pleadings, gather, a shining host, around all their history, as the angelic camp was close to Jacob on his journey. But all along the history stand the dark and bloodstained images of mercies despised and prophets slain. The tenderness of God in the old dispensation is wonderful; but in Christ it appears in a pathos of yearning.

III. THE REJECTION.

IV. THE JUDGMENT. It was just, necessary, complete, remediless.

V. THE FINAL EXALTATION OF THE SON. (Charles M. Southgate.)

The rejected Son

I. GOD’S INTEREST IN HIS VINEYARD. The great truths of the Old Testament are from the prophets rather than from the priests. The grand progress of truth has depended upon these fearless men. The age without its prophet has been stagnated. The priesthood is conservative; prophecy, progressive. The true prophet is always great; truth makes men great. Only by a clear understanding of the accumulating prophecies of the Old Testament can we appreciate the Divine care. In this lesson as to the care of God for His vineyard, Christ has marked the distinction between the functions of the prophets and Himself. They had spoken as servants; He as the Son. In such a comparison is seen the transcendent revelation of God in Christ. He was the heir. The interests of the Father were identical with His own. It was in such a comparison that Christ declared the infinite grace of God in the incarnation and its purpose.

II. THE IRREVERENCE OF MEN. The whole attitude of God toward His Church is that of an infinite condescension and pity.

1. The attitude of these men toward the truth. The greatest conflicts have been between the truth of God and the personal desires of men.

2. This antagonism is manifested in the treatment of those who are righteous. In one sense he who accepts a truth becomes its personation, and as a consequence must bear all the malignity of those who hate that same truth. Witness the treatment of the prophets in evidence. Because Micaiah uttered that which was displeasing to the government of Israel he was scourged and imprisoned. Because the prophet Jeremiah gave an unwelcome prophecy to his king, although it was the word of the Lord, he was thrown into a dungeon for his courage. No better

27

fate awaited the prophet Isaiah than to be sawn asunder by order of the ruler of God’s chosen people. It was the high priest who obtained a decree for the expulsion of Amos from Jerusalem.

3. This antagonism to the prophets of the truth is only a lesser expression of a burning hatred toward God. The spirit of hatred to the prophets would result in the killing of the Son of God. Whether the truth or man or God stands in the way of this lust for power, the result is the same.

III. THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE. Repeatedly this truth is brought out in the life of Christ. “They sought to lay hold on Him, but feared the people.” In these few words we recognize the corrective of the terrible accusation against human nature. If such a history is the expression of what is universal, then we must discern the fact that the truth is more safe in the hands of the many than of the few.

IV. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE OWNER OF THE VINEYARD. In the parallel account of this parable in Matthew, we read the question of Christ: “When the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” In all history this same truth has been often witnessed. The rejecters of God are self-rejected from Him. The power that is not used for God is taken from us and given to those who will use it. There are two practical suggestions very intimately connected with this theme that we briefly notice. First: The greatest hindrance to Christ’s kingdom may come from those who are the highest in the administration of its affairs. Second: The stupidity of wickedness. These very men who robbed God were robbing themselves. By planning to possess the vineyard they lost it. By attempting to keep the owner away they cast themselves out. God controls His own kingdom and Church. “The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner: this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.” (D. O. Mears.)

Parable of the vineyard let to husbandmen

I. THE MATERIALS OF WHICH THE PARABLE IS COMPOSED are objects which were familiar in Palestine, or common in warm countries; a vineyard, a proprietor, and tenants.

II. Let us next attend to THE OBJECTS WHICH OUR SAVIOUR HAD IN VIEW IN DELIVERING THIS PARABLE; or, what is the same thing, inquire what are the important truths contained in it. The objects of our Saviour in this parable seem to be

1. To point out the singular advantages bestowed on the Jews as a nation.

2. Their conduct.

3. Their punishment.

4. The transference of their advantages to others

Inferences:

1. From this passage we may learn that we, as Christians, possess a portion of that kingdom which the Lord Jesus came to establish. For the Christians came in the place of the Jews. This kingdom consists in privileges, in blessings, in superior knowledge, and superior means of improvement. Of those privileges we have much cause to be grateful, but none whatever to be proud. For they were not given because we were better than other nations: but they were bestowed solely that we might cultivate and improve them, and become the blessed instruments of conveying them to others.

28

2. That if we cease to bring forth the fruit of holiness, the kingdom of God will also be taken from us. God has given us much, and therefore of us much will be required. (J. Thomson, D. D.)

The Herodians and Pharisees combined against Jesus

1. The combination of men of opposite sentiments, in a particular case, affords no proof that truth and justice are connected with their temporary union.

2. In the conduct of the scribes and Pharisees on this occasion we see the disgraceful artifices which malice leads men to employ.

3. From this passage we may observe the perfect knowledge which Jesus had of the characters, principles, and intentions of His enemies.

4. The wisdom of Jesus was also conspicuous on this occasion. Had He been a mere man, we should have said He was distinguished by presence of mind. Now His wisdom is strongly displayed here. He might have refused to answer the question of the Pharisees and Herodians, as the Pharisees had done to Him. Or He might have given some dark enigmatical reply which they could not have perverted. But, instead of doing so, He gave a plain decided answer, without fear or evasion.

5. The fearless regard to truth which the Lord Jesus displayed on this occasion deserves to be carefully noticed. He did not mean to decline answering the question, Whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. On the contrary, He instantly declared that it was lawful; and not only lawful, but obligatory, as they themselves had unwillingly confessed. For the allusion to the denarius struck them forcibly; and they went away admiring the person whom they had come to expose and overwhelm.

6. Lastly, we may observe the disposition which our Saviour always showed to direct the attention of His hearers to the duty which they owed to God. If, then, we are to render to God the things that are God’s, we must render everything to God; for everything we have belongs to Him—our capacities, our opportunities, our advantages, our blessings. (J. Thomson, D. D.)

It will grind him to powder

The madness of opposing Christ

“It is said that a hundred thousand birds fly against the lights of the lighthouses along the Atlantic coast of the United States, and are killed annually.” So says a slip cut from this morning’s newspaper. We need not be afraid in these excited times that captious cavillers will put out our hope. The dark wild birds of the ocean keep coming forth from the mysterious caverns; they seem to hate the glitter of the lenses. They continue to dash themselves upon the thick panes of glass in the windows. But they usually end by beating their wings to pieces on the unyielding crystal till they fall dead in the surf rolling below. (C. S.Robinson, D. D.)

The wreck of infidelity

Some years ago, a man and his wife were found living in a wretched broken-down house in a low part of London; and although the husband was down with illness, his

29

only bed was a little straw, with a coarse dirty wrapper for a covering, and a brick for a pillow. An old chair and a saucepan appeared to be the only other furniture on the premises, while the wife in attendance was subject to fits, which made her for the time more like a wild animal than a woman. Though reduced to so wretched a condition, this man was really gifted and educated; and in days of health and strength he had worked with his pen for an infidel publisher. What, then, was the cause of his downfall? It so happened that the sufferer answered this question himself; for, casting his dull, leaden-looking eyes around the room after a visitor had entered, he remarked, “This is the wreck of infidelity!”

10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed.

GILL, "And at the season,.... Or "when it the time of fruit", as the Ethiopic version

renders it, agreeably to See Gill on Matthew 21:34,

he sent a servant to the husbandmen; or servants, as in Matthew 21:34; the prophets of

the Lord, his messengers, whom he sent to them, to exhort them to bring forth the

fruits of righteousness, as follows:

that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard; that is, that they, bringing forth

good fruit in their lives and conversations, whereby it might appear that they were

trees of righteousness, and the planting of the Lord; he, or they observing them, might

give an account of them to the Lord, to the glory of his name:

but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty; the Jews not only mocked

these messengers of the Lord, and despised their words, but misused them, 2

Chronicles 36:15 they beat them with their fists, smote them on the cheek, and

scourged them with scourges; so that they had no account to give of their fruitfulness

in good works, but the contrary; See Gill on Matthew 21:35 and See Gill on Mark

12:3.

JAMISON, "beat, etc. — (Matthew 21:35); that is, the prophets, extraordinary

messengers raised up from time to time. (See on Matthew 23:37.)

PETT, "Verses 10-12

“And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that they should give

him of the fruit of the vineyard, but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him

away empty. And he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and

handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And he sent yet a third, and

30

him also they wounded, and cast him out.”

When the appropriate time came, and no fruit was forthcoming, the owner then

sent a number of servants, one by one, in order to collect His portion of the fruit

of the vineyard. But in each case the servants were handled shamefully in order

to discourage them from persisting or returning. As so often ‘three’ indicates

completeness. These three cover all the prophets and men of God down to John.

None would have any difficulty here in recognising that this indicated all godly

men who had sought to speak to Israel, and none more so than the true prophets

whose treatment by Israel/Judah was a byword.

‘Sent -- a servant.’ See Jeremiah 7:25-26 - ‘I have sent unto you all my servants

the prophets, day by day rising up early and sending them -- but they made their

neck stiff and did worse than their fathers’, and 2 Chronicles 24:19 - ‘yet He sent

prophets to them to bring them again to the Lord’. (See also Matthew 23:30-36).

Compare also 2 Chronicles 36:15-19, ‘the Lord, the God of their fathers, sent

persistently to them by His messengers, because He had compassion on His

people, and on His dwellingplace, but they kept mocking the messengers of God,

despising His words and scoffing at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord

arose against His people, until there was no remedy --- therefore He slew their

young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary ---and they burned

down the house of God and broke down the walls of Jerusalem’. None knew

better than Jesus that history repeats itself. For the maltreatment of successive

men of God see also 1 Kings 18:13; 1 Kings 22:27; 2 Chronicles 24:20-21;

Nehemiah 9:26; and for the sending of prophets, Jeremiah 25:4; Amos 3:7

Zechariah 1:6. The consequences that followed are also clearly described.

Note that Luke deliberately leaves out the mention of the death of some of the

servants. He wants to emphasise the contrast between the servant and the son. It

is only the Son Whose death is really significant.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:10-12

He sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the

vineyard. After the pains and care bestowed upon the vineyard, that is, after the

many mighty works done in Israel's behalf, the Lord of hosts looked for fruits of

gratitude and fidelity in some proportion to the mighty favours which it had

received from him. The people were intended to be the example to, and the

educators of, the world, and, instead of carrying out these high functions, they

lived the poor selfish life so sadly depicted in the long story contained in the

historical and prophetical books. "He looked that it [his vineyard] should bring

forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes" (Isaiah 5:2). But the husbandmen

beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they

beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And

again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. These

represent the prophets, those faithful servants of the Lord, whose toils and trials

and fate are painted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11.) in such glowing and

eloquent language. And again he sent. In Luke 20:11 and Luke 20:12, προσέθεο

31

πέμψαι, literally, "he added to send another"—a Hebraism. This shows St. Luke

here based his account on a Hebrew (Aramaic) original. Professor Bruce well

puts the thoughts which possessed the wicked husbandmen thus: "When the

servants came for fruit, they were simply surprised. 'Fruit! did you say? We have

occupied the position of vine-dressers, and have duly drawn our wages: what

more do you want?' Such was the actual fact in regard to the spiritual heads of

Israel. They were men who never thought of fruit, but only of the honour and

privilege of being entrusted with the keeping of the vineyard. They were triflers,

men utterly devoid of earnestness, and the practical purpose of the property

committed to their charge they habitually forgot. Generally speaking, they had

utterly lost sight of the end of Israel's calling." Their anger flamed forth when

accredited messengers of the Lord visited them and reminded them of their

forgotten duties; they vented their furious wrath by persecuting some and killing

others of these faithful men.

11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed.

GILL, "And at the season,.... Or "when it the time of fruit", as the Ethiopic

version renders it, agreeably to See Gill on Matthew 21:34,

he sent a servant to the husbandmen; or servants, as in Matthew 21:34; the

prophets of the Lord, his messengers, whom he sent to them, to exhort them to

bring forth the fruits of righteousness, as follows:

that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard; that is, that they, bringing

forth good fruit in their lives and conversations, whereby it might appear that

they were trees of righteousness, and the planting of the Lord; he, or they

observing them, might give an account of them to the Lord, to the glory of his

name:

but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty; the Jews not only

mocked these messengers of the Lord, and despised their words, but misused

them, 2 Chronicles 36:15 they beat them with their fists, smote them on the

cheek, and scourged them with scourges; so that they had no account to give of

their fruitfulness in good works, but the contrary; See Gill on Matthew 21:35

and See Gill on Mark 12:3.

32

12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.

GILL, "And again he sent the third,.... Perhaps after the return of the Jews from

captivity, and between that time and the coming of Christ, in which interval

many good men were used in a very inhuman manner, Hebrews 11:37

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

and cast him out; of the vineyard.

13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’

GILL, "Then said the Lord of the vineyard,.... Who planted it, and let it out to

husbandmen, and expected fruit from it, and sent his servants from time to time

for it:

what shall I do? or what can be done more than has been done? Isaiah 5:4 who

else can be sent that is likely to do any good with such an ungrateful and

unfruitful people?

I will send my beloved Son; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who lay in his

bosom, was the darling of his soul, and the delight of his heart; him he

determined to send, and him he did send to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:

it may be they will reverence him, when they see him: it might be thought after

the manner of men, that considering the greatness of his person, as the Son of

God, the nature of his office, as the Redeemer and Saviour of men, the doctrines

which he preached, the miracles which he wrought, and the holiness and

harmlessness of his conversation, and the great good he did both to the bodies

and souls of men, that he would have been had in great esteem and veneration

with the men, to whom he was sent, and among whom he conversed: but, alas!

when they saw him, they saw no beauty, comeliness, and excellency in him, and

nothing on account of which he should be desired by them.

JAMISON, "my beloved son — Mark (Mark 12:6) still more affectingly,

33

“Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved”; our Lord thus severing Himself

from all merely human messengers, and claiming Sonship in its loftiest sense.

(Compare Hebrews 3:3-6.) it may be — “surely”; implying the almost

unimaginable guilt of not doing so.

PETT, "Finally the owner of the vineyard decided that He would give them one

last chance. He would send to them his beloved son. This was with the twofold

hope, firstly that they would acknowledge the potential owner as having the right

to collect payment, and secondly in the hope that their consciences might be

moved at the thought of the special and precious beloved son, with the result that

that they would repent and respond to Him. They would recognise that while

they might get away with illtreating servants, it would be a very different matter

with the only son. In Isaiah 5:1-7 the Beloved was God Himself. Here the Beloved

is His Son. Compare also Luke 3:22, ‘You are My beloved Son’. The implication

was clear for all who had eyes to see. It is as clear a declaration of Jesus’

uniqueness, and of His Sonship as it is possible to have. Only the spiritually and

obstinately blind could fail to see it.

And yet, as was necessary at this time of such bitterness, His claim was couched

in such a way that it could not be used as an instrument against Him. All knew,

however, that if they questioned Him about it He would come back with one of

His devastating questions, such as, ‘Why do you think that this applies to Me?’

All would know that it did, and they would simply be left looking foolish. But it

would equally appear foolish to charge Him with blasphemy on account of it

unless they were willing to admit His claim.

The sending of the Son is seen as God’s final act towards men. If they will not

respond to Him, and to those who go out in His Name, they will not respond to

anyone. Hebrews 1:1-3 may well have partly resulted as a consequence of this

parable.

Some may argue that no father in his right senses would do such a thing, and

they would, of course, be right. But this is not speaking of any father. It is

speaking of God. And this is precisely what God amazingly did do. It is meant to

sound remarkable. It was remarkable (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9-10; Romans 5:8;

Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 1:1-3).

PULPIT, "Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do! I will send my

beloved son. The guilt of the husbandmen who acted as vine-dressers here

reached its highest measure. The words represented here by Jesus as spoken by

God, possess the deepest doctrinal value. They, under the thin veil of the

parable-story, answer the question of the Sanhedrim (Luke 20:2), "By what

authority doest thou these things?" The deliberative words, "What shall I do?"

recall the Divine dialogue alluded to in Gem. Luke 1:26. St. Luke here represents

the Father as calling the Son, "my Beloved." St. Mark adds that he was an only

Son. Such sayings as this, and the remarkable prayer of Matthew 11:25-27, are a

clear indication of the Christology of the synoptists. Their estimate of the Person

of the blessed Son in no wise differed from that given us by St. John at much

greater length and with fuller details.

34

14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

GILL, "But when the husbandmen saw him,.... In human nature, heard him

preach, and observed the miracles done by him:

they reasoned among themselves; as the Scribes and Pharisees, and elders of the

people often did:

saying, this is the heir; the heir of God, being his Son; and so the Ethiopic

version; "this Son is his heir", or the heir of the vineyard; being, by

appointment, heir of all things, and by his descent from David heir to the

kingdom of Israel;

come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. The Arabic and Persic

versions render it, "and his inheritance shall be ours": the nation, city, temple,

and all the emoluments and benefits thereof. The word "come" is left out in the

Alexandrian copy, and in the Gothic and Vulgate Latin versions.

JAMISON, "reasoned among themselves — (Compare Genesis 37:18-20; John

11:47-53).

the heir — sublime expression of the great truth, that God‘s inheritance was

destined for, and in due time to come into the possession of, His Son in our

nature (Hebrews 1:2).

inheritance … ours — and so from mere servants we may become lords; the deep

aim of the depraved heart, and literally “the root of all evil.”

PETT, "The reaction of the husbandmen is then given. Reasoning with each

other (which has been seen to be a trait of the Jewish leaders - Luke 20:5) they

determined what they would do. They would kill the heir so that they might

retain control of the inheritance. For the Law allowed for the fact that if those in

physical possession of land were able to farm it untroubled by anyone for a

number of years they could claim legal possession of it also.

Certainly as the Jewish leaders saw the great crowds hanging on to Jesus’ every

word they must have felt that ‘their inheritance’ was slipping away from them.

Thus the picture is graphic, and in view of their plans to kill Jesus, telling. And

once He was out of the way they would be able to regain control over the

inheritance.

35

‘Let us kill him.’ The words are similar to those used by Joseph’s brothers in

Genesis 37:20 (see LXX). Jesus was likening these men to Joseph’s brothers, full

of hate and jealousy. They were the forerunners of the persecutors of the

prophets, and of these men who now planned Jesus’ downfall.

PULPIT, "But when the husbandmen saw him; they reasoned among

themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance

may be ours. The husbandmen are represented as knowing the son and heir. Nor

can we resist the conclusion that some at least of those grave learned men who

sat in the Sanhedrim as priests or scribes well knew who the Speaker of the

awful words claimed to be, and, in resisting him and seeking his destruction,

were deliberately sinning against the voice of their own hearts.

Luke 20:15, Luke 20:16

So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. The parable-story of itself

was an improbable one. The conduct of the husbandmen, the long patience of the

owner of the vineyard, his last act in sending his beloved and only son, ― all this

makes up a history without a parallel in human experience. Yet this is an exact

sketch of what did actually take place in the eventful story of Israel! What

therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy

these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. Again a hint of a

solemn deliberation in heaven, a prophetic picture of the future of the Jewish

race fulfilled with terrible exactness. And when they heard it, they said, God

forbid! Well understood they the Speaker's meaning here. He foreshadowed, in

no veiled language, the utter ruin of the Jewish polity. When they heard this,

forgetting to be scornful, they exclaimed, in deprecation of the ominous and

terrible prediction, ΄ὴ γένοιτο! which we render accurately, though not literally,

"God forbid!"

Luke 20:17, Luke 20:18

And he beheld them, and said, What is this then thai; is written, The stone which

the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever

shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will

grind him to powder. In spite of the deprecating expression, the severity of the

tone of Jesus increases in his next words, when, looking at them with grave anger

( ἐμβλέψας), he proceeds to speak of himself under the figure of the rejected

stone. Quoting a well-known psalm (Psalms 118:22), and using the imagery of

Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 8:15 and Daniel 2:44, he describes his fortunes under the

imago of a corner-stone—that stone which forms the junction between the two

most prominent walls of a building, and which is always laid with peculiar care

and attention. In Luke 2:34 of our Gospel Simeon refers to the same well-known

prophetic saying. The husbandmen who had just been described as vine-dressers

are now described as builders, and the murdered son is reproduced under the

image of a corner, stone tossed aside as useless. In the first part of the picture,

the earthly humiliation of Messiah is portrayed when the stone is laid in the

earth. In the second, the stone falling from the top of the building represents the

36

crushing of all earthly opposition by Messiah in his glory. Woe to the builders,

then, who had scornfully rejected him

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

“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?

GILL, "So they cast him out of the vineyard,.... Rejected him as the Messiah,

even denied that he was of the Jewish nation; said he was a Samaritan, and

delivered him to the Gentiles that were without, and were aliens from the

commonwealth of Israel; and at last had him without their city, and put him to

death, as follows:

and killed him; the Prince of life, the Lord of glory, and heir of all things; see

Acts 2:23

what therefore shall the Lord of the vineyard do unto them? the husbandmen,

the chief priests, elders, Scribes, and Pharisees; at whose solicitations the life of

his Son, and heir, was taken away; by which he must be greatly provoked and

incensed.

JAMISON, "cast him out of the vineyard — (Compare Hebrews 13:11-13; 1

Kings 21:13; John 19:17).

PETT, "The result was that the servants rejected the son, expelling him from the

vineyard and killing him. This was a clear warning to the Jewish leaders that

both God and Jesus were fully aware of their murderous intentions. The

expulsion from the vineyard indicated that it was their intention that Jesus be

seen as excommunicated and cut off from Israel (the vineyard is Israel, not

Jerusalem), and the killing simply described what was in their minds. And then

He gave His warning, “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them?”

Let them think well of the consequences of what they were doing.

Mark has ‘they killed him and cast him forth out of the vineyard’. The ideas are

not necessarily contradictory. It is rather a matter of where they wish the

emphasis. For if the son was physically attacked and mortally wounded on

entering the vineyard, retreating before the onslaught and collapsing dead

37

outside the vineyard under their final blows, either description would be true.

The question would then be, is someone killed when they are first mortally

wounded, or when they finally collapse and die? The difference is thus one of

emphasis, not of chronological order. Luke is wanting to lay stress on the son as

being like the One Who is numbered among the Gentiles in His death, as well as

on His being killed, Mark’s emphasis is on the blows that commenced the death

throes of the son in the first place, the fist initial, vindictive and murderous

attack. ‘Killed him and cast him out’ are simply two events that took place

together. The verbs in translation can therefore be in any order that fits the

grammar, for the physical order of words in one language is never the same as

the physical order in another.

‘Cast him forth out of/from the vineyard.’ This could signify:

1) The expulsion of Him from Israel by being cut off from among the people

and ‘branded’ a renegade, and an excommunicate

2) The expulsion of Him to take His place among the Gentiles, the greatest

humiliation that the Jews could place on a homeborn Israelite.

3) Simply a parabolic description.

As with all Jesus’ parables that were not explained the actual application was left

to the listener and the reader, so that different ones could take it in different

ways which were not exclusive.

NISBET, "THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN

‘What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?’

Luke 20:15

Notice—

I. The vineyard.

(a) Its owner (see Isaiah 5:7).

(b) What the owner did with it (see Isaiah 5:1-2).

II. The husbandmen.

(a) Their privileges and how they used them.

(b) Their rebellion and how it ended.

The Jewish Church had served its end. The Jews thought it was to last for ever;

but a great Church was to arise which should embrace all nations, Jews and

Gentiles. And who was to be the Head of it? The Son they ‘cast out’—the ‘stone’

they refused (Acts 4:11-12) was to be the chief corner stone.

We are part of His kingdom. We are now in God’s vineyard. Then what does

God expect from us? Fruit. Are we yielding any? Is the world any the better for

our being in it? Are we rebellious? Not listening to God’s voice? Forgetting Who

gives us all our blessings? Despising His Son? (Hebrews 6:6.) Then we must

38

prepare for the King’s displeasure—for banishment from His presence.

—Rev. Canon Watson.

SIMEON, "THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN

Luke 20:15. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore

shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

WHEN the mind is unbiassed, it can easily discern between truth and error,

especially where the grounds of judgment are clear and strong. But where

persons are under the influence of prejudice or worldly interest, they are blind to

the most obvious conclusions, and obstinately tenacious of the most absurd

opinions. Hence our Lord spake so much in parables; because his adversaries,

not aware of their drift at first, were easily brought to acknowledge things,

which, if more plainly delivered, would have excited the most inveterate

opposition. In this manner he gained their assent to the equity of God in

executing the heaviest judgments on themselves and their whole nation.

This was the scope of the parable before us [Note: Read the whole parable, ver.

9–16.] — — — in opening which, we shall shew,

I. In whom this heinous wickedness is found—

It was manifestly accomplished in those to whom the parable was spoken—

[God had planted his Church among the Jews, and had cultivated it with

peculiar care [Note: Isaiah 5:1-4.]. From it he expected a revenue of honour and

glory: and when the people were forgetful to pay it, he sent his prophets to

remind them of their duty, and to stir them up to the performance of it. But they

abused his messengers in every successive age, and beat them, and sent them

away empty. He, however, averse to punish them as they deserved, sent, last of

all, his Son, in hopes that, when they should see his exalted dignity, his clear

credentials, and his unbounded benevolence, they would reverence and obey

him. But they, wishing to retain undisturbed possession of their lusts, determined

to cast him out and kill him. And though, when warned that they would do so,

they exclaimed, ‘God forbid that we should treat the Messiah thus [Note: ver.

16.]!’ they actually fulfilled the parable within the space of three days, and put to

death God’s only begotten Son.]

And is it not accomplished in us also?

[It is true that we cannot crucify him as the Jews did, because he is not within

our reach; but nevertheless we cast him out with as much indignity as ever they

did. As he was among them, “the man whom the nation abhorred,” so is he still

“despised and rejected of men,” “a butt of contradiction” to an ungodly world

[Note: Luke 2:34-35.]. How is he treated by the ungodly and profane [Note: Shew

under each of these heads (printed in Italics) what the Lord requires of them;

which however they will not do.]? When he comes to them in the ministry of the

39

word, and demands their hearts for God, do they not thrust him away, saying,

“Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us [Note: Acts 7:27.]?” “We will not

have this man to reign over us [Note: Luke 19:14.]?” And how do the self-

righteous moralists regard him [Note: Shew under each of these heads (printed

in Italics) what the Lord requires of them; which however they will not do.]?

When he calls them to build on him as the only foundation of their hopes, do

they not make him a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence [Note: Romans

9:30-33.]? Do they not persist in going about to establish their own righteousness,

instead of thankfully submitting to his [Note: Romans 10:3.]? Among his very

followers too, are there not many self-deceiving professors [Note: Shew under

each of these heads (printed in Italics) what the Lord requires of them; which

however they will not do.], who acknowledge him in words, but in works deny

him [Note: Titus 1:16.]? If others crucify him more openly, these, like Judas,

betray him with a kiss. Lastly, what shall be said of vile apostates [Note: Shew

under each of these heads (printed in Italics) what the Lord requires of them;

which however they will not do.], who having once embraced his cause, decline

from his ways, and go back unto the world? Are we not expressly told, that they

crucify him afresh [Note: Hebrews 6:6.], and “tread him under foot?” By all of

these then is Jesus cast out of the vineyard, as much as ever he was by the Jews

of old.]

Let us then consider attentively,

II. What portion such persons must expect—

The Jews, as our Lord foretold, were visited with the heaviest calamities—

[They, when interrogated by our Lord, confessed what such labourers must

expect at the hands of their lord [Note: Matthew 21:41.]. And behold, it

happened to them according to their word. That generation was not passed

away, before their city was burnt up, their people were massacred without

distinction, and their whole polity, civil and religious, was dissolved. Nor can any

one reflect on their treatment of their Messiah, without acknowledging the equity

of those unparalleled judgments that were inflicted on them.]

And shall not the wrath of God fall on those also who contemn him now?

[Let our Lord’s appeal be considered, “What shall the lord of the vineyard do

unto them?” Would any rational person imagine that he should shew kindness to

such obstinate transgressors? Do we not see immediately that God must be

incensed against them? must he not be displeased with those who withhold from

him the tribute of their love? Must he not be indignant also that his messages of

mercy are so continually slighted? And above all, must not the contempt poured

upon his only dear Son, provoke him to anger? What can we expect, but that his

wrath should wax hot against us, and “burn even to the lowest hell [Note:

Deuteronomy 32:22.]?” Let any one impartially consider the ingratitude and

impiety of such conduct, and he will confess that the everlasting punishment of

such offenders is no more than adequate to their just desert [Note: Hebrews 2:3;

Hebrews 10:28-29.].]

40

Let us then learn from this parable,

1. That we are accountable to God for all the advantages we enjoy—

[If God has made us his vineyard, and bestowed culture upon us, doubtless such

a favour entails upon us an obligation to love and serve him. And if he have sent

a succession of faithful servants to remind us of our duty, and direct us in the

performance of it, this also calls for correspondent acknowledgments from us.

Above all, if he have sent us his only dear Son, not only to instruct us, but to die

for us, we should be incessantly filled with admiration of his love, and with zeal

for his glory. But these very mercies, if overlooked and despised, will bring upon

us the heavier indignation. Think then for how many things, both temporal and

spiritual, you are indebted to God; and begin immediately to render to him his

dues. That which, above all, he requires is, the tribute of a grateful heart. O that

he may receive it daily from us; and that we may devote ourselves to him in

body, soul, and spirit!]

2. That we are peculiarly responsible for our treatment of Jesus Christ—

[Christ is the Father’s greatest gift. Our past abuse of all his other mercies may

be forgiven, provided we be duly sensible of this mercy. However long we have

alienated God’s property, yea, however shamefully we have abused his other

messengers, if now we repent us of our sins, and turn to him in the name of

Jesus, he will pardon our past transgressions, and remember our iniquities no

more. But, if we continue to slight the Saviour, all other changes will be to no

purpose. We may turn from profaneness to morality, or may even profess a

regard for Jesus himself; yet if we do not cordially receive him for all the ends

and purposes for which he was sent into the world, we shall only deceive

ourselves to our eternal ruin. Let us then “look on him whom we have pierced,

and mourn.” Then shall God’s indignation be turned to love; and we shall be

made partakers of his eternal inheritance.]

16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”

When the people heard this, they said, “God forbid!”

GILL, "He shall come and destroy these husbandmen,.... Which had its

accomplishment at the destruction of Jerusalem: according to the other

41

evangelists, these words are the answer of the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, to

the above questions put to them by Christ, after he had delivered the parable;

but here they seem to be the words of Christ, who also said the same, and

confirmed what they had observed, and could not but own, that it was just and

right, and what might be expected, with what follows:

and shall give the vineyard to others; the land of Judea to the Romans in

particular, and the church state, with the Gospel and ordinances of it, to the

Gentiles in general, sometimes called "others"; See Gill on Luke 5:29 and See

Gill on Luke 18:11.

and when they heard it, they said, God forbid; though they were their own

words, yet repeated and confirmed by Christ, and perceiving that they were the

persons intended, deprecate the fulfilment of them; at least so far as they

understood they related to the killing of the Messiah, and to the destruction of

their nation, city, and temple.

JAMISON, "He shall come, etc. — This answer was given by the Pharisees

themselves (Matthew 21:41), thus pronouncing their own righteous doom.

Matthew alone (Matthew 21:43) gives the naked application, that “the kingdom

of God should be taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the

fruits thereof” - the great evangelical community of the faithful, chiefly Gentiles.

God forbid — His whole meaning now bursting upon them.

PETT, "What the Lord of the vineyard will do is then spelled out by means of

the answer to a typical question. What will He do with them? He will destroy the

evil men who have done this thing, and give the vineyard to others. No one could

really have been in doubt about the final ending. It was the obvious conclusion.

Nevertheless its literal fulfilment was remarkable. For Jerusalem would, within

forty years after the death of Jesus, be destroyed, and the care of God’s people

would have been removed elsewhere, initially, among other places, to Syrian

Antioch (Acts 13), and then to the church leaders of the local communities. But

Jerusalem would be left empty.

‘To others.’ Presumably the Apostles, compare Luke 22:30; Matthew 16:18-19;

Matthew 18:18. We can compare here Matthew 21:43, ‘The Kingly Rule of God

will be taken away from you and given to a nation bringing forth its fruits’, not

strictly another nation, but a new Israel as headed by His followers. It was of

that new Israel, which excluded the unbelievers in the old Israel, that all who

became Christians would become a member (Romans 11:17-27; Galatians 3:29;

Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11-22).

‘And when they heard it, they said, “God forbid.” ’ As we must surely assume

that a good number present recognised the significance of His parable from the

start, at least in general outline, some such expostulation is not unexpected. The

thought of God’s people being removed from the control of the High Priest and

of the Sanhedrin would have appeared to the people like the end of the world. It

would sound like another Exile. What would have been surprising would have

been if there had been no reaction. For the consequences had been vividly

42

described. This is, of course, a summary of the reaction which would have been

even more vociferous. We are not expected to think that everyone said exactly

this like some huge automaton. It indicates their intended meaning, not actually

what everyone said. But what it does bring out is that they all recognised what

the parable was saying.

It should be noted that the fact that the resurrection is not in some way included

in the parable serves to confirm that the parable is as given before the

resurrection and not altered afterwards. We thus have it in its pre-resurrection

state. But the idea of the resurrection is now introduced, although as something

added in additionally, not as a direct part of the parable, and it is in the form of

a quotation from Scripture.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:16

Deprecation and doom.

We may regard—

I. THE FORCE OF THESE WORDS AS ORIGINALLY APPLIED. The people

who listened to this parable:

1. Deprecated a guilt in which they were to be partakers. "God forbid," said

they, "that we should do such shameful things as these, that we should be in any

way involved in such crimes as these! Whosesoever hands may be dyed with the

blood of the Husbandman's Son, ours shall be stainless." Yet were they moving

on to the last and worst enormity, and already were they doing their best to

bring about the guilty consummation.

2. Deprecated a doom to which they were descending. "God forbid," said they,"

that we should be subjected to the Divine wrath, and that we should lose that

place of privilege we have so long enjoyed! May Heaven avert from us the

calamity of having to yield to another nation or kingdom the post of honor, the

place of privilege, which our fathers handed down to us!" But they were then

pursuing the course which led inevitably to this very doom. If they only walked

on in the path along which they were then hurrying, they were bound to reach

that "miserable" end.

II. ITS APPLICATION TO OUR OWN HEARTS AND LIVES.

1. We may be supposing ourselves incapable of wrong-doing the seeds of which

are already sown in our heart. Hazael proved to have "dog" enough in him to do

the worst things he shuddered at when he spoke (2 Kings 8:13). David discovered

that he was capable of a selfishness which he was condemning to death in

another (2 Samuel 12:5-7). These Jews shrank from an action which was

described to them, as a thing too base for them to commit; and yet they were in

the very act of committing it. We little know what possibilities of evil are within

us; we cannot estimate aright our own capacity for wrong-doing. Probably every

man has in his heart something of which sin may lay hold in some dark hour,

43

and by which he may conceivably be led down to guilt and shame. The

declension and fall of those who once stood among the worthiest and the most

honored speaks to us in earnest tones of the possible wandering of our own souls

from God and goodness. Even Paul realized this stern possibility, and acted upon

it (1 Corinthians 9:27). The histories of the erring and ruined souls of men who

once seemed beyond the reach of wrong and crime, but who became entangled in

their meshes and were slain by them, call upon us to be

(1) watchful with a constant vigilance, and

2. We may be supposing ourselves safe from a doom which lies straight in front

of us. How many a youth imagines himself secure from a degradation and a

darkness toward which he has, in the sight of God, already set his foot! How

many a man considers himself safe from a low and dishonorable level, when he is

already on the slope that leads down to it I What if we could see the goal to

which the path we tread is tending! "God forbid," we say, "that this should be

our destiny!" and all the while our face is turned in that direction. There is "an

earnest need for prayer" that God would show us what is the way in which we

are walking; that, if we are in the wrong road, he would "apprehend" us even as

he apprehended his chosen messenger (Philippians 3:12), and turn our feet into

the way of his testimonies (Psalms 139:23, Psalms 139:24).—C.

17 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written:

“‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’[a]?

GILL, "And he beheld them,.... Looked very earnestly and wistly at them,

speaking as it were by his looks, signifying, that verily so it would be, as he had

said; that they would reject the Messiah, and put him to death, and bring utter

ruin upon themselves, and deprive their posterity of many advantages and

privileges:

and said, what is this then that is written; that is, what else is the meaning of

such a Scripture? is not the sense of that perfectly agreeable to what has been

said, that the Messiah shall be rejected by the principal men among the Jews in

church and state, and yet he shall be exalted, who will then take vengeance on

them?

the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

44

The passage is in Psalm 118:22. See Gill on Matthew 21:42.

JAMISON, "written — (in Psalm 118:22, Psalm 118:23. See on Luke 19:38). The

Kingdom of God is here a Temple, in the erection of which a certain stone,

rejected as unsuitable by the spiritual builders, is, by the great Lord of the

House, made the keystone of the whole. On that Stone the builders were now

“falling” and being “broken” (Isaiah 8:15), “sustaining great spiritual hurt; but

soon that Stone should fall upon them and grind them to powder” (Daniel 2:34,

Daniel 2:35; Zechariah 12:3) - in their corporate capacity in the tremendous

destruction of Jerusalem, but personally, as unbelievers, in a more awful sense

still.

PETT, "This method of finishing off a parable with a Scripture quotation is

regularly found among the Rabbis.

For then Jesus looked at them and emphasised the reference to Himself as the

beloved Son by citing Psalms 118:22, and declaring that ‘The stone which the

builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner.’ They might reject

Him, He is telling them, but they cannot prevent Him from being made the chief

cornerstone of God’s saving purposes. For while they may kill the Son it will not

be the end. He will rise again and be the foundation and seal on which God’s

salvation will be based. The verse is used similarly in Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7.

The chief corner stone was either the corner stone of the foundation which had

to bear the weight of the building, or the stone which when it was finally set in

place, completed the building and held it together as one (the cap-piece). Here it

is seen as being in the first place rejected by the builders because they cannot see

how it will fit in, only for them to discover in the end that it was the essential

cornerstone. (We are not intended to ask whether builders could be so stupid,

although no doubt some could. The whole point of the parable is to bring out the

stupidity of those of whom it speaks by an exaggerated picture).

In contrast to this firm Foundation Stone on Whom the future will be based, and

on which other stones will be erected (Ephesians 2:19-22), are the ‘goodly stones’

of the Temple which will be cast down and left not one stone upon another (Luke

19:44; Luke 21:5-6). The One is to replace the other (compare John 2:19-22; 1

Corinthians 3:11-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16-18).

It should be noted that it was from this Psalm that the people greeted Jesus as He

rode into Jerusalem (see Luke 20:26). It was probably a Psalm used in festal

situations for among other things welcoming the king or ruler of Israel as he

ceremonially entered Jerusalem or the Temple with a view to making an offering

(Luke 20:27). It was thus a suitable picture for application to the King Himself

Who would shortly offer Himself upon the altar chosen by God.

SIMSON, "THE REJECTED CORNER STONE

Luke 20:17-18. And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written,

The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the

corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on

45

whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

MANY truths delivered by our Lord militated strongly against the carnal

notions of his hearers: they were ready on many occasions to reply, “This is an

hard saying, who can hear it?” But he invariably appealed to their own

Scriptures in confirmation of his word. Nor could any better method of silencing

their objections be possibly devised. He had just warned the priests and elders

that they would kill their Messiah; and that God would on that account transfer

his Church to the Gentiles [Note: ver. 13–16.]. They, not conceiving that either of

those events could ever take place, cried, “God forbid!” Our Lord, in reply,

referred them to their own Scriptures, and added a most awful declaration of his

own, in order that he might impress the passage more deeply on their minds. We

shall consider,

I. The passage appealed to—

The words in their primary sense refer to David [Note: David’s establishment on

the throne of Israel had been opposed to the uttermost: Saul had laboured

incessantly to kill him: after the death of Saul, two tribes only acknowledged him

as their king: it was seven years before the other tribes became subject to him:

and then all the surrounding nations sought his destruction. But God made him

triumphant over all: in remembrance of which mercy he penned the words

before us. See Psalms 118:10; Psalms 118:22.]—

But they most undoubtedly have a reference to Christ also—

[Christ is represented in Scripture as the stone that should both support and

connect the Church of God [Note: Isaiah 28:16.]: and the passage referred to in

the text particularly declared, that he should be rejected by the very persons

whose duty it was to edify and build up the Church. It announced however the

determination of God to frustrate their designs, and to establish him as the head

of the corner in spite of all their endeavours to destroy him. In this view the

passage is quoted no less than six times in the New Testament: and its full

accomplishment was triumphantly proclaimed before the very builders who had

rejected him [Note: Acts 2:36; Acts 4:11-12.]—]

The particular manner in which our Lord appealed to them is worthy of notice—

[He “beheld” the objectors with a mixture of indignation and pity. He referred

them to the words as to a passage well known among them, and generally

considered even among themselves as applicable to the Messiah. His very look,

together with the pointed manner of his address, intimated to them, that they

were at that moment ignorantly fulfilling that prophecy, and that nothing but the

most inveterate prejudice could induce them to persist one moment longer in

such glaring impiety.]

The importance of this appeal will more strongly appear, if we consider,

II. The declaration founded upon it—

46

The latter part of the text is understood by most as intimating the more

aggravated punishment that persecutors would incur beyond that of other

unbelievers [Note: They suppose also that there is an allusion to the manner in

which persons were stoned to death, viz. by casting them down first upon a large

stone, and then throwing large stones upon them.]. Perhaps we may rather

understand it as importing,

1. That all, who stumble at Christ, greatly endanger their own souls—

[Many are the grounds of offence which Christ affords to proud and ungodly

men. To some the sublimity, to others the simplicity, to some the strictness, and

to others the grace of his Gospel, becomes a stumbling-block. Hence some

professedly “deny the Lord who bought them,” while others, “call him Lord, but

will not do what he commands.” These equally stumble at Christ himself [Note: 1

Peter 2:8.]. And as he who falls upon a great stone, will bruise and maim his

body, so does he who thus stumbles at Christ wound his own soul [Note: What

pangs of conscience, and dread of death and judgment, do such persons

experience!]. Solomon, expressly speaking of Christ, attests this awful truth

[Note: Proverbs 8:30; Proverbs 8:36.]—]

2. That they who provoke him to cut them off in their impenitence, will

perish certainly and without a remedy—

[Many have rejected him for a season, and found acceptance with him at last;

but they who abide in unbelief must inevitably perish. The despised Jesus will

fall upon them at the last day, and grind them to powder: the weight of rocks

and mountains would not more effectually crush a potter’s vessel, than he will

his obstinate and unbelieving enemies [Note: Psalms 2:9.].]

Surely this is a declaration which deserves the deepest attention—

[They who oppose the truth of Christ, think that they shall retard his work; at

least, they do not apprehend that they shall endanger themselves. But they “kick

against the pricks [Note: Acts 9:5.].” As well may persons hope to wound a rock

by casting themselves down upon it, as that they shall ever prevail against the

Church of Christ: the injury will ultimately be sustained by themselves alone.

The voice of God therefore in the text is like that of David, “Kiss the Son, lest he

be angry, and ye perish from the way [Note: Psalms 2:12.].]

Advices—

1. Attend diligently to every word of God which ye read or hear—

[The knowledge, which the Jews had by means of the Scriptures, rendered their

guilt in rejecting Christ incomparably more heinous than that of the Roman

soldiers; and we who enjoy the still clearer light of the New Testament, must

contract ten-fold guilt if we reject him. How shall we be able to endure that

appeal which will be made to us in the day of judgment, ‘Were not such and such

47

things written respecting me? were not my invitations, promises, and

expostulations set before you? were you not forewarned of the evils which a

rejection of me would bring upon you?’ — — — Give earnest heed then to the

word ye hear, lest, instead of proving a savour of life unto life, it become a savour

of death unto death [Note: 2 Corinthians 2:16.].]

2. Examine carefully what regard ye are paying to Christ—

[All do not make him the head of the corner: many reject him still. If we be not

with him, we are against him [Note: Matthew 12:30.]. All that disobey him, as

truly stumble at him, as if they were his avowed enemies [Note: 1 Peter 2:8.].

Inquire then whether ye make him the foundation whereon ye build, and the

corner-stone that unites you in love to every part of God’s spiritual temple. By

this must ye know that ye are his true disciples.]

3. Be thankful if you have attained even the smallest knowledge of Christ—

[There is no hope whatever for those who, in a Christian land, die ignorant of

Christ [Note: 2 Thessalonians 1:8.]. But they who know him, have nothing to

fear. To them is promised eternal life [Note: John 17:3.]. When the whole

assembly of the ungodly shall be banished from his presence, they shall stand

with great boldness [Note: 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10.]. When the wicked will be

crying to the rocks and mountains to fall upon them, the followers of the Lamb

will be triumphing in their God. This promise is sure to all the seed [Note:

Romans 9:33.]. Let Jesus then be more precious to all our souls; let us willingly

consent to his being the head of the corner; let us, as lively stones, ever seek to be

built up upon him [Note: 1 Peter 2:4-5.]; and, though we should be despised and

rejected like him, let us never be ashamed of owning him as all our salvation and

all our desire.]

PULPIT, "Luke 20:17

The rejection and exaltation of Christ.

We look at—

I. THE REJECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. Its strangeness.

1. From an evidential point of view. How came the builders to reject that

valuable Stone? How was it that all the miracles of Jesus, so wonderful, so

beneficent, so simple, and so credible as they were; that the life of Jesus, so holy

and so beautiful, so gracious and so winning as it was; that the truth spoken by

Jesus, so profound, so original, so lofty, so satisfying to the deepest wants of man

as it was;—how came it to pass that all this left him the "despised and rejected of

men"?

2. From a providential point of view. How do we account for it that there should

have been such a long and complicated preparation for the coming of the

Messiah of the Jews, and of the Redeemer of mankind, and that he should fail to

48

be recognized when he came? Does not all that Divine arrangement of Law and

ritual and prophecy, of privilege and discipline, seem to have been attended with

failure? Of what use was all that elaborate preparation, when the people of God

rejected the Son of God? when he to whom everything pointed, and of whom

everything foretold, was not welcomed and honored, but denounced as a deceiver

and slain as a criminal?

II. CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ACCOUNT FOR IT; or which, if they do not

account for it, lessen our surprise concerning it.

1. As to the evidential difficulty. We need not wonder that the very strongest

evidence failed to convince those who were unconvinced. What evidence can

prevail against bigotry (or prejudice) and selfishness combined? Our knowledge

and experience of mankind must have abundantly proved that either of these can

repel the clearest and weightiest proofs; much more can both of them. And

surely prejudice and self-interest never found a firmer seat than they found in

the minds of the "chief priests and the scribes" who led the opposition to our

Lord.

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

III. HIS EXALTATION.

1. Notwithstanding his humiliation. That Stone was rejected indeed; that

Teacher was silenced, that Prophet slain, that cause covered with infamy; those

hopes, cherished by a few disciples, were laid in the tomb and covered from

sight; yet, notwithstanding all that apparent defeat and discomfiture, that "Stone

has become the Head of the corner," that Teacher the great Teacher of Divine

wisdom, that Prophet the acknowledged Savior of mankind, that cause the

kingdom of God upon earth.

2. ,is the reward of his humiliation. "Wherefore also God hath highly exalted

him" (Philippians 2:6-11; Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:10).

3. As the result of his humiliation. "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto

me." The cross has been the great loadstone which has been attracting the world.

It is to a crucified Savior, once slain for our sins, dying in mercy toward our

race, that we are drawn in faith and love. It is he "who loved us, and gave

himself for us" unto such shame and sorrow and death—it is he whom we rejoice

to make the Friend of our heart and the Sovereign of our life.

1. Learn the place of privilege. It is well for us that we stand where we do

stand—at a point in time where we can recognize the Corner-stone. The

mountain is best seen afar off, the city or the sea is best seen from above, the

character of the generation is best understood after some interval of time. We

know Jesus Christ better than we should have done had we lived when he was

the Stone rejected of the builders. We could not be better placed than we are by

the providence of God for understanding him and rejoicing in his worth.

49

2. Know the day of opportunity. Recognizing the true character of that once-

slighted "Stone," knowing Jesus Christ as we know him now, it is for us to

accept him without delay as our personal Redeemer, and to commend him, with

all devotedness, to the estimation and trust of all beholders.—C.

18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”

GILL, "Whosoever shall fall on that stone, shall be broken,.... Not who shall fall

upon Christ by faith, and build upon him as the foundation stone, for such shall

be saved; but that stumble at him, and are offended with him, and fall by

unbelief and hardness of heart; such do themselves much hurt and mischief and

expose themselves to danger and ruin; they bid very fair for destruction:

but on whomsoever it shall fall; as it did with its full weight upon the Jews at

their destruction, and as it will upon all Christless sinners at the last day:

it will grind him to powder; the ruin of such will be unavoidable, and there will

be no recovery; See Gill on Matthew 21:44.

PETT, "This method of finishing off a parable with a Scripture quotation is

regularly found among the Rabbis.

For then Jesus looked at them and emphasised the reference to Himself as the

beloved Son by citing Psalms 118:22, and declaring that ‘The stone which the

builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner.’ They might reject

Him, He is telling them, but they cannot prevent Him from being made the chief

cornerstone of God’s saving purposes. For while they may kill the Son it will not

be the end. He will rise again and be the foundation and seal on which God’s

salvation will be based. The verse is used similarly in Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7.

The chief corner stone was either the corner stone of the foundation which had

to bear the weight of the building, or the stone which when it was finally set in

place, completed the building and held it together as one (the cap-piece). Here it

is seen as being in the first place rejected by the builders because they cannot see

how it will fit in, only for them to discover in the end that it was the essential

cornerstone. (We are not intended to ask whether builders could be so stupid,

although no doubt some could. The whole point of the parable is to bring out the

stupidity of those of whom it speaks by an exaggerated picture).

In contrast to this firm Foundation Stone on Whom the future will be based, and

on which other stones will be erected (Ephesians 2:19-22), are the ‘goodly stones’

50

of the Temple which will be cast down and left not one stone upon another (Luke

19:44; Luke 21:5-6). The One is to replace the other (compare John 2:19-22; 1

Corinthians 3:11-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16-18).

It should be noted that it was from this Psalm that the people greeted Jesus as He

rode into Jerusalem (see Luke 20:26). It was probably a Psalm used in festal

situations for among other things welcoming the king or ruler of Israel as he

ceremonially entered Jerusalem or the Temple with a view to making an offering

(Luke 20:27). It was thus a suitable picture for application to the King Himself

Who would shortly offer Himself upon the altar chosen by God.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:18

Contact and conflict with Christ.

There is one thing which, as a stone or rock, Christ is willing and waiting to be to

us; there is that also which, in spite of his own desire concerning us, we may

compel him to be to us.

I. THE ROCK ON WHICH WE MAY BUILD.

1. Christ desires to be as the Corner-stone or Foundation-stone on which the

whole structure of our character and of our destiny is resting.

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

II. THE ROCK AGAINST WHICH WE ARE BRUISED OR EVEN BROKEN,

We cannot come, in any sense or degree, into conflict with Christ without being

injured by the act.

1. To turn from him is to deprive ourselves of the best; it is to rob ourselves of

the highest motives to rectitude and spiritual worth, of the deepest springs of

goodness and of beauty, of the heavenliest influences that can breathe upon the

soul, of the purest and most elevating joys that can fill the heart, of the noblest

activities that can occupy and crown our life.

2. To reject him, whether by deliberate and determined refusal or by a foolish

and guilty procrastination, is to do conscious wrong to ourselves; it is to injure

our conscience, to weaken our will, to suffer constant spiritual deterioration, to

be moving along that downward slope which ends in darkness of mind and in

self-despair,

3. To disobey the commandments of Christ is to come into collision with those

laws of God which are also laws of our spiritual nature, any and every infraction

of which is attended with inward and serious injury; e.g. to hate our brother

without a cause, to look with lustful eye, to love our own life rather than the

cause of God and righteousness,—this is to suffer harm and damage to the spirit.

4. To work against Christ and his gospel is to be constructing that which will be

51

destroyed, is to be delving and building on the sand with the tide coming in

which will wash everything away. In no way can we take up an attitude of

resistance to Jesus Christ without "wronging our own soul;" it may be by a cruel

renunciation of all that is best, or it may be by incurring the judgment which

must fall and does tan upon folly and sin.

III. THE ROCK WHICH MAY CRUSH US IN ITS FALL. "On whomsoever it

shall fall," etc. The snow-drift and the glacier are magnificent objects on which

to gaze; but how terrible is the descending, destructive avalanche! It is simply

inevitable that the brightest light should cast the deepest shade; that fullest

privilege and most abounding opportunity should, in the case of the guilty, end

in deepest condemnation and severest penalty (John 3:19; Hebrews 6:4-8;

Philippians 3:18, Philippians 3:19). "When God arises to judgment," when the

rock of Divine dissatisfaction falls, when the "wrath of the Lamb" is revealed,

then must there be made known what God intends by "everlasting destruction

from his presence." All that is meant by that we do not know: we may well

resolve that, by timely penitence and loving faith, we will never learn by the

teaching of our own experience.—C.

19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

GILL, "And the chief priests, and the Scribes, that same hour,.... As soon as he

had delivered the above parable, together with that of the two sons:

sought to lay hands on him; they had a good will to it, being exceedingly

gravelled with the question he put to them concerning John's baptism, which

confounded them, and put them to silence; and with the parables he delivered, in

which they were so manifestly pointed at:

and they feared the people; lest they should rise and stone them, as in Luke 20:6

or rescue him out of their hands;

for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them: and that they

were the husbandmen that had used the servants of God so ill, and would put to

death the son of God, the Messiah; and who would at length be destroyed

themselves, and the kingdom of God be taken from them, though they seem to

detest and deprecate it, saying in Luke 20:16 God forbid; that we should kill the

52

heir, or that we should be destroyed, and the vineyard given to others: these

things grievously nettled them, and exasperated them against him; but they knew

not how to help themselves at present.

BARCLAY, "CAESAR AND GOD (Luke 20:19-26)

20:19-26 The scribes and chief priests tried to lay hands on Jesus at that very

hour; and they feared the people, for they realized that he spoke this parable to

them. They watched for an opportunity, and they despatched spies, who

pretended that they were genuinely concerned about the right thing to do, so that

they might fasten on what he said and be able to hand him over to the power and

the authority of the governor. They asked him, "Teacher, we know that you

speak and teach rightly, and you are no respecter of persons. Is it lawful for us to

pay tribute to Caesar? Or not?" He saw their subtle deception and said to them,

"Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription is on it?" They said,

"Caesar's." "Well then," he said to them, "give to Caesar what belongs to

Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." There was nothing in this

statement that they could fasten on to in the presence of the people. They were

amazed at his answer, and had nothing to say.

Here the emissaries of the Sanhedrin returned to the attack. They suborned men

to go to Jesus and ask a question as if it was really troubling their consciences.

The tribute to be paid to Caesar was a poll-tax of one denarius, about 4 pence,

per year. Every man from 14 to 65 and every women from 12 to 65 had to pay

that simply for the privilege of existing. This tribute was a burning question in

Palestine and had been the cause of more than one rebellion. It was not the

merely financial question which was at stake. The tribute was not regarded as a

heavy imposition and was in fact no real burden at all. The issue at stake was

this--the fanatical Jews claimed that they had no king but God and held that it

was wrong to pay tribute to anyone other than him. The question was a religious

question, for which many were willing to die.

So, then, these emissaries of the Sanhedrin attempted to impale Jesus on the

horns of a dilemma. If he said that the tribute should not be paid, they would at

once report him to Pilate and arrest would follow as surely as the night the day.

If he said that it should be paid, he would alienate many of his supporters,

especially the Galilaeans, whose support was so strong.

Jesus answered them on their own grounds. He asked to be shown a denarius.

Now, in the ancient world the sign of kingship was the issue of currency. For

instance, the Maccabees had immediately issued their own currency whenever

Jerusalem was freed from the Syrians. Further, it was universally admitted that

to have the right to issue currency carried with it the right to impose taxation. If

a man had the right to put his image and superscription on a coin, ipso facto he

had acquired the right to impose taxation. So Jesus said, "If you accept Caesar's

currency and use it, you are bound to accept Caesar's right to impose taxes";

"but," he went on, "there is a domain in which Caesar's writ does not run and

which belongs wholly to God."

(i) If a man lives in a state and enjoys all its privileges, he cannot divorce himself

53

from it. The more honest a man is, the better citizen he will be. There should be

no better and no more conscientious citizens of any state than its Christians; and

one of the tragedies of modern life is that Christians do not sufficiently take their

part in the government of the state. If they abandon their responsibilities and

leave materialistic politicians to govern, Christians cannot justifiably complain

about what is done or not done.

(ii) Nonetheless, it remains true that in the life of the Christian God has the last

word and not the state. The voice of conscience is louder than the voice of any

man-made laws. The Christian is at once the servant and the conscience of the

state. Just because he is the best of citizens, he will refuse to do what a Christian

citizen cannot do. He will at one and the same time fear God and honour the

king.

COFFMAN, "The purpose of the leaders was clearly stated by Luke in this

paragraph. They planned to trip Jesus up with a dilemma. If Jesus said it was

unlawful to give tribute to Caesar, he might have lost much of his popular

following; and if the Pharisees could have turned the vast multitudes away from

Christ, they could have killed him without causing the uproar they feared. On

the other hand, if he said that it was not lawful to give tribute to Caesar, they

were planning to prefer charges before the Roman governor against him as a

seditionist, that is, a man rebelling against lawful authority and forbidding the

people to pay taxes.

The hypocrisy of the leaders is seen in the spies and their flattering approach to

Jesus, but his omniscience is seen in the perfect understanding of his questioners

and their wicked devices.

Kings and rulers in all ages, as well as all governments, held that the coinage of

the realm was the property of the issuing authority. This is still true today in the

United States of America. Thus Christ's reaction to this trick question was: (1) to

establish that Caesar's coinage was in circulation, which he did by inquiring for

a coin; (2) then to point out that it could not be wrong to "give back" to Caesar

that which was already his! The powerful thrust of this is implicit in two words

that surfaced in the confrontation. The Pharisees spoke of "paying" tribute;

Jesus spoke of "giving back" what already belonged to the central authority! (3)

Next, he took a step forward from this and demanded that those hypocrites also

"give back" to God what was his, namely the temple which they had usurped

and made a den of robbers, and themselves, created in God's image, they should

"give back" to God. The ages have not diminished the glory of this astounding

answer.

IV. One is a little surprised at the Sadducees appearing in this cabal against the

Lord; and the desperation of the Pharisees' case is evident in their including

those old enemies of theirs in the contest. This was due to the fact that the

Sadducees were the stronger political party, holding most of the high offices,

including that of high priest; and these were in fact, the principal architects in

the plot to kill Jesus. At any rate, they tried their luck against the Lord of Life.

54

PULPIT, "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay

hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken

this parable against them. Again the Sanhedrim take counsel. They long to arrest

him on some capital charge; but they dared not, for the people, joined by the

Passover pilgrims, had exalted him to the rank of a hero. Not a few evidently

looked on him at that period as King Messiah, But the feeling of the great council

was intensely bitter. They felt their power and influence was slipping away from

them. These last parables were scarcely veiled attacks on them. In the last spoken

words he had calmly announced that he was to die, and their hands were to

carry out the bloody work. And then, in the simile of the corner-stone, he, in no

ambiguous terms, told them that in killing him they will not be done with him,

for that in the end they will be utterly crushed by his power.

PETT, "The parable made the Scribes and the chief priests even more

determined to arrest Jesus, and they sought to find ways of doing so, but always

the people got in the way, for they would not leave Jesus alone. And while the

people were there in such huge numbers they recognised that any attempt to

arrest Him would simply cause excessive trouble.

We may, perhaps, conclude our comments on this passage by drawing from the

application made of the parable by a well known scholar:

· It tells us of human privilege. God had given to His people an inheritance

which all recognised as a blessing.

· It tells us of human sin. Man misuses what God has given and

appropriates it for his own purposes.

· It tells us of human responsibility. The inheritance was given in order that

man may pay his proper respects to God and show his proper respect to his

neighbour.

· It tells us of God’s patience. Over the long centuries, while God had

chastened His people, He had preserved them through it all and had even

brought them back to their land. And now He was still lovingly reaching out to

them.

· It tells us of God’s mercy. In reaching out to them He even gave His only

beloved Son.

· It tells us of God’s judgment. One day the consequence of this can only be

that for those who have rejected His Son will come judgment.

· It tells us that Jesus knew what was coming and yet did not turn back

from it. he suffered for us, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring

us to God.

· It tells us that He never doubted God’s ultimate triumph. He knew that in

the end God’s purposes would prevail and man’s folly be revealed for what it is.

· It tells us that He is the only beloved Son of God, greater than Moses and

all the prophets, even greater than John the Baptiser. They were beloved

servants but He is the beloved Son. There is no other.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:19-26

The sacred and the secular. There are three preliminary truths which may be

55

gathered before considering the proper subject of the text.

1. The worthlessness of heartless praise. What value do we suppose Jesus Christ

attached to the eulogium here pronounced (Luke 20:2)? How worthless to him

now are the epithets which are uttered or the praises which are sung by lips that

are not sincere?

2. The evil end of a false attitude toward Christ. The attitude of hostility which

his enemies had definitely taken up led them to resort

3. The final discomfiture of guilt. (Luke 20:26.) It is silenced and ashamed.

Respecting the principal subject before us, we should consider—

I. TWO NOTIONS THAT FIND NO COUNTENANCE IN OUR LORD'S

REPLY,

1. When Jesus answered, "Render unto Caesar," etc., he did not mean to say

that the spheres of the secular and the sacred lie so apart that we cannot serve

God while we are serving the state. Let none say, "Politics are politics, and

religion is religion." That is a thoroughly unchristian sentiment. If we ought to

"eat and drink," if we ought to do everything to the glory of God, it is certain

that we ought to vote at elections, to speak at meetings, to exercise our political

privileges, and to discharge our civil duties, be they humble or high, to the glory

of God, it is certain that we ought to vote at elections, to speak Christ as truly

and as acceptably in the magistrates' court, or in the lobby of the House of

Commons, as he can be in the school or the sanctuary.

2. Nor did Christ mean to say that these spheres are so apart that a man cannot

be serving the state while he is engaged in the direct service of God; for, indeed,

there is no way by which we render so true and great a service to the whole body

politic as when we are engaged in planting Divine truth in the minds and hearts

of men; then are we sowing the seeds of peace, of industry, of sobriety, of every

national virtue, of a real and lasting prosperity.

3. Nor yet that there are no occasions whatever when we may act in opposition to

the state. Our Lord encouraged his apostles in their refusal to obey an

unrighteous mandate (Acts 5:28, Acts 5:29).

II. THE LEADING TRUTH WHICH CHRIST'S WORDS CONTAIN, Viz. that

our obligation to God does not conflict with our ordinary allegiance to the civil

power. If the latter should enjoin apostasy, or blasphemy, or positive immorality,

then disobedience would become a duty, and might rise into heroism, as it has

often done. But ordinarily, we can serve God and be loyal citizens at the same

time, and this none the less that the rulers whom we serve are Mohammedans or

pagans. To be orderly and law-abiding under the rule of an infidel is as far as

possible from being unchristian. On the contrary, it is decidedly Christian (see 1

Timothy 2:2; Romans 3:1-7). Indeed, service rendered to "the froward" has a

virtue not possessed by service to "the good and gentle." and faithful citizenship

"in a strange land" may be a more valuable and acceptable service than in a

56

Christian country. Our duty, in the light of Christ's teaching, is not that of

discovering conscientious objections to the support of the civil government; it is

rather that of rendering a hearty obedience to the Divine will, and also of

conforming in all loyalty to the requirements of human law.

Paying Taxes to Caesar

20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.

CLARKE, "They watched him - Παρατηρησαντες, Insidiously watching. See on

Luke 14:1; (note).

Spies - Εγκαθετους, from εν, in, and καθιημι, I let down, to set in ambush. One

who crouches in some secret place to spy, listen, catch, or hurt. Hesychius

explains the word by ενεδρευοντες, those who lie in wait, or in ambush, to

surprise and slay. Josephus uses the word to signify a person bribed for a

particular purpose. See War, b. ii. c. ii. s. 5, and b. vi. c. v. s. 2. No doubt the

persons mentioned in the text were men of the basest principles, and were hired

by the malicious Pharisees to do what they attempted in vain to perform.

GILL, "And they watched him,.... What he said, and what he did, and where he

went, that they might take an advantage against him, or know where he was, to

send to him, as they should think fit, and take the best opportunity of so doing.

The Syriac and Persic versions leave out this clause:

and sent forth spies which should feign themselves just men: of virtue and

religion, conscientious men, that would do nothing but what was just and right,

and were desirous of being exactly informed of the truth of things, that they

might act right in every punctilio:

that might take hold of his words; improve them, and form a charge upon them,

of sedition and treason:

that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor; the

Roman governor, and by him be put to death. These men were some of them the

disciples of the Pharisees, and others were Herodians; see Matthew 22:16.

57

HENRY, "Verses 20-26

Christ's Enemies Nonplussed.

20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves

just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him

unto the power and authority of the governor. 21And they asked him, saying,

Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the

person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: 22Is it lawful for us to give

tribute unto Cæ sar, or no? 23But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto

them, Why tempt ye me? 24Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription

hath it? They answered and said, Cæ sar's. 25 And he said unto them, Render

therefore unto Cæ sar the things which be Cæ sar's, and unto God the things

which be God's. 26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people:

and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.

We have here Christ's evading a snare which his enemies laid for him, by

proposing a question to him about tribute. We had this passage before, both in

Matthew and Mark. Here is,

I. The mischief designed him, and that is more fully related here than before.

The plot was to deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor, Luke

20:20. They could not themselves put him to death by course of law, nor

otherwise than by a popular tumult, which they could not depend upon and,

since they could not be his judges, they would willingly condescend to be his

prosecutors and accusers, and would themselves inform against him. They hoped

to gain their point, if they could but incense the governor against him. Note, It

has been the common artifice of persecuting church-rulers to make the secular

powers the tools of their malice, and oblige the kings of the earth to do their

drudgery, who, if they had not been instigated, would have let their neighbours

live quietly by them, as Pilate did Christ till the chief priests and the scribes

presented Christ to him. But thus Christ's word must be fulfilled by their cursed

politics, that he should be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles.

II. The persons they employed. Matthew and Mark told us that they were

disciples of the Pharisees, with some Herodians. Here it is added, They were

spies, who should feign themselves just men. Note, It is no new thing for bad men

to feign themselves just men, and to cover the most wicked projects with the most

specious and plausible pretences. The devil can transform himself into an angel

of light, and a Pharisee appear in the garb, and speak the language, of a disciple

of Christ. A spy must go in disguise. These spies must take on them to have a

value for Christ's judgment, and to depend upon it as an oracle, and therefore

must desire his advice in a case of conscience. Note, Ministers are concerned to

stand upon their guard against some that feign themselves to be just men, and to

be wise as serpents when they are in the midst of a generation of vipers and

scorpions.

III. The question they proposed, with which they hoped to ensnare him. 1. Their

preface is very courtly: Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly,

Luke 20:21. Thus they thought to flatter him into an incautious freedom and

58

openness with them, and so to gain their point. They that are proud, and love to

be commended, will be brought to do any thing for those that will but flatter

them, and speak kindly to them but they were much mistaken who thought thus

to impose upon the humble Jesus. He was not pleased with the testimony of such

hypocrites, nor thought himself honoured by it. It is true that he accepts not the

person of any, but it is as true that he knows the hearts of all, and knew theirs,

and the seven abominations that were there, though they spoke fair. It was

certain that he taught the way of God truly but he knew that they were unworthy

to be taught by him, who came to take hold of his words, not to be taken hold of

by them. 2. Their case is very nice: "Is it lawful for us" (this is added here in

Luke) "to give tribute to Cæ sar--for us Jews, us the free-born seed of Abraham,

us that pay the Lord's tribute, may give tribute to Cæ sar?" Their pride and

covetousness made them loth to pay taxes, and then they would have it a question

whether it was lawful or no. Now if Christ should say that it was lawful the

people would take it ill, for they expected that he who set up to be the Messiah

should in the first place free them from the Roman yoke, and stand by them in

denying tribute to Cæ sar. But if he should say that it was not lawful, as they

expected he would (for if he had not been of that mind they thought he could not

have been so much the darling of the people as he was), then they should have

something to accuse him of to the governor, which was what they wanted.

IV. His evading the snare which they laid for him: He perceived their craftiness,

Luke 20:23. Note, Those that are most crafty in their designs against Christ and

his gospel cannot with all their art conceal them from his cognizance. He can see

through the most politic disguises, and so break through the most dangerous

snare for surely in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird. He did not give

them a direct answer, but reproved them for offering to impose upon him--Why

tempt ye me? and called for a piece of money, current money with the

merchants--Show me a penny and asked them whose money it was, whose stamp

it bore, who coined it. They owned, "It is Cæ sar's money." "Why them," saith

Christ, "you should first have asked whether it was lawful to pay and receive Cæ

sar's money among yourselves, and to admit that to be the instrument of your

commerce. But, having granted this by a common consent, you are concluded by

your own act, and, no doubt, you ought to give tribute to him who furnished you

with this convenience for your trade, protects you in it, and lends you the

sanction of his authority for the value of your money. You must therefore render

to Cæ sar the things that are Cæ sar's. In civil things you ought to submit to the

civil powers, and so, if Cæ sar protects you in your civil rights by laws and the

administration of justice, you ought to pay him tribute but in sacred things God

only is your King. You are not bound to be of Cæ sar's religion you must render

to God the things that are God's, must worship and adore him only, and not any

golden image that Cæ sar sets up " and we must worship and adore him in such

way as he had appointed, and not according to the inventions of Cæ sar. It is

God only that has authority to say My son, give me thy heart.

V. The confusion they were hereby put into, Luke 20:26. 1. The snare is broken

They could not take hold of his words before the people. They could not fasten

upon any thing wherewith to incense either the governor or the people against

him. 2. Christ is honoured even the wrath of man is made to praise him. They

59

marvelled at his answer, it was so discreet and unexceptionable, and such an

evidence of that wisdom and sincerity which make the face to shine. 3. Their

mouths are stopped they held their peace. They had nothing to object, and durst

ask him nothing else, lest he should shame and expose them.

PETT, "This verse beautifully sums up the true situation. These men who

approached Jesus, who were sent by the Sanhedrin who waited out in the

darkness, and pretended to a great deal of righteousness and godly concern,

were actually tricksters whose one aim was to catch Him out and report Him to

the governor for subversion. They wanted to entrap Him into saying something

seditious, i.e. that ‘it was not lawful to pay tribute to Caesar’.

Mark tell us that they were an unholy alliance of Pharisees and Herodians

(Galilean court officials), but Luke does not want to complicate things for his

readers, who would know nothing of the Herodians (see Mark 12:13 and

compare Mark 3:6).

PULPIT, "And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign

themselves just men, that they might take held of his words, that so they might

deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. In their intense

hatred, conscious that the populace were on the whole in sympathy with Jesus,

the Sanhedrim, to carry out their design on his life, determined to avail

themselves of the hated Roman military police. Their hope henceforward is to

substantiate a charge of treason against him. This was, in those troublous times,

when insurrection against the detested Gentile rule was ever being plotted, a

comparatively easy matter. The incident of the tribute money, which

immediately follows, was part of this new departure in the Sanhedrin policy

respecting the murder they so longed to see carried out.

PETT, "Verses 20-26

The Second Test: Is It Lawful To Give Tribute To Caesar? (20:20-26).

In the chiasmus of the Section this challenge parallels the challenge concerning

His authority (Luke 20:1-8). Sneakily they seek to take advantage of His claim to

speak with authority by trapping Him into subversive remarks that can then be

passed on to the Roman Governor as examples of His treasonable behaviour.

In most countries the question would have been fairly easy to answer, but in

Israel it was a minefield, for while most reluctantly paid their denarius poll tax

they did so because of what would have happened to them and their children if

they did not, but they did it with reluctance and with hatred in their hearts.

However, for any prophet to suggest that they should pay it even reluctantly

would have been the death knell for any hopes that the prophet had to be

listened to. He would be instantly discredited. Prophets were supposed to stand

out for what was right, not to give in to expediency (that was for common folk

like them).

Analysis.

60

a They watched Him, and sent out spies, who put on a pretence that they

themselves were righteous, in order that they might take hold of His speech, so as

to deliver Him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor (Luke 20:20).

b They asked Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that you say and teach rightly,

and do not accept the person of any, but of a truth teach the way of God. Is it

lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:21-22)

c But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Show me a denarius.

Whose image and superscription has it?” And they said, “Caesar’s” (Luke

20:23-24).

b And He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and

to God the things that are God’s” (Luke 20:25).

a And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people, and they

marvelled at His answer, and held their peace (Luke 20:26).

Note that in ‘a’ their aim was to ‘take hold of Him in His speech, and in the

parallel we learn that they were unable to take hold of His saying before the

people. In ‘b’ the question was as to whether it was lawful to give tribute to

Caesar, and in the parallel He gave His answer. And centrally in ‘c’ He calls on

them to produce the coin that He will cite in evidence against them.

BENSON, "Verses 20-26

Luke 20:20-26. And they watched him — For an elucidation of this paragraph,

see on Matthew 22:16-22, and Mark 12:13-17; and sent spies, which should feign

themselves just men — Men scrupulously conscientious in every point: that they

might take hold of his words — If he answered as they hoped he would. Master,

we know then sayest, &c. — Speakest in private, and teachest in public; the way

of God truly — The true path of duty. They could not take hold of his words

before the people — As they did afterward before the sanhedrim, in the absence

of the people, chap. Luke 22:67, &c.

BURKITT, "Both St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us, that these spies, sent forth to

ensnare our Saviour about paying tribute to Caesar, were the Pharisees and

Herodians: the former were against paying tribute, looking upon the Roman

emperor as an usurper; the latter were for it. These two opposite parties

concluded, that, let our Saviour answer how he would, they should entrap him;

if, to please the Pharisees, he denied paying tribute, then he is accused of

sedition; if, to gratify the Herodians, he voted for paying tribute, then he is

pronounced an enemy to the liberty of his country, and exposed to a popular

odium.

But observe with what wisdom and caution our Lord answers them: he calls for

the Roman penny, and asks them, whose superscription it bare? They answer,

Caesar's. Then says he, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. As if he

had said, "Your admitting the Roman coin amongst you, is an evidence that you

are under subjection to the Roman emperor; because the coining and imposing

of money is an act of sovereign authority; therefore you having owned Caesar's

authority over you, by accepting of his coin amongst you, give unto him his just

dues, and render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

61

Learn hence,

1. That our Saviour was no enemy to magistracy and civil government; there was

no truer pay-master of the king's dues, than he that was King of kings; he

preached it and he practised it, Matthew 17:27

2. Where a kingdom is in subjection to a temporal prince, whether by descent,

election, or conquest, he derives the title, the sujects ought from a principle of

conscience to pay tribute to him.

3. That as Christ is no enemy to the civil rights of princes, and his religion

exempts none from paying their civil dues, so princes should be as careful not to

rob him of his divine honor, as he is not to wrong them of their civil rights. As

Christ requires all his followers to render to Ceasar the things that are Caesar's,

so princes should oblige all their subjects to render unto God the things that are

God's.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:20-40

Christ supreme in debate.

We have seen in the last section how our Lord told a parable whose bearing was

unmistakably against the Jewish rulers. They are determined, in consequence, to

so entrap him in discussion as, if possible, to bring him within the grasp of the

Roman governor. But in entering the doubtful field of debate with a base

purpose such as this, it was, as the sequel shows, only to be vanquished. Jesus

proves more than a match for the two batches of artful men who try to entrap

him. Let us look at the victories separately, and then at Jesus remaining Master

of the field.

I. HIS VICTORY OVER THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY. (Luke 20:21-26.)

This party was composed mainly of Pharisees. They corresponded to the modern

revolutionary party in settled or conquered states. They were constantly

fomenting sedition, plotting against the Roman power, the sworn enemies of

Caesar. They come, then, with their difficulty about tribute. But notice:

1. Their real tribute to Christ's character in their pretended flattery. (Luke

20:21.) They own to his face that he was too brave to make distinctions among

men or to accept their persons. In other words, their testimony clearly is that,

like God his Father, Jesus was "no respecter of persons." No one is fit to be a

teacher of truth who panders to men's tastes or respects their persons. Only the

impartial mood and mind can deal with truth truthfully. In the hollow flattery of

the Pharisees we find rich testimony to the excellency of Jesus.

2. Notice their scruple about paying tribute. (Luke 20:22.) The law of the nation

might possibly be made to teach the duty of being tributary to none. It was this

they wished to elicit from him, and so hand him over to the governor as seditious.

They wished a pretext for revolution, and if he furnished them with one and

perished for it, so much the better, they imagined. The baseness of the plot is

62

evident. Their hearts are hostile to Caesar, but they are ready to become

"informers" against him for the sake of getting rid of him.

3. Notice how simply he secured a victory. Showing them at once that he knew

their designs, he asks them to show him a penny. In his poverty he hardly

possessed at this time a spare penny to point his teaching. Having got the penny,

he asks about the image on the currency, and receiving for answer that it was

Caesar's, he simply instructs them to give both Caesar and God their due.

Caesar has his domain, as the currency shows. He regulates the outward

relations of men, their barter and their citizenship, and by his laws he makes

them keep the peace. But beyond this civil sphere, there is the moral and the

religious, where God alone is King. Let God get his rights as well as Caesar, and

all shall be well. These words of Christ sounded the death-knell of the Jewish

theocracy. They point out two mutually independent spheres. They call upon

men to be at once loyal citizens and real saints. We may do our duty by the state,

while at the same time we are conscious citizens of heaven, and serve our unseen

Master in all things. £

II. HIS VICTORY OVER THE SADDUCEES. (Luke 20:27-38.) The Pharisees

having been confounded by his subtle power, he is next beset by the rival party,

the party of sceptical and worldly tendencies. They have given over another

world as a no-man's land, the region of undoubted difficulty and puzzle.

Especially do they think it impossible to settle the complicated relations into

which men and women enter here in any hereafter. Accordingly they state a case

where, by direction of the Mosaic Law, a poor woman became successively the

wife of seven brothers. In the other life, ask they, whose wife shall she be?

Christ's answer is again triumphant through its simplicity. In the immortal life

to which resurrection leads there shall be no marrying or giving in marriage. All

shall be like. the angels. No distinction in sex shall continue. All are to be "sons

of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Revised Version). The complicated

earthly relations shall give place to the simplicity of sonship. God's family shall

embrace all others. His Fatherhood shall absorb all the descending affections

which on earth illustrate feebly his surpassing love, and our sonship to him will

embrace all the ascending affection which his descending love demands. The

Simplicity of a holy family, in which God is Father and all are brethren, and the

angels are our highborn elder brethren, will take the place of those complex

relationships which sometimes sweeten and sometimes sadden human love. But,

in addition, our Lord renders Sadducceism ridiculous by showing from the

Scriptures these sceptics revered that the patriarchs had not ceased to be, but

were still living in the bosom of God. For God, in claiming from the burning

bush to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed the reality of life

beyond death. It was a demonstration of the resurrection. The patriarchs must

have been living worshippers when God was still their God, and this life unto

him demands for its perfection the resurrection. The plenitude of life is

guaranteed in the continued and worshipful life beyond the grave. In this simple

and perfect fashion Jesus silences the Sadducees.

III. HE REMAINS COMPLETE MASTER OF THE FIELD. (Luke 20:39, Luke

20:40.) They are beaten in the field of debate. Jesus is Victor. There is no

63

question now which they can ask him. All is over on the plane of intellectual and

moral argument. Not even a Parthian arrow can be shot against him. But

treachery and brute force remain, and they can have him betrayed and crucified

whom they cannot refute. Resort to weapons like these is always proof of

weakness. Victory has always been really with the persecuted party. Persecution

on the part of any cause or organization demonstrates its inherent weakness.

Hence we hail the Christ in the temple as the supreme Master and Conqueror of

men. The very men who put unholy hands upon him must have felt that they

were doing the coward's part after ignominious defeat. The weapons of our

warfare should always be spiritual; with carnal weapons we only confess defeat

and court everlasting shame.—R.M.E.

BI 20-26, "They watched Him

Christ was watched, and so are we

The chief priests and rulers of the Jews watched Jesus, but not to learn the way of salvation.They watched Him with the evil eyes of malice and hatred, desiring to take hold of His words, to entangle Him in His talk, that they might accuse Him, and deliver Him up to die. He loved all men, yet He was hated and rejected of men; He went about doing good, yet they tried to do Him harm. The enemies of Christ are ever watching for our fall, eager to hear or to tell any evil thing about us, ready to cast the stone of slander against us. You know that the whitest robe first shows the stain, let us remember whose purity we wear if we have put on Christ. Let us strive “to walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” If we are tempted to say or do something which is equivocal, though the way of the world, let us pause and ask ourselves whether it will bring discredit on our faith, whether it will dishonour our Master. But there are others who watch us, and in a different manner. The Church in Paradise watches the Church on earth and prays for it. Our path of life is compassed by a great cloud of witnesses; the saints who have fought the battle and won the crown, they watch us. St. Paul, resting after his good fight, and his many perils, is watching to see how we are fighting against sin, the world, and the devil. St. Peter, restored to the side of Jesus, watches to see if any of us deny their Lord. St. Thomas, no longer doubtful, watches to see if our faith be strong. Holy Stephen watches us when the stones of insult and persecution assail us; the forty martyrs, who died for Jesus on the frozen pool at Sebaste, watch us when the world looks coldly on us, and many another who passed through fire and water watches us in our battle and the race that is set before us. Thus with the enemies of God watching for our fall, and the saints of God watching for our victory, let us watch ourselves, and let our cry be, “Hold Thou me up that my footsteps slip not.” (H. J.Wilmot-Buxton, M. A.)

Cowards are like cats

Cowards are like cats. Cats always take their prey by springing suddenly upon it from some concealed station, and, if they miss their aim in the first attack, rarely follow it up. They are all, accordingly, cowardly, sneaking animals, and never willingly face their enemy, unless brought to bay, or wounded, trusting always to their power of surprising their victims by the aid of their stealthy and noiseless movements. (Dallas, “Natural History of the Animal Kingdom.”)

64

Whose image and superscription hath it?—

The Divine image in the soul

1. The Divine image ought to be our highest glory.

2. Let the Divine image which we bear be a constant exhortation to serve God.

3. Never defile the Divine image by sin.

4. Endeavour to increase every day the beauty of the Divine image.

5. Respect the Divine image in your neighbour. (Bishop Ehrler.)

Man is God’s property

More than all visible things, we ourselves, with the faculties of body and soul, are God’s. Man is God’s image, God’s coin, and therefore belongs to God entirely.

I. ON WHAT IS THIS DIVINE OWNERSHIP FOUNDED?

1. On creation. Man is God’s property.

(1) As God’s creature. All that is created belongs to God, by whose omnipotence it was made.

(2) As God’s creature he bears the Divine image.

2. On redemption.

(1) The soul of the first man was a supernatural image of God, created in original justice and sanctity.

(2) In consequence of the first sin, the soul was deprived of sanctifying Rom_5:12).

(3) God had compassion on man, and found means (through the Incarnation) to restore His image in the human soul.

II. CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THIS DIVINE OWNERSHIP.

1. We should render to God our soul.

(1) Our understanding.

(2) Our will.

(3) Our heart.

2. Our body and all its members. (Grimm.)

The medal made useful

One day, when Martin Luther was completely penniless, he was asked for money to aid an important Christian enterprise. He reflected a little, and recollected that he had a beautiful medal of Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, which he very much prized. He went immediately to a drawer, opened it, and said: “What art thou doing there, Joachim? Dost thou not see how idle thou art? Come out and make thyself useful.” Then he took out the medal and contributed it to the object solicited for.

Render unto Caesar the things which he Caesar’s

65

Caesar’s due and God’s due

I. THAT KINGS AND PRINCES HAVE A CERTAIN RIGHT AND DUE PERTAINING TO THEM BY GOD’S APPOINTMENT, WHICH IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY MAN TO KEEP FROM THEM. This is plain here as if Christ had said: “It is of God, and not without the disposing and ordering of His Providence, that the Roman Emperor hath put in his foot among you, and is now your liege and sovereign: you yourselves have submitted to his government, and have in a manner subscribed unto that which God hath brought upon you; now, certainly, there is a right pertaining to him respectively to his place. This he must have, and it cannot be lawful for you, under any pretext, to take it from him.” So that this speech is a plain ground for this. But what is Caesar’s due?

1. Prayer for him (1Ti_2:1).

(1) That he may be endowed with all needful graces for his place.

(a) Wisdom.

(b) Justice.

(c) Temperance, i.e., sobriety and moderation in diet, in apparel, in delight, etc.

(d) Zeal and courage in God’s matters. This it is which will make kings prosper (1Ki_2:2-3).

(2) That he may be delivered from all dangers to which he is subject in his place. Kings are in danger of two sorts of enemies.

(a) Enemies to their bodies and outward state. Traitors.

Conspirators.

(b) Enemies to their souls. Flatterers.

2. Submission to him. By this I mean “an awful framing and composing of the whole man respectively to his authority.”

And now here, because I mention the whole man, and man consisteth of two parts; therefore I will declare, first, what is the submission of the inner man due to a king by the Word of God; and then, what is the submission of the outward man.

1. Touching the submission of the inner man, I account the substance of it to be this—“A reverent and dutiful estimation of him in regard of his place.” “Fear the Lord and the king,” said Solomon. As the “fearing of God” argueth an inward respectiveness to His Divine majesty, so the fearing of the king intends the like, the heart carrieth a kind of reverent awe unto him. And this is that honouring the king which St. Peter giveth charge 1Pe_2:17). Honour is properly an inward act, and we honour a superior when our respect is to him according to his dignity. That this reverent estimation of a king, which I term the substance of inward submission, may be the better understood, we must consider touching it two things.

(1) The ground of it is a right understanding of the state and condition of a king’s place.

(a) Its eminence.

(b) Its usefulness.

(2) Now the companion of this reverent esteem of Caesar is a ready and

66

willing disposition to perform to him and for him any service he may require.

2. I come now to speak of the outward submission, which is that which is for the testification and manifestation of the inward. An outward submissiveness without an inward awfulness were but hypocrisy; to pretend an inward respect without giving outward evidence thereof, were but mockery. This outward submission is either in word or in action. It includes—

(1) Conformity to the laws.

(2) Yielding of the person in time of war.

(3) Furnishing supplies.

II. THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY MAN TO DEPRIVE ALMIGHTY GOD OF THAT WHICH IS HIS DUE. “You are careful,” saith our Saviour, “as it seemeth, to inquire touching Caesar’s right, as if you were so tender conscienced that you would not keep ought from him that were his. It becometh you to be, at the least, as careful for God; there is a right also due to Him, look you to it, that you give it Him.” Thus is the doctrine raised, God must have His due as well as the king his. Nay, He is to have it much more; “He is the King of kings, and Lord of lords. By Him it is that earthly kings do reign. He beareth rule over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whosoever He will.” Let me begin by explaining what is here meant by the Lord’s due. The conscionable performance of any good duty is in some sense the Lord’s due, because the same is required by Him; and so even that which was spoken of before, by the name of Caesar’s due, is God’s due, because the law of God binds us to it. When we speak, therefore, of God’s due, we intend thereby that which is more properly and more immediately be, longing to Him. For example’s sake—in a house, whereof every room and corner is the master’s, yet that where he lieth himself is more particularly called his; so whereas all good services, even those which appertain to men, are the Lord’s, He being the commander of them, yet those are more precisely and specially termed His which belong to Him more directly. And of the dues of this sort we are now to treat; and these may justly be referred to two general heads. The first I may call His “prerogative,” the other His “worship.” Under God’s” prerogative” I comprehend two things.

1. “That the things which concern Him must have the pre-eminence.”

2. “That He must have absolute obedience in all things.” And now I come to the next part of His due, “His worship.” By His worship is understood that more direct and proper service which we do to God for the declaration of our duty to Him, of our dependence on Him, and of our acknowledgment both to expect and to receive all good and comfort from Him.

Here the particulars to be considered of, under this head of worship, are—

1. “That He must be worshipped.”

2. “That He must be so worshipped as Himself thinks good.” (S. Hieron.)

Duty discriminated

“Go with me to the concert this afternoon?” once asked a fashionable city salesman of a new assistant in the warehouse. “I cannot.” “Why?” “My time is not my own; it belongs to another.” “To whom?” “To the firm, by whom I have been instructed not to leave without permission.” The next Sabbath afternoon the same salesman said to this clerk, “Will you go to ride with us this evening?” “I cannot.” “Why?” “My time is not my own; it belongs to another.” “To whom?” “To Him who has said, ‘Remember

67

the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” Some years passed, and that clerk lay upon his bed of death. His honesty and fidelity had raised him to a creditable position in business and in society, and, ere his sickness, life lay fair before him. “Are you reconciled to your situation?” asked an attendant. “Yes, reconciled; I have endeavoured to do the work that God has allotted me, in His fear. He has directed me thus far; I am in His hands, and my time is not my own.” (W. Baxendale.)

Religion and politics

It is a common saying that religion has nothing to do with polities, and particularly there is a strong feeling current against all interference with politics by the ministers of religion. This notion rests on a basis which is partly wrong, partly right. To say that religion has nothing to do with politics is to assert that which is simply false. It were as wise to say that the atmosphere has nothing to do with the principles of architecture. Directly nothing, indirectly much. Some kinds of stone are so friable, that though they will last for centuries in a dry climate, they will crumble away in a few years in a damp one. There are some temperatures in which a form of a building is indispensable, which in another would be unbearable. The shape of doors, windows, apartments, all depend upon the air that is to be admitted or excluded. Nay, it is for the very sake of procuring a habitable atmosphere within certain limits that architecture exists at all. The atmospheric laws are distinct from the laws of architecture; but there is not an architectural question into which atmospheric considerations do not enter as conditions of the question. That which the air is to architecture, religion is to politics. It is the vital air of every question. Directly, it determines nothing—indirectly, it conditions every problem that can arise. The kingdoms of this world must become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. How—if His Spirit is not to mingle with political and social truths? (F. W. Robertson.)

No division of allegiance

Our Lord here recognizes no division of allegiance. He does not regard man as under two masters—as owing duty to Caesar and duty to God. Is there a trace in all His other teaching that He contemplated such a division? Did ever a word fall from Him to indicate that He looked upon some obligations as secular and others as sacred? No; God is set forth by Him always and everywhere as the sole Lord of man’s being and powers. Nothing man has can be Caesar’s in contradiction to that which is God’s. Christ claims all for the Sovereign Master. Body, soul, and spirit, riches, knowledge, influence, love—all belong to Him; there is but one empire, one service, one king; and life, with all its complexity of interest, is simple—simple as the Infinite God who has given it. Rightly understood, therefore, the great precepts of the text are in perfect accord with the doctrine of God’s sole and supreme lordship over every thought, and faculty, and possession of man. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Why? Who enacts it? Who has the right to require it? The answer is “God.” It is a part of your religious obedience to be a loyal citizen. Within the sphere that belongs to him Caesar claims your service as the ordained representative and minister of God. Civil obedience is an ordinance of the Church; civil society is the creation of God Himself. It is He who, through the earthly ruler, demands your tribute. The result, the order, and the progress of society are His work; and thus the principle of all duty is ultimately one. The inclusion of the lower obedience in the higher has been well illustrated from the world of nature. The moon, we know, has its own relation to the earth; but both have a common relation to the sun. The moon’s orbit is included in

68

the earth’s orbit, but the sun sways and balances both of them; and there is not a movement of the moon in obeying the inferior earthly attraction, which is not also an act of obedience to the superior spheres. And just so, God has bound up together our relation to “ the powers that be “ in this world, with our relation to Himself. He has set us under rulers and in societies as a kind of interior province of His mighty kingdom, but our loyalty as subjects and our duty as citizens are but a part of the one supreme duty which we owe to Him. (Canon Duckworth.)

Secular and religious duties not in conflict

I. Our secular and spiritual relations are coexistent and co-relative in fact.

II. The obligations which arise from each are to be recognized equitably, and the respective duties performed faithfully.

III. They ought not to be in conflict, but mutually helpful. Both are of God, and with Him are no discords.

IV. Application of the principle to—

1. Secular business, society, politics, etc.

2. Soul culture, worship, Christian work. (Anon.)

21 So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.

GILL, "And they asked him, saying, master,.... Rabbi, or doctor; hoping, by this

flattering title, and the flattering words used by them, to work him up to an openness

and freedom of conversation with them:

we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly; rightly dividest the word of God, and

deliverest out sound doctrine according to it: and this he certainly did, though they

spoke these words hypocritically, not believing what they themselves said; at least,

they did not care that others should believe this of him:

neither acceptest thou the person of any. The Persic version very wrongly renders it,

"and lookest not upon the countenance, and heart of any one whomsoever"; for though

Christ did not look upon the countenances of men, and judge according to the outward

appearance, nor regard men on account of outward circumstances, as riches, honours,

learning, &c. yet he looked upon the heart, and knew what was in it, and respected

sincerity and uprightness wherever he found it, and which were wanting in these men:

69

but teachest the way of God truly; the way of worshipping God, and of enjoying him,

both in this world, and in that to come; See Gill on Matthew 22:16.

PETT, "Their approach was with obsequious flattery. It is a warning to us to

beware of those who speak too well of us. Very often it is because they seek to

trap us. Here they lauded Him to the skies. They addressed Him as ‘Teacher’

(‘Rabbi), and then declared firstly that they knew that He only ever spoke and

taught what was true, secondly that He was not afraid of any man’s person, and

thirdly that He always spoke God’s way in truth. Such flattery could only have

made Him suspicious, (any sensible person would have thought on receiving it,

‘now what do they want?’), but they did it because they hoped that it would

make Him drop His guard and that, eager to show them how right they were

about Him, He would give them the answer that they wanted.

PULPIT 21-22, "And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest

and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the

way of God truly: Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? SS.

Matthew and Mark both tell us that in this plot the Herodians were united with

the Pharisees (and Sanhedrin). The great Nazareth Reformer was equally hateful

to both these hostile parties; hence their union in this matter. It was a well and

skilfully laid question. This "tribute" was a capitation tax—a denarius a head

assessed on the whole population, the publicans who farmed it being answerable

for it to the Roman treasury. As a direct personal tax it was most unpopular, and

was looked on by scrupulous legalists and the more zealous Jews as involving a

greater humiliation than the ordinary import or export customs dues. It

occasioned at times popular tumults, as in the case of Judas of Galilee (Acts

5:37). If Jesus answered the question in the affirmative "Yes, it is lawful for the

Jews to give this tribute to Caesar," then the Pharisees would use this decision of

his as a means of undermining his credit with the zealous populace. "See, after

all," they would say, "this pretended Messiah of yours is but a poor-hearted

traitor. Think of King Messiah paying tribute to a Gentile." If, on the other

hand, the Master had said such payment of tribute was unlawful, then the

Herodians, who were watching him, hoping for some such expression of opinion,

would at once have denounced him to their Roman friends as One who taught

the people—only too ready to listen to such teaching—lessons of sedition. In the

latter case Pilate and the officials of Rome would have taken good care that the

Galilaean Master had troubled the Sanhedrin no more.

22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

70

GILL, "And they asked him, saying, master,.... Rabbi, or doctor; hoping, by this

flattering title, and the flattering words used by them, to work him up to an

openness and freedom of conversation with them:

we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly; rightly dividest the word of God,

and deliverest out sound doctrine according to it: and this he certainly did,

though they spoke these words hypocritically, not believing what they themselves

said; at least, they did not care that others should believe this of him:

neither acceptest thou the person of any. The Persic version very wrongly

renders it, "and lookest not upon the countenance, and heart of any one

whomsoever"; for though Christ did not look upon the countenances of men, and

judge according to the outward appearance, nor regard men on account of

outward circumstances, as riches, honours, learning, &c. yet he looked upon the

heart, and knew what was in it, and respected sincerity and uprightness

wherever he found it, and which were wanting in these men:

but teachest the way of God truly; the way of worshipping God, and of enjoying

him, both in this world, and in that to come; See Gill on Matthew 22:16.

PETT, "Their question was as to whether it was ‘lawful’ or not to give tribute to

Caesar. That is whether it was in line with the teaching of Moses. Now strictly

speaking the Law does not deal with that question. But the Law does make it

clear that the people of Israel were God’s people, God’s holy nation, and thus

that for them to be ruled over by anyone else was contrary to God’s intention. It

was something that would only happen to them as a result of disobedience. So to

every Jew the answer as to whether tribute should be paid to Caesar would have

been a resounding ‘No!’ For while they reluctantly did on the whole give such

tribute, they certainly did not see it as ‘lawful’. In their view the Law required

rather that they directed their gifts towards God, His Sanctuary and His people,

and the Roman poll tax was highly and deeply resented as an imposition, and as

an evidence of their submission to Rome.

Thus if Jesus answered the question by declaring that it was lawful He would

instantly have been denounced by the whole nation as a false prophet. On the

other hand if He said that it was not lawful, (and that was the answer towards

which they were working), then they could immediately denounce him to the

Roman governor for stirring up the people to avoid paying their taxes, a crime

subject to the most serious punishment.

23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them,

71

GILL, "But he perceived their craftiness,.... Knowing what was in them, and

being a discerner of the thoughts and intents of their hearts, he clearly saw that

their view was either, that they might have a charge against him to the Roman

governor, should he declare against payment of tribute; or that they might

expose him to the people of the Jews, should he assert the lawfulness of it:

and said unto them, why tempt ye me? with this ensnaring question.

PETT, "Verse 23-24

‘But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Show me a denarius.

Whose image and superscription has it?” And they said, “Caesar’s.” ’

Jesus, however, saw through them immediately. And so He called for them to

produce a denarius, the silver coin in which the tax would be paid, which bore on

it the head of the reigning Caesar at the time that the coin was minted, and what

was actually a blasphemous superscription describing him.. Countries who were

under Rome could at the time produce their own bronze coinage, but their silver

coinage had to be that issued by Rome. This was partly because it was then an

indication to the peoples involved that they were subject to the overall control of

Caesar and the Empire. The use of Caesar’s coin demonstrated the allegiance

that they owed to Caesar.

Having that in mind, as soon as they produced a denarius (having the value of a

day’s wage to a working man) He asked them whose image and details were on

the coin. Their reply could only be, ‘Caesar’s’.

24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied.

GILL, "Show me a penny,.... A Roman denarius, value seven pence halfpenny of

our money. The Persic version adds, "they showed it, he asked of them"; and the

Ethiopic version, "and they brought it, and he said unto them", as follows;

whose image and superscription hath it? for the penny had an head upon it, with

something written, as the name of the emperor, whose image it was, his titles, the

date of the coin, or some motto on it:

they answered and said, Caesar's; very likely Tiberius Caesar's, who was at that

time emperor of Rome; See Gill on Matthew 22:20 and See Gill on Matthew

22:21.

72

PULPIT, "Show me a penny; literally, a denarius, a coin of the value of 7.5 d.,

but really representing a larger sum in our money. It seems probable, from the

language of Mark 12:15, Mark 12:16, that his interrogators had to borrow the

Roman coin in question from some of the neighbouring money-changers. These

Jews would scarcely carry any but Jewish coins in their girdles. That the Roman

denarius, however, was evidently a coin in common circulation in those days, we

gather from the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Whose image and

superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. "On one side would

be the once beautiful but now depraved features of Tiberius; the title 'Pontifex

Maximus' was probably inscribed on the obverse" (Farrar).

25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

GILL, "And he said unto them, render therefore unto Caesar the things which

be Caesar's,.... The Arabic version renders it, "give to the king what is the

king's"; the tribute that was due to him; since they were under his government,

and were protected by him, and traded with his money; the currency of which

among them was an acknowledgment of him as their sovereign:

and unto God the things which be God's; which relate to his worship, honour,

interest, and kingdom; See Gill on Matthew 22:21.

JAMISON, "things which be Caesar‘s — Putting it in this general form, it was

impossible for sedition itself to dispute it, and yet it dissolved the snare.

and unto God — How much there is in this profound but to them startling

addition to the maxim, and how incomparable is the whole for fullness, brevity,

clearness, weight!

PETT, "His reply was then, in that case, “Render to Caesar the things that are

Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. It was a very wise reply. It was

pointing out that anyone who could produce a denarius was thereby testifying to

the overlordship of Caesar. It was right therefore that they rendered back to

him, what they had received from him. All denarii essentially belonged to

Caesar. Furthermore a good patriot should strictly not have touched a denarius

with a bargepole, and so good patriots would actually have agreed with Jesus

that all denarii should be got rid of by handing them back to Caesar. Of course,

if they would not touch a denarius they would have to go into hiding for non-

payment of taxes, but at least they would see themselves as being kept pure.

However, the moment one descended to the depths of obtaining a denarius in

73

order to pay the tax he was by it acknowledging his debt to Caesar. And it was

therefore right that he gave the hated coin back to him. Thus Jesus was both in

the clear with the extreme patriots, who agreed with Him on the fact that the

denarii should be handed over to Caesar, and should not be touched by any

patriotic Jew, while all else belonged to God, and also with the Roman

authorities, whose only concern was to be paid the denarius in poll tax.

What this did not teach was that a certain amount should be given to God, and

the rest could then be looked on as ‘Caesar’s’, to be looked on as ‘secular’, and

therefore usable as a man wished. It applied to a specific situation. It might,

however, be seen as saying that for any benefits that we receive from the state we

have an obligation to make a contribution back to them. But while that is true, it

is not really what Jesus was positively teaching.

For what was of general application in what He said was the command to render

“to God the things that are God’s”. The point here was that all that we have, we

have received from God, and we should therefore recognise that for it we are

accountable to God as His stewards. This is continuing the theme of numerous

parables that we have already looked at. It is confirming that every man must

give an account of himself to God with regard to his use of wealth.

NISBET, "NO DIVISION OF ALLEGIANCE

‘And He said unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar, the things which be

Cæsar’s and unto God the things which be God’s.’

Luke 20:25

Let us look at the use which has so long been made of our Lord’s reply, and ask

whether it is justifiable or wise. His words have been perpetually quoted, as if

‘Cæsar’ meant civil government, and ‘God’ ecclesiastical government, and as if

Cæsar and God had separate spheres of jurisdiction, each limiting the other.

I. All intelligent students of the New Testament know that our Lord has made no

such distinction as He is popularly supposed to have made. The question on

which He was asked to pronounce had nothing whatever to do with the rival

claims of Church and State; their respective rights were not even contemplated,

the cunning cavillers who had conspired to entangle Him knew nothing of the

distinction between the two. It was, indeed, a distinction utterly foreign to the

Jewish mind. What feature in the prophetic writings is more marked than the

interpretation of religion and politics?

II. Our Lord here recognises no division of allegiance.—He does not regard man

as under two masters—as owing duty to Cæsar and duty to God. No; God is set

forth by Him always and everywhere as the sole Lord of man’s being and

powers. Nothing man has can be Cæsar’s in contradiction to that which is God’s.

Christ claims all for the Sovereign Master. Rightly understood, therefore, the

great precepts of the text are in perfect accord with the doctrine of God’s sole

and supreme lordship over every thought, and faculty, and possession of man.

‘Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.’ Why? Who enacts it? The

answer is, ‘God.’ It is a part of your religious obedience to be a loyal citizen. God

has bound up together our relation to the ‘powers that be’ in this world with our

74

relation to Himself. He has set us under rulers and in societies as a kind of

interior province of His mighty kingdom, but our loyalty as subjects and our

duty as citizens are but a part of the one supreme duty which we owe to Him.

—Rev. Canon Duckworth.

PULPIT, "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things

which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. As regarded the

immediate issues the Lord's answer was in the affirmative: "Yes, it is lawful

under the present circumstances to pay this tribute." The Roman money current

in the land, bearing the image and title of the Caesar, bore perpetual witness to

the fact that the rule of Rome was established and acknowledged by the Jewish

people and their rulers. It was a well-known and acknowledged saying, that "he

whose coin is current is king of the land." So the great Jewish rabbi Maimonides,

centuries after, wrote, "Ubi-cunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolae

regem istum pro Domino agnoscunt." The tribute imposed by the recognized

sovereign ought certainly to be paid as a just debt; nor would this payment at all

interfere with the people's discharging their duties God-ward. The tithes, tribute

to the temple, the offerings enjoined by the Law they revered,—these ancient

witnesses to the Divine sovereignty in Israel might and ought still to be rendered,

as well as the higher obligations to the invisible King, such as faith, love, and

obedience. Tribute to the Caesar, then, the acknowledged sovereign, in no way

interfered with tribute to God. What belonged to Caesar should be given to him,

and what belonged to God ought to be rendered likewise to him. Godet, in a long

and able note, adds that Jesus would teach the turbulent Jewish people that the

way to regain their theocratic independence was not to violate the duty of

submission to Caesar by a revolutionary shaking off of his yoke, but to return to

the faithful fulfilment of all duties toward God, "To render to God what is God's

was the way for the people of God to obtain a new David instead of Caesar as

their Lord. To the Pharisees and Zealots, 'Render unto Caesar;' to the

Herodians, 'Render unto God.'" Well caught the great Christian teachers their

Master's thought here in all their teaching respecting an institution such as

slavery, in their injunctions concerning rigid and unswerving loyalty to

established authority. So St. Paul: "Be subject to the powers … not only from

fear of punishment, but also for conscience' sake" (Romans 13:1 and 1 Timothy).

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

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

75

was what they wanted; that if he had dropped any seditious and treasonable

expressions against the government, they might be witnesses against him; or if he

had not vindicated the liberties of the people, and the rights of the Jewish nation,

these might be exasperated against him, and leave him:

and they marvelled at his answer; which was so formed, as to give them no

handle against him either way:

and held their peace; they were silenced, and had nothing to say to him, nor

against him, but left him, and went their way.

PETT, "The ‘spies’ were staggered at His reply. They recognised how cleverly

He had avoided their trap, while at the same time teaching something very

positive. And they recognised that there was nothing in His reply that they could

take hold of in order to use it to set the people against Him. He had indeed

agreed that all that a man had should be dedicated to God, apart from the hated

denarius which no godly person would touch. And yet that by leaving the latter

open for those who wanted them to pay their tax, however reluctantly, He was

preventing them coming under condemnation for doing so.

The Resurrection and Marriage

27 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.

GILL, "That is, "to Jesus", as the Persic version expresses it; and it was the

same day, as Matthew says, on which the disciples of the Pharisees, and the

Herodians, had been with him, putting the question about tribute to him:

Matthew 22:16

which deny that there is any resurrection; that is, of the dead; that there ever

was any instance of it, or ever will be: this was the distinguishing tenet of that

sect; see Acts 23:8

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

HENRY, "Verses 27-38

The Cavil of the Sadducees.

27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any

resurrection and they asked him, 28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any

man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother

should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29 There were therefore

seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the

76

second took her to wife, and he died childless. 31And the third took her and in

like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. 32Last of all the

woman died also. 33Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for

seven had her to wife. 34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of

this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be

accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,

neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for

they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the children of

the resurrection. 37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the

bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and

the God of Jacob. 38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live

unto him.

This discourse with the Sadducees we had before, just as it is here, only that the

description Christ gives of the future state is somewhat more full and large here.

Observe here,

I. In every age there have been men of corrupt minds, that have endeavoured to

subvert the fundamental principles of revealed religion. As there are deists now,

who call themselves free-thinkers, but are really false-thinkers so there were

Sadducees in our Saviour's time, who bantered the doctrine of the resurrection

of the dead and the life of the world to come, though they were plainly revealed

in the Old Testament, and were articles of the Jewish faith. The Sadducees deny

that there is any resurrection, any future state, so anastasis may signify not only

no return of the body to life, but no continuance of the soul in life, no world of

spirits, no state of recompence and retribution for what was done in the body.

Take away this, and all religion falls to the ground.

II. It is common for those that design to undermine any truth of God to perplex

it, and load it with difficulties. So these Sadducees did when they would weaken

people's faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, they put a question upon the

supposition of it, which they thought could not be answered either way to

satisfaction. The case perhaps was matter of fact, at least it might be so, of a

woman that had seven husbands. Now in the resurrection whose wife shall she

be? whereas it was not at all material whose she was, for when death puts an end

to that relation it is not to be resumed.

III. There is a great deal of difference between the state of the children of men on

earth and that of the children of God in heaven, a vast unlikeness between this

world and that world and we wrong ourselves, and wrong the truth of Christ,

when we form our notions of that world of spirits by our present enjoyments in

this world of sense.

1. The children of men in this world marry, and are given in marriage, hyioi tou

aionos toutou--the children of this age, this generation, both good and bad,

marry themselves and give their children in marriage. Much of our business in

this world is to raise and build up families, and to provide for them. Much of our

pleasure in this world is in our relations, our wives and children nature inclines

to it. Marriage is instituted for the comfort of human life, here in this state where

77

we carry bodies about with us. It is likewise a remedy against fornication, that

natural desires might not become brutal, but be under direction and control. The

children of this world are dying and going off the stage, and therefore they

marry and give their children in marriage, that they may furnish the world of

mankind with needful recruits, that as one generation passeth away another may

come, and that they may have some of their own offspring to leave the fruit of

their labours to, especially that the chosen of God in future ages may be

introduced, for it is a godly seed that is sought by marriage (Malachi 2:15), a

seed to serve the Lord, that shall be a generation to him.

2. The world to come is quite another thing it is called that world, by way of

emphasis and eminency. Note, There are more worlds than one a present visible

world, and a future invisible world and it is the concern of every one of us to

compare worlds, this world and that world, and give the preference in our

thoughts and cares to that which deserves them. Now observe,

(1.) Who shall be the inhabitants of that world: They that shall be accounted

worthy to obtain it, that is, that are interested in Christ's merit, who purchased it

for us, and have a holy meetness for it wrought in them by the Spirit, whose

business it is to prepare us for it. They have not a legal worthiness, upon account

of any thing in them or done by them, but an evangelical worthiness, upon

account of the inestimable price which Christ paid for the redemption of the

purchased possession. It is a worthiness imputed by which we are glorified, as

well as righteousness imputed by which we are justified kataxiothentes, they are

made agreeable to that world. The disagreeableness that there is in the corrupt

nature is taken away, and the dispositions of the soul are by the grace of God

conformed to that state. They are by grace made and counted worthy to obtain

that world it intimates some difficulty in reaching after it, and danger of coming

short. We must so run as that we may obtain. They shall obtain the resurrection

from the dead, that is, the blessed resurrection for that of condemnation (as

Christ calls it, John 5:29), is rather a resurrection to death, a second death, an

eternal death, than from death.

(2.) What shall be the happy state of the inhabitants of that world we cannot

express or conceive, 1 Corinthians 2:9. See what Christ here says of it. [1.] They

neither marry nor are given in marriage. Those that have entered into the joy of

their Lord are entirely taken up with that, and need not the joy of the

bridegroom in his bride. The love in that world of love is all seraphic, and such

as eclipses and loses the purest and most pleasing loves we entertain ourselves

with in this world of sense. Where the body itself shall be a spiritual body, the

delights of sense will all be banished and where there is a perfection of holiness

there is no occasion for marriage as a preservative from sin. Into the new

Jerusalem there enters nothing that defiles. [2.] They cannot die any more and

this comes in as a reason why they do not marry. In this dying world there must

be marriage, in order to the filling up of the vacancies made by death but, where

there are no burials, there is no need of weddings. This crowns the comfort of

that world that there is no more death there, which sullies all the beauty, and

damps all the comforts, of this world. Here death reigns, but thence it is for ever

excluded. [3.] They are equal unto the angels. In the other evangelists it was said,

78

They are as the angels--os angeloi, but here they are said to be equal to the

angels, isangeloi--angels' peers they have a glory and bliss no way inferior to that

of the holy angels. They shall see the same sight, be employed in the same work,

and share in the same joys, with the holy angels. Saints, when they come to

heaven, shall be naturalized, and, though by nature strangers, yet, having

obtained this freedom with a great sum, which Christ paid for them, they have in

all respects equal privileges with them that were free-born, the angels that are

the natives and aborigines of that country. They shall be companions with the

angels, and converse with those blessed spirits that love them dearly, and with an

innumerable company, to whom they are now come in faith, hope, and love. [4.]

They are the children of God, and so they are as the angels, who are called the

sons of God. In the inheritance of sons, the adoption of sons will be completed.

Hence believers are said to wait for the adoption, even the redemption of the

body, Romans 8:23. For till the body is redeemed from the grave the adoption is

not completed. Now are we the sons of God, 1 John 3:2. We have the nature and

disposition of sons, but that will not be perfected till we come to heaven. [5.]

They are the children of the resurrection, that is, they are made capable of the

employments and enjoyments of the future state they are born to that world,

belong to that family, had their education for it here, and shall there have their

inheritance in it. They are the children of God, being the children of the

resurrection. Note, God owns those only for his children that are the children of

the resurrection, that are born from above, are allied to the world of spirits, and

prepared for that world, the children of that family.

IV. It is an undoubted truth that there is another life after this, and there were

eminent discoveries made of this truth in the early ages of the church (Luke

20:37,38): Moses showed this, as it was shown to Moses at the bush, and he hath

shown it to us, when he calleth the Lord, as the Lord calleth himself, the God of

Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Abraham, Isaac, and

Jacob, were then dead as to our world they had departed out of it many years

before, and their bodies were turned into dust in the cave of Machpelah how

then could God say, not I was, but I am the God or Abraham? It is absurd that

the living God and Fountain of life should continue related to them as their God,

if there were no more of them in being than what lay in that cave,

undistinguished from common dust. We must therefore conclude that they were

then in being in another world for God is not the God of the dead, but of the

living. Luke here adds, For all live unto him, that is, all who, like them, are true

believers though they are dead, yet they do live their souls, which return to God

who gave them (Ecclesiastes 12:7), live to him as the Father of spirits: and their

bodies shall live again at the end of time by the power of God for he calleth

things that are not as though they were, because he is the God that quickens the

dead, Romans 4:17. But there is more in it yet when God called himself the God

of these patriarchs, he meant that he was their felicity and portion, a God all-

sufficient to them (Genesis 17:1), their exceeding great reward, Genesis 15:1.

Now it is plain by their history that he never did that for them in this world

which would answer the true intent and full extent of that great undertaking,

and therefore there must be another life after this, in which he will do that for

them that will amount to a discharge in full of that promise--that he would be to

them a God, which he is able to do, for all live to him, and he has wherewithal to

79

make every soul happy that lives to him enough for all, enough for each.

BARCLAY, "THE SADDUCEES' QUESTION (Luke 20:27-40)

20:27-40 Some of the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, came to

Jesus and asked him, "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that, if a man's married

brother dies without leaving any children, his brother must take his wife and

raise up descendants for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first

took a wife and died childless. The second and the third also took her; and in the

same way the whole seven left no children and died. Later the wife died, too.

Whose wife will she be at the resurrection, for the seven had her to wife?" Jesus

said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are married. But those who are

deemed worthy to obtain that age and the resurrection from the dead neither

marry nor are married, for they cannot die any more, for they are like angels

and they are sons of God, for they are the sons of the resurrection. That the dead

are raised even Moses indicated in the passage about the bush, when he called

the Lord, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. God is

not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to him." Some of the scribes

said, "Teacher, you have spoken well"; and they no longer dared to ask him any

question.

When the emissaries of the Sanhedrin had been finally silenced, the Sadducees

appeared on the scene. The whole point of their question depends on two things.

(i) It depends upon the levirate law of marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5). According

to that law if a man died childless, his brother must marry the widow and beget

children to carry on the line. It is far from likely that it was operative in the time

of Jesus, but it was included in the Mosaic regulations and therefore the

Sadducees regarded it as binding.

(ii) It depends upon the beliefs of the Sadducees. Sadducees and Pharisees are

often mentioned together but in beliefs they were poles apart.

(a) The Pharisees were entirely a religious body. They had no political ambitions

and were content with any government which allowed them to carry out the

ceremonial law. The Sadducees were few but very wealthy. The priests and the

aristocrats were nearly all Sadducees. They were the governing class; and they

were largely collaborationist with Rome, being unwilling to risk losing their

wealth, their comfort and their place.

(b) The Pharisees accepted the scriptures plus all the thousand detailed

regulations and rules of the oral and ceremonial law, such as the Sabbath law

and the laws about hand washing. The Sadducees accepted only the written law

of the Old Testament; and in the Old Testament they stressed only the law of

Moses and set no store on the prophetic books.

(c) The Pharisees believed in the resurrection from the dead and in angels and

spirits. The Sadducees held that there was no resurrection from the dead and

that there were no angels or spirits.

80

(d) The Pharisees believed in fate; and that a man's life was planned and ordered

by God. The Sadducees believed in unrestricted free-will.

(e) The Pharisees believed in and hoped for the coming of the Messiah; the

Sadducees did not. For them the coming of the Messiah would have been a

disturbance of their carefully ordered lives.

The Sadducees, then, came with this question about who would be the husband

in heaven of the woman who was married to seven different men. They regarded

such a question as the kind of thing that made belief in the resurrection of the

body ridiculous. Jesus gave them an answer which has a permanently valid truth

in it. He said that we must not think of heaven in terms of this earth. Life there

will be quite different, because we will be quite different. It would save a mass of

misdirected ingenuity, and not a little heartbreak, if we ceased to speculate on

what heaven is like and left things to the love of God.

Jesus went further. As we have said, the Sadducees did not believe in the

resurrection of the body. They declared they could not believe in it because there

was no information about it, still less any proof of it, in the books of the law

which Moses was held to have written. So far no Rabbi had been able to meet

them on that ground; but Jesus did. He pointed out that Moses himself had

heard God say, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of

Isaac and the God of Jacob" (Exodus 3:1-6), and that it was impossible that God

should be the God of the dead. Therefore Abraham and Isaac and Jacob must be

still alive. Therefore there was such a thing as the resurrection of the body. No

wonder the scribes declared it to be a good answer, for Jesus had met the

Sadducees on their own ground and defeated them.

It may well be that we find this an arid passage. It deals with burning questions

of the time by means of arguments which a Rabbi would find completely

convincing but which are not convincing to the modern mind. But out of this

very aridity there emerges a great truth for anyone who teaches or who wishes to

commend Christianity to his fellows. Jesus used arguments that the people he

was arguing with could understand. He talked to them in their own language; he

met them on their own ground; and that is precisely why the common people

heard him gladly.

Sometimes, when one reads religious and theological books, one feels that all this

may be true but it would be quite impossible to present it to the non-theologically

minded man who, after all, is in an overwhelming majority. Jesus used language

and arguments which people could and did understand; he met people with their

own vocabulary, on their own ground, and with their own ideas. We will be far

better teachers of Christianity and far better witnesses for Christ when we learn

to do the same.

PETT, "The Pharisees having been defeated in their attempts to discredit Jesus,

the Sadducees now approached Him in order to dispute His teaching on the

resurrection of the body. Like many Greeks they did not believe in such a

resurrection. They did it by an appeal to levirate marriage. The principle of that

81

is that if a man dies having no children to inherit his property, with the result

that his wife is childless and has no one to care for her, His brother who lives in

the same household should marry and impregnate the widow and thus produce

seed to his brother’s name (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). The child will then grow

up to look after his ageing mother, and to inherit the dead brother’s inheritance.

It is questionable, although not certainly so, whether levirate marriage was

actually practised in New Testament days, but whether it was or not it had

certainly been practised in the past, and was even more certainly spoken of in the

Law.

This is the only mention of the Sadducees in Luke’s Gospel, but see Acts 4:1;

Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6-8. They do not seem to feature in Galilee and Peraea. We

can only pick up something of what their teaching was from such passages as

this, and from the literature of their opponents. They appear to have founded

their teaching on the first five books of the Bible (the Torah, the Books of

Moses), having a secondary view of the prophets. This included the rejection of

the idea of either the resurrection of the body or of the existence of angels, which

they saw as the newfangled teaching of some of the Prophets (Isaiah 26:19;

Daniel 12:2) and of the Pharisees. They tended to be Hellenistic and to be

politically tolerant of Rome. The leading priests were in fact Sadducees.

PETT, "Verses 27-40

The Sadducees and the Resurrection (20:27-40).

Having made two attempts the Pharisees now withdrew for the time being in

order to nurse their wounds. They were deeply chagrined, but unable to do

anything about it. Jesus had thwarted their every move, and shown them up in

the process. Now, however, came the turn of the Sadducees who were concerned

about His teaching about the resurrection. And they came to Him with what may

well have been a standard conundrum levelled at all who taught and believed in

the resurrection from the dead.

Analysis.

a ‘And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, those who say that there is no

resurrection, and they asked him, saying’ (Luke 20:27-28 a).

b “Teacher, Moses wrote to us, that if a man’s brother die, having a wife, and he

be childless, his brother should take the wife, and raise up seed to his brother.

There were therefore seven brothers, and the first took a wife, and died childless;

and the second, and the third took her, and likewise the seven also left no

children, and died. Afterward the woman also died” (Luke 20:28 b-32).

c “In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be? for the seven

had her to wife” (Luke 20:33).

d And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this world marry, and are given in

marriage, but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the

resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, for neither

can they die any more. (Luke 20:34-35).

c “For they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the

resurrection” (Luke 20:36).

82

b “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the

Bush, when he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and

the God of Jacob. Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live

to him” (Luke 20:37-38).

a And certain of the scribes answering said, “Teacher, you have well said.” For

they dared not any more ask him any question’ (Luke 20:39-40).

Note that in ‘a’ the Sadducees asked Him a question, and in the parallel the

Scribes say that He has ‘well said’. In ‘b’ there is a continual emphasis on death,

and in the parallel a continual emphasis on the fact that the dead are raised to

new life. In ‘c’ the question is as to prospects in the future life, and in the parallel

those prospects are described. And centrally in ‘d’ the condition of those who

enjoy the future resurrected life is described.

BURKITT, "Our blessed Saviour having put the Pharisees and Herodians to

silence in the foregoing verses, here the Sadducees encounter him. This sect

denied the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and as an

objection against both, they propound a case to our Saviour, of a woman that

had seven husbands; they demanded whose wife of the seven this woman should

be at the resurrection? As if they had said, "If there be a resurrection of bodies

at the great day, surely there will be a resurrection of relations too, and the other

world will be like this, in which men will marry as they do here; and if so, whose

wife of the the seven shall this woman be? They all having an equal claim to

her."

Now our Saviour, for resolving of this question, first shows the different state of

men in this and in the other world: The children of this world, says Christ,

marry and are given in marriage; but in the resurrection they do neither. As if

our Lord had said, "After men have lived a while in this world, they die, and

therefore marriage is necessary to maintain a succession of mankind; but in the

other world, men shall become immortal, and live forever; and then the reason of

marriage will wholly cease; for when men can die no more, there will be no need

of any new supplies of mankind."

Secondly, our Saviour having got clear of the Sadducees' objection, by taking

away the ground and foundation of it, he produces an argument for the proof of

the soul's immortality, and the body's resurrection, thus: those to whom

Almighty God pronounces himself a God, are alive; but God pronounces himself,

a God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, many hundred years after their bodies

were dead; therefore their souls are yet alive, otherwise God could not be their

God." For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

From the whole note, 1. That there is no opinion so absurd, no error so

monstrous, that having had a mother will die for lack of a nurse: the beastly

opinion of the mortality of the soul, and of the annihilation of the body, finds

Sadducees to profess and propagate it.

Learn, 2. The certainty of another life after this, in which men shall be eternally

happy, or intolerably miserable, according as they behave themselves here:

though some men live like beasts, they shall not die like them, neither shall their

83

last end be like theirs.

Note, 3. The glorified saints, in the morning of the resurrection, shall be like unto

the gloruous angels; not like them in essence and nature, but like them in their

properties and qualities, namely, in holiness and purity, in immortality and

incorruptibility; and also like them in their way and manner of living. They shall

no more stand in need of meat or drink than the angels do; but shall live the

same heavenly and immortal lives that the angels live.

Note, 4. That all those that are in covenant with God, whose God the Lord is,

their souls do immediately pass into glory, and their bodies at the resurrection

shall be sharers in the same happiness with their souls. If God be just, the soul

must live, and the body must rise; for good men must be rewarded, and wicked

men punished. God will most certainly, one time or other, plentifully reward the

righteous, and punish the evil doers; but this being not always done in this life,

the justice of God requires it to be done in the next.

BENSON, "Verses 27-40

Luke 20:27-40. Then came to him certain of the Sadducees — These verses are

explained at large, on Matthew 22:23-33, and Mark 12:18-26. The children of

this world — The inhabitants of earth; marry and are given in marriage — As

being all subject to the law of mortality, so that the species is in need of being

continually repaired. But they which obtain that world — The world which holy

souls enter into at death; namely, paradise; and the resurrection from the

dead — It must be observed, our Lord, agreeably to the Jewish style of that

period, calls that only the resurrection which is a resurrection to glory. They are

the children of God — In a more eminent sense when they rise again, having

then received that public manifestation of their adoption, mentioned Romans

8:23; the redemption of their body. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses —

As well as the other prophets; showed, when he calleth, &c. — That is, when he

recites the words which God spoke of himself, I am the God of Abraham, &c. —

It cannot properly be said, that God is the God of any who are totally perished.

He is not a God of the dead, &c. — Or, as the clause may be properly rendered,

There is not a God of the dead, but of the living — That is, the term God implies

such a relation as cannot possibly subsist between him and the dead; who, in the

Sadducees’ sense, are extinguished spirits, who could neither worship him nor

receive good from him. For all live unto him — All who have him for their God,

live to, and enjoy him. This sentence is not an argument for what went before;

but the very proposition which was to be proved. And the consequence is

apparently just. For, as all the faithful are the children of Abraham, and the

divine promise, of being a God to him and his seed, is entailed upon them, it

implies their continued existence and happiness in a future state, as much as

Abraham’s. And as the body is an essential part of man, it implies both his

resurrection and theirs; and so overthrows the entire scheme of the Sadducean

doctrine. They durst not ask him any question — The Sadducees durst not. One

of the scribes did presently after.

PULPIT 27-28, "Luke 20:27, Luke 20:28

84

Then came to him certain of the Saddducees, which deny that there is any

resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any

man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother

should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. This is the only occasion

related in the Gospels where our Lord comes in direct conflict with the

Sadducees. They were a small but very wealthy and powerful sect. The high

priests at this period and their families seem to have belonged generally to this

party. They acknowledged as Divine the books of Moses, but refused to see in

them any proof of the resurrection, or indeed of life after death. To the prophets

and the other books they only attached subordinate importance. Supercilious

worldliness, and a quiet indifference to all spiritual things, characterized them at

this period. They come, comparatively speaking, little in contact with Jesus

during his earthly ministry. While the Pharisee hated the Galilaean Master, the

Sadducee professed to look on him rather with contempt. The question here

seems to have been put with supercilious scorn. SS. Matthew and Mark preface

the Lord's answer with a few words of grave rebuke, exposing the questioners'

utter ignorance of the deep things involved in their query.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:27-38

Foundations of Christian hope.

On what foundation do we build our hope for the future? Not now on any

philosophical deductions; these, may have a certain measure of strength to some

minds, but they are not firm enough to carry such a weight as the hope of

immortality. We build on the Word that cannot be broken—on the promise of

Jesus Christ. Our future depends upon the will of our Divine Creator, on the

purpose of our God, and only he who came from God can tell us what that

purpose is. Here, as elsewhere, we have—

I. THE FIRM GROUND OF CHRISTIAN PROMISE. Our Lord tells us, from

his own knowledge, that there is a future for the sons of men. And he indicates

some features of this future.

1. Our life will be one of perfect purity. There is to be nothing of the grosser

element that enters into our social relations here (Luke 20:35). Great founders of

great faiths have promised to their disciples a paradise of enjoyment of a lower

kind. Christ leads us to hope for a life from which everything that is sensual will

be removed. Love will remain, but it will be spiritual, angelic, absolutely pure.

2. It will be a life without end, and therefore without decay. "Neither can they

die any more" (Luke 20:36). How blessed the life that knows no fear of

interruption, of dissolution, of sudden cessation, and, more particularly, that is

free from the haunting consciousness of passing on to a time when faculty must

fade, or the sadder sense of decline already commenced or even hastening to its

end! What will it be to live a life that becomes ever brighter and fuller as the

periods of celestial service pass away!

3. It will be a life of highest honor and elevation. "They are equal unto the

85

angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection"

(Luke 20:36). "Now are we the sons of God," and when the future life is

disclosed our sonship will mean yet more to us—it will be life on a loftier plane,

in a deeper and fuller sense; we shall be nearer to God, and more like him in our

faculty and in our spirit and our character.

II. THE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF CHRIST'S INFERENCE. To be "the

God of Abraham," he argued, meant to be the God of a living soul; he whose

God was the living God was a living man in the fullest sense. For God to be our

God includes everything we need. The living God is the God of living men; the

loving God of loving men; the blessed God of happy men; the holy God of holy

men. All the highest good for which we long in our noblest hours is guaranteed to

us in that "the everlasting God, the righteous and the faithful and the loving,

One, is our God.

1. The heritage of the future is not promised unconditionally; there are "those

accounted worthy to obtain" it; therefore there are those who are not worthy,

and who will miss it.

2. The condition that is implied is that of a living personal connection with God

himself. Those who can truly claim him as "their God" may confidently look

forward to an eternal home in his presence and in his service. To us, to whom he

has revealed himself in his Son, this means a living union with Jesus Christ our

Savior. To know him, to live unto him, to abide in him,—this is life eternal.—C.

BI 27-38, "There were, therefore, seven brethren

The world to come

I.THAT THERE IS ANOTHER WORLD. Our Lord calls it that world. It is evidently opposed to “this world” (Luk_20:34); “the children of this world.” We know a little of this world. Oh that we knew it aright! Oh that we saw it with the eyes of faith! The world of which we speak is a world of light, and purity, and joy. There is “no night there” (Rev_21:25). Hell is eternal darkness; heaven is eternal light. No ignorance, no errors, no mistakes; but the knowledge of God in Christ begun on earth is there completed; for we shall know even as we are known (1Co_13:12).

II. IT WILL BE A GREAT MATTER TO OBTAIN THAT WORLD. Notice our Saviour’s words, “they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.” Oh, it will be a great matter to obtain that world I It will be a matter of amazing grace and favour. And oh, what a matter of infinite joy will it be!

III. SOME KIND OF WORTHINESS IS NECESSARY TO THE OBTAINING OF THAT WORLD. “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.” This worthiness includes merit and meetness; or, a title to glory, and a fitness for it. Both these are necessary. But where shall we look for merit? Not in man.

IV. THE RELATIONS OF THE PRESENT WORLD WILL NOT SUBSIST IN THE WORLD TO COME. Our Lord says, “They neither marry, nor are given in marriage.” This expression is not intended to disparage that kind of union; for marriage was ordained by God Himself, while yet our first parents retained their original innocence. But in heaven this relation will cease, because the purposes for which it was instituted will also cease. Nor shall the glorified need the aid of that domestic

86

friendship and comfort which result from the married state, and which are well suited to our embodied condition; for even in paradise the Creator judged it was not “good for man to be alone” (Gen_2:18). But in heaven there will be no occasion for the lesser streams of happiness, when believers have arrived at the fountain. Oh, let us learn from hence to sit loose to all creature comforts.

V. IN THAT WORLD DEATH WILL BE FOR EVER ABOLISHED. This is a dying world.

VI. THE BLESSED INHABITANTS OF THAT WORLD SHALL BE LIKE THE ANGELS. “They are equal unto the angels.”

VII. THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY WILL PERFECT THE BLISS OF GOD’S PEOPLE. “They are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection; they shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead.” (G. Burder.)

Lessons

Creatures on the brink of the grave should not forget it, nor refuse to look into it.

1. Be reminded that we have persons resembling the Sadducees in our own times. There are some who seek to subvert the leading truths of religion; and the method they pursue is very like that followed by the Sadducees of old. They rarely make the attack openly, like honest and generous assailants; but they start difficulties, and endeavour to involve the subjects of inquiry in inextricable perplexity.

2. Let us be suitably affected by the doctrines of immortality and the resurrection here taught.

3. Once more, let us improve this passage in reference to the endearing relations of life. We are here reminded that death is coming to break them all up, and that short is the time we are to sustain them. Far be it from us to regard them with indifference. Religion requires us to fulfil their duties with all affection and faithfulness. Yet, they are of very limited duration, and very little value, in comparison with eternity. (James Foote, M. A.)

The Sadducees silenced

I. GIVE SOME ACCOUNT OF THE SADDUCEES:—A small number of men of rank and affluence, who had shaken off such opinions and practices as they deemed a restraint upon their pleasures. They acknowledged the truth of the Pentateuch, but rejected the tradition of the elders. They also denied a future state, and believed that the soul dies with the body.

II. CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT OF THE SADDUCEES.

III. CONSIDER HOW JESUS CHRIST ACTED ON THIS OCCASION.

1. He removed the difficulty which had puzzled the Sadducees. They had not studied the Scriptures with sufficient attention, and a sincere desire of understanding their meaning. If they had done so, they could not have doubted of a future state. If, again, they had reflected on the power of God, they would have concluded that what might appear difficult or impossible to man, is possible and of easy accomplishment with God. He then explained the difficulty. It is to be

87

observed, however, that He speaks only of the righteous. On this subject our Saviour reveals two important truths,—First, that the righteous never die; and, secondly, that they become like the angels.

2. Our Saviour, then, having removed the difficulty which had embarrassed the Sadducees, and having at the same time communicated new and important information concerning the world of spirits, next proceeded to prove from Scripture the certainty of a future state. He argued from a passage in the Book of Exodus, where God is represented as speaking from the burning bush to Moses, and saying, “ I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob” (Exo_3:6). It is here particularly to be observed, that the force of our Saviour’s argument rests upon the words, I am the God. Had the words been I was the God, the argument would be destroyed.

IV. ATTEND TO THE INFERENCES WHICH WE MAY JUSTLY DRAW FROM THIS SUBJECT.

1. A difficulty arising from our ignorance is not sufficient to disprove or weaken direct or positive evidence.

2. Although a future state is not clearly revealed in the Books of Moses, yet it is presupposed, for the passage here selected can be explained only on the assurance that there is such a state.

3. From our Saviour’s declaration here, we also obtain the important information, that the righteous, after their removal from this world by death, do not sink into a state of sleep or insensibility; for the passage which He quotes implies that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, after death, remained alive, and still continued to acknowledge and serve God; for all these things are included in what our Saviour says. Now, the inference we draw is, that what is true respecting the patriarchs we may safely extend to all good men, that they are all in a similar situation.

4. While informed by our Saviour, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, that immediately after death angels are employed to conduct the spirits of the righteous to paradise, we are also assured here by the same authority, that they shall be made like to the angels. When to these we add the passage quoted above, from the Epistle to the Hebrews, respecting the office of angels, it appears necessarily to follow that the righteous shall be elevated in rank and situation; for they shall associate with celestial beings, and consequently will receive all the benefits which can arise from society so pure and exalted. Nor can we help believing that while thus mingled with angels they will be engaged in similar duties and employments. (J. Thompson, D. D.)

The world to come

I. THAT THERE IS ANOTHER STATE OF BEING BESIDE AND BEYOND THE PRESENT STATE. None can deny the importance of the question, “If a man die, shall he live again?”

1. The traditions of universal belief. It is said that there is not, perhaps, a people on the face of the earth which does not hold the opinion, in some form or other, that there is a country beyond the grave, where the weary are at rest. Yet this universality of belief is no proof; it is but a mere presumption at best.

2. Certain transformations which take place in nature around us. Such as that of the butterfly from the grave of the chrysalis, and spring from the grave of winter.

88

Such analogies, however, although appropriate as illustrations, are radically defective as proofs. The chrysalis only seemed dead; the plants and trees only seemed to have lost their vitality.

3. There is, again, the dignity of man. But while much may be said on one side of this question, not a little can be said on the other. “Talk as you will,” it has been said, “of the grandeur of man—why should it not be honour enough for him to have his seventy years’ life-rent of God’s universe?

4. It is by the gospel alone that life and immortality have been brought to light.

II. THAT THE FUTURE STATE IN MANY IMPORTANT PARTICULARS IS WIDELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT STATE. They differ—

1. In their constitution. “The children of this world marry, and arc given in marriage;” but there will be nothing of this kind in heaven. The institution of marriage is intended to accomplish two great objects.

(1) the propagation of mankind. But in that world the number of the redeemed family will be complete, and hence marrying and giving in marriage will be done away.

(2) Mutual help and sympathy.

2. In the blessedness enjoyed.

(1) Negative. “Neither can they die any more.”

(2) Positive. “They shall be equal unto the angels—in nature, immortality, purity, knowledge, happiness.” It is further added, that they will be “the children of God, being children of the resurrection.” To the blessing of adoption several gradations appertain. What is spoken of here is the highest. The apostle refers to it in those striking words, “Because the creature itself shall be delivered,” etc. (Rom_8:21-23).

III. THAT BEFORE THIS GLORIOUS STATE CAN BE ENTERED UPON, CERTAIN PRE-REQUISITES ARE INDISPENSABLY REQUIRED. None can attain the world but those which shall be accounted worthy. Two things may be here noticed.

1. Our guilty persons must be accepted. That can only be done through the Lord Jesus—winning Christ, and being found in Him, not having on our own righteousness.

2. Our sinful nature must be renewed. Worthiness and meetness are often used as synonymous terms. Thus we read in one place, “Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance”; in another, “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” So with the worthiness in the passage before us; it is to be understood as indicating meekness for the heavenly inheritance. Now, nothing that defileth can enter there. Holiness of heart and life is an essential qualification. The pure alone shall see God. (Expository Outlines.)

Mercy weaves the veil of secrecy over the future

Once, we have somewhere read, there was a gallant ship whose crew forgot their duties on board by the distant vision of their native hills. Many long years had passed over them since they had left their fatherland. As soon as one of their number caught, from the top mast, the first glance of his home-scenes, he raised a shout, “Yonder it is! yonder it is!” That shout shot like electricity through every heart on board, all sought to catch the same glance, some climbed the masts, others took the telescope,

89

every eye was on it, and every heart went forth with the eye; every spirit was flooded with old memories and bounded with new hopes. All thoughts of the vessel on which they stood, and which was struggling with the billows, were gone; they were lost in the strange and strong excitement. The vessel might have sprung a leak, run on shore, or sunk to the bottom for ought they thought about her. The idea of home filled and stirred their natures; the thought of the land in which their fathers lived and perhaps their mothers slept; the land of their childhood, and the land of a thousand associations so swallowed up every other thought, that their present duties were utterly neglected. Somewhat thus, perhaps, it would be with us, were the particulars of the heavenly world made clear and palpable to our hearts. The veil of secrecy drawn over them is woven by the hand of mercy. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Reticence of the Bible in regard to heavenly happiness

Casper Hauser was shut up in a narrow, dimly-lighted chamber when a little child. He grew to manhood there. He never saw the earth or the sky. He knew nothing about flowers or stars, mountains or plains, forests or streams. If one had gone to him and tried to tell him of these things, of the life of men in city or country, of the occupations of men in shop or field, the effort would have been a failure. No words could have conveyed to him any idea of the world outside of his cell. And we are like him while shut up in these bodies. The spirit must go out of its clay house before it can begin to know anything definite about life in the spirit world. (Christian Age.)

Equal unto the angels

Equality with angels

Glorified saints are equal to the angels.

I. IN THEIR DIGNIFIED POSITION.

II. IN THEIR SUBLIME WORSHIP.

III. IN THEIR UNDECAYING STRENGTH (Psa_103:20; Zec_12:8). Like angels, the dead in Christ shall henceforth excel in strength. Weariness and fatigue shall be for ever unknown.

IV. IN THEIR MINISTERING SERVICE (Heb_1:14).

V. IN LOVING OBEDIENCE. We read of angels that they “do His commandments, hearkening to the voice of His word.”

VI. IN THEIR EARNEST STUDY OF THE MYSTERY OF REDEEMING LOVE. Speaking of the Gospel and its priceless privileges and blessings, Peter says, “Which things the angels desire to look into” (1Pe_1:12).

VII. IN THE JOYFUL INTEREST WHICH THEY FEEL IN THE SALVATION OF SINNERS.

VIII. IN THEIR IMMORTAL YOUTH. Angels grow not old, as men on earth do. They wear no traces of age; revolving years tell not on them. (P. Morrison.)

Equality of men with angels

I. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF BEING MADE EQUAL TO THE ANGELS. That man is

90

capable of equalling the angels in the duration of their existence, may be very easily shown. Originally he was, like them, immortal. But what man once possessed, he must still be capable of possessing. Equally easy is it to show that man is capable of being made equal to the angels in moral excellence. The moral excellence of creatures, whether human or angelic, consists in their conformity to the law of God. Originally he was perfectly holy; for God made man upright, in His own image, and this image consisted, as inspiration informs us, in righteousness and true holiness. Man is then capable of being made equal to the angels in mural excellence. Man is also capable of being raised to an intellectual equality with the angels, or being made equal to them in wisdom and knowledge. The image of God in whack he was created, included knowledge, as well as righteousness and true holiness. He was, as inspiration informs us, but little lower than the angels. But this small intellectual inferiority, on the part of man, may be satisfactorily accounted for, without supposing that his intellectual faculties are essentially inferior to those of angels, or that his mind is incapable of expanding to the full dimensions of angelic intelligence. It may be accounted for by difference of situation, and of advantages for intellectual improvement. Man was placed on the earth, which is God’s footstool. But angels were placed in heaven, which is His throne, His palace, and the peculiar habitation of His holiness and glory. They were thus enabled approach much nearer, than could earth-born man, to the great Father of lights; and their minds were, in consequence, illuminated with far more than a double portion of that Divine, all-disclosing radiance which diffuses itself around Him. If the mind of an infant can expand, during the lapse of a few years, to the dimensions of a Newton’s mind, notwithstanding all the unfavourable circumstances in which it is here placed, why may it not, during an eternal residence in heaven, with the omniscient, all-wise God for its teacher, expand so far as to embrace any finite circle whatever? Little, if any, less reason have we to believe that he is capable of being made equal to them in power. It has been often remarked that knowledge is power; and observation must convince every one that it is so. Man’s advances in knowledge have ever been accompanied by a proportionate increase of power. A knowledge of metals gave him power to subdue the earth. But we have already seen that man is capable of being made equal to the angels in knowledge. Again, man is capable of being raised to an equality with the angels in glory, honour, and felicity. The glory of a creature must consist principally in the intellectual and moral excellences with which he is endued; and we have already seen that in these respects man is capable of being made equal to the angels.

II. THAT IN THE FUTURE WORLD, GOOD MEN SHALL BE MADE EQUAL TO THEM IN EACH OF THESE PARTICULARS. The fact that men are capable of being made equal to the angels, goes far to prove the truth of this proposition. From the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, it seems evident that they possessed power of various kinds, of which we are destitute. They had power to descend from the mansions of the blessed, and to return, and also, as it should seem, to render themselves visible or invisible, at their pleasure. Indeed it is certain, that in some respects at least, the powers of the righteous must be greatly increased, or they would be unable to sustain that far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, and honour, and felicity, which is reserved for them in the future world. There is a dreadful counterpart to this truth, which, though not mentioned in our text, must be briefly noticed. Every argument, which proves that good men are capable of being made equal to the holy angels, may justly be considered as proving, with equal clearness, that wicked men are capable of equalling the fallen angels, who kept not their first estate. (E. Payson, D. D.)

91

In the resurrection saints are as angels

I. IN HEAVEN THE SAINTS ARE HOLY AS THE ANGELS ARE HOLY.

II. IN HEAVEN THE SAINTS, LIKE THE ANGELS, SHALL ENGAGE IN BECOMING ACTS AND EXERCISES.

1. I say acts and exercises, for while heaven is to be a place of rest, it is not to be a place of idleness. In heaven the saints are to be as angels, and angels, we know, are active in the service of God.

2. In particular, the saints, like the angels, engage in singing the praises of God.

3. Further, the saints, like the angels, are engaged in contemplating the works of God, and especially His wonders in providence and redemption.

4. Yet further, in heaven the saints, like the angels, are engaged in works of love. The angels, we have seen, are actively employed in the service of God. The whole method of the Divine procedure, so far as it comes under our view, seems to be carried on by a system of means or instruments. God fulfils His purposes by agents employed by Him who are blessed themselves and conveying blessings to others, who are happy and diffusing happiness. Even in inanimate creation on earth we find that nothing is useless; everything has a purpose to serve: the stone, the plant, the animal, every part of the plant and animal has a purpose to serve; it may be an end in itself, but it is also a means towards another end. The ear aids the eye, and the touch aids the ear and eye, and every member aids every other; it is good in itself, and is doing good to others. But these inanimate objects perform their work unknowingly, unconsciously. It is different with angels and the spirits of just men made perfect. They perform their allotted work knowing what they are doing, and blessed in the doing of it. Modern science shows us how much material agency can do. Take, as an example, the electric telegraph, which is every day carrying messages past your place. A methodical action is performed at one end of a wire, and in a few moments an intelligent communication is given at the other end, hundreds of miles away. It is a proof of the capacity of body. We know that our Lord’s body after His resurrection appeared and disappeared, and acted no one could tell how. But in the resurrection our bodies will be like His, spiritual and celestial. They will therefore be fit ministers to the perfected spirit—not, as here, hindrances at times, but always helps, and ready to fulfil the will of the spirit. (J. McCosh, D. D.)

The mortal and the immortal

Ours is a dying world, and immortality has no place upon this earth. That which is deathless is beyond these hills. Mortality is here; immortality is yonder! Mortality is below; immortality is above. “Neither can they die any more,” is the prediction of something future, not the announcement of anything either present or past. At every moment one of the sons of Adam passes from this life. And each swing of the pendulum is the death-warrant of some child of time. “Death,” “death,” is the sound of its dismal vibration. “Death,” “death,” it says, unceasingly, as it oscillates to and fro. The gate of death stands ever open, as if it had neither locks nor bars. The river of death flows sullenly past our dwellings, and continually we hear the splash and the cry of one, and another, and another, as they are flung into the rushing torrent, and carried down to the sea of eternity. If, then, we would get beyond death’s circle and shadow, we must look above. Death is here, but life is yonder! Corruption is here,

92

incorruption is yonder. The fading is here, the blooming is yonder. Blessed words are these: “Neither can they die any more.” It is not simply, Neither shall they die any more, but neither can they die any more. Death, which is now a law, an inevitable necessity, shall then be an impossibilty. Blessed impossibility! Neither can they die any more! They are clothed with the immortality Of the Son of God; for as the Head is immortal, so shall the members be. Ah, this is victory over death! This is the triumph of life! It is more than resurrection; for it is resurrection, with the security that death can never again approach them throughout eternity. All things connected with that new resurrection-state shall be immortal, too. Their inheritance is unfading. Their city, the new Jerusalem, shall never crumble down. Their paradise is as much beyond the power of decay as it is beyond the reach of a second serpent-tempter. Their crowns are all imperishable; and the white raiment in which they shine shall never need cleansing or renewal. (H. Bonar, D. D.)

Moses showed at the bush

The living God of living men

I. GOD IS THE GOD OF ALL MEN, HOWEVER DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER THEY MAY BE. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to name three men so closely related to each other, and yet so conspicuously different from each other, as were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham is of the grandest heroic type—heroic in thought, in action, and, above all, in that faith which is the inspiration both of the highest thinking and of the noblest forms of conduct. But what a falling off is there in Isaac! He hardly seems his father’s son. Quiet, thoughtful, a lover of ease and good fare, with no genius for action, his very wife chosen for him as if he were incompetent even to marry himself, unable to rule his own household, unable even to die—it would almost seem, when his time was come, that he fades out ofhistory years before he slips his mortal coil. Jacob, again, strikes one as unlike both his father and his grandfather. We think of him as timid, selfish, crafty, unscrupulous, with none of the innocence of Isaac, little or none of the splendid courage and generosity of Abraham. What I want you to mark, then, is the grace of God in calling Himself, as He did for more than a thousand years by the mouth of His servants the prophets, the God of each and all of these three men. Different as they were from each other, they are all dear to Him. He has room enough in His heart for them all. Rightly viewed, then, there is hope for us and for all men in this familiar phrase. If God is not ashamed to call Himself their God, may He not, will He not, be our God too, and train us as He trained them, till all that is weak and selfish and subtle in us is chastened out of us, and we recover the image in which He created us?

II. GOD OUR FATHER WILL NEVER LET HIS CHILDREN DIE. The text our Lord quoted was this: To Moses at the bush—between four and five hundred years, that is, after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead—Jehovah had said, “I am,”—not I was—“the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.” But how could He still be the God of these men if they had long been extinct? He is not the God of dead men, but of living men. The three patriarchs were very certainly not living in this world when God spoke to Moses. They must, therefore, have been living in some other world. Dead to men, they must have been alive unto God. Obviously, then, men do not all die when they die.

1. Because our Lord saw in God the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, He inferred that these men could not die; that even when they did die, they must have lived on unto God. And that after all is, I suppose, the argument or conviction on which we all really base our hope of immortality. “Art Thou not

93

from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? We shall not die.” The eternity of God implies the immortality of man.

2. But our Lord at least reminds us by His words of another ground for hope. Nature has many symbols which speak of a life capable of passing through death, a life which grows in volume, in power, in beauty, by its submission to death. Every spring we behold the annual miracle by which the natural world is renewed into a richer, lovelier life. Year by year it emerges from its wintry tomb into the fuller and more fruitful life of summer. We may not care to base any very weighty arguments on these delicate and evanescent yet continually-recurring symbols; but, nevertheless, they speak to our imagination and our hearts with a force and a winning persuasiveness beyond that of logic.

III. What is to hinder us from arguing that, if God is still their God, and they still live unto Him, then GOD MUST EVEN NOW BE CARRYING ON THE DISCIPLINE AND TRAINING WHICH HE COMMENCED UPON THEM HERE, and carrying it on to still larger and happier issues? If they live, and live unto God, must they not be moving into a closer fellowship with Him, rising to a more hearty adoption of His will, a fuller participation of His righteousness and love? No one of you will question the validity of such an argument as that, I think. You will all gladly admit that, since he still lives, Abraham must by this time be a far greater and nobler man than he was when he left the earth, and must be engaged in far nobler discoveries and enterprises.

Christ’s answer to the Sadducees

I. WE WILL CONSIDER IT AS AN ARGUMENT AD HOMINEM, AND SHEW THE FITNESS AND FORCE OF IT TO CONVINCE THOSE WITH WHOM OUR SAVIOUR DISPUTED.

1. We will consider what our Saviour intended directly and immediately to prove by this argument. And that was this, That there is another state after this life, wherein men shall be happy or miserable according as they have lived in this world. And this doth not only suppose the immortality of the soul, but forasmuch as the body is an essential part of man, doth, by consequence, infer the resurrection of the body; because, otherwise, the man would not be happy or miserable in another world.

2. The force of this argument, against those with whom our Saviour disputed, will further appear, if we consider the great veneration which the Jews in general had for the writings of Moses above any other books of the Old Testament, which they (especially the Sadducees) looked upon only as explications and comments upon the law of Moses; but they esteemed nothing as a necessary article of faith, which had not some foundation in the writings of Moses. And this seems to me to be the true reason why our Saviour chose to confute them out of Moses, rather than any other part of the Old Testament.

3. If we consider further the peculiar notion which the Jews had concerning the use of this phrase or expression, of God’s being any one’s God. And that was this” that God is nowhere in Scripture said to be any one’s God while he was alive. And, therefore, they tell us, that while Isaac lived, God is not called the God of Isaac, but the “fear of Isaac.” I will not warrant this observation to be good, because I certainly know it is not true. For God doth expressly call Himself “the God of Isaac,” while Isaac was yet Gen_28:10): “I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac.” It is sufficient to my purpose that this was a notion anciently current among the Jews. And therefore our Saviour’s argument from this expression must be so much the stronger against them: for if the souls of men be extinguished by death (as the Sadducees believed) what did it signify to

94

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to have God called their God, after they were dead?

4. The great respect which the Jews had for these three fathers of their nation, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They, who had so superstitious a veneration for them, would easily believe anything of privilege to belong to them: so that our Saviour doth with great advantage instance in them, in favour of whom they would be inclined to extend the meaning of any promise to the utmost, and allow it to signify as much as the words could possibly bear. So that it is no wonder that the text tells us, that this argument put the Sadducees to silence. They durst not attempt a thing so odious, as to go about to take away anything of privilege from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

II. ENQUIRE WHETHER IT BE MORE THAN AN ARGUMENT AD HOMINEM. The following considerations would appear to indicate that our Lord really meant the matter to be regarded as settled fact.

1. If we consider that for God to be any one’s God doth signify some very extraordinary blessing and happiness to those persons of whom this is said. It is a big word for God to declare Himself to be any one’s God; and the least we can imagine to be meant by it, is that God will, in an extraordinary manner, employ His power and wisdom to do him good: that He will concern Himself more for the happiness of those whose God He declares Himself to be, than for others.

2. If we consider the eminent faith and obedience of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham left his country in obedience to God, not knowing whither he was to go. And, which is one of the most unparalleled and strange instances of faith and obedience that can be almost imagined, he was willing to have sacrificed his only son at the command of God. Isaac and Jacob were also very good men, and devout worshippers of the true God, when almost the whole world was sunk into idolatry and all manner of impiety. Now what can we imagine, but that the good God did design some extraordinary reward to such faithful servants of His? especially if we consider, that He intended this gracious declaration of His concerning them, for a standing encouragement to all those who, in after ages, should follow the faith, and tread in the steps of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

3. If we consider the condition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in this world. The Scripture tells us, that “they were pilgrims and strangers upon the earth,” had no fixed and settled habitation, but were forced to wander from one kingdom and country to another; that they were exposed to many hazards and difficulties, to great troubles and afflictions in this world; so that there was no such peculiar happiness befel them, in this life, above the common rate of men, as may seem to fill up the big words of this promise, that God would be their God.

4. Then, we will consider the general importance of this promise, abstracting from the particular persons specified and named in it, viz., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and that is, that God will make a wide and plain difference between good and bad men; He will be so the God of good men as He is not of the wicked: and some time or other put every good man into a better and happier condition than any wicked man: so that the general importance of this promise is finally resolved into the equity and justice of the Divine Providence.

And now having, I hope, sufficiently cleared this matter, I shall make some improvement of this doctrine of a future state, and that to these three purposes.

1. To raise our minds above this world, and the enjoyments of this present life.

2. The consideration of another life should quicken our preparation for that blessed state which remains for us in the other world.

95

3. Let the consideration of that unspeakable reward which God hath promised to good men at the resurrection, encourage us to obedience and a holy life. We serve a great Prince who is able to promote us to honour; a most gracious Master who will not let the least service we do for Him pass unrewarded. This is the inference which the apostle makes from his large discourse of the doctrine of the resurrection (1Co_15:58). Nothing will make death more welcome to us, than a constant course of service and obedience to God. “Sleep (saith Solomon) is sweet to the labouring man”: so after a great diligence and industry in “ working out our own salvation,” and (as it is said of David) “serving our generation according to the will of God,” how pleasant will it be to fall asleep! And, as an useful and well-spent life will make our death to be sweet, so our resurrection to be glorious. (Archbishop Tillotson.)

Resurrection: an Easter-day Sermon

In the words of the text, the ground on which our Blessed Lord declares the resurrection of men to rest, is well worthy of our deepest attention. He does not say that because He Himself was ere long to be crucified and to rise again, therefore mankind should also rise. He goes down even deeper than this, to the very root of all hope and life for man; to that on which His own incarnation and death and resurrection rest; to the very foundation of being—even the nature of God Himself. Because God is God; the living and unchangeable God; because He has called us into existence, and made us what we are; because He has revealed Himself as our God; and taken us into covenant with Himself, therefore, man shall not—man cannot,-perish. But there is another most blessed and comforting truth taught us in the text; without which resurrection would cease to be a blessing, would lose all power to console and strengthen, would become a dark and dismal phantom. God is the God,—not of solitary and separate souls,—but the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob; the God of father and son and grandson; the God who has appointed and preserves the order of human society, upholds its relationships, and will not disappoint the pure and sweet affections which have been nurtured in them. Would Abraham be the same Abraham if there were no Isaac; Isaac, the same Isaac, if there were no Abraham and Jacob? Nay, if the dishonour of forgetfulness were, in the life beyond the grave, thrown on the human loves and affections which have been born on earth, would God be the same God? (J. N.Bennie, LL. B.)

28 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.

GILL, "Saying, master, Moses wrote unto us,.... In Deuteronomy 25:5 where the

substance of what follows is contained, though not in express words:

96

if any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his

brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother; the meaning of

which is, that if a man died without issue, and left a wife behind him, his next

brother, if unmarried, was to marry his wife, and the first child born of her, was

to be reckoned the deceased's, and to inherit his estate; See Gill on Matthew

22:24.

PETT, "Verses 28-32

‘And they asked him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote to us, that if a man’s

brother die, having a wife, and he be childless, his brother should take the wife,

and raise up seed to his brother. There were therefore seven brothers, and the

first took a wife, and died childless; and the second, and the third took her, and

likewise the seven also left no children, and died. Afterward the woman also

died.”

His questioners cited a case where the levirate principle had been applied to

seven brothers one by one, with each marrying the woman who had been left a

widow by the previous brother when the previous brother died. She had thus

married all seven brothers.

29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless.

GILL, "There were therefore seven brethren,.... In the place where these

Sadducees dwelt; or, however, that were known by them; at least they supposed

such a case, and it might be fact:

and the first took a wife, and died without children; son or daughter, and so had

none to keep up his name, and to possess his inheritance.

PULPIT 29-33, "Luke 20:29-33

There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without

children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third

took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.

Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them

is she? for seven had her to wife. The question here put to the Master was a well-

known materialistic objection to the resurrection, and had on several occasions

Been asked by these shallow Epicureans—as the Talmud calls them—to the

great rabbis of the schools of the Pharisees. Their usual answer was that the

woman in question would be the wife of the first husband.

97

30 The second

GILL, "And the second took her to wife,.... As he was obliged by the above law, or pluck off the shoe:

and he died childless: as his eldest brother before him.

31 and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children.

GILL, "And the third took her,.... To wife, by virtue of the same law:

and in like manner the seven also; the other four, one after another, when all seven married her:

and they left no children, and died; or they died, leaving no children behind them.

32 Finally, the woman died too.

GILL, "Last of all the woman died also. Having had no children by either of her seven husbands.

33 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

GILL, "Therefore in the resurrection,.... At the time of the resurrection of the

dead, in that state, supposing there will be such an one, which they denied;

whose wife of them is she? the first, or the last, or any of the intermediate ones?

98

for seven had her to wife; and she had no child by either of them; so that their

claim seems to be alike; this they thought unanswerable, and sufficient to set

aside the notion of a resurrection.

34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.

GILL, "And Jesus answering, said unto them,.... After he had observed that

their error arose from ignorance of the Scriptures, and the power of God:

the children of this world marry, and are given in marriage that is, such who live

in this world, in the present mortal and imperfect state, being mortal men, and

die, and leave their estates and possessions: these marry, and have wives given

them in marriage; and it is very right, and fit, that so it should be, in order to

keep up a succession of men, and that they may have heirs to enjoy their

substance when they are gone.

JAMISON, "said unto them — In Mat_22:29, the reply begins with this important statement: - “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures,” regarding the future state, “nor the power of God,” before which a thousand such difficulties vanish (also Mar_12:24).

PETT, "Verses 34-36

‘And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this world marry, and are given in

marriage, but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the

resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, for neither

can they die any more. For they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God,

being sons of the resurrection.” ’

Jesus’ reply, indicating a detailed knowledge of the afterlife which demonstrated

His heavenly origin, declared that the question was based on the failure of the

questioners to appreciate the truth about the afterlife. For in the afterlife there is

no such thing as marriage and reproduction. Those raised from the dead at the

resurrection become similar to the angels, with spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians

15:44), and become ‘sons of God’ (an Old Testament title used of angels - Genesis

6:2; Genesis 6:4; Job 1:6 to Job 2:7; Job 38:7) indicating their then enjoying a

wholly spiritual nature and body, similar to that of God and the angels. They

cannot die any more, and thus reproduction is unnecessary. They are ‘sons of the

resurrection’, that is products of the results of God’s resurrection power

resulting in eternal life.

‘Those who are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection

99

from the dead.’ Jesus’ emphasises here that not all will experience resurrection to

life, and enjoy the life of the age to come. Only those who will be considered fit

and suitable because God counts them as worthy (e.g. Genesis 15:6) will attain to

that world. (Thus not all of the seven brothers, for example, would necessarily

experience it). And they will thus have become immortal, and will never again

experience death, will not marry or have children, but will enjoy a similar life of

immortality to that of angels enjoying their ecstasy, not in sex, but in enjoying

the presence of God.

(Thus those who teach a millennial kingdom on earth have the problem of having

a mixture of spiritual beings who cannot bear children, mixing with physical

beings who can have children. This is not the impression given by taking all that

is said in the Old Testament in its overly-literal meaning e.g. Isaiah 65:17-25).

COFFMAN, "Parallels: Matthew 22:22-33; Mark 12:18-27.

The Sadducees' question regarded a projection that was theoretically possible,

but actually quite unlikely and ridiculous on the face of it. It is impossible to see

how they considered this any greater problem than if only two brothers had been

involved in the marriage of one woman. Nevertheless, because, under the

Levirate marriage required in Moses' law, such a development was not

impossible, Jesus ignored the unlikelihood of it and answered it.

First, regarding marriage, such an institution will not be found in the eternal

world. In this connection, one cannot help wondering about "marriage for

eternity" as taught in Mormonism! Just as other fleshly relationships shall have

been left behind, so marriage also will not exist in the next world.

Two worlds are clearly spoken of by Jesus in this passage. "This world" (Luke

20:34) and "that world" (Luke 20:35) are the designations Jesus used of the

"here" and the "hereafter," nor is there the slightest hint of anything unreal

about the future world. The Lord spoke with full authority of conditions there;

and his words should illuminate all who heed them.

They are equal to the angels ... The Sadducees had raised no question about

angels, although, of course, as a matter of fact, they denied that any such beings

existed; but Jesus applied the stretchers to their brains in this department also.

The Lord not only spoke of angels as actual beings, but he revealed that men

shall be equal to angels in the hereafter (see my Commentary on Hebrews,

Hebrews 1:14).

Sons of God ... sons of the resurrection ... This use of the two expressions

synonymously is a pledge of a resurrection for the sons of God. The doctrine of

the resurrection is a fundamental of Christianity; and no faith is adequate which

denies it (see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:2).

Even Moses ... taught the resurrection of the dead; and the ignorance of the

Sadducees of this was the reason for their not believing. Jesus said, "Ye do err,

not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).

100

Christ at once cited an example of Moses' teaching on the resurrection; and the

incident referred to brings in focus Exodus 3:6:

And he (God) said, I AM the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the

God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

Significantly, Jesus made the argument for the resurrection to turn upon a single

verb, AM, and the tense of the verb at that! Such faith in the Scriptures on the

part of Jesus should inspire his followers to trust the Bible.

It is also significant that Jesus applied these words, I AM, to himself, referring to

himself as "I AM" in Mark 6:30,14:62, and John 18:5; and there can be no

understanding of Jesus' use of this expression except as an affirmation of his

Godhead.

Naturally, after such a devastating defeat at the hands of Jesus, the questioners

withdrew, no more daring to ask any question of the Lord. However, Jesus

would turn the tables and ask them a question.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:34-36

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are

given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that

world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in

marriage: neither can they die any more. How different are the few rare pictures

which our Master draws of the heaven-life to those painted by the great founders

and teachers of other world-wide religions! In his world beyond the grave, while

he tells us of a continuing existence, of varied and ever-increasing activity, in

contradistinction to the Nirvana of Buddha, in these pictures of Jesus the sensual

paradise of Mohammed, for instance, finds no place. Marriage is, according to

our Lord's teaching, but a temporary expedient to preserve the human race, to

which death would soon put an end. But in the world to come there will be no

death and no marriage. We may assume from his words here that the difference

between the sexes will have ceased to exist. They are equal unto the angels. Equal

with the angels in being immortal; no death; no marriage. Jesus in this place

asserts that angels have a body, but are exempt from any difference of sex. The

angels are here introduced because our Lord was speaking with Sadducees, who

(Acts 23:8) denied the existence of these glorious beings. He wished to set the seal

of his teaching on the deeply interesting question of the existence of angels.

35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry

101

nor be given in marriage,

GILL, "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world,.... The

world to come, eternal life and happiness; not by their own works and merits,

but through the blood, sacrifice, and righteousness of the Messiah;

and the resurrection from the dead; that is, the first resurrection, the

resurrection unto life, which only the dead in Christ will enjoy; otherwise all will

be raised: but some to the resurrection of damnation:

these neither marry, nor are given in marriage; there will be no need of any such

practice, for the reasons that follow.

36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

GILL, "Neither can they die any more,.... Therefore there will be no need of

marrying to procreate children, to keep up a succession of men, any more than

there is among the angels:

for they are equal unto the angels; in spirituality, purity and immortality; See

Gill on Matthew 22:30.

and are the children of God: as they are now by adopting grace; but, as yet, it

does not appear as it will then, what they are and will be:

being the children of the resurrection; as Christ was declared to be the son of

God by his resurrection, so will they appear to be the children of God by their

resurrection to eternal life; for though others will rise, yet not to everlasting life,

and thus appearing to be children of God, they will also be heirs of God, and

enjoy the inheritance, which they will always live to possess in their persons; and

therefore the case being different with them from the children of the world, they

will not marry, nor be given in marriage, as they are.

NISBET, "THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME

‘Neither can they die any more.’

Luke 20:36

It is not to the Lord’s articulated references to the deathless future that we have

102

to appeal alone. Into the whole tissue and texture of His sacred message enters

the thought of ‘that world, and the resurrection of the dead.’ The same, of

course, is the witness of the numberless suggestions in the words of Christ of the

sacred significance of the human soul to the heavenly Father.

I. The significance of the victory over death.—Looked upon from the high point

of sight, the Redeemer’s own victory over death appears at once as the most

necessary and, in a deep sense, the most natural of His works. Setting it apart for

the moment from its unspeakable significance for the forgiveness of our sins, we

see it in a light most magnificent as the representative glorification of our own

immortal nature. The Son of Man challenges the law of death by actually lying

down under its iron grasp; but it is ‘not possible that He should be holden of it.’

He overcomes it. It is a victory whose character as fact is the most historical

thing in history; to its actuality there come out as principal witnesses, but only

principal, leading a ‘great cloud’ of testimony, the glory of the Lord’s Person,

and the existence of the Lord’s universal Church. He Who died lived, to die no

more. Transfigured, yet the same; embodied as truly as ever, in a body none the

less real because now the perfect vehicle of His Spirit, He walked and talked with

His own again. And as the proper, the inevitable sequel (for such it will be seen

to be on reflection) of His Resurrection, He passed in Ascension into the light

invisible. He went up thither, embodied still, leaving the promise (on His own

Divine and human honour) to return again, and meantime lifting the hearts of

His mortal brethren towards the heavens where He was gone. He would not,

indeed, detach them for one moment from the duties at their feet, but He would

invest with an ineffable air of heavenly dignity and heavenly hope the humblest

factors, the most corporeal conditions, of their lot to-day. ‘As is the earthy one,

such are they also that are earthy; as is the heavenly one, such shall the heavenly

ones also be.’

II. Man not for time but for eternity.—This, in some faint and faltering outline,

is the Christian revelation, the revelation by and in the Lord Jesus Christ, of the

immortality of man. By word and by deed, by promise and by warning, by

appeals to our mysterious personality, and to our awful conscience, by His own

astonishing action in taking to Him our whole nature, and in it traversing and

transcending death, He bids us men now know, without a doubt, that we are

made not for time only but eternity. And He does this, such is the majestic

balance and sanity of all He says and does, so as only to accentuate the

importance of time. He dislocates no pure human relation. His doctrine, rightly

understood, is the keystone of the bliss of the family and its precious charities. It

is the law at once of liberty and duty in the social and in the civic and in the

national domains of life. The very leaves of His immortal tree are for the healing

of the nations, as they bring to Him their wounds (see illustration).

III. The inmost necessity of the future life.—In such a Presence and in such a

prospect let us think, let us labour, let us pray, let us live and die. And do we ever

pause or doubt in view of that amazing future when we, in Christ, shall ‘not be

able to die any more’? Do we feel a misgiving of the soul, as though that long to-

morrow would be too much for us, and we should at last even desire to sink out

of ourselves into the dreamless sleep of a personless universe? Such thoughts

103

have crossed the minds even of saints and sages in moments when they have been

awfully conscious of the weight of life. But the question is raised almost

altogether by imagination, and imagination working where it ought to rest—in

regions unknown to us, but guaranteed to faith by God. And the answer to it lies

assuredly in that great Scripture with which we began—‘Neither can they die

any more’; ‘I am the God of Abraham.’ To know Him is the life eternal. To get a

glimpse of Him is to see what makes immortality the inmost necessity—the

sublime sine quâ non—of the living and transfigured soul. It has seen Him; and

its being will be dear to itself for ever as the seer of that sight. To anticipate His

Presence is the answer to every fear beside the timeless ocean of the coming life.

For then, as now, the basis of our immortal personality will lie deep in our

relation to the eternal Love. Not for one instant of the heavenly life shall we be

asked to float in a void; we shall be borne upon the strong, calm tide of the life of

God; we shall repose in all the depth and wonder of our being upon the

everlasting arms; ‘Because I live, ye shall live also.’ ‘God shall be All, and in all’;

not ‘All’ in the sense of being the shadowy and silent Sum of the shadows and

silence of a Nirvana, but ‘All in all,’ the innumerable blessed ones who will be

themselves for ever, but themselves supremely in this, that ‘they see His face, and

His name is on their foreheads.’

Bishop H. C. G. Moule.

Illustration

‘It is Christ Who has been and is the Emancipator of the slave. It is He Who is

the one real Giver to woman of her dignity, her prerogative, her glory; the

weaker vessel, in His estimate, only because the more delicately perfect, the more

sensitive to the lights and voices of the unseen life; and, therefore, how often the

stronger, the far more heroic of the two types of the one humanity in holy purity

and in the courage of self-forgetting love! It is He Who has sown in man’s

troubled society the seed of an endless progress in a path of peace by revealing

the greatness of man as he is related to God, and then by laying it on every man,

in his Maker’s and Redeemer’s Name, to study always the rights of others and

the duties of himself. It is He Who, by His articulation and embodiment of truth

eternal and supernatural, has given to the natural its full significance, so that His

followers, because they have seen Him That is invisible, because they have

handled by faith the things not seen as yet, see in every concrete instance of

humanity around them a thought of God. They look upon men, women, children,

with eyes perfectly human in their perception of common needs and sins and

tears and joys; but they see these things all the while with the sky of immortality

above them, and so with a patience, a tolerance, a reverence, a love, which only

Jesus Christ can teach. Yes, it is He, it is only He, blessed be His Name, Who

gives to our mysterious existence its true continuity, its unity never to be

dissolved, when we see it as re-created in Himself. It is only He Who so unveils

eternity as to illuminate to-day.’

104

37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’[b]

GILL, "Now that the dead are raised,.... Or that there will be a resurrection of

the dead, this is a proof of it:

even Moses showed at the bush: when the Lord appeared to him out of it, and he

saw it burning with fire, and not consumed; when the Lord called to him out of it

by the following name, as he has recorded it in Exodus 3:6. Hence it is said,

when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the

God of Jacob; for though the Lord called himself so, yet Moses likewise calls him

by these names, when he gives an account of this affair, and when he went from

him to the children Israel; See Gill on Matthew 22:32.

JAMISON, "even Moses — whom they had just quoted to entangle Him.

CALVIN, "Luke 20:37.But that the dead shall rise. After having refuted the

objection brought against him, Christ confirms, by the testimony of Scripture,

the doctrine of the final resurrection. And this is the order which must always be

observed. Having repelled the calumnies of the enemies of the truth, we must

make them understand that they oppose the word of God; for until they are

convicted by the testimony of Scripture, they will always be at liberty to rebel.

Christ quotes a passage from Moses, because he was dealing with the Sadducees,

who had no great faith in the prophets, or who, at least, held them in no higher

estimation than we do the Book of Ecclesiasticus, or the History of the

Maccabees. Another reason was, that, as they had brought forward Moses, he

chose rather to refer to the same writer than to quote any of the prophets.

Besides, he did not aim at collecting all the passages of Scripture, as we see that

the apostles do not always make use of the same proofs on the same subject.

And yet we must not imagine that there were no good reasons why Christ seized

on this passage (Exodus 3:6) in preference to others; but he selected it with the

best judgment — though it might appear to be some what obscure — because it

ought to have been well known and distinctly remembered by the Jews, being a

declaration that they were redeemed by God, because they were the children of

Abraham. There, indeed, God declares that he is come down to deliver an

afflicted people, but at the same time adds, that he acknowledges that people as

his own, in respect of adoption, on account of the covenant which he had made

with Abraham. How comes it that God regards the dead rather than the living,

105

but because he assigns the first rank of honor to the fathers, in whose hands he

had placed his covenant? And in what respect would they have the preference, if

they had been extinguished by death? This is clearly expressed also by the nature

of the relation; for as no man can be a father without children, nor a king

without a people, so, strictly speaking, the Lord cannot be called the God of any

but the living.

Christ’s argument, however, is drawn not so much from the ordinary form of

expression as from the promise which is contained in these words. For the Lord

offers himself to be our God on the condition of receiving us, on the other hand,

as his people, which alone is sufficient for the assurance of perfect happiness.

Hence that saying of the Church by the prophet Habakkuk, (Habakkuk 1:12,)

Thou art our God from the beginning: we shall not die

Since, therefore, the Lord promises salvation to all to whom he declares that he is

their God, and since he says this respecting Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it

follows that there remains for the dead a hope of life. If it be objected, that souls

may continue to exist, though there be no resurrection of the dead, I replied, a

little before, that those two are connected, because souls aspire to the inheritance

laid up for them, though they do not yet reach that condition.

LIGHTFOOT, "[He calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, &c.] "Why doth

Moses say (Exo 32:13), Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? R. Abin saith,

The Lord said unto Moses, 'I look for ten men from thee, as I looked for that

number in Sodom: find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I

will not destroy thy people.' Then said Moses, 'Behold, here am I, and Aaron,

and Eleazar, and Ithamar, and Phineas, and Caleb, and Joshua.' 'But' saith God,

'these are but seven; where are the other three?' When Moses knew not what to

do, he saith, 'O eternal God, do those live that are dead?' 'Yes,' saith God. Then

saith Moses, 'If those that are dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac, and

Jacob.'"

PETT, "Verse 37-38

“But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the

Bush, when he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and

the God of Jacob. Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live

to him.”

Jesus then dealt with the Torah’s basis for the resurrection. In Exodus 3:6 Moses

had spoken of God as ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’. But, says Jesus,

God cannot be the God of the dead, for to be someone’s God they must be able to

appreciate His Godhood. Thus He can only be the God of the living. That must

mean that all who have truly known God, and have entered into covenant

relationship with Him, must have life in Him, and are indeed seen by Him as

having such life. That being so resurrection to life for His own necessarily follows

so that they can fully enjoy God in this way.

Putting it another way. The dead do not praise God (Psalms 88:10; Psalms

106

115:7). He is not their God. So if God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

they must in some way be enjoying life, even though they have apparently died.

For He is the God only of the living. There may also be solidly included in this

the significance of the covenant relationship with God which was indicated by

the title, ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’. God could not be seen as being

in a covenant relationship, which was a deeper one than that of marriage, with

those who were no more. Thus they must in some way have been alive when God

spoke these words. Some of the Psalmists also actually reveal a vague belief in an

afterlife on the same basis, that they could not believe that their positive and

glorious relationship with God, which was in such contrast with those whose

minds were set on earthly things, could cease on death (e.g. Psalms 16:9-11;

Psalms 17:15; Psalms 23:6; Psalms 49:15; Psalms 73:24, see its whole context;

Psalms 139:7-12; Psalms 139:24).

It will be noted that this teaching does away with any possible belief in

reincarnation. In Jesus’ eyes there was no thought that any of them could be

reincarnated. His argument indicated the opposite. Thus it is impossible to take

Jesus seriously and believe in reincarnation.

‘In the Bush.’ In Jesus’ day the Old Testament was split up into sections each of

which had a heading. This was probably for the purpose of synagogue worship.

The section headed ‘the Bush’ contained Exodus 3.

NISBET, "BURNING AND NOT CONSUMED

‘Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth

the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’

Luke 20:37

In ‘the bush,’ flaming but not destroyed, were indeed closely knit together, in

that incident at the foot of Sinai, three signs.

I. The bush.—There was the fact of the shrub, apparently being destroyed, yet

living, and indestructible, and intact.

II. The title.—There were the words which God selected as His very title—‘the

God of the living and the dead’—‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,

and the God of Jacob.’

III. The name.—And there was the grand name by which He named Himself—‘I

AM’—‘I AM!’ Independent of all external things, self-containing—self-existent.

‘I AM,’ in My own, and ‘I AM,’ part of My own eternal nature; they draw it

from Me, and uphold it in Me.

Now, ‘the burning bush’ was a picture and type of many things illustrative of one

fundamental truth.

IV. The Presence in the bush.—You will recollect that—in itself a poor bramble

tree—‘the bush’ was actually in flames, but in it was a Presence. That Presence is

first called ‘the Angel of the Lord’—no doubt ‘the Angel of the Covenant’—the

Lord Jesus Christ, the one great ‘Messenger’ who brought the message of peace

107

and truth to this world. ‘The Angel of the Lord’ called Himself by the very same

name by which He named Himself nearly fifteen hundred years before—‘I AM.’

Where He is, annihilation, destruction, death, can never be. There is an essential

element of perpetuity. As He is for ever, so is that. If He is in it, it is for ever.

Therefore, ‘the bush was not consumed.’

(a) Such as the ‘bush’ was, so at that moment were the Jewish people. They were

a poor, crushed race. But they were the covenant people, covenanted to great

things. And the Lord God was with them, therefore the result was sure—they

could not be consumed. They might be in a ‘furnace of affliction’; but the ‘I AM’

was there.

(b) The same truth has been indicated in the children of Israel ever since. Some

persons would say that a people so oppressed would lose their integrity, must

perish among the nations. But they live, as distinct as ever—they shine, and shall

shine, as God’s witness in the ‘fire,’ and shall ‘not be consumed.’

(c) And as with the Jewish Church, so with our own. Our Church has lived on,

from century to century, amid all that is destructible. It has been ever ‘ready to

perish’—by its afflictions and its martyrdoms—but it lives, and shall live, the

monument of the truth and power of God, because the ‘I AM’ is there—‘God is

in the midst of her, therefore she shall not be moved.’

(d) Many is the child of God who could put his seal to the same truth. ‘My trials

have burned deep, but I have lived through them. I don’t know one real

possession of my soul, not one bud of hope, not one ray, that has ever perished.’

Why? The great ‘I AM’ was with you!

We learn to connect and identify the indestructible with the indwelling of God.

—Rev. James Vaughan.

Illustration

‘There, in the Scriptures, in one short, unfathomable sentence, in the self-

revealing words of Jehovah to Moses by the mysterious bush, Christ finds

immortality, not for the soul only but for the body too, that is to say, not for a

part of humanity only, but for its total. And He finds it in the fact that then and

there the voice of Eternal Personal Life and Love proclaimed a link between

Itself and man, intimate and endeared: “I am the God of Abraham,” said the

Voice, “and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” That amazing relation was,

for our Lord Christ, warrant enough for the certainty of the immortality, whole

and perfect, of those three personalities. If God, if the God of the Bible—Living,

Loving, Holy, Infinite, Alpha and also Omega of existence—can descend into

living relationship with Man and be his God, then man must be so made that he

is capable of sustaining that relationship—capable in the idea of his nature. Then

man is not, because he cannot be, a creature only of the dust. He is born for

immortality.’

108

PULPIT, "Luke 20:37, Luke 20:38

Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush. You Sadducees, in

your own arbitrary fashion, set aside the authority of the prophets and all sacred

books save the Pentateuch; well, I will argue with you on your own,

comparatively speaking, narrow ground—the books of Moses. Even he, Moses, is

singularly clear and definite in his teaching on this point of the resurrection,

though you pretend he is not. You are acquainted with the well-known section in

Exodus termed 'the Bush :' what read you there?" When he calleth the Lord the

God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a

God of the dead, but of the living; more accurately rendered, not a God of dead

beings, but of lividly beings. The meaning of the Lord's argument is, "God would

never have called himself the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, if these

patriarchs, after their short lives, had become mere crumbling dust. God cannot

be the God of a being who does not exist." So Josephus—who, however, no doubt

drew his argument from these words of Christ, for this strong and conclusive

argument from the Pentateuch for the immortality of man does not appear to

have occurred to rabbis before the time of our Lord—so Josephus writes: "They

who die for God's sake live unto God as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the

patriarchs." The expression, "at the bush," should be rendered "in the Bush,"

that is, in that division of Exodus so named. So the Jews termed 2 Samuel 1:1-27.

and following verses "the Bow;" Ezekiel 1:1-28. and following section, "the

Chariot."

38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

CLARKE, "All live unto him - There is a remarkable passage in Josephus's

account of the Maccabees, chap. xvi., which proves that the best informed Jews

believed that the souls of righteous men were in the presence of God in a state of

happiness. "They who lose their lives for the sake of God, Live unto God, as do

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the rest of the patriarchs." And one not less

remarkable in Shemoth Rabba, fol. 159. "Rabbi Abbin saith, The Lord said unto

Moses, Find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I will not

destroy thy people. Then said Moses, Behold, here am I, Aaron, Eleazar,

Ithamar, Phineas, Caleb, and Joshua; but God said, Here are but seven, where

are the other three? When Moses knew not what to do, he said, O Eternal God,

do those live that are dead! Yes, saith God. Then said Moses, If those that are

dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." So the resurrection of the

dead, and the immortality and immateriality of the soul, were not strange or

unknown doctrines among the Jews.

109

GILL, "For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living,.... See Gill on Matthew

22:32.

for all live unto him. The Persic version, reads, "all these live unto him"; namely,

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for though they are dead to men, they are not to

God; their souls live with him, and their bodies will be raised by him: he reckons

of them, as if they were now alive, for he quickens the dead, and calls things that

are not, as though they were; and this is the case of all the saints that are dead, as

well as of those patriarchs. The Ethiopic reads, "all live with him"; as the souls

of all departed saints do; the Arabic version reads, all live in him; so all do now,

Acts 17:28.

JAMISON, "not ... of the dead, ... for all, etc. — To God, no human being is dead, or ever will be; but all sustain an abiding conscious relation to Him. But the “all” here meant “those who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world.” These sustain a gracious covenant relation to God, which cannot be dissolved. In this sense our Lord affirms that for Moses to call the Lord the “God” of His patriarchal servants if at that moment they had no existence, would be unworthy of Him. He “would be ashamed to be called their God, if He had not prepared for them a city” (Heb_11:16). How precious are these glimpses of the resurrection state!

SBC, "Consider some of the consequences of the truth of this text:—

I. As regards the body. In heaven’s language—i.e. in the real truth of the case—the body never dies. There is that which lives. At least God sees it alive. The relation of the body to the soul, and of the soul to the body, subsists through the interval between death and the resurrection. Can we suppose that the spirit, in the intermediate state, does not affect and desire its own body? St. Paul leads us on to that thought. He did not rest in, he did not like the idea of, unclothed spirit—"Not that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon"—i.e. with the old body renovated, and no longer, as now, burdensome. To God, nothing dies: it changes, but it does not die, "For all live unto Him."

II. But as respects the spirit. Surely it cannot be that energies are dormant, that existence is torpid, and all things in abeyance, and life as if it were not life after we die, till the day of Christ. For, then, could it be said of souls in such a state, we "live unto Him"? We say it of the body, indeed, though it be asleep, because of its relations to an animated soul. But would it be true if the soul also slept that long sleep. Are they not rather living in a very ecstasy of being and of joy, if they live unto Him? And to think of that life of theirs, may it not help us to live indeed an earnest, and a busy, and a holy, and a happy life? To think of them dead, is not it to sadden, to hinder, and to deaden us? But to think of them living, so living, is not it to gladden and animate us?

III. What, then, is death? Who are the dead? They who, living, live separate from their own souls; and, which is the same thing, they whose souls and bodies are both separate from God—they are the dead. That is the distance, and that is the parting. But do not think of those who sleep in Jesus as far off. Their life and our life is one.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 5th series, p. 20.

CALVIN, "38.For all live to him. This mode of expression is employed in various

senses in Scripture; but here it means that believers, after that they have died in

110

this world, lead a heavenly life with God; as Paul says that Christ, after having

been admitted to the heavenly glory, liveth to God, (Romans 6:10) because he is

freed from the infirmities and afflictions of this passing life. But here Christ

expressly reminds us, that we must not form a judgment of the life of the godly

according to the perceptions of the flesh, because that life is concealed under the

secret keeping of God. For if, while they are pilgrims in the world, they bear a

close resemblance to dead men, much less does any appearance of life exist in

them after the death of the body. But God is faithful to preserve them alive in his

presence, beyond the comprehension of men.

COKE, "Luke 20:38. For all live unto him.— It is evident that γαρ, for, must

here have the force of an illative particle, and may be rendered therefore, or so

that; for what it introduces is plainly the main proposition to be proved, and not

an argument for what immediately went before. In this connection the

consequence is apparently just: for, as all the faithful saints of God are the

children of Abraham, and the divine promise of being a God to him and his seed

is entailed upon such, it would prove their continual existence and happiness in a

future state, as much as Abraham's: and as the body as well as the soul makes an

essential part of man, it will prove both his resurrection and theirs, and entirely

overthrow the whole Sadducean doctrine on this head. See the note on Matthew

22:31; Matthew 22:46.

NISBET, "ALIVE UNTO GOD

‘He is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him.’

Luke 20:38

Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob live; but life, as we hold human life, is the union

of body and soul: therefore there is a union of the soul and body even of the

departed: therefore they must be joined together again, ‘for God is not the God

of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him.’ If these things are so, let us

see some of the consequences.

I. And first, as regards the body.—The relation of the body to the soul, and of the

soul to the body, subsists through the interval between death and the

resurrection. Can we suppose that the spirit, in the intermediate state, does not

affect and desire its own body? St. Paul leads us on to that thought. He did not

rest in, he did not like the idea of, unclothed spirit, ‘Not that we would be

unclothed, but clothed upon,’ i.e. with the old body renovated, and no longer, as

now, burdensome. And this is one of the reasons why the disembodied spirit

longs for the Second Advent, that it may have its body back, for the sake of the

integrity of its being, for service, for the perfect image of the Man Christ Jesus,

and for the glory of the Father. Do not, therefore, adopt too loosely what is very

common, the idea of a mortal body, and an immortal soul. Is the body, in its

strictest sense, mortal? Do not disparage the body.

II. But as respects the spirit.—Surely it cannot be that energies are dormant, that

existence is torpid, and all things in abeyance, and life as if it were no life after

we die, till the day of Christ. For then, could it indeed be said of souls in such a

state, we ‘live unto Him’? We say it of the body indeed, though it be asleep,

because of its relations to an animated soul. But would it be true if the soul also

111

slept that long sleep? Are they not rather living in a very ecstasy of being and of

joy, if they ‘live unto Him’? And to think of that life of theirs, may it not help us

to live indeed an earnest, and a busy, and a holy, and a happy life? To think of

them dead, is not it to sadden, to hinder, and to deaden us? But to think of them

living, and so living, is not it to gladden and animate us? And shall I not do

anything the better, when I remember that they are doing it too?

III. And what is our unity with those who are gone a little way out of our

sight?—Is it not ourselves also to live to Him? Are we not then indeed one, when

we have one focus, and when we point our life to one and the same mark? Nearer

than we to the fountain of life, they doubtless drink in more of its living waters,

and that makes their glory. But farther down the same stream we are drinking,

and that is our grace. And the grace and the glory are one and the same river of

life.

Therefore, whatever presses us closer to Jesus, draws us nearer to them. To live

in Him, from Him, with Him, to Him, this is our fellowship, ‘for all live unto

Him.’

39 Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!”

GILL, "Then certain of the Scribes, answering said,.... Who believed the doctrine of the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied, and so were pleased with our Lord's reasoning on this subject:

master, thou hast well said; thou hast spoken in a beautiful manner, reasoned finely upon this head, and set this matter in a fair and clear light; See Gill on Mar_12:28

HENRY, "Verses 39-47

The Scribes Confounded.

39 Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said. 40

And after that they durst not ask him any question at all. 41And he said unto

them, How say they that Christ is David's son? 42And David himself saith in the

book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 43Till

I make thine enemies thy footstool. 44David therefore calleth him Lord, how is

he then his son? 45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his

disciples, 46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love

greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief

rooms at feasts 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long

prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

The scribes were students in the law, and expositors of it to the people, men in

112

reputation for wisdom and honour, but the generality of them were enemies to

Christ and his gospel. Now here we have some of them attending him, and four

things we have in these verses concerning them, which we had before:--

I. We have them here commending the reply which Christ made to the Sadducees

concerning the resurrection: Certain of the scribes said, Master, thou hast well

said, Luke 20:39. Christ had the testimony of his adversaries that he said well

and therefore the scribes were his enemies because he would not conform to the

traditions of the elders, but yet when he vindicated the fundamental practices of

religion, and appeared in the defence of them, even the scribes commended his

performance, and owned that he said well. Many that call themselves Christians

come short even of this spirit.

II. We have them here struck with an awe of Christ, and of his wisdom and

authority (Luke 20:40): They durst not ask him any questions at all, because

they say that he was too hard for all that contended with him. His own disciples,

though weak, yet, being willing to receive his doctrine, durst ask him any

question but the Sadducees, who contradicted and cavilled at his doctrine, durst

ask him none.

III. We have them here puzzled and run aground with a question concerning the

Messiah, Luke 20:41. It was plain by many scriptures that Christ was to be the

Son of David even the blind man knew this (Luke 18:39) and yet it was plain that

David called the Messiah his Lord (Luke 20:42,44), his owner, and ruler, and

benefactor: The Lord said to my Lord. God said it to the Messiah, Psalm 110:1.

Now if he be his Son, why doth he call him his Lord? If he be his Lord, why do

we call him his Son? This he left them to consider of, but they could not reconcile

this seeming contradiction thanks be to God, we can that Christ, as God, was

David's Lord, but Christ, as man, was David's Son. He was both the root and the

offspring of David, Revelation 22:16. By his human nature he was the offspring

of David, a branch of his family by his divine nature he was the root of David,

from whom he had his being and life, and all the supplies of grace.

IV. We have them here described in their black characters, and a public caution

given to the disciples to take heed of them, Luke 20:45-47. This we had, just as it

is here, Mark 12:38, and more largely Matthew 23:1-39. Christ bids his disciples

beware of the scribes, that is,

1. "Take heed of being drawn into sin by them, of learning their way, and going

into their measures beware of such a spirit as they are governed by. Be not you

such in the Christian church as they are in the Jewish church."

2. "Take heed of being brought into trouble by them," in the same sense that he

had said (Matthew 10:17), "Beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the

councils beware of the scribes, for they will do so. Beware of them, for," (1.)

"They are proud and haughty. They desire to walk about the streets in long

robes, as those that are above business (for men of business went with their loins

girt up), and as those that take state, and take place." Cedant arma togæ --Let

arms yield to the gown. They loved in their hearts to have people make their

113

obeisance to them in the markets, that many might see what respect was paid

them and were very proud of the precedency that was given them in all places of

concourse. They loved the highest seats in the synagogues and the chief rooms at

feasts, and, when they were placed in them, looked upon themselves with great

conceit and upon all about them with great contempt. I sit as a queen. (2.) "They

are covetous and oppressive, and make their religion a cloak and cover for

crime." They devour widows' houses, get their estates into their hands, and then

by some trick or other make them their own, or they live upon them, and eat up

what they have and widows are an easy prey to them, because they are apt to be

deluded by their specious pretences: for a show they make long prayers, perhaps

long prayers with the widows when they are in sorrow, as if they had not only a

piteous but a pious concern for them, and thus endeavour to ingratiate

themselves with them, and get their money and effects into their hands. Such

devout men may surely be trusted with untold gold but they will give such an

account of it as they think fit.

Christ reads them their doom in a few words: These shall receive a more

abundant judgment, a double damnation, both for their abuse of the poor

widows, whose houses they devoured, and for their abuse of religion, and

particularly of prayer, which they had made use of as a pretence for the more

plausible and effectual carrying on of their worldly and wicked projects for

dissembled piety is double iniquity.

JAMISON, "Then certain of the Scribes, answering said,.... Who believed the doctrine of the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied, and so were pleased with our Lord's reasoning on this subject:

master, thou hast well said; thou hast spoken in a beautiful manner, reasoned finely upon this head, and set this matter in a fair and clear light; See Gill on Mar_12:28

CALVIN, "39.And some of the scribes answering. As it is probable that all of

them were actuated by evil dispositions towards him, this confession was

extorted, by a secret exercise of divine power, from some of them, that is, from

the Pharisees. It may be that, though they could have wished that Christ had

been disgracefully vanquished and silenced, when they perceived that his reply

has fortified them against the opposite sect, (69) ambition led them to

congratulate him on having obtained a victory. Perhaps, too, they burned with

envy, and did not wish that Christ should be put down by the Sadducees. (70)

Meanwhile, it was brought about by the wonderful providence of God, that even

his most deadly enemies assented to his doctrine. Their insolence, to was

restrained, not only because they saw that Christ was prepared to sustain every

kind of attack, but because they feared that they would be driven back with

disgrace, which already had frequently occurred; and because they were

ashamed of allowing him, by their silence, to carry off the victory, by which his

influence over the people would be greatly increased. When Matthew says that

all were astonished at his doctrine, we ought to observe that the doctrine of

religion was at that time corrupted by so many wicked or frivolous opinions, that

it was justly regarded as a miracle that the hope of the resurrection was so ably

and appropriately proved from the Law.

114

BURKITT, "The design of our blessed Saviour in propounding this question to

the Pharisees, (how Christ could be David's son, when David by inspiration

called him Lord) was two-fold:

1. To confute the people's erroneous opinion touching the person of the Messiah,

who they thought should be a mere man, of the stock and lineage of David only,

and not the Son of God.

2. To strengthen the faith of his disciples touching his Godhead, against the time

that they should see him suffer and rise again: the place Christ alludes to is The

Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand. Psalms 110:1 The Lord, that

is, to God the Son; who was to be incarnate, whom David calls his Lord, both as

God, and as Mediator, his Lord by a right of creation and redemption also.

Now the question our Saviour puts to the Pharisees is this, how Christ could be

both David's Lord, and David's Son? No son being Lord of his own father;

therefore if Christ were David's Sovereign, he must be more than man, more

than David's son. As man, he was David's son; as God-man was David's Lord.

Note hence, 1. That though Christ was truly and really Man, yet he was more

than a mere man; he was Lord unto, and the salvation of, his own forefathers.

Note, 2. That the only way to reconcile the scriptures which speak concerning

Christ, is to believe and acknowledge him to be both God and Man in one

person. The Messiah, as man, was to come forth out of David's loins; but as God-

man, was David's Lord, his Sovereign and Saviour: as man he was David's son;

as God-man, he was Lord of his own father.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:39, Luke 20:40

Then certain of the scribes answering, said, Master, thou hast well said. And

after that they durst not ask him any question at all. "This prompt and sublime

answer filled with admiration the scribes, who had so often sought this decisive

word in Hoses without finding it; they cannot restrain themselves from testifying

their joyful surprise. Aware from this time forth that every snare laid for him

will be the occasion for a glorious manifestation of his wisdom, they give up this

method of attack" (Godet).

40 And no one dared to ask him any more questions.Whose Son Is the Messiah?

115

CLARKE, "They durst not ask - Or, did not venture to ask any other question, for fear of being again confounded, as they had already been.

GILL, "And after that, they durst not ask him any question at all. Neither the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, nor Herodians.

HENRY, "II. We have them here struck with an awe of Christ, and of his wisdom and authority (Luk_20:40): They durst not ask him any questions at all, because they say that he was too hard for all that contended with him. His own disciples, though weak, yet, being willing to receive his doctrine, durst ask him any question;but the Sadducees, who contradicted and cavilled at his doctrine, durst ask him none.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:40-44

The lowliness and the greatness of Jesus Christ.

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

have—

I. A PROOF OF UTTER FALSITY. (Luke 20:40.) How came these men to be

afraid to ask questions of Christ? Others did not shrink from him, or fear to ask

things of him. The children were not afraid of him; nor were "the strangers"—

those not of Israel: nor were the women who waited on him and learned of him;

nor the simple-hearted and genuine inquirers. It was only the men who sought

his overthrow, because they dreaded his exposure; it was only those who shrank

from his heart-searching gaze and his truth-telling words, that dared not

approach him and ask questions of him. No man however ignorant, no child

however young, need shrink from the Lord of love, from asking of him what he

needs; it is only the false who are afraid.

II. THE TIME FOR AGGRESSIVE ACTION. The successful general may act

long on the defensive, but he waits and looks for the moment of attack. Jesus

bore long with the questionings of his enemies, but the time had come for him to

ask something of them. We may well bear long with the enemies of Christ, but

the hour comes when we must bear down upon them with convincing and

humbling power.

III. THE OCCASIONAL DUTY OF PUTTING MEN INTO A DIFFICULTY.

On this occasion our Lord placed his hearers in a difficulty from which he did

not offer to extricate them. His prophetic function was to enlighten, to liberate, to

relieve. But here was an occasion when he best served men by placing them in a

difficulty from which they found no escape. Such service may be rare for a

Christian teacher, but it does occur. There are times when we cannot render a

man a better service than that of humbling him, of showing him that there are

mysteries in presence of which he is a little child.

IV. THE WISDOM OF FURTHER INQUIRY. These Pharisees imagined that

they knew everything about the Scriptures that could be known. They were

116

learned, but they were unwise; they had a large verbal and literal acquaintance

with their sacred books, but they had missed their deepest meaning. They had

not inquired humbly, intelligently, reverently enough. How much more is there

in our New Testament than we have yet found! What depth of wisdom in the

words of Christi What enlightenment in the letters of his apostles! Though we

may not have missed our Way so grievously as the scribes had done, yet may

there be very much of Divine truth we have not yet discovered, which patient

and devout inquiry will disclose.

V. THE LOWLINESS AND THE GREATNESS OF JESUS CHRIST. He is the

Son of David, and he is also his Lord. We understand that better than the most

advanced and enlightened of his disciples could at that point. "As concerning the

flesh" he was "born of a woman, made under Law;" yet is he "exalted to be a

Prince and a Savior;" Son of man and Son of God. Only thus could he be what

he came to be:

1. Our Mediator between God and man.

2. Our Divine Savior, in whom we put our trust and find mercy unto eternal life;

our Divine Friend, of whose perfect sympathy we can be assured; our rightful

Lord, to whom we can bring the offering of our hearts and lives.—C.

41 Then Jesus said to them, “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David?

GILL, "And he said unto them,.... The Ethiopic version reads, "to the

Pharisees"; and so it appears, that it was to them he spoke, from Matthew 22:41

how say they? The Syriac version reads, "how say the Scribes?" as in Mark

12:35 and the Persic version, how say the wise men, the doctors in Israel,

that Christ is David's son? that which nothing was more common among the

Jews.

JAMISON, "Luk_20:41-47. Christ baffles the Pharisees by a question about David and Messiah, and denounces the Scribes.

said, etc. — “What think ye of Christ [the promised and expected Messiah]? Whose son is He [to be]? They say unto Him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit [by the Holy Ghost, Mar_12:36] call Him Lord?” (Mat_22:42, Mat_22:43). The difficulty can only be solved by the higher and lower -the divine and human natures of our Lord (Mat_1:23). Mark the testimony here

117

given to the inspiration of the Old Testament (compare Luk_24:44).

BARCLAY, "THE WARNINGS OF JESUS (Luke 20:41-44)

20:41-44 Jesus said to them, "How does David say that the Christ is his son? For

David himself says in the Book of Psalms, 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at my

right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.' So David calls him Lord, and

how can he be his son?"

It is worth while taking this little passage by itself for it is very difficult to

understand. The most popular title of the Messiah was Son of David. That is

what the blind man at Jericho called Jesus (Luke 18:38-39), and that is how the

crowds addressed him at his entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:9). Here Jesus

seems to cast doubts on the validity of that title. The quotation is from Psalms

110:1. In Jesus' time all the Psalms were attributed to David and this one was

taken to refer to the Messiah. In it David says that he heard God speak to his

Anointed One and tell him to sit at his right hand until his enemies became his

footstool; and in it David calls the Messiah My Lord. How can the Messiah be at

once David's son and David's Lord?

Jesus was doing here what he so often tried to do, trying to correct the popular

idea of the Messiah which was that under him the golden age would come and

Israel would become the greatest nation in the world. It was a dream of political

power. How was that to happen? There were many ideas about it but the

popular one was that some great descendant of David would come to be

invincible captain and king. So then the title Son of David was inextricably

mixed up with world dominion, with military prowess and with material

conquest.

Really what Jesus was saying here was, "You think of the coming Messiah as

Son of David; so he is; but he is far more. He is Lord." He was telling men that

they must revise their ideas of what Son of David meant. They must abandon

these fantastic dreams of world power and visualize the Messiah as Lord of the

hearts and lives of men. He was implicitly blaming them for having too little an

idea of God. It is always man's tendency to make God in his own image, and

thereby to miss his full majesty.

PETT, "Mark has “How do the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?”

We must assume from this, as mentioned above, that some Rabbis, especially

perhaps even with Jesus in mind, were downgrading ‘the Messiah to come’ into a

lesser David, a mere ‘son of David’, in contrast with the glorious figure usually

presented. Their idea may well have been someone who was subservient to the

Pharisees. There were in fact many differing and varying views about the

Messiah as is especially witnessed by the Dead Sea Scrolls where the Messiah of

David appears in some cases to be inferior to the Messiah of Aaron. In contrast

some of the apocalyptists endowed him with the highest honours.

Jesus was not by His words denying that He was the son of David, for both

Matthew and Luke have already made clear in their genealogies that He was. See

also Luke 1:27; Luke 1:32; Luke 1:69; Luke 2:11; Luke 18:38-39; Acts 13:34.

118

What He was arguing against was the idea that that was all that He was. As we

have seen earlier (on Luke 18:38) ‘Son of David’ was not a prominent Messianic

title at this time, even though clearly used by some, although as far as Luke is

concerned it was certainly used by the blind man whose eyes were opened (Luke

18:38).

COFFMAN, "V. Jesus himself asks his questioners a question.

As seen from the parallels, this is an abbreviation of a very significant question

which Jesus' questioners were utterly unable to answer. Its importance merits

some further study of it.

1. The question itself. This was simple enough. In Psalms 110:1, which Jesus

quoted, David had referred to the coming Messiah as "My Lord," and, despite

this, the most widely received title of the Messiah, and one used throughout

Israel in those times, was that which entered into the first verse of the New

Testament, "Jesus, the Son of David." This was the title used by the Syro-

Phoenician woman, and the beggar at Jericho. Jesus, therefore, said to the

religious leaders, "How can the Christ be BOTH the Lord of David and the Son

of David at the same time?"

2. The true answer to the question. AS GOD, Jesus is the Lord of David; and in

the flesh, he is the Son of David. In God's great promise of the Saviour coming

into the world, the GOD-MAN who would save from sin, it was mandatory that

the prophecies reveal both natures of the Holy One. Implicit in such a revelation

was the built-in necessity of apparent contradiction, due to the antithetical

natures of God and man. He who was BOTH would naturally possess

antithetical attributes. It is this which led to the Old Testament prophecies that

Jesus would be Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince

of Peace, etc., and, at the same time, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

This dual nature of the promised Messiah the Jewish leaders never understood.

Their pride led them to dwell upon the more glorious qualifications of the

Messiah revealed in prophecy and to rationalize the prophecies of Messiah's

sufferings, rejection and death. They even projected two Messiahs, one the

Conquering Hero and the other the Suffering Priest. This misunderstanding of

holy prophecy was the undoing of Israel's leaders, for it led them to reject the

Christ.

3. Jesus' purpose in bringing up this question was apparently that of finding one

last means of breaking through their unbelief; but they would not consent to

learn anything from him. Not knowing the answer to his question, they

nevertheless did not ask him the meaning.

VI. Jesus' question which fingered the precise point of the leaders' ignorance was

scorned by them as something they did not care to know; and in this their

inherent evil was glaringly evident. There could be no divine accommodation

with such willful and arrogant sinners. The Lord responded to their obduracy by

giving the people a warning against them.

119

PETT, "Verses 41-43

Jesus Himself Now Puts a Question: Who Is David’s Lord? (20:41-43).

In the chiasmus of the Section (see above) this statement, where Jesus reveals

Himself as ‘David’s Lord’, and denounces the ostentation and claims of the

Rabbis who set themselves up as false deliverers, a situation in which their

fleecing of widows is prominent, is paralleled with the depiction of Jesus’ entry

into the Temple to cleanse it as its ‘Lord’ (Luke 19:31; Luke 19:34), and the

declaration that the Temple is a ‘den of Robbers (Luke 19:45-46).

The question of Jesus here would seem to be directed at a Rabbinic idea that the

Christ was merely the son of David and therefore not superior to David, thus

making him purely merely political and secondary. But Jesus wanted to bring

out that the Messiah was not only superior to David, but was of a totally higher

status. he was Lord over all. For even David addressed Him as ‘my Lord’, thus

exalting the Messiah high above David. He leaves men to recognise how this

applies to Himself.

The contrast with the Scribes is striking. Jesus, the Messiah, Who is destined

shortly to receive glory, and exaltation to the chief seat from God, walks in

lowliness and meekness on earth, taking on Himself the form of a servant, and

eschewing wealth, awaiting His destiny, while the Scribes strut and prance

around as though they were the Messiah, and seize for themselves the wealth of

the vulnerable, while putting on a pretence of sanctity. For at the time when this

was spoken there was a sense in which these Scribes did rule their religious

world.

The reference here is to Psalms 110 which is headed ‘a psalm of David’.

Reference in that Psalm to the institution of ‘the order of Melchizedek’ (Luke

20:4), referring to the old King of Salem in Genesis 14, may suggest that it was

written not long after the capture of Jerusalem by David, when it would have

been suitable for pacifying the Jebusites, and yet have come before the time when

such an idea would have been looked on as heresy. In it David and his heirs were

to be seen as non-sacrificing priest-kings in Jerusalem, acknowledged by the

Jebusites and Jerusalemites, even if seen as priest-king nowhere else in Judah

and Israel. This would have aided the assimilation of the Jebusites into the faith

of Israel.

Furthermore as David considered the promise that one day his heir would rule

over an everlasting Kingdom (2 Samuel 7:16) and be God’s Anointed,

triumphant over the all the nations of the earth (Psalms 2:8-9), it could well have

raised within him a paean of praise and a declaration that this future son of his

would be greater than he was himself, that he would indeed be his superior, ‘my

Lord’. But what matters in Jesus’ use of it in this passage is not so much its

background, as how the Psalm was seen in His own day (although it is clear in

Mark that Jesus saw it as written by David under inspiration of the Holy Spirit -

Mark 12:36).

There are good grounds for stating that this Psalm was interpreted Messianically

120

in the pre-Christian period. This is confirmed by the Midrash on Psalms 18:36

where Psalms 110:1 is quoted by way of illustration in a Messianic sense. Later

the interpretation was dropped by the Rabbis because the Christians had taken

it over. Now, says Jesus, if David wrote this Psalm with a future king in mind,

now interpreted as the Messiah, then David was addressing the Messiah as

‘Lord’. And indeed he was not only addressing Him as Lord but was portraying

Him as God’s right hand man. That being so he must have recognised the

Messiah as being far superior to himself.

This receives some confirmation in that Psalms 110 is constantly quoted

Messianically in the New Testament. See for example Acts 2:34 where it is cited

of His ascending the throne of God as both Lord and Messiah; Hebrews 10:12

where, after offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, He ‘sat down at the right

hand of God’. See also Acts 7:55-56; Acts 13:33-39; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28;

Ephesians 1:19-23; Hebrews 1:3-14; Hebrews 5-7. With regard to the

Melchizedek priesthood see Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:17; Hebrews 7:21.

So we may see that Jesus was here concerned to bring home to His listeners, in

what was at this time His usual veiled way, that His status in fact far exceeded

that of David and that He was destined to sit at God’s right hand with His

enemies subdued before Him (Acts 2:36) as made clear especially in Psalms 2;

Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-4; Zechariah 14, 3-4, 9.

Analysis.

a He said to them, “How say they that the Christ is David’s son?” (Luke 20:41).

b “For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit

you on my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet’ ”

(Luke 20:42-43).

a “David therefore calls him Lord, and how is He his son?” (Luke 20:44).

The comparisons are simple. In ‘a’ and its parallel are the questions, in ‘b’ is the

answer.

BENSON, "Luke 20:41-47. How say they that Christ is David’s son, &c. — For

an elucidation of these verses, see on Matthew 22:41-46; Matthew 23:5-7;

Matthew 23:14; and Mark 12:35-40. David therefore calleth him Lord: how is he

then his son — “This implies both the existence of David in a future state, and

the authority of the Messiah over that invisible world into which that prince was

removed by death. Else, how great a monarch soever the Messiah might have

been, he could not have been properly called David’s Lord; any more than Julius

Cesar could have been called the lord of Romulus, because he reigned in Rome

seven hundred years after his death, and vastly extended the bounds of that

empire which Romulus founded. Munster’s note on this text shows, in a very

forcible manner, the wretched expedients of some modern Jews to evade the

force of that interpretation of the one hundred and tenth Psalm, which refers it

to the Messiah.” — Doddridge.

PULPIT, "And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's Son? St.

Matthew gives us more details of what went before the following saying of Jesus

121

in which he asserts the Divinity of Messiah. Jesus asked the Pharisees, "What

think ye of Christ? whose Son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He

saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord

said unto my Lord," etc.? (Matthew 22:42-44). This is one of the most

remarkable sayings of our Lord reported by the synoptists; in it he distinctly

claims for himself Divinity, participation in omnipotence. Unmistakably, lately,

under the thinnest veil of parable, Jesus had told the people that he was Messiah

For instance, his words in the parable of the "wicked husbandmen;" in the

parable of "the pounds;" in his late acts in the temple—driving out the sellers

and buyers, allowing the children in the temple to welcome him with Messianic

salutation, receiving as Messiah the welcome of the Passover pilgrims and others

on Palm Sunday as he entered Jerusalem. In his later parables, too, he had with

startling clearness predicted his approaching violent death. Now, Jesus was

aware that the capital charge which would be brought against him would be

blasphemy, that he had called himself, not only the Messiah, but Divine, the Son

of God (John 5:18; John 10:33; Matthew 26:65). He was desirous, then, before

the end came, to show from an acknowledged Messianic psalm that if he was

Messiah—and unquestionably a large proportion of the people received him as

such—he was also Divine. The words of the psalm (110.) indisputably show this,

viz. that the coming Messiah was Divine. This, he pointed out to them, was the

old faith, the doctrine taught in their own inspired Scriptures. But this was not

the doctrine of the Jews in the time of our Lord. They, like the Ebionites in early

Christian days, expected for their Messiah a mere "beloved Man." It is most

noticeable that the Messianic claim of Jesus, although not, of course, conceded by

the scribes, was never protested against by them. That would have been glaringly

unpopular. So many of the people, we know, were persuaded of the truth of these

pretensions; Jesus had evidently the greatest difficulty to stay the people's

enthusiasm in his favour. What the scribes persistently repelled, and in the end

condemned him for, was his assertion of Divinity. In this passage he shows from

their own Scriptures that whoever was Messiah must be Divine. He spoke over

and over again as Messiah; he acted with the power and in the authority of

Messiah; he allowed himself on several public occasions to be saluted as such:

who would venture, then, to question that he was fully conscious of his Divinity?

This conclusion is drawn, not from St. John, but exclusively from the recitals of

the three synoptists.

BI 41-44, "How say they that Christ is David’s son?

David, Christ’s ancestor

“How say they that Christ is David’s son?” Reading David’s history, we might exclaim, “How, indeed!” Son of David, Son of God: is not this like son of sin, son of grace? But if in the ancestor sin abounded, in the descendant grace much more abounded; and wisdom will inquire whether there is any relation between the superabounding grace and the abounding sin. We may think of Christ as a spiritual David, and we may think of David as a natural Christ, in this way: we may suppose a nature like Christ’s, but without what we know He possessed—a governing, harmonizing spirit of holiness. Imagine that. Imagine one whose natural endowments resembled Christ’s, but without the presiding spirit of holiness; then, we say, you would have another variety of David’s life—one more distinguished by nobleness, but one marked and saddened with many an act of dishonour. On the

122

other hand, if you suppose David to become perfectly spiritual, to have that presiding holiness which Christ had; amongst all the ancient saints, there would have been none so like the Lord Jesus Christ, though still less than He. And thus it is that we have in David the nature of Christ, but without the Divine harmonic regulation; and we have in Christ the nature of David, but not now with the fleshly irregularities, not sullied by blots, not made the shame as well as in part the glory of Israel, but utterly free from evil. Christ is, then, considered as David’s descendant, the inheritor of his sensibilities, which shine in our Lord with completest lustre. He is also the inheritor of his contests; and our Lord overcomes with unvaried and complete victory those temptations which assaulted His ancestor. And by being at once the possessor of his sensibilities and the inheritor of his contests, He becomes the expiation of his sins. You will often find in the history of families that troubles accumulate, and as it were ripen, until they are “laid upon” some one individual; that on this individual rests the burden of evil which has been slowly accumulating. Now, you may have a case in which it seems that the burden of evil so rests that the man is borne down, crushed, and destroyed; and here you say, through the wickedness of his House, this, the last descendant, is utterly shaken and ruined. But you may also have a successful fight; the burden is on the back, but the strength is in the man. This is at once the most burdened and most powerful individual sprung from the race. It is he who, grappling with the evil in its fullest strength, shall retrieve the fortunes of the family. There are historic cases which illustrate that principle. In every family history evil goes on worsening, or good goes on strengthening; and we may have instances of men borne down by the evil, and other instances of men oppressed very greatly and yet triumphing, and so retrieving honour and fortune. Now our Lord Jesus Christ was a spiritual David; He shares—possesses, indeed, to the full—David’s sensibilities; He engages in the moral contests in which David so often failed; and He becomes the expiation of David’s sins—that is to say, He utterly annuls that power of sin so manifest and hateful in David, and brings in a strength of holiness which, as gradually diffused in the breasts of men, shall cause the instrument that else would be discordant to be a harp of joy—shall refine from earthly alloys that sacred metal which, as God’s gold, he will work up into the ornaments and harps of heaven. (T. T. Lynch.)

42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand

GILL, "And David himself saith in the book Psalms,.... In Psalm 110:1

the Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand; which words were

delivered by David, as inspired by the Spirit of God; and contain a speech of God

123

the Father to his son Jesus Christ, upon his ascension to heaven, after his

sufferings, death, and resurrection from the dead; when he was bid to sit down

in human nature, at the right hand of God, in token of having done his work on

earth to full satisfaction; and in the relation of which David calls Christ his

Lord; and is the reason of their being mentioned.

LIGHTFOOT, "[The Lord said unto my Lord, &c.] Whereas St. Matthew tells

us, That "no man was able to answer him a word" to that argument, whereby he

asserted the divinity of the Messias, it is plain that those evasions were not yet

thought of, by which the Jews have since endeavoured to shift off this place. For

the Talmudists apply the psalm to Abraham; the Targumist (as it seems) to

David; others (as Justin Martyr tells us) to Hezekiah; which yet I do not

remember I have observed in the Jewish authors. His words are in his Dialogue

with Tryphon: I am not ignorant, that you venture to explain this psalm (when

he had recited the whole psalm) as if it were to be understood of king Hezekiah.

The Jewish authors have it thus: "Sem the Great said unto Eliezer [Abraham's

servant], 'When the kings of the east and of the west came against you, what did

you?' He answered and said, 'The Holy Blessed God took Abraham, and made

him to sit on his right hand.'" And again: "The Holy Blessed God had purposed

to have derived the priesthood from Shem; according as it is said, Thou art the

priest of the most high God: but because he blessed Abraham before he blessed

God, God derived the priesthood from Abraham. For so it is said, And he blessed

him and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, possessor of heaven

and earth, and blessed be the most high God. Abraham saith unto him, Who

useth to bless the servant before his Lord? Upon this God gave the priesthood to

Abraham, according as it is said, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my

right hand. And afterward it is written, The Lord sware and will not repent,

Thou art a priest for ever for the speaking of Melchizedek." Midras Tillin and

others also, in the explication of this psalm, refer it to Abraham. Worshipful

commentators indeed!

PETT, "Verse 42-43

“For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit

you on my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.’ ”

Jesus here took the Psalm to be Davidic, as His opponents did, and His argument

was based on what David had said of the coming King in his psalm. In it he had

declared that the coming King Who would sit at God’s right hand until all His

foes were subjected to Him, was also his (David’s) Lord, One Who had

demonstrated Himself to be superior to David. He thus foresaw a more exalted

position for Him as sitting on God’s right hand in the seat of divine power and

authority, until all his foes submitted to Him and were subjected before Him.

We note here how once again Luke omits the reference to the Holy Spirit

included by Mark. This non-reference to the Holy Spirit is his studied purpose in

these final chapters of his Gospel, ready for the transformation that will take

place at the commencement of Acts.

124

PULPIT, "And David himself saith in the Book of Psalms, The Lord said unto

my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand. The Hebrew runs thus: "Jehovah said to

my Lord (Adonai)." The Eternal is represented as speaking to Davids Lord, who

is also David's Son (this appears clearer in St. Matthew's account, Matthew

22:41-46). The Eternal addresses this Person as One raised to sit by him, that is,

as a Participator in his all-power, and yet this one is also David's Son! The

scribes are asked to explain this mystery; alone this can be done by referring to

the golden chain of Hebrew Messianic prophecy; no scribe in the days of our

Lord would do this. Such passages as Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 9:7; Micah 5:2; and

Malachi 3:1, give a complete and exhaustive answer to the question of Jesus.

43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’[c]

CLARKE, "Thy footstool - Literally, the footstool of thy feet. They shall not only be so far humbled that the feet may be set on them; but they shall be actually subjected, and put completely under that Christ whom they now despise, and are about to crucify.

GILL, "Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Which words are a continuation of the citation out of the above Psalm Psa_110:1; and for the application of these words, with the preceding, to the Messiah; see Gill on Mat_22:44.

44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

GILL, "David therefore called him Lord,.... Or, "my Lord", as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions read; or, "his Lord", as the Arabic version. This is the inference from the words before cited Psa_110:1, upon which the following question is asked,

how is he then his son? how can these things be reconciled? in what sense can he be both his Lord and son? See Gill on Mat_22:45.

PETT, "Now if this were the case, asks Jesus, how can He be limited to being

described merely as David’s son, when He is in fact declared to be David’s Lord?

Whatever else this therefore demonstrates it certainly reveals Jesus’ exalted view

of His own position as Greater than David, and as One Whom He declares to all

125

who heard Him to be ‘David’s Lord’. It thus reveals why He had the authority

which gave Him the right to cleanse the Temple, which, following the examples

of Hezekiah and Josiah, would be seen as a Messianic task. And all this in One

Who walked humbly and graciously among men, with nowhere to lay His head.

He made no attempt to ape His future glory.

PULPIT, "David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his Son? That Jesus

was the acknowledged descendant of David during his earthly ministry, is

indisputable; we need but refer to the cries of the populace on Palm Sunday, the

words of the woman of Canaan, of blind Bartimaeus, and others. History bears

its witness to the same fact. The Emperor Domitian, it is well known, summoned

the kinsmen of Jesus, the sons of Jude, his so-called brother, to Rome as "the

sons of David,"

COKE, "Luke 20:44. David therefore calleth him Lord, &c.— This implies both

the existence of David in a future state, and the authority of the Messiah over

that invisible world, into which this prince was removed by death. Else, how

great a monarch soever the Messiah might have been, he could not have been

properly called David's Lord, any more than Julius Caesar could have been

called the Lord of Romulus, because he reigned in Rome 700 years after his

death, and vastly extended the bounds of that empire which Romulus founded.

See on Matthew 22:42; Matthew 22:46.

Inferences drawn from the parable of the vineyard and husbandmen. Luke

20:9-18. When we read the parable before us, and consider it as levelled at the

Jews, we applaud the righteous judgment of God, in revenging so severely upon

them the quarrel of his covenant, and the Blood of his Son. But let us take heed

to ourselves, lest we also fall, after the same example of unbelief.

We learn from this parable,—and what part of the blessed scripture, nay, what

part of universal nature does not bear witness to the same delightful truth?—

that our God is a God of love, of forbearance, and long-suffering kindness; like a

father pitying his own children; like a benevolent master willing and wishing the

welfare of all his servants. Had any tenants of ours used the messengers whom

we sent, as these husbandmen used the messengers of our God, which of us

would not have been moved in such a case? Which of us would have proceeded

to such lengths of loving-kindness, as to send our only and beloved son to reclaim

and bring them to a better mind? Alas! a very small indignity presently swells us

with angry resentments,—poor, imperfect, sinful mortals! and were our God like

us, extreme to mark what is done amiss, who of us could stand one moment

before him? But St. John tells us, that he is Love; not merely Loving, but perfect

Love itself—an unbiassed Will to benevolence and the happiness of his creatures.

Nothing can magnify his love so much, (would to God we were so wise as duly to

consider it!) as the sending his only beloved Son, in the likeness of our sinful

flesh, to live and die afflicted and despised: we do not enough contemplate this

astonishing instance of the divine philanthropy. We should doubtless be very

sensibly affected, were but any thing of the like nature with this parable to

happen in our sight,—even though a father should send a son solely for his own

126

interest; and yet we are but too insensible as to that which faith teaches us,

concerning the only Son of God, sent into the world and infinitely humbled,

purely for our salvation. This ought to convince us, that our faith is in general

very weak, and that our salvation is but little regarded by us: would we increase

the one, and be happy in a greater anxiety for the other, we can fix our thoughts

on nothing so likely to attain that end, as the great object of divine love, the Son

sent into the world, and thus humbled for our salvation.

Which of our hearts feels not a just indignation against these wicked

husbandmen, who, after their Lord had favoured them with so choice a

vineyard, yet ungratefully refused him the fruits; and not only so, but abused

and killed his servants, and, adding iniquity to iniquity, at length rose up against

the son and heir himself, slew him, and cast him out of the vineyard?—Let us ask

our own hearts, could any of us have acted thus basely, thus cruelly? or, to speak

of the facts which this parable presents, could any of us have had a hand in

shedding the innocent blood of the prophets? or have joined the horrid cry at

Jerusalem, Crucify him! crucify him!—his blood be upon us and our children!—

I doubt not, but every reader shudders at the thought, and trembles even at the

most distant apprehension of being an accessary in such atrocious deeds.

Take we heed, therefore, that, while we condemn the Jews, we condemn not

ourselves. The vineyard is now with us; the church of Christ is taken from the

Jews, and planted among us; fruits are required of us; the only acceptable fruits

of repentance, faith, and living works. The sacred scriptures are as the

messengers demanding them; and the ministers unfolding these scriptures, are as

the servants of God sent to receive the fruits in their season. If we despise and

reject those scriptures, disregard their holy instructions, and the rule of faith and

life which they propose; if we neglect to hear the ministers of our God, the

servants of the heavenly King, demanding fruit in their Master's name, and

throw contempt upon the Son by evil lives,—then, like these husbandmen, do we

prove ungrateful to our Supreme Benefactor, and shall be esteemed in his sight

but as those wicked tenants who withheld the fruits, abused the servants, and

murdered the heir. See Hebrews 10:29-31.

Awed by the dread of these things, may we unite our utmost efforts through

divine grace to bring forth unto God the fruits of his holy love; and in obedience

to his commands, do honour to his Son, and strictly conform to all the holy and

pure precepts of his divine gospel. This is the only way to secure our souls from

that eternal destruction, which will certainly fall on the ungrateful and obstinate

sinner, as was figured out by the destruction of the Jews: and this is the only

way, as to secure our personal happiness, so also to secure the happiness of the

state, and to discharge our duty, not only to ourselves, but to our country, on

which inevitable ruin must indisputably fall, if the servants of the Lord of

heaven, his messengers, and his word, be reviled, despised, and scorned; if his

Son himself be mocked, cast out, and crucified afresh.

And all wilful sins are so many murders of Jesus Christ. It seems as if sinners

had conspired to kill him by innumerable deaths: the Jews killed him while he

was mortal, in respect to his human nature; wicked Christians crucify him

127

afresh, now that he is become immortal and all-glorious. Wicked Christians kill

and cast him out of the vineyard, when they cast him out of their hearts, or deny

him an entrance into them. How many hearts are guilty of this murder in the

sight of God! And if so great destruction overwhelmed the Jewish state and

nation for that one crime, what may we imagine will overwhelm those persons,

and that place, who live in a continual act of murdering of their Saviour, by

living in continual sin! May the gracious Father of mercy give us all a due sense

of this important truth; and may we, who profess his faith and love, increase in

our zeal towards him, as we find the presumption of sinners increase! May we,

by their negligence, be stirred up to more watchfulness; by their contempt of the

things of God, be more filled with thankfulness with regard to them; and by their

reviling be animated to more fervent prayers; that ere it be too late, they may

know and pursue the things, which belong to their everlasting peace!

REFLECTIONS.—1st, While Jesus was engaged in the blessed work of

preaching to the people the glad tidings of salvation, the chief priests, scribes,

and elders came upon him, to interrupt him in these labours of love. Note; We

may not wonder, if in the service of the gospel we meet with many interruptions

from the great enemy of souls, and his emissaries.

They demanded his authority for what he said and did; insinuating, that as it

belonged to them to judge of the pretensions of those who assumed the

prophetical character, unless he produced his commission, they must proceed

against him as a deceiver. He answers their question by another, respecting the

baptism of John; but they not choosing to answer for fear of the people, and

unwilling to own the divine mission of the Baptist, pretended ignorance, and

gave him a just reason to refuse them a farther account of himself, seeing they

had already rejected the plainest evidence. Note; It is but lost labour to

endeavour to persuade those, who are before resolved not to be convinced.

2nd, The parable contained in Luke 20:9-18 is designed for a warning to the

priests and rulers, of the ruin coming upon them and their nation, for their

persecutions of the messengers of God, and their rejection of the Messiah.

1. The vineyard was the Jewish people, who had been taken under God's

peculiar care; and he having instituted a magistracy and ministry among them,

expected suitable returns of love and duty from them; but instead of that, they

treated with the greater cruelty those divinely-appointed messengers, whom he

sent to remind them of his just expectations, and now were about to murder the

Son, who was come on the same errand; the consequence of which would be, the

ruin of the nation, and the eternal destruction of these miscreants. Note; (1.) The

best of men have often met with the cruellest usage from those, whose good alone

was the object of their labours. (2.) The end of obstinate transgressors is to be

rooted out at the last.

2. Struck with the denunciation of vengeance, they could not but deprecate the

wrath threatened, and express their abhorrence of such a crime as the murder of

the Messiah; but Christ with deepest concern beheld them, assured of their

determined obstinacy, and approaching ruin.—Though their efforts would all be

128

fruitless; for that stone which these Jewish builders rejected, would,

notwithstanding, become the head of the corner. This Jesus, whom they despised,

would be exalted to the right hand of Majesty on high, and invested with all

power and authority in heaven and in earth; and his enemies, who were offended

at him, and on whom his vengeance would light, must terribly perish.

3. The chief priests plainly perceived the design of the parable, and rage boiled in

their bosoms. They would gladly have seized and murdered him on the spot, but

were deterred through fear of the people, and forced reluctantly to defer their

bloody purpose to a more convenient opportunity. So little effect have the fairer

warnings upon those who harden their hearts against conviction.

3rdly, Resolved, if possible, to destroy him, and not having the power in their

own hands, they determined to try if they could not ensnare him, and render him

obnoxious to the Roman government, as a seditious person; for which purpose

we have,

1. The insidious question proposed to him by certain of the Pharisees and

Herodians, who, under the guise of conscientious regard to their duty, pretended

a great concern to know whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, and

thereby acknowledge themselves the subjects of a foreign power. They suggest

their fullest confidence in the rectitude of his decisions, their opinion of his

integrity, unawed by the fear of men, and their confidence in that divine

commission under which he acted; and thus they endeavoured to flatter him into

an unguarded freedom, which either must embroil him with the civil powers, or

render him odious to the people. Note; (1.) The garb of piety has often served to

cover the vilest designs. We need be on our guard against some who feign

themselves just men, and not credulously trust to every specious professor. To be

wise as serpents is our duty, as well as to be harmless as doves. (2.) It has been

the common artifice of persecutors, to endeavour to represent the faithful as

enemies to the state, and thus to gain the civil powers to oppress them.

2. His answer confounds and silences his enemies. He perceived their craftiness;

for from him nothing is hid, nothing is secret; and out of their own mouth draws

a decision of the question, to which they cannot object. As they own that their

money bore Caesar's image and superscription, he had certainly a right to his

own; though this interfered not with God's demands, to whose worship and

service their hearts and lives must be devoted. Unable to object, in sullen silence

they held their peace, marvelling at his wisdom, yet obstinate in their infidelity.

4thly, The confutation of the Sadducean objection to the resurrection of the

dead, was considered before, Matthew 22:23; Matthew 22:46. Mark 12:18; Mark

12:44. But our Lord here enlarges a little concerning that awful state which after

death succeeds. The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

necessary it is that the world should thus be supplied with inhabitants, and the

ravages of death be repaired by the rising generation: but they which shall be

accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, have

higher joys than the marriage-state can afford, and need not to increase, where

death is swallowed up in victory. They are said to be accounted worthy, not that

129

in and of ourselves we have any merit; our worthiness consists in being found in

Christ, justified by his blood, and sanctified by his Spirit. In that unseen world to

which the blessed go, [1.] They neither marry, nor are given in marriage; their

holiness and happiness are complete without it: the delights of sense are

swallowed up in the infinitely surpassing ecstacies of the soul. [2.] Neither can

they die any more: that world needs not to be replenished with new inhabitants,

where life eternal reigns, and death never enters, [3.] They are equal to the

angels; partaking in their service, enjoying the same bliss; glorious and immortal

as those seraphic spirits. [4.] They are the children of God, being the children of

the resurrection; they are instated in full possession of the purchased

inheritance.

5thly, The scribes, the established expositors of the law, expressed their high

approbation of his answer to their Sadducean opponents, whom our Lord had

entirely silenced. But though they had done with him, Christ has not done with

them.

1. He proposes to them a question, which seemed of easy solution, but which

quite disconcerted them for an answer. Ignorant of the mystery of the person of

the Messiah, in whom the divine and human natures were united, they could not

account how David's Son should be David's Lord. To us this mystery is

unfolded: we behold God and man in one Christ.

2. He condemns the hypocrisy and covetousness of the scribes, and cautions his

disciples against them. They made a vast parade of profession, and with flowing

robes in solemn stateliness as they passed, expected homage, as due to their

superiority; delighted in hearing the incense offered to their vanity; proudly

affected precedency; and while by their long prayers they insinuated themselves

into the confidence of widows, they basely and wickedly abused the trust reposed

in them, and devoured their substance. These shall receive greater damnation:

wickedness committed under such a veil of piety, brings the most aggravated

guilt on the conscience, and must be attended with the most terrible vengeance of

God.

Warning Against the Teachers of the Law

45 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples,

GILL, "Then in the audience of all the people,.... Whilst they were about him, and hearing him, and for their sakes too;

130

he said unto his disciples; yea, he spake to the multitude, as well as to the disciples, as appears from Mat_23:1.

BARCLAY, "THE LOVE OF HONOUR AMONG MEN (Luke 20:45-47)

20:45-47 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware

of the scribes who like to walk about in long robes, and who love greetings in the

market places, and the chief seats in synagogues, and the top place at banquets.

They devour widows' houses and pretend to offer long prayers. These will

receive the greater condemnation."

The honours which the scribes and Rabbis expected to receive were quite

extraordinary. They had rules of precedence all carefully drawn up. In the

college the most learned Rabbi took precedence; at a banquet, the oldest. It is on

record that two Rabbis came in, after walking on the street, grieved and

bewildered because more than one person had greeted them with, "May your

peace be great," without adding, "My masters!" They claimed to rank even

above parents. They said, "Let your esteem for your friend border on your

esteem for your teacher, and let your respect for your teacher border on your

reverence for God." "Respect for a teacher should exceed respect for a father,

for both father and son owe respect to a teacher." "If a man's father and teacher

have lost anything, the teacher's loss has the precedence, for a man's father only

brought him into this world; his teacher, who taught him wisdom, brought him

into the life of the world to come.... If a man's father and teacher are carrying

burdens, he must first help his teacher, and afterwards his father. If his father

and teacher are in captivity, he must first ransom his teacher, and afterwards his

father." Such claims are almost incredible; it was not good for a man to make

them; it was still less good for him to have them conceded. But it was claims like

that the scribes and Rabbis made.

Jesus also accused the scribes of devouring widows' houses. A Rabbi was legally

bound to teach for nothing. All Rabbis were supposed to have trades and to

support themselves by the work of their hands, while their teaching was given

free. That sounds very noble but it was deliberately taught that to support a

Rabbi was an act of the greatest piety. "Whoever," they said, "puts part of his

income into the purse of the wise is counted worthy of a seat in the heavenly

academy." "Whosoever harbours a disciple of the wise in his house is counted as

if he offered a daily sacrifice." "Let thy house be a place of resort to wise men."

It is by no means extraordinary that impressionable women were the legitimate

prey of the less scrupulous and more comfort-loving rabbis. At their worst, they

did devour widows' houses.

The whole unhealthy business shocked and revolted Jesus. It was all the worse

because these men knew so much better and held so responsible a place within

the life of the community. God will always condemn the man who uses a position

of trust to further his own ends and to pander to his own comfort.

BURKITT, "Observe here, what it is that our Saviour condemns; not civil

salutations in the market-place, not the chief seats in the synagogue, not the

uppermost rooms at feasts, but their fond affecting of these things, and their

131

ambitious aspiring after them; it was not their taking, but their loving, the

uppermost rooms at feasts, which our Saviour condemns. God is the God of

order, there may and ought to be a precedency among persons; God commands

us to give honor to whom honor is due, but pride and ambition are detestable

and hateful vices, especially in such as are preachers, and ought to be patterns of

humility.

Observe, 2. How our Saviour condemns the Pharisees for their gross hypocrisy,

in coloring over their abominable covetousness with a specious pretence of

religion, making long prayers in the temple and synagogues for widows, and

thereupon persuading them to give bountifully to Corban, that is, the common

treasury for the temple; some part of which was employed for their maintenance.

Whence we learn, that it is no new thing for designing hypocrites to cover the

foulest transgressions with the cloak of religion: thus the Pharisees made their

prayers a cloak and cover for their covetousness.

PETT, "Having established His position over against Pharisaic teaching, Jesus

now warned further against following the ways of the Pharisees, who did ape

such ways. Just as in the parallel in the Section chiasmus above, the Temple was

a Den of Robbers, thus condemning the chief priests, so are the Rabbis

hypocritical seekers of glory in the eyes of the world, and despoilers of widows.

And an example of one such widow is then given, who in spite of her poverty,

gives all that she has to God, her consecration highlighting the godliness of such

people in contrast with the unscrupulousness and greed of these Rabbis.

We can compare His condemnation here with that in Luke 11:39-52, but there it

was the Pharisees who received the initial assault, whereas here all was reserved

for the Scribes. It will be noted that unusually for Luke, who generally avoids

repetitions, there is almost a ‘repetition’ of Luke 11:43, for there He accuses the

Pharisees of loving the best seats in the synagogues and the salutations in the

marketplaces, whereas here He applies the same accusations to the Scribes.

Clearly He felt that this typified what they were truly like. Spiritual pride has

been the downfall of far too many for it not to be taken with the deepest

seriousness.

Analysis.

a ‘And in the hearing of all the people He said to His disciples, “Beware of the

scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and love salutations in the

marketplaces, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts” (Luke

20:45-46).

b “Who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers” (Luke

20:47 a).

c “These will receive greater condemnation” (Luke 20:47 b).

b And he looked up, and saw the rich men who were casting their gifts into the

treasury. And he saw a certain poor widow casting in there two mites (Luke

21:1-2).

a And he said, “Of a truth I say to you, This poor widow cast in more than they

132

all, for all these did of their superfluity cast in to the gifts, but she of her want

did cast in all the living that she had” (Luke 21:3).

Note that in ‘a’ the Scribes make a great show of their own importance, and in

the parallel, where men continue to make a show, they are shown up in contrast

with a poor widow. In ‘b’ the Scribes devour widow’s houses and yet make a

pretence of sanctity by praying long prayers, and in the parallel their giving is

contrasted with that of a widow who in what she is represents all whom they

have despoiled. In ‘c’, and centrally, their great condemnation is declared.

Verse 45

‘And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples,’

Jesus now turns to teaching His disciples, but in such a way that all the people

overhear Him. It will then be up to them how they take it.

COFFMAN, "How trifling are the things men love. Honorable greetings in the

markets of the world, seats at "the head table" at dinners, "the Amen Corner"

in churches, medals, titles, a ribbon, a red hat, or a surplice. Looking across

nineteen centuries, how insignificant do those special seats at the front of ancient

synagogues appear! Yet it was for things like these that the priestly hierarchy of

Israel bartered away their love for the Lord of Glory.

Nor were such embellishments of their vanity the only trouble with those leaders.

With bold selfishness they "devoured widows' houses." Just how they did this is

not known but there may be a glimpse of this in the parable of the unrighteous

judge, who for private reasons heard a widow's plea; but left in the background

is the impression that this instance of "justice" stood isolated in his conduct.

Through their influence with such men, the Pharisees had many opportunities to

pervert justice.

Long prayers ... Capping the picture of Israel's self-serving rulers is this detail of

the "long prayer," uttered on street corners or other public stands, full of

hypocritical piety, an affront to God and man alike.

PULPIT, "Luke 20:45, Luke 20:46

Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, Beware of the

scribes. Here, in St. Matthew, follows the great denunciation of the Sanhedrist

authorities with the other rabbis, Pharisees, and public teachers and leaders of

the people. It fills the whole of the twenty-third chapter of the First Gospel. The

details would be scarcely interesting to St. Luke's Gentile readers, so be thus

briefly summarizes them. Which desire to walk in long robes. "With special

conspicuousness of fringes (Numbers 15:38-40). 'The supreme tribunal,' said R.

Nachman, 'will duly punish hypocrites who wrap their talliths round them to

appear, what they are not, true Pharisees '" (Farrar).

PULPIT, "Luke 20:45-47

Character and precept, etc.

133

These verses suggest five truths of practical importance.

I. THAT CHARACTER IS OF MORE CONSEQUENCE THAN PRECEPT.

"Beware of the scribes;" they "sit in Moses' seat, and teach things that you

should do" (Matthew 23:2); but their conduct is such that they are to be avoided

rather than sought after. Beware of the bad man, though he be a good teacher;

the influence of his life will be stronger than the effect of his doctrine; the one

will do more harm than the other will do good. In a religious teacher, character

is the principal thing; if that be unsound, proceed no further; seek some one else,

one that you can respect, one that will raise you by the purity of his heart and the

beauty of his behavior.

II. THAT UNGODLY MEN FALL INTO A FOOLISHNESS THE DEPTH OF

WHICH THEY DO NOT SUSPECT. How childish and even contemptible it is

for men to find gratification in such display on their own part and in such

obsequiousness on the part of others as is here described (Luke 20:46)! To sink

to such vanity is wholly unworthy of a man who fears God, and who professes to

find his hope and his heritage in him and in his service. They who thus let

themselves down do not know how poor and small is the spirit they cherish and

the behavior in which they indulge; they do not suspect that, in the estimate of

wisdom, it is at the very bottom of the scale of manliness.

III. THAT FAMILIARITY WITH DIVINE TRUTH IS CONSISTENT WITH

THE COMMISSION OF THE WORST OFFENCES. The scribes themselves,

familiar with every letter of the Law, could descend to heartless

misappropriation in conjunction with a despicable hypocrisy (Luke 20:47). Guilt

and condemnation could go no further than this. It is solemnizing thought that

we may have the clearest view of the goodness and the righteousness of God, and

yet may be very far on the road to perdition. Paul felt the solemnity of this

thought (1 Corinthians 9:27). It is well that the children of privilege and the

preachers of righteousness should take this truth to heart and test their own

integrity.

IV. THAT THE AFFECTATION OF PIETY IS A SERIOUS AGGRAVATION

OF GUILT. The "making long prayers" entailed a "greater condemnation."

Infinitely offensive to the Pure and Holy One must be the use of his Name and

the affectation of devotedness to his service as a mere means of selfish

acquisition. The fraud which wears the garb of piety is the ugliest guilt that

shows its face to heaven. If men will be transgressors, let them, for their own

sake, forbear to weight their wrong-doing with a simulated piety. The converse

of this thought may well be added; for it is truth on the positive side, viz.—

V. THAT DEVOUT BENEVOLENCE IS GOODNESS AT ITS BEST. TO serve

our fellow-men because we love Christ, their Lord and ours, and because we

believe that he would have us succor them in their need, is to do the right thing

under the purest and worthiest prompting; it is goodness at its best.—C.

BI 45-47, "Beware of the scribes

134

The sins of the scribes and Pharisees

The scribes were doctors of the law, who read and expounded the Scripture to the people.They were possessed of the key of knowledge, and occupied the seat of Moses. The Pharisees were a kind of separatists among the Jews, as their name indeed denotes. When Jesus speaks to these men, He no longer wears His wonted aspect. His language is not that of compassion and tenderness, but of stern denunciation. It is important that Jesus should be presented to us under these two aspects, of forgiving mercy and of relentless wrath, in order to stimulate hope and to repress presumption. In the text Jesus proceeds to indicate the grounds of that woe He had denounced upon the scribes and Pharisees. He points out to the people the crimes with which they were chargeable, and the hypocrisy of their conduct. It is worthy of notice that He does not content Himself with speaking to the guilty parties alone. He unveils their character before the face of the world. They were deceiving the people by their pretences, and therefore the people must he warned against them. The same thing is true of all pretenders in religion. Truth and justice, and love for the souls of men, alike demand that such pretences should be made manifest. The first charge adduced against the scribes and Pharisees in the text is, that they shut up the kingdom of heaven against men—that they neither entered into it themselves, nor suffered those who were entering to go in. When the question is put, what methods did they take to accomplish this? the easiest and perhaps the most natural answer would be, that it was by their extraordinary strictness and outward purity. The mass of the people were regarded by them as little better than heathens. They abjured the society of such men; and one special ground of offence against Jesus was, that He did not imitate them in this respect. It might be readily presumed, then, that by such austerities as marked their outward conduct, they rendered religion altogether so repulsive as to deter the common people from inquiring into its claims, rather than to invite them to submit themselves to its authority. Thus, it may be supposed, they shut up the kingdom of heaven against men. It is notorious that such an accusation as this has been always preferred against the pure ministers of a pure religion. The duty of the minister is to declare the truth as he finds it in the Bible, and to act upon the directions he has there received. In thus preaching and acting, however, many may be shut out from the kingdom of heaven; it is not he who has dosed its gates against them, but God Himself. But the supposition is very far from being correct, that the Pharisees were accused of shutting the kingdom of heaven against men by the strictness and austerity to which they pretended. We shall discover the real grounds of the accusation by comparing the text with the parallel passage in the Gospel according to Luke. It is there said (Luk_11:52): “Woe unto you lawyers, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye enter not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” The way, then, in which they shut the kingdom of heaven against themselves and others, was by taking away the key of knowledge. In order to this, let us endeavour to ascertain the precise position of the Pharisee, and the place which he assigned to the word of God. Let us observe how he used the key of knowledge, and by what precise instrumentality he shut up the kingdom of heaven against men. The Pharisees did not deny men the use of the Bible. They did not conceal the knowledge of its contents. The people heard it read from year to year in their synagogues. It was explained to them, and their attention solicited to its truths. How, then, could it be said that they had taken away the key of knowledge? The answer to the question is to be found in the fact, not that they withheld the word of God, but that they made the commandment of God of none effect by their tradition. They refused to acknowledge the fact that God is the only teacher and director of His Church. They added to His word instructions of their own. The Divine authority, if it is to be preserved at all, must stand apart from and be superior to all other authority.

135

The claims of God are paramount, and so soon as they cease to be so, they cease to be Divine. In other words, God is no longer God—His worship is rendered vain—and His commandments become of none effect. Thus the key of knowledge is altogether taken away, and the kingdom of heaven is shut against men. The fact that the commandments of men occupied such a place at all vitiated their whole doctrine and worship, deprived men of the key of knowledge, and shut up the kingdom of heaven against them. Such a Church ceased to be a blessing, and had become a curse to the nation. It was a Church not to be reformed, but to be destroyed. It was rotten at the very heart, and nothing remained for it but woe. But the text is pregnant with instruction and admonition to all the professed disciples of Christ. It impresses upon us the doctrine that the kingdom of heaven is opened by knowledge. This is the key that unlocks the celestial gates. We cannot obtain an entrance to it in any other way. The lock will not yield to any other power. Not that all kinds of knowledge are equally available. This is life eternal, to know God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent. To be ignorant of Christ is to be shut out o! heaven. To know Jesus Christ is to open up the kingdom of heaven. The highest gifts, the most shining acquirements, cannot bring us a footstep nearer heaven. Nothing else avails to open up the kingdom to men but the knowledge of Jesus Christ. From the text also we learn this doctrine, that the ministers of the Church have in a certain sense the power of shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men. They are set up as lights of the world. Their business is to instruct the ignorant. If they neglect the duties or pervert the designs of their office, how are men to acquire the knowledge of the truth? From the doctrines set forth in the text, let us lay to heart the following practical instructions:

1. Let us learn to read the Bible, and to listen to its truths, in the assurance that our eternal destiny depends upon the knowledge of them.

2. Let ministers also learn their proper vocation as porters to the kingdom of heaven, and let them beware of handling the Word of God deceitfully. Let us now proceed to examine the second charge which Jesus brings against the scribes and Pharisees. It is conveyed in these words “Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” The crime of the Pharisees was not one, but manifold, and Jesus, in faithfulness, accumulates His charges against them. Lest for a moment they should forget the heinous character of these charges, He recapitulates with each the coming doom which awaited them. This second sin which Jesus charges against the Pharisees is of a very aggravated kind. It is devouring the houses of widows. Not contented with making void the commandments of God, these men were guilty of the most hateful practices. Having usurped a treasonable authority in Divine things, their lives were characterized by acts of atrocious oppression and cruelty. Insinuating themselves into the confidence of the weak and the defenceless, they made their high religious profession a covert for the basest covetousness. They become robbers of the widow and the fatherless. Such wickedness of conduct might have been expected as the sure result of the corruptions they had introduced into the Divine worship. Purity of faith is the surest guardian of integrity of life. In the case of the Pharisees the wickedness was peculiarly hateful. The sin of which they were guilty was devouring houses, or, in other words, involving families in ruin, by appropriating and devouring the substance which belonged to them. But this sin was accompanied with a threefold aggravation. First, the houses they involved in ruin were the houses of widows. Secondly, their sin was yet farther aggravated by being committed under the pretext of religion. They committed robbery under the guise of piety. Thirdly, they made an extraordinary profession of religious zeal. They not only prayed with a view to the more easy perpetration of robbery,

136

but their prayers were long. Widows were their easy dupes. Thus we are directed to one of the marks which indicate the mere pretender to godliness, and by which we shall be able to detect and expose the hypocrite. For the pretender in religion, having necessarily some selfish object in view, and not being animated by a love of the truth, may be expected to turn his profession to the best possible account. And whether for the purpose of gratifying his vanity, of acquiring power and influence, or of increasing wealth, he will always find his readiest instruments in silly and restless women. Hence, too readily, among despisers of religion, the reproach has been taken up against the true and living Church, that its most active promoters, and most zealous adherents, are women, and that the prayers of its members are only for a pretence. Surely it would be to infer rashly to conclude, that because the ministers or members of a Church were signalized by fervent and frequent prayer, and because devout and honourable women, not a few, were among its most zealous friends, such a Church was guilty of the Pharisaic crime, and justly lay under the reproach and the woe denounced in the text. Let us examine and see. No one can read the personal history of Jesus without perceiving how, in the days of His earthly ministry, He had among His most honoured and endeared disciples devout women not a few, whose rich gifts He did not despise, and whose devoted love He did not spurn. Who was it that blamed the expenditure of a very precious box of ointment? Is it, on the other hand, an unfailing mark of a hypocrite to make long prayers? Doubtless there have been many, in every age, who have assumed the form of godliness while denying its power, who have drawn near to God with the mouth, and honoured Him with the lips, while their hearts have been far from Him. But if hypocritical pretenders affect this devotion, is it not an evidence that prayer is the proper and true life Of the believer? Why should the Pharisee pretend to it, if the religious propriety of the thing itself were not felt and acknowledged? The hypocrite does not affect that which does not essentially belong to godliness. Jesus did not accuse the Pharisees, and pronounce a woe upon them, because they received the support of women, even of widows, nor because of the frequency or length of their prayers. Abstracted, however, from the peculiar circumstances and aggravations with which the sin was accompanied in the actual practice of the Pharisees, the thing condemned in the text is, prayer which is uttered only in pretence, and prayer which has a selfish and worldly end in view. Widows were the objects against whom the Pharisees put in practice their artful hypocrisy. But it is obvious that whosoever may be the objects of the deception, the essential character of the sin remains the same. Nor is the nature of the sin affected by the extent of the pretended devotion. The pretence is the thing blameworthy. It is true the sin becomes more heinous in proportion to the height of the profession, and the Pharisees are worthy of greater damnation, because they not only pretended to devotion, but to very high flights of it. Leaving out of view, however, such aggravating circumstances as these, that their prayer was long, and that the widows and the fatherless were their prey, we have the essential character of the sin set before us, as at least worthy of damnation, namely, making a profession of religion for the purpose of advancing worldly interests, and securing the ends of earthly ambition. The Pharisees of our day, then, who lie under the woe pronounced by Jesus, are—

1. Those ministers who enter upon and continue in their office for a piece of bread. The most pitiable being among all the afflicted sons of humanity is he who has assumed the holy office of the ministry for the sake of worldly ends and objects.

2. But the Pharisaic crime is by no means limited to ministers. Those people are

137

guilty of it, in whatever position they are placed, who, for the sake of good repute, from fear of worldly loss, or from the desire of worldly gain—or who, actuated by any earthly or selfish motive whatever, make profession of a religion which they do not believe. We have yet to examine a third charge which Jesus brings against the scribes and Pharisees. He accompanies the recital of it with a denunciation of the same woe he had already twice invoked upon them. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” The apostles of deceit and falsehood have often manifested a zeal in the propagation of their principles which is fitted to minister a severe reproof to those who know and who believe the truth. This does not arise from the circumstance that the apostles of error are possessed of more energy and activity of mind than the friends of truth, but because they have frequently a more hearty interest in the advancement of their cause. Let there be an opening for worldly advancement, and the gratification of worldly ambition, and the way is crowded with rival and eager candidates. There is no remissness of effort among them. The conquests of early Christianity were rapid and wide, because its apostles had strong faith and untiring zeal. From what has been stated, it will be manifest that it is not the fact of making proselytes or converts against which the woe of Christ is denounced. This, on the contrary, is the great duty which He has laid upon all His disciples; and the illustrious reward He hath promised to the work is, that they who turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever. A church is doing nothing if it be not making proselytes. It is a dead trunk ready for the fire. They did not care to make their converts holier and better and happier men. They made them twofold more the children of hell than themselves. It was enough that they assumed the name and made the outward profession. It will be instructive to examine for a little the methods they adopted for preserving their influence, extending their power, and crushing the truth.

We will thus be able to understand more perfectly the grounds of the condemnation pronounced against them, and how their zeal should have produced such fruits.

1. In the ninth chapter of the Gospel according to John we find the record of a miraculous work of Jesus, in opening the eyes of a man who had been blind from his birth. The Pharisees became aware that such a miracle had been wrought, and with great propriety made immediate and diligent inquiry into the reality of the fact. The means, then, by which they sought to quench the truth—to induce a denial of the manifest power of God, and to retain the people as their proselytes and followers—were to bring against Jesus the accusation of breaking the law of the land. He who did so, they argued, must be a sinner—he could not come from God, and to follow him would be certain destruction.

2. Throughout the narratives of the evangelists there are scattered abundant evidences of another instrument of proselytizing employed by the Pharisees. It is the language of reviling and scorn. They ridiculed the poverty of the disciples. Doubtless by such reviling and mockery they might attain a certain measure of success.

3. Another instrument of the Pharisees for making and retaining proselytes, was misrepresentation and calumny. They watched the words of Jesus that they might have something to report to His disadvantage.

4. The Pharisees made converts by force. They took up the weapons of persecution and vigorously employed them. The charge as expressed, pronounces woe against them, because of their great zeal in making proselytes, and because of the lamentable results which followed upon their conversion. (W. Wilson.).

138

46 “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.

CLARKE, "Beware of the scribes - Take heed that ye be not seduced by those

who should show you the way of salvation. See on Matthew 23:4-14; (note).

How it can be supposed that the ancient Jewish Church had no distinct notion of

the resurrection of the dead is to me truly surprising. The justice of God, so

peculiarly conspicuous under the old covenant, might have led the people to infer

that there must be a resurrection of the dead, if even the passage to which our

Lord refers had not made a part of their law. As the body makes a part of the

man, justice requires that not only they who are martyrs for the testimony of

God, but also all those who have devoted their lives to his service, and died in his

yoke, should have their bodies raised again. The justice of God is as much

concerned in the resurrection of the dead, as either his power or mercy. To be

freed from earthly incumbrances, earthly passions, bodily infirmities, sickness;

and death, to be brought into a state of conscious existence, with a refined body

and a sublime soul, both immortal, and both ineffably happy - how glorious the

privilege! But of this, who shall be counted worthy in that day? Only those who

have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, and

who, by patient continuing in well doing, have sought for glory and honor and

immortality.

A bad example, supported by the authority, reputation, and majesty of religion,

is a very subtle poison, from which it is very difficult for men to preserve

themselves. It is a great misfortune for any people to be obliged to beware of

those very persons who ought to be their rule and pattern. This is a reflection of

pious Father Quesnel; and, while we admire its depth, we may justly lament that

the evil he refers to should be so prevalent as to render the observation, and the

caution on which it is founded, so necessary. But let no man imagine that bad

and immoral ministers are to be found among one class of persons only. They are

to be found in the branches as well as in the root: in the different sects and

parties as well as in the mother or national Churches, from which the others

have separated. On either hand there is little room for glorying. - Professors and

ministers may change, but the truth of the Lord abideth for ever!

GILL, "Beware of the Scribes,.... And also of the Pharisees; for they are joined

139

together in Matthew:

which desire to walk in long robes: the rule for the length of a scholar's garment

was thisF1;

"his flesh must not appear under his garments, as the light linen garments, and

the like, they make in Egypt; nor must his garments be drawn upon the ground,

as the garments of proud men, but must reach to his heel, and his glove must

reach the top of his fingers.'

According to this rule, the garments of the doctors were to be so long as to cover

the whole body, even down to their heels, but were not to be any longer; and by

this it appears their garments were very long; but they did not always go by this

rule; some had their garments so long as to have a train after them; See Gill on

Matthew 23:5.

and love greetings in the markets; or in courts of judicature; they loved to be

saluted with the titles of Rabbi, Master, and the like:

and the highest seats in the synagogues; which were next to the place where the

book of the law was read and expounded, and where they might be seen by the

people:

and the chief rooms at feasts; the uppermost; See Gill on Matthew 23:6 and See

Gill on Matthew 23:7.

LIGHTFOOT, "[Which desire to walk in long robes.] In garments to the feet; in

long robes: which their own Rabbins sufficiently testify. "R. Jochanan asked R.

Banaah, What kind of garment is the inner garment of the disciple of the wise

men? It is such a one, that the flesh may not be seen underneath him." The Gloss

is, It is to reach to the very sole of the foot, that it may not be discerned when he

goes barefoot. "What is the 'talith,' that the disciple of the wise wears? That the

inner garment may not be seen below it to a handbreadth."

What is that, Luke 15:22, the first robe? [the best robe, AV]. Is it the former

robe, that is, that which the prodigal had worn formerly? or the first, i.e. the

chief and best robe? It may be queried, whether it may not be particularly

understood the talith as what was in more esteem than the chaluk, and that

which is the first garment in view to the beholders. "I saw amongst the spoils a

Babylonish garment, Joshua 7. Rabh saith, A long garment called melotes." The

Gloss is, "a 'talith' of purest wool."

PETT, "His warning is that they beware of a particular type of Scribe of whom

there were far too many (not all Scribes could be put on the same level), the

showy and ostentatious ones whom everyone noticed, and not be like them. The

wearing of long robes was an indication that someone was wealthy enough not to

need to work, or it may mainly have in mind special and distinctive festal

garments worn on the Sabbath, or the long robes of the teacher. But whichever is

in mind (and more than one may be), they were worn in order to draw attention

140

to themselves. We know that special salutations were given to Rabbis, and a

certain type of Rabbi loved going through the marketplace so that he would

receive the deference that he felt was his due. And they would be offered the

chief seats in the synagogues, sitting facing the ordinary worshippers (with the

chief one taking ‘Moses’ seat’ - Matthew 23:2). All this was in order to draw

attention to themselves and make them feel good. They loved it. The disciples

were to avoid such behaviour, and probably continued to succeed in doing so,

but as the centuries went by the so-called Christian leadership would mainly go

the way of the Jewish leadership. It is but a short step from deserved distinction

to spiritual pride. The pride of life is regularly a huge stumblingblock that stands

in the way of those who serve Christ, as it was to the Pharisees and Scribes, and

if not checked it eventually produces the worst types of behaviour.

Note how all this apes the picture of the Messiah drawn in the previous passage.

Their distinctive clothing, their love of being hailed, their taking of ‘chief seats’,

their being honoured at feasts, which will be followed by their devouring of

widow’s houses, is all similar to the behaviour of kings. In their own way they

were setting themselves up as messiahs to whom the people should look for

deliverance. We are reminded of Paul’s words in another context, ‘You have

reigned as king’s without us, would to God that you did reign’ (1 Corinthians

4:8).

47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”

GILL, "Which devour widows' houses,.... As the characters of them, in the

preceding verse, expose their pride, this shows their avarice; they were very

voracious and cruel; they did not spare widows, but devoured their substance:

and for a show make long prayers; to cover their wickedness, pretending great

devotion and religion;

the same shall receive greater damnation: than openly profane sinners; doing

such wickedness under a cloak of religion, will aggravate their condemnation;

See Gill on Matthew 23:14.

JAMISON, "devour, etc. — taking advantage of their helpless condition and confiding character, to obtain possession of their property, while by their “long prayers” they made them believe they were raised far above “filthy lucre.” So much “the greater damnation” awaits them. What a lifelike description of the Romish

141

clergy, the true successors of “the scribes!”

PETT, "And these will receive greater condemnation because they have abused

the trust given to them, and the trust that others have in them (compare Luke

17:1-2). In what way would it be greater?

1). It will be greater than the condemnation of Chorazin and Bethsaida, greater

than that of Capernaum (Luke 10:13-15), because they had received greater

privileges and had failed to take advantage of them in order to become truly

spiritual (compare Luke 12:47).

2). It will also be greater than the high estimation that they have of themselves.

3). It will be greater even than their hypocrisy.

PULPIT, "Which devour widows' houses. Josephus specially alludes to the

influence which certain of the Pharisees had acquired over women as directors of

the conscience. For a show; rather, in pretence. "Their hypocrisy was so

notorious that even the Talmud records the warning given by Alexander

Jannaeus to his wife on his deathbed against painted Pharisees. And in their

seven classes of Pharisees, the Talmudic writers place 'Shechemites,' Pharisees

from self-interest; 'Stumblers,' so mock-humble that they will not raise their feet

from the ground; 'Bleeders,' so mock-modest that, because they will not raise

their eyes, they run against walls, etc. Thus the Jewish writers themselves depict

the Pharisees as the Tartuffes of antiquity" (Farrar). Shall receive greater

damnation; rather, judgment. The translators of our beautiful English version

are most unhappy in their usual rendering of κρίμα.

142