From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Luke Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
CHAPTER TWENTY
Books Utilized Code Numbers at End of Chapter
20:1 Translations
Weymouth: On one of those days while He was teaching the people in the
Temple and proclaiming the Good News, the High Priests came upon Him, and the
Scribes,
WEB: It
happened on one of those days, as he was teaching the people in the temple and
preaching the Good News, that the priests and scribes
came to him with the elders.
Young’s: And it came to pass, on one of those
days, as he is teaching the people in the temple, and proclaiming good news,
the chief priests and the scribes, with the elders, came upon him,
Conte (RC): And it happened
that, on one of the days when he was teaching the people in the temple and
preaching the Gospel, the leaders of the priests, and the scribes, gathered
together with the elders,
20:1 And it came to
pass, that on one of those days. A comparison of Matthew and Mark shows that
it was on Tuesday, after the withering of the fig tree that He had cursed the
preceding (Monday) morning, on the way from
as He taught the
people in the temple, and preached the gospel. The “teaching” would be
principally an exposition of the Messianic intent of the Old Testament, the
application of which to His own character and work would be the “preaching of
the gospel” ( compare 4:16-21). We may
well suppose that large numbers were now thronging Him, “hanging upon Him,
listening,” so that any interruption would attract great attention. Just at such a moment, an interruption did
occur, of the most formidable description [involving the top religious leadership.]
[52]
Or, making the point more general: What
He “taught” was the “gospel,” the good news of what God really wanted and
intended—much of which was simply the principles of the Old Testament rightly
applied to everyday life rather than twisted into a theology that permitted one
to “piously” ignore the intent while clinging to its words. Not to mention laying aside human traditions
to make themselves “more devout” by “pious actions” which were actually neither
demanded nor practical for the bulk of people.
the chief priests
and the scribes came upon Him with the elders. The parties seem to have
consulted together, and to have decided upon this course as being likely to
weaken or destroy His influence with the people. In a body, therefore, these chief priests and
scribes and elders—the most prominent men of the theocracy—came upon Him while
He is teaching and preaching in the temple, and demand His authority for doing
these things. [3]
It
looks like a formal delegation from the Sanhedrin, or great religious council
of the nation, similar to that which was sent to John the Baptist, in the
beginning of the Gospel (John 1:19ff.).
Selected members, representing all sections of the body, venerable in
years and character, and arrayed in their distinctive robes of office,
constituted an apparition well adapted to overwhelm the populace with reverence
and awe. [52]
the elders. [These]
were the representatives of the people, and had existed in Israel from the
earliest times (Exodus 18:13-16), 19:7; 2 Samuel 19:11; 1 Kings 8:1-3; Jeremiah
29:1; Ezra 5:5; 6:7-14). [6]
From this period of the
narrative, the hostility of the Pharisees, as such, is much less marked. Indeed they would have sympathized with the
cleansing of the
came upon Him. The statement implies a degree of suddenness,
if not surprise, in their appearance.
The design was soon manifest. [52]
20:2 Translations
Weymouth: together with
the Elders, and they asked Him, "Tell us, By what
authority are you doing these things? And who is it that gave you this
authority?"
WEB: They
asked him, "Tell us: by what authority do you do these things? Or who is
giving you this authority?"
Young’s: and spake unto
him, saying, 'Tell us by what authority thou dost these things? or who is he that gave to thee this authority?'
Conte (RC): and they spoke to
him, saying: "Tell us, by what authority do you
do these things? Or, who is it that has given you this authority?"
20:2 And spake unto him, saying, Tell
us. The
imperative, “Tell us,” is consistent with the whole air of superiority and
command which the visit bespoke. As
overseers of the religious instruction of the people, neither the people nor
Jesus Himself would question the propriety of their inquiring into the
credentials of one who assumed the function of a messenger of God; only let
them do it with an honest and earnest desire to know the truth. [52]
by what authority. Rather, “by
what kind of authority.” The
implication is, “you are only called a Rabbi by courtesy;” you are not a “pupil
of the wise;” you are not a priest, or a scribe, or a political
functionary. Yet you usurp functions
which rather belong to Caiaphas, or the President of
the Sanhedrin, or the Romans, or Herod.
If you act as a Prophet, show us a sign. Practically it was the old taunt by which He
had been grieved in
doest Thou these
things? “These things” would
include, primarily, the cleansing of the temple courts, the day before, and all
that He had done and allowed on the day of His arrival. The people listening would be likely to
associate with these the blasting of the fig-tree, the giving sight to the
blind, the raising of Lazarus—all that guaranteed Him to be the prophet of
or who is he that
gave Thee this authority? Understood,
as they intended it, viz., what man, what eldership, what college of rabbins, gave it to thee?
The practical sum of it was, in their minds, “How, when, where, didst
Thou receive this authority from us?” As
their inquiry was proper in form, the Lord gave a respectful reply. [52]
20:3 Translations
WEB: He
answered them, "I also will ask you one question. Tell me:
Young’s: And he answering said unto them, 'I will
question you -- I also -- one thing, and tell me:
Conte (RC): And in response,
Jesus said to them: "I will also question you about one word. Respond to
me:
20:3 And he answered
and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing. Rather, “a
question.” The divine readiness
and (if we may be allowed the expression) presence of mind of Jesus was
most conspicuously shown on this perilous day and the next day. [56]
and answer me. He wasn’t just throwing out a question for
them to meditate upon. He was
throwing out a question that He wanted answered—here and now. They had challenged His authority to teach;
now He was challenging their ability to be honest teachers instead of
merely self-serving ones. [rw]
We
see from
20:4 Translations
WEB: the
baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?"
Young’s: the
baptism of John, from heaven was it, or from men?'
Conte (RC): The baptism of John,
was it from heaven, or of men?"
20:4 The baptism of John. This question was strictly pertinent to the
one put to Him. Christ's mission and
ministry [was] the central point and seal of the office and teaching of John's
ministry and baptism. [7]
“The baptism of John” is
put briefly for the whole mission of John.
Now, John had testified to the Messiahship of
Jesus, and that to the embassy sent from this very body, perhaps including some
of these very men. An answer to His
question, therefore, would greatly clear the way toward an answer to theirs,
and perhaps render further answer unnecessary.
Did John do what he did, and say what he said, as a prophet, the
spokesman of God? [52]
was it from heaven, or of men? If John was a prophet, he had testified of
Jesus and the word of a prophet of Jehovah was even legally higher than that of
the Sanhedrin. [6]
If they could not answer
this question they were obviously incompetent to decide as to the
authority by which He worked. [56]
20:5 Translations
WEB: They
reasoned with themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say,
'Why didn't you believe him?'
Young’s: And they reasoned with
themselves, saying -- 'If we may say, From heaven, he will say, Wherefore,
then, did ye not believe him?
Conte (RC): So they discussed it
among themselves, saying: "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?'
20:5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying. They went aside to discuss together what
answer they should give. This
deliberation rendered their confession of ignorance more glaring and more fatal
to their claims. It never occurred to
them to speak with the courage of their convictions. [56]
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 [endorsed]
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 imperiled, 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
favor they so zealously courted. [18]
If we shall say, From heaven; he
will say, Why then believed ye him not? Accept
this premise as valid and they were self-condemned. And even if they wished to lie or use
ambiguous language, their own rejection by John was clearly too
well known to risk it (John 1:19-28): “when
he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism”—might some of
them have been part of this current group of questioners?—John rebuked
them with the harsh words, “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee
from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7) [rw]
20:6 Translations
Weymouth: And if we say, 'human,' the people will all stone us; for
they are thoroughly convinced that John was a Prophet."
WEB: But if we
say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John
was a prophet."
Young’s: and if we may say, From
men, all the people will stone us, for they are having been persuaded John to
be a prophet.'
Conte (RC): But if we say, 'Of
men,' the whole people will stone us. For they are certain
that John was a prophet."
20:6 But
and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone
us: for they be persuaded that John was
a prophet. The
kind of violence they would love to inflict upon Jesus, they themselves would
have been victims of. This was one
argument they could not use because it would risk their own lives. The implication seems clear that they had
decided John could not be a true prophet—probably because how
could a “true prophet” come to different religious conclusions than
they? After all they were
supposed to be masters of the sacred text!
[rw]
persuaded. Rather,
“firmly convinced.” The tense implies an
unalterable conclusion. [56]
all the people. The
conclusion is pervasive with few or no dissenters. [rw]
20:7 Translations
WEB: They
answered that they didn't know where it was from.
Young’s: And they answered, that they knew not
whence it was,
Conte (RC): And so they
responded that they did not know where it was from.
20:7 And they answered,
that they could not tell whence it was. Was
there anyone present—with the possible exception of pilgrims from distant lands
unacquainted with knowledge about John—who would not have recognized the
absurdity of this and its blatant insincerity?
These were the purported religious elite of the land, the epitome of
religious authority, experts who had such fine tuned “reasoning” that they
could cut a quarter into thirty pieces, spend it, and still have enough left
over to pay the tithe on it, and then give you a lengthy lecture from some obscure
and totally irrelevant Biblical text to explain why things “had” to work out
this way! (This is rhetorical
exaggeration, of course; we use it to illustrate that when they wished to
“prove” a point, they always found a way to make their theory “scripturally” or
“traditionally” sustainable however much either scripture or tradition had to
be manipulated and mutilated in the process.) [rw]
could not tell. Rather, “did not know.” A wise answer in cases of real uncertainty,
as the Hebrew proverb taught—“Learn to say I do not know;” but a base answer
when they had an opinion but
did not dare to avow it; and doubly base in the matter of a question which it
was their plain duty to have arrived at a judgment. To be reduced to this ignominious necessity of
confessing ignorance (though “we know” was one of their favorite
phrases, John
20:8 Translations
WEB: Jesus
said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these
things."
Young’s: and Jesus said to them, 'Neither do I say
to you by what authority I do these things.'
Conte (RC): And Jesus said to
them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
20:8 Neither tell I you. Jesus, on hearing their plea of ignorance,
now contemptuously declines to answer the Sanhedrists’
question in the direct way they desired, but at once proceeds to speak a
parable which unmistakably contains the reply.
[18]
by what authority. His
miracles told them very plainly. [7]
I do these things. His
miracles, parables, teachings, claims.
[7]
20:9 Translations
WEB: He began
to tell the people this parable. "A man planted a vineyard, and rented it
out to some farmers, and went into another country for a long time.
Young’s: And he began to speak unto the people
this simile: 'A certain man planted a vineyard, and gave it out to husbandmen,
and went abroad for a long time,
Conte (RC): Then he began to
tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, and he loaned it
to settlers, and he was on a sojourn for a long time.
20:9 Then began He to
speak to the people. But still in the hearing of the priests and
scribes who had only withdrawn a little into the background (verse 19; Matthew
this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard. This represents God's attention to
The parable was so plain
that the enemies of Jesus perfectly understood its meaning. The householder was His Father; the vineyard
was Israel; the husbandmen were the rulers to whom the nation had been
entrusted; the servants were the prophets sent to summon the people to repent
and to render to God the fruits of righteousness; the son was Jesus Himself,
who thus claimed a unique relation to God, distinct from the prophets and from
all human messengers; the death of the heir was His own approaching
crucifixion; the return of the householder was the coming visitation of divine
judgment, the rejection of Israel, and the call of the Gentiles. [28]
Aside: Vines,
grapes, and vine leaves were symbols of
and let it
forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. Pivotal to the story is that the owner has
left to others the actual control of the property and its rightful
administration. He remains interested
and concerned, of course, but others have been trusted to take “hands on”
responsibility for its administration. [rw]
The “husbandmen” to whom it was let
out, were the administrators of the government under God—the judges, kings,
priests, and all that successively constituted the hierarchy. [52]
Or: Namely,
(1) the Jewish nation; (2) their rulers and teachers. [56]
for a long time. The nearly two thousand
years of Jewish history. Compare
Matthew 25:19. In this long time they
learnt to say “the Lord hath forsaken the earth,” Ezekiel
WEB: At the
proper season, he sent a servant to the farmers to collect his share of the
fruit of the vineyard. But the farmers beat him, and sent him away empty.
Young’s: and at the season he sent unto the
husbandmen a servant, that from the fruit of the vineyard they may give to him,
but the husbandmen having beat him, did send him away empty.
Conte (RC): And in due time, he
sent a servant to the farmers, so that they would give to him from the fruit of
the vineyard. And they beat him and drove him away, empty-handed.
he sent a servant to the husbandmen. They
were put on notice that payment was now due.
They could not plead ignorance. [rw]
The
various “servants” are the Judges, the better Priests, and the Prophets. [56]
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” (Isa.
v. 2). [18]
The
“fruits” expected by the proprietor of this vineyard, were obedience to His
will, as declared in the Law, which was to prepare the way for a universal
reign of grace to sinful men, while it meantime fostered a character of
humility, uprightness, mercy, piety, among the people who made up the plants of
the vineyard. [52]
but the husbandmen
beat him, and sent him away empty. Not
only did the owner not get what he was amply deserved, his agents were treated
with outright contempt: Rejection was
not enough; brutality was their reward for doing their job. If the tenants were to be mad at anyone, the
anger should have been targeted at the owner for these others were only
carrying out his instructions. [rw]
WEB: He sent
yet another servant, and they also beat him, and treated him shamefully, and
sent him away empty.
Young’s: 'And he added to send another servant,
and they that one also having beaten and dishonoured,
did send away empty;
Conte (RC): And he continued to
send another servant. But beating him and treating him with contempt, they
likewise sent him away, empty-handed.
Just as a physical property owner would have sent repeated individuals
to collect what was due him, on a spiritual level God repeatedly sent prophets
to remind the people of what their duties were to God and to urge them to
return to them. Just as every society
has a certain percentage of folk who will use the physical absence of the
“boss” as an excuse to ignore their jobs and responsibilities, even the Chosen
People used God’s “absence”—His not directly and miraculously intervening on an
ongoing basis—to generally ignore their responsibilities. [rw]
and they beat him
also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. There is a
gradation in their impious audacity. In
St. Matthew (
WEB: He sent
yet a third, and they also wounded him, and threw him out.
Young’s: and he added to send a third, and this
one also, having wounded, they did cast out.
Conte (RC): And he continued to send a third. And wounding
him also, they drove him away.
In
no case, at no period, do they meet God’s reasonable requirement with fidelity
and righteousness. In this, the Savior
simply summarized their recorded history.
Throughout that, from the men who “outlived Joshua” (Judges 2:7), we
search in vain for the account of a single generation that served Jehovah with
more than a rare, meager, half-hearted devotion. Scarcely a king that, through his life-time,
remained faithful to the national covenant with God. [52]
cast him out. On this treatment of God’s messengers see
WEB: The lord
of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. It may be
that seeing him, they will respect him.'
Young’s: 'And the owner of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my son -- the beloved, perhaps
having seen this one, they will do reverence;
Conte (RC): Then the lord of the
vineyard said: 'What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Perhaps when they
have seen him, they will respect him.'
I will send my beloved son. [This] is, of course, the
Lord Jesus Himself; and the plot of the husbandmen against Him, is what the
chief priests and scribes are now engaged in working out, that they may
continue to hold their control over the people, with its honors and
emoluments. [52]
it may be they
will reverence [respect, NKJV] him when they see him. Without options, he is willing to risk his
own son—but the words are very contingent, “it may be,” not “it will
be.” The whole burden is placed on their
shoulders to decide what to do. One
can’t blame God when one is acting out one’s own preferences and desires! A useful contrast might be this—in c. 30 A.D.
God said “it may be” and left the decision up to those directly
involved; in 70 A.D. God said “it will be”—and the Temple was
destroyed. If they were not going to
accept the Messiah, of what value was the intermediary Temple for any
more—beyond, perhaps, encouraging the delusion that if the Messiah is rejected
because He does not match rebellious man’s temporal preferences no real,
lasting harm has been done? [rw]
WEB: "But
when the farmers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, 'This is the
heir. Come, let's kill him, that the inheritance may
be ours.'
Young’s: and having seen him, the husbandmen
reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir; come, we may kill him,
that the inheritance may become ours;
Conte (RC): And when the
settlers had seen him, they discussed it among themselves, saying: 'This one is
the heir. Let us kill him, so that the inheritance will be ours.'
that the inheritance may be ours. Interpreted on a literal, human
inter-reaction level: Killing the heir, standing alone, makes
absolutely no sense in abolishing their goal “that the inheritance may be
ours.” After all, the owner could sell the property
to some powerful nearby dignitary who would be quite willing to “bust the
necessary heads” to bring the nonsense to an end. Or to come himself and
obtain such assistance to revenge his son’s death. Hence something unspoken must also be included
and that seems to be the certainty that the owner will be unable or
unwilling to intervene any further.
This would be the case of a man
who is a foreigner and with no local ties and, even more so, if there are no
parties close by who would be sympathetic to his plight. Unable to do more, he would have to effectively
forfeit the lands into the very hands of those who had stolen it. But as verses 15 and 16 show, the capacity to
punish gross injustice can turn out to be present even when the perpetuators
are convinced it would be impossible. [rw]
Interpreted in its spiritual
ramifications of the husbandmen being the nation’s religious leadership: The motive of their murderous wickedness is
laid open before them—that, the Messiah being put out of the way, they may sit
in His place, as they already sat “in Moses’ seat.”
What was originally and properly a piece of land entrusted to their
care, on certain unfulfilled conditions, has become, in their view, an
inheritance handed down to them, so that if the legitimate heir be got rid of,
it will fall of right to them. [52]
WEB: They
threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of
the vineyard do to them?
Young’s: and having cast him outside of the
vineyard, they killed him; what, then, shall the owner of the vineyard do to
them?
Conte (RC): And forcing him
outside of the vineyard, they killed him. What, then, will the lord of the vineyard
do to them?"
The
casting the son “out of the vineyard,” means, perhaps, nothing more than that
they put him off from the field which he claims, and which they usurp, before
they put him to death. Some think it
refers to a formal excommunication of Jesus, but without adducting any proof of
such a fact. Forsaking now the form of
narrative, Christ inquires as to the future consequences of this conduct. [52]
What therefore
shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? In a
sense, to ask the question is to answer it.
Assuming the aggrieved has sufficient power, any answer has to
involve vigorous and overwhelming retribution.
[rw]
WEB: He will
come and destroy these farmers, and will give the vineyard to others."
When they heard it, they said, "May it never be!"
Young’s: He will come, and destroy these
husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.' And having heard, they said,
'Let it not be!'
Conte (RC): "He will come
and destroy those settlers, and he will give the vineyard to others." And
upon hearing this, they said to him, "Let it not be."
and shall give the vineyard to others. “Lo, we turn
to the Gentiles,” Acts
And
when they heard it. Since overwhelming retribution would
instinctively appeal to the mind of anyone interested in justice “they” could
hardly be the masses of listeners. The
“they” virtually has to be the religious leadership, knowing that—however one
might interpret the “fine print” of the parable—it is clearly aimed at their
leadership and that they are the assumed targets of the
retribution. [rw]
they said, God forbid. Or,
"Let it not be." Our phase
"God forbid," answers pretty well to the meaning of the Greek,
but it is no translation. [1]
Literally, “Might it not be!” In this utterance we hear the groan when the
truth that they were indeed to be rejected burst upon them. It woke an echo even in the heart of the
Apostle of the Gentiles. It occurs ten
times in the Epistle to the Romans alone.
It is the opposite of Amen, but occurs here alone in the Gospels. [56]
WEB: But he
looked at them, and said, "Then what is this that is written, 'The stone
which the builders rejected, the same was made the chief cornerstone?'
Young’s: and he, having looked upon them, said, 'What, then, is this that hath been written: A stone that the
builders rejected -- this became head of a corner?
Conte (RC): Then, gazing at
them, he said: "Then what does this mean, which is written: 'The stone
which the builders have rejected, the same has become the head of the corner?'
and said, What is
this then that is written. Jesus
argues that not only can the parable be interpreted as rightly requiring
dire retribution upon the villains, Scripture itself requires that when
God has sent His Son and He has been rejected, nothing short of that is
adequate. [rw]
He here refers
them to the very Psalm from which the Hosanna of the multitude had been
taken. [56]
the stone which the builders rejected. Psalms 118:22-23; compare Acts
the same is become
the head of the corner? The
passage cited celebrates the triumph of some prominent personage typically
connected with the
Or: The
last phrase is a Hebraism for a stone so fitted and placed as, by forming part
of two walls, to bind them together at a corner, and give security to the whole
structure. Whether it is conceived of as
coping out the main wall at the top (Jeremiah 51:26), or the foundation wall,
on which the edifice rested (Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:6, 7), or, as placed at
any desired elevation, admits of question.
[52]
Weymouth: Every one who
falls on that stone will be severely hurt, but on whomsoever it falls, he will
be utterly crushed."
WEB: Everyone
who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush whomever it
falls on to dust."
Young’s: every one who hath fallen on that stone
shall be broken, and on whom it may fall, it will crush him to pieces.'
Conte (RC): Everyone who falls
on that stone will be shattered. And anyone upon whom it falls will be
crushed."
it will grind him to powder. Literally, “it shall winnow him”
(Jeremiah 31:10), with obvious reference to the great Image which “the stone
cut without hands” smote and broke to pieces, so that its fragments became
“like the chaff of the summer threshing floor, and the wind carried them away,”
Daniel 2:35. [56]
Weymouth: At this the Scribes and the High Priests wanted to lay hands
on Him, then and there; only they were afraid of the people. For
they saw that in this parable He had referred to them.
WEB: The chief
priests and the scribes sought to lay hands on him that very hour, but they
feared the people--for they knew he had spoken this parable against them.
Young’s: And the chief priests
and the scribes sought to lay hands on him in that hour, and they feared the
people, for they knew that against them he spake this
simile.
Conte (RC): And the leaders of
the priests, and the scribes, were seeking to lay hands on him in that same
hour, but they feared the people. For they realized that he
had spoken this parable about them.
for they perceived that He had spoken this parable against them. This parable has been commonly interpreted in the following
way: The vineyard is the
In context:
After this parable our Lord added the Parable of the Marriage of the
King’s Son. Thus in three continuous
Parables He convicted the Priests and Scribes (1) of false professions; (2) of
cruel faithlessness; (3) of blind presumption.
This with their public humiliation about John’s baptism made them thirst
for speedy vengeance. [56]
Weymouth: So, after
impatiently watching their opportunity, they sent spies who were to act the
part of good and honest men, that they might fasten on some expression of His,
so as to hand Him over to the ruling power and the Governor's authority.
WEB: They
watched him, and sent out spies, who pretended to be righteous, that they might
trap him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the power and
authority of the governor.
Young’s: And, having watched him, they sent forth liers in wait, feigning themselves to be righteous, that
they might take hold of his word, to deliver him up to the rule and to the
authority of the governor,
Conte (RC): And being attentive,
they sent traitors, who would pretend that they were just, so that they might
catch him in his words and then hand him over to the power and authority of the
procurator.
The incident now related
took place on the Tuesday in Passion-week—the Day of Temptations, or insidious
questions—the last and greatest day of the public ministry of Jesus. On the previous evening He had again retired
to the
and sent forth
spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his
words. Individuals who could pretend
sincerity and in apparent “innocence” ask questions worded in a way that could
gain answers hostile to the existing politico-religious system or which could
be twisted in such a direction. Then
these “horrified innocents” could provide their “shocked” and “independent”
verifying testimony to the governor. [rw]
It is worthy
of note that Luke says nothing of Pharisees here; only of chief priests and
scribes. So also in
the preceding section, from verse 1.
He does not even mention them again through all these proceedings. And here is, chronologically, the last
reference to them by Matthew or Mark, until they come, with others, to Pilate
(Matthew 27:62) about the body of Jesus.
John also alludes to them as now active only once (18:3). The denunciation of the Pharisees, in Matthew
23, belongs to an earlier date. [52]
[However:] From the other Synoptists
we learn that among these lyers-in-wait were some who
were disciples of the Pharisees, and some who were Herodians. The former would share the spirit and
represent the ability of the Pharisees, although, apparently, not full-fledged
members of the sect (Matthew
just men. Rather,
“righteous;” ingenuous and scrupulous “disciples of the wise,” honestly seeking
for instruction. [56]
that so they might
deliver Him. They
were apparently confident that they could find a situation where they could
grab Jesus and arrest Him. But what they
needed was “evidence”—however creatively “massaged” it had to be—to make their
hostility seem reasonable and Jesus’ behavior outrageous. At the moment foes like this had only managed
to humiliate themselves at His hands!
They are clearly working on the assumption that Herod will not have his
own sources as to what happened and what lay behind their resentment—or, at
worst, that their pressure will cause him to ignore it in the interest of
stable relations with the religious leadership.
[rw]
unto the power and authority of the governor. The former, the Roman power
in general; the latter, the specific authority of the official. [2]
WEB: They
asked him, "Teacher, we know that you say and teach what is right, and
aren't partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God.
Young’s: and they questioned him, saying,
'Teacher, we have known that thou dost say and teach rightly, and dost not
accept a person, but in truth the way of God dost teach;
Conte (RC): And they questioned
him, saying: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach correctly, and
that you do not consider anyone's status, but you teach the way of God in
truth.
neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest
the way of God truly. To accept the person was the same as “to
respect persons”—a Hebrew expression for “to pervert justice in favor of any
one,” to show partiality in pronouncing judgment. They say, in effect, “We desire to know the
honest truth, however, it may bear on our conduct, and
are sure that thou art the teacher who can give it to us.” [52]
The
word for “person” is prosopon, “a mask;” it is
as though they would imply that Jesus was not only an Impartial Judge, too true
for sycophancy, but also too keen-sighted to be deceived by hypocrisy. And the one flighting
word, “Ye hypocrites!” showed them that their words were truer than they had
intended. [56]
WEB: Is it
lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
Young’s: Is it lawful to us to give tribute to
Caesar or not?'
Conte (RC): Is it lawful for us
to pay the tribute to Caesar, or not?"
Jewish
patriots denounced tribute payment (1) because Roman money, stamped with the
image of the Emperor, sinned against the Second Commandment; (2) because the
Jewish land belonged to Jehovah, and could pay no secular taxes. If Jesus said "No," the Herodians would denounce Him to Pilate the governor; if He
said "Yes," the Pharisees would proclaim His apostasy to the
people. [6]
Or no? They
wanted a direct answer—no “ifs” or “buts” or hedging in any manner. [rw]
WEB: But he
perceived their craftiness, and said to them, "Why do you test me?
Young’s: And he, having
perceived their craftiness, said unto them, 'Why me do ye tempt?
Conte (RC): But realizing their
deceitfulness, he said to them: "Why do you test me?
their craftiness. From πᾶν,
every, and ἔργον,
deed. Readiness for every and any deed. Hence
unscrupulousness, and so, generally, knavery. [2]
These
Pharisees were illustrating the truth that “no form of self-deceit is more
hateful than that which veils spite and falsehood under the guise of frankness,
and behind the profession of religion.” [56]
and said unto
them, Why tempt ye Me? I know you are up to no good. You know you are up to no good. If the crowd is thinking clearly, they
know you are acting brazenly insincerely as well. So why do you dare try it? Do you dare share the real motive
behind you—or are you afraid to answer My simple
question? Presumably not getting an answer—perhaps pausing for a few seconds to
make plain there wasn’t going to be one, He promptly goes on and gives them an
answer anyway. But,
conspicuously, not one that is going to do their troublemaking any good. [rw]
WEB: Show me a
denarius. Whose image and inscription are on
it?" They answered, "Caesar's."
Young’s: shew me a
denary; of whom hath it an image and superscription?' and they answering said,
'Of Caesar:'
Conte (RC): Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?"
In response, they said to him, "Caesar's."
We
see from Mark 12:15, 16 that they were obliged to borrow the heathen coin from
one of the tables of the money-changers.
They would only carry Jewish money in their own girdles. [56]
Whose image and superscription hath it? The coin current in their country, bearing
the likeness of the Emperor for the time being, would be a proof that he was
sovereign over them, and prepare the way for the admirable solution of their
question which is to follow. [52]
They answered and
said, Caesar's. The coin produced would probably be one of
Tiberius, the reigning Emperor. Caesar was the dynastic designation of the Emperors, like Kaiser in
Germany, Zar in Russia, and not a personal name. [52]
WEB: He said
to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the
things that are God's."
Young’s: and he said to them, 'Give back,
therefore, the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;'
Conte (RC): And so, he said to
them: "Then repay the things that are Caesar's, to Caesar, and the things
that are God's, to God."
and unto God the things which be God's. "Give back to God that which has the
image and superscription of God, the soul" (Erasmus). All men owe something to what represents
social order; but there is a wider life, in which they also live, and which extends
beyond time. They owe duties to it also,
and to God their Maker and Redeemer. [6]
To
Caesar you owe what he demands of his own coinage; to the
WEB: They
weren't able to trap him in his words before the people. They marveled at his
answer, and were silent.
Young’s: and they were not able to take hold on
his saying before the people, and having wondered at his answer, they were
silent.
Conte (RC): And they were not
able to contradict his word before the people. And being amazed at his answer,
they were silent.
They thought that escape
was impossible for Him; and yet He instantly shatters their deeply-laid plot to
pieces by showing that they—Pharisees and Herodians
alike—had absolutely decided the question already (according to their
own rule “He whose coin is current is king of the land”), so that there is no
need for Him to give any opinion whatever about it. The point was this,--their
national acceptance of Caesar’s coinage was an unanswerable admission of Caesar’s
right. Tribute to them was no longer a
cheerful offering, but a legal due; not a voluntary gift, but a political
necessity. The very word He used was
decisive. They has
asked “Is it lawful to give (dounai)?” He answers, “Give back” (apodote). By using these coins they all alike admitted
that “they had no king but Caesar.” The
Christians understood the principle perfectly (1 Peter
and they marvelled at His answer, and held their peace. They had nothing with which to criticize Him
and since they refused to build up His reputation by conceding the wisdom of
the response, they were left with only one thing—to say nothing at all. [rw]
“They
left Him, and went their way” (Matthew
WEB: Some of
the Sadducees came to him, those who deny that there is a resurrection.
Young’s: And certain of the Sadducees, who are
denying that there is a rising again, having come near, questioned him,
Conte (RC): Now some of the
Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, approached him. And they
questioned him,
They were undeterred by
the discomfiture of the Pharisees and Herodians, and
perhaps their plot had been so arranged as coincidently to humiliate our Lord,
if they could, by a difficult question, and so shake His credit with the
people. Some have supposed that the
memorable incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (John 8:1-11) also took place
on this day; in which case there would have been three temptations of
Christ: one political, one doctrinal,
and one speculative. But that
incident rose spontaneously, whereas these had been pre-arranged. [56]
which deny
that there is any resurrection. As
central to as the authority of tradition was to the Pharisees, the denial of
the resurrection was to the Sadducees. [rw]
They refused to see any
proof of it in the Books of Moses; and to the Prophets and the other books they
only attached a subordinate importance.
Their question was inspired less by deadly hatred than by scorn. Wealthy and powerful, they only professed to
despise Jesus, up to this time, as a “Prophet of
and they asked Him. Unlike
the Pharisees’ question, this one was to have no pretense of being a genuine
query as to what was truth. This one was
targeted to prove Jesus’ convictions wrong and inherently ludicrous. If you can get people to laugh at an answer,
you don’t have to worry about arguing its validity! [rw]
In depth: The roots
and convictions of the Sadducees [52]. They appear obscurely, first about the middle
of the second century before Christ, as the priestly part of the Asmonaean rulers.
Around them gathered a small but powerful number of the worldly rich,
and influential officials of the commonwealth.
They were in some sense politic-religious liberals. Against the tendency of the Pharisees to
multiply traditional precepts, “fencing” the law, and to sharpen the
distinctions which should naturally separate the Jews from other nations, they
favored freedom from other restrictions than those who were expressly commended
in the law; and although rigid in their interpretation of some of these
requirements, were inclined, generally speaking, to let down the barriers
between themselves and the heathen, and, at times, to make very little of the
Jewish peculiarities.
What
was at first a practical tendency, the result of inclination and regard for
personal interest, would eventually work out principles for itself. What was at first largely political and
secular in their course could not fail, in a period of such intense popular
religiousness, to take on also a religious character. The rule of their development, in every
respect, was antithesis to the principles and movement of the Pharisees. For a considerable period the fortunes of the
nation varied with the varying preponderance of the two parties in the
government of the state.
More particularly, as to their principles, we see
both by inevitable inference from what is explicitly told us about them, and
from the utter absence of any contrary intimation:
1. That they took no account of a Messiah to
come. This would be enough of itself to
justify our Saviour’s warning to His disciples to
beware of their teaching and influence (Matthew 16:6, 11, 12). They are by Him associated with the
Pharisees, not as similar, but antithetical, and complementary, so that between
them they represented all opposition to the gospel.
2. Josephus tells us that they rejected the
fiction of the Pharisees concerning a body of unwritten laws, or precepts,
handed down from Moses through the elders of the people. Herein they had the full support of Jesus in
his condemnation of their “traditions,” which so often made void the true law
of God. They may probably at first have
claimed to be bound only by the plain requirements of their ancient Scriptures;
but finding their spontaneous tendency in practice to be hampered by the
prophetic teachings, it is exceedingly probable, though not stated, that they
shortened their rule of life to the Five Books of Moses.
3. From Luke we learn, in the passage before us,
and from Acts 23:8 (compare also 4:1, 2), that they denied the doctrine of the
resurrection. Josephus says the same,
and furthermore, that they disbelieved the immortality of the soul. As he belonged to the Pharisaic party, we
cannot be certain just what abatement is to be made from his statements on the
latter point. We can easily suppose from
their almost certain undervaluation of the other Scriptures, compared with the
Pentateuch, that they would maintain that there was no clearly revealed
proof of any resurrection. That their
skepticism should have gone so far as to reject (Acts 23:8) the existence of
“angel” and “spirit,” namely, a supermundane, finite
spirit, can with difficulty be reconciled with faith, even in the Pentateuch. Indeed, we greatly lack the means of making
out completely any article of their doctrinal system.
4. One other thing of some importance we are
told by Josephus: that they held to the
absolute freedom of a man to will good or evil, unhelped
and unhindered by any Divine Providence, or power of fate; the latter meaning,
probably, any Divine decree. Hence, a
man’s fortunes were in His own hand.
Rewards and punishments must all come in the present life; therefore,
the man who prospered proved that he had chosen right; and if he was poor, or
otherwise unfortunate, he was, as he ought to be, simply reaping the fruit of
his character and acts. It was,
accordingly, quite natural that the Sadducees should be charged with harshness
toward the poor, and unrelenting severity against those who had broken the
laws. This is of interest, when we learn
that Annas and Caiaphas, at
the time of Christ’s trial, were Sadducees, “and all that were with them” in
the Sanhedrin (Acts
There
were priests among the Pharisees, also; but not generally those of the highest
rank, or wealth, or power. The Sadducees
desired the welfare of their country, but through worldly policy, and for
temporal advantage; the Pharisees, through the favor of God toward their
scrupulous piety, and in the expectation of Messianic rewards.
If
we were to guess which is right among the three conjectures that have been put
forth in reward to the origin of the name Sadducees, we should side with those
who think it to be from the Hebrew root for “righteous.”
Weymouth: "Rabbi,
Moses made it a law for us that if a man's brother should die, leaving a wife
but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up a family for his
brother.
WEB: They
asked him, "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man's brother dies having
a wife, and he is childless, his brother should take the wife, and raise up children for his brother.
Young’s: saying, 'Teacher, Moses wrote to us, If any one's brother may die, having a wife, and he may die
childless -- that his brother may take the wife, and may raise up seed to his
brother.
Conte (RC): saying:
"Teacher, Moses wrote for us: If any man's brother will have died, having
a wife, and if he does not have any children, then his brother should take her
as his wife, and he should raise up offspring for his brother.
Jesus
beheads the Sadducee argument by contending that marriage is unique to the present
world and will not exist in the next, making their objection totally
irrelevant. If a resurrection were to
occur at all, they assumed that marriage had to continue as well. Deny their assumption and it is they
who have no argument left. [rw]
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. They refer to the provision of the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 25:5) concerning levirate marriages. According to that, in order apparently to
preserve the family estate in the land, as well as the name of each individual
proprietor, when a man died childless, his brother (the eldest, probably, by
preference, whether already married or not), should take the widow to wife, and
the first born son should be reckoned, not as his, but the son of the former
husband, and inherit his name. This had
probably been an ancient usage of the Hebrews, as of some other nations, and
would be less remarkable in a society where polygamy was practiced, and not
forbidden in the law. [52]
WEB: There
were therefore seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died childless.
Young’s: 'There were, then, seven brothers, and
the first having taken a wife, died childless,
Conte (RC): And so there were
seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and he died without sons.
In Matthew
and the first took
a wife, and died without children. Whether
due to illness, injury, war, or some other means is irrelevant. Such things happen; therefore there is no
need for details. [rw]
WEB: The
second took her as wife, and he died childless.
Young’s: and the second took the wife, and he died
childless,
Conte (RC): And the next one
married her, and he also died without a son.
Weymouth: and all seven,
having done the same, left no children when they died.
WEB: The third
took her, and likewise the seven all left no children, and died.
Young’s: and the third took her, and in like
manner also the seven -- they left not children, and they died;
Conte (RC): And the third
married her, and similarly all seven, and none of them left behind any
offspring, and they each died.
In depth: The reining
in of the levirate marriage obligation [38]. The
story under which the Sadducees conveyed their sneer was also intended covertly
to strike at their Pharisaic opponents.
The ancient ordinance of marrying a brother's childless widow
(Deuteronomy 25:5ff) had more and more fallen into discredit, as its original
motive ceased to have influence. A large
array of limitations narrowed the number of those on whom this obligation now
devolved.
Then the Mishnah laid it down that, in ancient times, when the
ordinance of such marriage was obeyed in the spirit of the Law, its obligation
took precedence of the permission of dispensation, but that afterwards this
relationship became reversed (Bekhor 1.7). Later authorities went further. Some declared every such union, if for
beauty, wealth, or any other than religious motives, as incestuous, while one
Rabbi absolutely prohibited it, although opinions continued divided on the
subject.
The Talmud has
it that the woman must have no child at all--not merely no
son. It was also laid down that, if a
woman had lost two husbands, she should not marry a third--according to others,
if she had married three, not a fourth, as there might be some fate connected
with her (Yeb. 64b).
What here most interests us is, that what are called in the Talmud the
"Samaritans," but, as we judge, the Sadducees, held the opinion that
the command to marry a brother's widow only applied to a betrothed wife, not to
one that had actually been wedded.
WEB: Afterward
the woman also died.
Young’s: and last of all died also the woman:
Conte (RC): Last of all, the
woman also died.
Weymouth: The woman, then--at the Resurrection--whose wife shall she
be? for they all seven married her."
WEB: Therefore
in the resurrection whose wife of them will she be? For the seven had her as a
wife."
Young’s: in the rising again, then, of which of
them doth she become wife? -- for the seven had her as wife.'
Conte (RC): In the resurrection,
then, whose wife will she be? For certainly all seven had her as a wife."
Or: Since the controversy was not a new one, how
would His embracing a popular answer they did not accept fatally
undermine His credibility? Hence it
would seem likely that they intended this question to be the “opening shot” in
a longer and more sustained assault. What
else they had in mind has to be purely speculative, of course. But one could easily imagine them next arguing
that since she had “refused” to accept her child-bearing responsibilities, why
should she be permitted a return to this world?
Or, if one wished to put the blame on the husbands, why should any of them
be permitted a second life? Why should anyone expect it will be different
in the coming new world?
One can also imagine them challenging her
returning to any of her original mates (and their accepting her back!) since
the Law had spoken harsh words—though in the different context of divorce—against
wives returning to an earlier husband--he “may not take her again to be his
wife,” Deuteronomy 24:4. How then could
any of her former husbands remarry her?
Why then could they possibly be resurrected either? Even if, somehow, there could be a
resurrection these people had disqualified themselves for it! And if some are not to be resurrected,
why should we expect anyone to be?
[rw]
WEB: Jesus
said to them, "The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage.
Young’s: And Jesus answering said to them, 'The
sons of this age do marry and are given in marriage,
Conte (RC): And so, Jesus said
to them: "The children of this age marry and are given in marriage.
Or, at least, that the nature
of the sexual instinct and drive will be drastically altered. For
that matter, is there not a kind of precedent for this . . . for many in the current
life it may be altered or the capacity physically diminished with aging . . . and
other aspects of “loving” come to occupy center stage? [rw]
and are given in marriage. In this
life the two go hand in hand, one preparing for the other: giving in marriage (betrothal or an
equivalent) and marriage. Specifying
both elements may be Jesus’ way of pointing out that new
marriages won’t occur either.
It’s not just a matter of whether old ones are preserved or renewed but
also of new marriages being created. [rw]
WEB: But those
who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the
dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.
Young’s: but those accounted worthy to obtain that
age, and the rising again that is out of the dead, neither marry, nor are they
given in marriage;
Conte (RC): Yet truly, those who
shall be held worthy of that age, and of the resurrection from the dead, will
neither be married, nor take wives.
and the
resurrection from the dead. When
one thinks of a world so drastically recast, one can understand not only the
possibility but the essentiality of a physical resurrection—to provide a time
and place to alter our outer and inner natures into a form compatible with our
new abode. [rw]
neither marry, nor are
given in marriage. Jesus
fundamentally pulled the “rug” out from beneath the Sadducees. They assumed—as, it appears, did those
affirming the doctrine of physical resurrection—that the new world would
continue with the same characteristics of the current one, including the marriage
unit. Although we typically think of His
words as a stirring challenge to the beliefs of the Sadducees was it not also
to the bulk of believers in a physical resurrection? Would not most of them naturally reason: Why should the physical body be brought back unless our current physical type world and
relationships are revived as well? To
which Jesus, in effect, argues that the entire reality in which we will live
will also be fundamentally altered beyond anything we can now see, hear, touch,
or feel. [rw]
WEB: For they
can't die any more, for they are like the angels, and are children of God,
being children of the resurrection.
Young’s: for
neither are they able to die any more -- for they are like messengers -- and
they are sons of God, being sons of the rising again.
Conte (RC): For they can no
longer die. For they are equal to the Angels, and they are
children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.
Soul and body are made incapable of separation, and both incapable of disintegration or
extinction. Death from violence, either from others or their own efforts, is impossible, and
out of their natures. [14]
for 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 xxiii. 8) denied the existence
of these glorious beings. [18]
Like the angels in being
immortal, but superior to them in privileges (Hebrews 1:4, 2:5-8). “When He shall appear, we shall be like
Him; for we shall see Him as He is,” 1 John 3:2. In this one word our Lord refutes the Sadducean denial of the existence of angels, Acts 23:8; and
incidentally those material notions of future bliss (14:15) which all
the Jews held. [56]
and are the children of God. Not
in respect of character but nature, "being the children of
the resurrection" to an undecaying existence
(Romans
being the children
of the resurrection. That is to say, owing that life, not to any
human or created parentage, but to the power working in their resurrection,
which power is God’s; [hence] they are the “sons of God,” and so
immortal. [52]
Weymouth: But that the
dead rise to life even Moses clearly implies in the passage about the Bush,
where he calls the Lord 'The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob.'
WEB: But that
the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord
'The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'
Young’s: 'And that the dead are raised, even Moses
shewed at the Bush, since he doth call the Lord, the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
Conte (RC): For in truth, the
dead do rise again, as Moses also showed beside the bush, when he called the
Lord: 'The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'
Literally, “are being raised”—the present of eternal certainty. [56]
even Moses shewed.
A more cautious approach to what the chosen text shows
about the limits of the Sadducian canon: This does not prove that the Sadducees held
that only the Pentateuch was sacred and authoritative, however this may have
been; but it asserts that, without looking further into the Scriptures, even in
one of its first books [the resurrection was taught]. [52]
shewed. The Greek
verb means “disclosed,” “gave the means of knowing.” [52]
at the bush. 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 Sam. i.
and following verses “the Bow;” Ezek. i. and
following section, “the Chariot.” [18]
“At the bush” = in that
part of the Scripture which treats of God’s interview with Moses in the Burning
Bush (Exodus 3:2-6). Before the
convenience of division into chapters and verses was known, the Hebrews
referred vaguely to a considerable section of their Bible by naming some
prominent feature of the record there, as the Bush, in this place. [52]
when he calleth the Lord the God of
Abraham. He did not say "the God
of Abraham's soul," but simply of Abraham.
He blest Abraham, and He gave Him eternal life; not to his soul
only, without his body, but to Abraham, as one man. He here seems to intimate, that the body never really dies; that we lose sight indeed of what we are accustomed to see, but that God still sees
the elements of it,
which are not exposed to our senses. —J. H. Newman. [36]
and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob. What
was true of one of them was true of all of them. Eternal existence was not limited to one
specific person in one specific age, but continued in following generations as
well. They could have dodged this by
insisting that it only referred to the perpetual existence of the soul, but
that was not open to them since they denied both that and the
resurrection. It seems clear that, to
Jesus, the only way to really believe in unending life is if both the
inner being continues and, ultimately, is reunited with its former
body. [rw]
An alternate possible dodge: the text only affirms God’s unending
existence: The Sadducees might have been ready to
dull the edge of His proof by alleging that this language meant that God, in
speaking to Moses, was the same God who had been worshiped by Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, successively, during their lives.
Our Saviour, with a Divine insight, perceives
that such a view stripped the declaration of all reason and value, in relation
to those to whom it was addressed. Of
what consequence was it to Moses and his people, to be informed that the God
who now summoned them to a task of enormous hardship, hazard, and privation,
had been the God of men preceding them, whom He had left to death and
annihilation? No; they still lived; for
“he is not a God of the dead, but of the living” (verse 38). The article is wanting in the Greek: “Of dead, of living persons.” [52]
In depth: The
inevitability of belief in soul survival and resurrection arising from the
Jewish Scriptures [1]. 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 encumbrances, 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!
WEB: Now he is
not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all are alive to him."
Young’s: and He is not a God of dead men, but of
living, for all live to Him.'
Conte (RC): And so he is not the
God of the dead, but of the living. For all are alive to him."
for all live
unto Him. There is a remarkable passage in Josephus's
account of the Maccabees, chapter 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, "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. [1]
WEB: Some of
the scribes answered, "Teacher, you speak well."
Young’s: And certain of the scribes answering
said, 'Teacher, thou didst say well;'
Conte (RC): Then some of the
scribes, in response, said to him, "Teacher, you have spoken well."
The scribes were
Pharisaic in their views and practice, and would sincerely rejoice in the
refutation of the Sadducees. Still, it
implied unusual frankness and liberality on the part of these few, that they
should express their sentiments in Christ’s favor now. [52]
answering said, Master,
thou hast well said. Enjoying His victory over the
Sadducees. [16]
Weymouth: From that time, however, no one ventured to challenge Him
with a single question.
WEB: They
didn't dare to ask him any more questions.
Young’s: and no more durst they question him
anything.
Conte (RC): And they no longer
dared to question him about anything.
WEB: He said
to them, "Why do they say that the Christ is David's son?
Young’s: And he said unto them, 'How do they say
the Christ to be son of David,
Conte (RC): But he said to them:
"How can they say that the Christ is the son of David?
that Christ. The
Anointed, the Messiah of the Old Testament. [52]
is David's son? The question shows that the Jewish teachers
interpreted the prophecies as indicating that the Messiah would be of the
offspring of David. But how do they
reconcile that with other statements of Scripture? [52]
WEB: David
himself says in the book of Psalms, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my
right hand,
Young’s: and David himself saith
in the Book of Psalms, The Lord said to my lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Conte (RC): Even David himself
says, in the book of Psalms: 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand,
In depth: Psalms 110
required by its contents to be Messianic prophecy [13]. The
non-Messianic explanations of Psalms 110 are the masterpiece of rationalistic
arbitrariness. They begin by giving to
[the Hebrew heading to the Psalm] the meaning, "addressed to David,"
instead of "composed by David," contrary to the uniform sense of the
[Hebrew] in the titles of the Psalms, and that to make David the subject of the
Psalm, which would be impossible, if he were its author (Ewald). And as this interpretation turns out to be
untenable, for David was never a priest (verse 4: "Thou art a priest forever"), they
transfer the composition of the Psalm to the age of the Maccabees,
and suppose it addressed by some author or other to Jonathan, the brother of
Judas Maccabeus, of the priestly race. This person, who never even bore the title of
king, is the man whom an unknown flatterer is supposed, according to Hitzig, to celebrate as seated at Jehovah's right hand!
It is impossible to cast
a glance at the contents of the Psalm without recognizing its directly
Messianic bearing:
1. A Lord of David;
2. Raised to Jehovah's throne, that is to say,
to participation in omnipotence;
3. Setting out from Zion on the conquest of the
world, overthrowing the kings of the earth (verse 4), judging the nations
(verse 5), and that by means of an army
of priests clothed in their sacerdotal garments (verse 3).
4. Himself at once a priest and a king, like Melchisedec before Him.
The Law, by placing the
kingly power in the tribe of
WEB: until I
make your enemies the footstool of your feet."'
Young’s: till I shall make thine
enemies thy footstool;
Conte (RC): until I set your
enemies as your footstool.'
WEB: "David
therefore calls him Lord, so how is he his son?"
Young’s: David, then, doth call him lord, and how
is he his son?'
Conte (RC): Therefore, David
calls him Lord. So how can he be his son?"
Argument from the prophecy that it requires a Messiah
with a dual nature: [“How is
he then his son?”] How, indeed, except
as the bearer of two characters—that of his son by natural descent, that of his
Lord, as sharing in the Divine nature, by which he is qualified to sit at the
right hand of Jehovah and wield the government over his subjects, some of whom
are in rebellion against him (Psalms 110:5, 6; compare Psalms 2). Jesus does not answer the question, but
leaves it for them to answer. He had
claimed the honor due to the Messiah (
WEB: In the
hearing of all the people, he said to his disciples,
Young’s: And, all the people hearing, he said to
his disciples,
Conte (RC): Now in the hearing
of all the people, he said to his disciples:
Note
that the examples Jesus provides are irrelevant to whether one chose the
road of discipleship or not. They were
such fundamental errors that they required rejection even if one were to avoid
embracing Jesus and His movement. [rw]
Weymouth: "Beware
of the Scribes, who like to walk about in long robes, and love to be bowed to
in places of public resort and to occupy the best seats in the synagogues or at
a dinner party;
WEB: "Beware
of the scribes, who like to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the
marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts;
Young’s: 'Take heed of the scribes, who are
wishing to walk in long robes, and are loving salutations in the markets, and
first seats in the synagogues, and first couches in the suppers,
Conte (RC): "Be cautious of
the scribes, who choose to walk in long robes, and who love greetings in the
marketplace, and the first chairs in the synagogues, and the first places at
table during feasts,
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 he thus briefly summarizes them. [18]
which desire to walk in long robes. With broad phylacteries and
long fringes. [6]
“With
special conspicuousness of fringes (Num. xv. 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).
[18]
Also:
Official gowns, distinctive of office, and calling for special
reverence. [52]
and love greetings in the markets. The chief places of resort, where there were
booths for sale of fruit, confections, etc.
[6]
and the highest [best, NKJV] seats in the synagogues. Special seats
were reserved in the synagogue, in front of the ark with the law, for the
elders or rulers. [6]
and the chief rooms [best places, NKJV] at feasts. The most prominent and
important tables, thereby publicly demonstrating the “justice” of their claims
to be such. [rw]
WEB: who
devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these will receive
greater condemnation."
Young’s: who devour the houses of the widows, and
for a pretence make long prayers, these shall receive more abundant judgment.'
Conte (RC): who devour the
houses of widows, feigning long prayers. These will
receive the greater damnation."
One
can be confident that they always had a good “reason” for what had
happened—any relationship to the real truth being minimal or non-existent: The religious leaders were, by the nature of
their work, “word people.”
Unfortunately, people who are good with words and forget their scruples
can literally justify just about anything.
Especially if they, personally, are going to benefit
by it. [rw]
and for a shew
make long prayers. 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). [18]
By spending much time,
at the hours of prayer, in forms of devotion, in the temple or the public
squares, and openings of the streets (where things were exposed for sale), they
disguised their lack of love toward God, and regard for the rights of men. [52]
the same shall
receive greater damnation. Jesus
doesn’t deny for a second that such behaviors may bring them personal
enrichment (“devouring widows’ houses”) and considerable social prestige. But they are also accumulating a massive debt
of evil they must “pay off” (so to speak) and the result will be a “greater
damnation.” [rw]
The Greek for
“damnation” is “judgment,” often, as here, involving condemnation. [52]
Books Utilized
(with
number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New
Testament . . . with a Commentary and
Critical Notes.
Volume I: Matthew to the Acts. Reprint,
2 = Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles
of Peter, James,
and Jude. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; 1911
printing.
3 = J. S. Lamar. Luke.
[Eugene S. Smith, Publisher; reprint, 1977 (?)]
4 = Charles H. Hall. Notes,
Practical and Expository on the Gospels;
volume two: Luke-John.
1871.
5 = John Kitto.
Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II:
Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord.
Brothers, 1881.
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
volumes.
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New
Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes.
1868.
8 = Melancthon W. Jacobus.
Notes on the Gospels, Critical and
Explanatory: Luke and John.
Brothers, 1856; 1872 reprint.
9 = Alfred Nevin.
Popular Expositor of the Gospels and Acts: Luke.
10 = Alfred Nevin.
The Parables of Jesus.
Board of Publication, 1881.
11 = Albert Barnes.
"Luke." In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Reprint, Kregel Publications,
1980.
12 = Alexander B. Bruce. The Synoptic Gospels.
In The Expositor's
Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Reprint, Grand
Rapids,
13 = F. Godet.
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated
from the Second French Edition by E. W. Shalders
and M. D. Cusin.
14 = D.D. Whedon.
Commentary on the Gospels: Luke-John. New
15 = Henry Alford. The
Greek Testament. Volume
I: The Four Gospels.
Fifth Edition.
16 = David Brown. "Luke"
in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A
Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments.
Volume II: New Testament.
S. S. Scranton Company, no date.
17 = Dr. [no first name provided] MacEvilly. An Exposition of the Gospel
of St. Luke.
18 = H. D. M. Spence. “Luke.”
In the Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D.
M. Spence. Reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
1950.
19 = John Calvin. Commentary on a
Harmony of the Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Reprint,
20 = Thomas Scott. The Holy Bible
...with Explanatory Notes (and)
Practical Observations.
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies
in the Life of Christ: Historical and
Constructive.
22 = Philip Vollmer. The Modern Student's Life of Christ.
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.
23 = Heinrich A. W. Meyer. Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels of Mark and Luke.
Translated from the Fifth German
Edition by Robert Ernest Wallis. N.
Y.: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; 1893 printing.
24 = John Albert Bengel. Gnomon
of the New Testament. A New
Translation
by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent.
Volume One.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath
Evening Readers on the New Testa-
ment:
St. Luke.
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
Commentary--Luke.
missing from copy.
27 = Pasquier Quesnel.
The Gospels with Reflections on Each Verse.
Volumes I and II. (Luke
is in part of both).
D. F. Randolph, 1855; 1867 reprint.
28 = Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel
of Luke: An Exposition.
29 = Elvira J. Slack. Jesus: The Man of
Board of the Young Womens
Christian Associations, 1911.
30 = Arthur Ritchie. Spiritual Studies in St. Luke's Gospel.
The Young Churchman Company, 1906.
31 = Bernhard Weiss. A Commentary on the New Testament. Volume
Two: Luke-The Acts.
32 = Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Volume V:
Matthew to John. 17--. Reprint,
Company, no date.
33 = C. G. Barth.
The Bible Manual: An
Expository and Practical
Commentary on the Books of Scripture. Second Edition.
34 = Nathaniel S. Folsom. The Four
Gospels: Translated . . . and with
Critical and Expository Notes. Third Edition.
Upham, and Company, 1871; 1885 reprint.
35 = Henry Burton. The Gospel
according to Luke. In the Expositor's
Bible series.
36 = [Anonymous]. Choice Notes on
the Gospel of S. Luke, Drawn from
Old and New Sources.
37 = Marcus Dods.
The Parables of Our Lord.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = Alfred
Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Second Edition.
1884.
39 = A. T. Robertson. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research.
New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920; 1930 reprint.
40 = James R. Gray. Christian
Workers' Commentary on the Old and
New Testaments.
ion/Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915.
41 = W.
Sanday. Outlines of the Life of Christ.
Scribner's Sons, 1905.
42 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables
of Jesus.
Methodist Book Concern, 1917.
43 = George
H. Hubbard. The
Teaching of Jesus in Parables.
New
44 = Charles S. Robinson. Studies in Luke's Gospel. Second Series.
45 = John
Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord.
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
46 = William
M. Taylor. The
Miracles of Our Saviour. Fifth Edition.
47 = Alexander
Maclaren. Expositions
of Holy Scripture: St. Luke.
New York: George H. Doran
Company, [no date].
48 = George
MacDonald. The
Miracles of Our Lord.
George Routledge
& Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph
Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
ture—Mark-Luke.
50 = Daniel
Whitby and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase on the New Testament:
The Four Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles.
51 = Matthew
Poole. Annotations
on the Holy Bible. 1600s.
Computerized.
52 = George
R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
Testament.
1884.
53 = J.
W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
1914. Computerized.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. 1654.
Computerized.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
1904.
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to
St. Luke. In “The
the
University Press, 1882.