Bible Commentaries
Luke 19

Verses 1-48

XIX 1-10 Zachaeus the Publican —It is worth noting that while Lk has omitted to mention the name of the blind man (if his miracle is the same as Mk’s) he is careful to record the name of Zachaeus. Some think that this is because Zachaeus represents the call of the Gentiles. But was he a Gentile? Jews were willing enough to undertake these posts in the Customs Department, though their fellow Jews called them renegades and hated them as the ancient world hated all publicans and their collaborators. Zachaeus has a Jewish name and a Jewish character. Jericho on account of its situation was an important customs office and would furnish him with good opportunities of profit, if he was none too scrupulous like his colleagues.

3-4. Were it not for the trouble taken by him to see what sort of person Jesus looked like, we might think him moved merely by idle curiosity, stirred perhaps by the rumour of miracles. But the sequel contradicts this; a wealthy man of position will hesitate to risk his dignity in that fashion unless moved by something deeper than curiosity.

5. Perhaps a preliminary confirmation of Zachaeus’ suspicions about Jesus, who thus shows awareness of where he is and what is his name. In 6 Zachaeus proves that he is a brother of the publicans of 15:1; there is no doubt about his good dispositions, while the universal complaint of 7 shows what was the common opinion of him.

8. He immediately begins to put into practice our Lord’s teaching on the proper use of wealth; it does not appear to be restitution of ill-gotten wealth, for he does not admit that he has certainly defrauded anyone by ’sycophancy’, ?s??????t?sai.e. by false denunciation in his office as tax-collector; see the same word in 3:14 where John the Baptist gives advice to the publicans and their police. If he has been guilty of injustice, then he is ready to restore as the Law commands, Numbers 5:6-7, and even to restore fourfold. That his conduct has not been all it should be, however, may be gathered from 10. Thus Jesus is provided with his reply to the grumblers: Zachaeus, sinner and renegade Jew though he be, has not forfeited his right to the promise made to Abraham; and in receiving Jesus into his house, he has welcomed the one in whom the promise to Abraham is fulfilled.

11-27 Parable of the Pounds —In spite of the many differences between this and the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30, many commentators identify them. Maldonatus, for example, admits the identity and attributes the divergences to the evangelists; it would be safer, according to Lagrange, to say that the differences are due to the handing down of the parable by oral tradition under different forms. In both a master is shown putting his servants to the test; the faithful are rewarded splendidly, the rest punished severely. The conclusion is the same in both. Lk alone, 11, gives the occasion of the parable: Jesus is ascending to Jerusalem and some of his followers still think in spite of all that there is to be a glorious Messianic manifestation. Perhaps there is a hint of the question of the Sons of Zebedee, Matthew 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45, which Lk has omitted. The parable contradicts such hopes; Jesus is not going to act as a political Messias and start a revolution in order to seat himself on the throne of Israel. He is the King, but he is going on a long journey in order to receive royal investiture from his Father. His true disciples will be loyal to him during his absence. He will return: let them be ready for that event.

12. The comparison is very apt, for everyone knew how the Herodian princes visited Rome in order to receive their kingdoms at the hands of Caesar. What Lk adds in 14 (not in Mt) is precisely what happened when Archelaus went to Rome in 4 b.c. to receive the kingdom inherited from his father, Herod the Great; the Jews sent an embassy to oppose his claim. The Jewish leaders are now acting in just the same manner towards Jesus, though manifestly the allegory must not be pressed too closely.

17. Here Mt’s allegorization is stronger; he adds to the reward bestowed the words enter thou into the joy of thy Lord’.

20-26. In Lk the idle servant is dealt with in the same manner as in Mt save for small details; he is condemned because he has not watched, i.e. he has not been active and lively in the interests of his master. He defends himself by attributing evil dispositions to his master, an accusation proved untrue by 17, 19 and 24. The remark added in Lk’s account, 25, is not intended to reflect jealousy; it is a literary manner of bringing out the generosity of the master which has just been called into question. 27. Another addition in Lk made necessary by his addition in 14. It contains a formidable lesson for the Jewish leaders.

28-40 Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem —(Matthew 21:1-9; Mark 11:1-10; cf.Jn: 12:12-19). Apart from the short dialogue with the Pharisees, 39-40, Lk’s narrative is a close parallel of Mk’s. The following points are to be noted in Lk, where the stage is now set for the final unravelling of the plot: Jesus has received acknowledgement from on high at his Nativity, Baptism, Transfiguration; from his disciples; from the crowd who have recognized in him one through whose ministrations God is visiting his people. He has shown a clear consciousness of his Divine Sonship, and in virtue of that has made such demands of selfsurrender on his followers as none but God could make. In the foregoing parable he has indicated clearly that he is the Messianic King; he is about to make a fitting entry into his royal city. It is the last sign of his dignity until he shall have attained the glory of his Resurrection; but that, as we have been repeatedly warned by Lk, is in God’s design to be reached only through the humiliation of the Passion.

28. A parallel of Mark 10:32a, omitted previously by Lk.

37. A common custom for the residents of Jerusalem to go out and meet the incoming pilgrims with music and singing. In Lk it is ’all the multitude of his disciples’ who praise God ’for all the miracles, d???µe?? they had seen’. ’Multitude’; p??+^??? means a great number; cf.Acts 1:15. The numbers and the style of their salutation give reason for the complaint of 39. 38. Omitting the Hebrew Hosanna of Mk and Mt, Lk records the salutation as ’Blessed be he-that-cometh, the king, in the name of the Lord’, which recalls the ? ????µe??? of John the Baptist, 3:16; 7:19. Finally he omits their concluding ’Hosanna in the highest’ and inserts ’peace in heaven and glory on high’, which recalls the song of the angels, 2:14; the angelic prediction is near fulfilment. Lk alone records the objection of the Pharisees in this place, 39, though Matthew 21:15-16 places a similar incident later in the temple. Lk here reflects the objection of the citizens in the parable, 19:14; the Pharisees are obdurate in their refusal to welcome the Kingdom of God of which Jesus is not merely the representative but the King. It may be noted that only now, at the end of his career, does he allow any public acknowledgement of himself as the Messias-King; there is no further need of past injunctions about the Messianic Secret. And even now he admits acknowledgement only as a means of testifying to the goodness of God manifested through the miracles, 37; see his answer in 40, and cf.Habakkuk 2:11.

41-44. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem —Proper to Lk and coming well after the last incident; the Pharisees fittingly represent the dispositions of Jerusalem. Another of Lk’s striking contrasts: the enthusiastic joy of the disciples, the tears of the Master; their song of peace and glory, his vision of war and desolation, ’the vision of a people delivered over to madness, factions on every side, divisions healed for a time by a despairing rage against a determined enemy who is tightening his toils about the city’ ( Lagr., GJC 11124). The prediction is so true to life that rationalist critics feel bound to maintain that Lk wrote it after the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70.

42. If Jerusalem, the city of peace [so the name was interpreted], had recognized the things to her peace today, the evils of that other day would not have come upon her. The thought of peace is recalled by 38 (cf. also 14:32).

44. The details of destruction are an echo of Micah 3:122, the prophet’s conclusion of a long denunciation of Israel for her sins; cf.Jeremiah 6:3, Jeremiah 6:6. All through Lk we are reminded that the Messianic Day is a time of God’s beneficent visitation of his people; 1:68, 78; 4:18-21; 7:16, 21-23, etc. For the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem see Jos. BJ Books 5 and 6.

45-6 Cleansing of the Temple — (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; John 2:14-16). Omitting the incident of the withered fig-tree, placed by Mt after and by Mk before the cleansing of the temple, Lk gives Mk’s account of this in shortened form. Jn puts it at the beginning of the ministry, while all three Synoptists ’have put the expulsion of the traders from the Temple during the Pasch immediately preceding the Passion, and this seems to be demanded by their plan, for they mention but one Pasch’ ( Lagr., GJC 198), and the Pasch was the reason for the presence of the traders in the temple. Jn gives three Paschs and connects the incident with the first. This is in all probability the correct place, chronologically speaking. See comments on Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:13 for further discussion. Lk omits the words ’to all nations’ from Mk’s quotation of Isaiah 56:7, at which Plummer is surprised in view of Lk’s universalizing tendency; but it would have been more surprising if he had included them after the recent prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, with all that it entailed for the liberation of the early Church from the bonds of Judaism. See Edersheim 1, 370 ff., for an account of the abuses practised in the temple markets.

47-48 Ministry in Jerusalem —(Mark 11:18-19). Omitting after his manner the details of Mt and Mk concerning the comings and goings from the city, Lk sums up the situation briefly by describing the action of Jesus and its diverse effect on the people and their leaders. Here appear the three categories of the latter which are to be responsible for his death: chief priests, Scribes, and ’the first of the people’, i.e. the aristocracy —the three groups making up the Sanhedrin. One of their chief motives is the fear of his growing influence: all the people are hanging on his lips; cf.John 12:19.