Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Luke 20:12

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

123. The wicked vineyard keepers (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-18)

This parable pictures Israel as a vineyard, God as the owner of the vineyard, and the Jewish religious leaders as the tenants who looked after it. Just as the tenants beat and killed the servants whom the owner sent to them, so Israel’s leaders persecuted and killed God’s messengers, from Old Testament prophets to John the Baptist. Now they were about to reject God’s Son himself (Matthew 21:33-39). By rejecting him the Jews were bringing punishment on themselves. God would take away the privileges from Israel and give them to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:40-41).

Another picture illustrated this truth. Jesus was likened to the cornerstone of a building, which in ancient buildings was the stone upon which the structure depended. In rejecting Jesus, the Jews were like builders who threw away the cornerstone. God now took this rejected stone and used it in the construction of a new building, the Christian church. This new community would be mainly Gentile, and all of it built around and built into Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:42-43). People’s attitude to Jesus determined their destiny, and those who rejected him guaranteed their own destruction. The leaders of the Jews knew he was talking about them and wanted to arrest him, but they were not sure how the crowd would react (Matthew 21:44-46).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

And he began to speak unto the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time. And at the season he sent unto 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 a third: and him also they wounded and cast him forth. And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance will be ours. And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. But he looked upon 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 that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.

Parallels: Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12.

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 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; Daniel 2:44, 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 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.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

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

Smith's Bible Commentary

We are in the final week of the life of Jesus. He is now in Jerusalem. This is the week in which pilgrims are coming from all over the world to celebrate the Feast of the Passover. He has made His triumphant entry, that is on Sunday. He was officially rejected. He did cleanse the temple, driving out the moneychangers, taking authority in His Father's house. And He taught daily in the temple, we read in verse Luke 20:47 of chapter 19.

So it came to pass, that on one of those days ( Luke 20:1 ),

The days that He was teaching in the temple from Sunday through Wednesday or Thursday, "...one of those days,"

as he was teaching in the temple, and preaching the gospel ( Luke 20:1 ),

Proclaiming to man God's good news.

the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders ( Luke 20:1 ),

So this august body of religious authority, the chief priests who were mainly Sadducees, the scribes and the elders.

And they spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority do you do these things? and who is he that gave you this authority? ( Luke 20:2 )

They're probably still a little upset over the fact that He cleansed the temple. He drove out the moneychangers. He came in and took over and said, "This is my Father's house," and He took over. And they were upset because the high priest was in league with the moneychangers. They made a rake off of the moneychangers and those that sold the doves and the oxen and all there in the temple grounds. And so what authority? Now they were expecting, or at least hoping...you see, they're looking now for charges whereby they might put Him to death, and they were hoping that at this point He would say, "I am the Messiah. God is my Father. He gave Me the authority." He referred to the temple as "My Father's house," and so they were hoping that He would make the claim of Messiahship in order that they might accuse Him of blasphemy and immediately try Him. But His hour was not yet come. So He did not answer them directly, but

he answered them [indirectly], saying, I will ask you one thing; and you 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 did you not believe him? If we say, Of men; all of the people will stone us: for they're persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things ( Luke 20:3-8 ).

Now, John had testified concerning Jesus Christ that, "This is He that was after me, but who was preferred before me, the latchet of whose shoes I'm unworthy to unloose" ( John 1:27 ). John had declared concerning Jesus Christ, "Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world" ( John 1:36 ). So, John, who the people had accepted as from God, they recognized that John's authority was from the Lord. And John, being recognized by the people as the prophet of God, had declared that Jesus was indeed the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. So had they said, "Well, John was of the Lord," then Jesus would say, "All right, that's the authority that I have, the same authority of John's." And basically He was saying this, "I came with the same authority that John came."

Now, it is interesting to me how that so often there is that challenge today concerning authority. For men have set up their systems by which they recognized authority. "If you go to our college and graduate and then attend our seminary, then we will recognize your authority to teach the Word of God, or to proclaim God's truth," and the authority that man bestows upon man. I would like to offer my opinion that men have ordained many men to the ministry who have never been ordained by God. They've been ordained to the ministry purely on the basis that they have fulfilled a certain requirement of studies. But there is absolutely no anointing of God upon their lives or upon their ministries, and they'd be better off selling shoes. Or I should say maybe repairing shoes, and that's a better way that they could save soles.

We have made it a policy here at Calvary Chapel in the ordination board to observe a person's ministry and to see if their ministry bears witness that God's anointing is upon their life. For we are convinced that only God ordains a man for the work of the Lord, and the best we can do is ratify what God has done. So basically, we haven't ordained anybody to the ministry, nor do we ordain anybody to the ministry. But we like to recognize those that God has ordained and ratify that work of God in their lives. So, recognizing that God has ordained this man, God's anointing is upon his life, God is using him, we give to them that recognition that they need by the state. But it is interesting also how that so many of these young men who have gone out with the obvious work of God in and through their lives are challenged, "Who gave you the authority?" Greg Laurie has been challenged so many times. Raul Ries has been challenged so many times. "Where did you go to seminary? Who gave you the authority?" It's sort of disconcerting and upsetting to these men with their doctorates in theology that some young kid can come into town and start a Bible study that grows into a church of over 5,000 members. When with all of their degrees and learning and knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew and so forth, they have a hard time, through pushing and programming and every guise and device that you can think, maintaining 400 or 500 people. "It's just not fair! After all, I've been trained." The authority!

Now, the Mormons quite often ask this question, because they believe that God has restored the authority to the church through Joseph Smith. And that the twelve apostles of the Mormon church are the only ones who can actually bestow authority upon a person to minister the gospel. And so they do not recognize the authority of anyone who has not been sanctioned by the twelve apostles of the Mormon church; for everybody knows that they are the only true church. And so they quite often challenge, "By what authority?" So, Jesus went through the same thing.

Then he began to speak to them a parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and he let it out to husbandmen, and he went into a far country for a long time ( Luke 20:9 ).

Note: Jesus is now giving a parable that relates to His going away. Letting out: it's a twofold interpretation, actually, because it also is a parable against these Pharisees.

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. And he again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and they sent him away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be that they will reverence him when they see him. 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. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 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. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. 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 whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder ( Luke 20:10-18 ).

Now, in the fifth chapter of Isaiah, the Lord speaks there a parable through Isaiah of a vineyard. And the vineyard was the nation of Israel. How that this man planted a vineyard, he put the choicest vines in it, he built a hedge around it and he put a wine press in the middle. And when the time came to gather fruit from the vineyard, there was nothing but wild grapes on the vine. And so he let the vineyard go. And the prophet was speaking about how that God had set apart the nation Israel that it might bring forth fruit unto God. But their failure to bring forth that fruit that God was desiring from them would bring actually a rejection by God, or just being let go by God, and their demise. So when Jesus began to speak the parable of the vineyard, aware of the prophecy of Isaiah, their minds flipped back and they realized that He's talking now about the nation of Israel, God's vineyard. The servants that were sent to the vineyard were the prophets who were rejected by the people. Some of them were stoned, others of them were killed; Isaiah was actually sawed in two. And so, these are the prophets that God sent to the nation. Finally, God sent His only begotten Son. "Surely they will reverence Him." But the husbandmen, when they saw Him, said, "This is the heir; let's kill Him, that the inheritance may be ours." And so Jesus, here, is predicting His death at their hands. Now, the result of their rejection of the Son, The commandment of the Lord--destroy the husbandmen. The nation of Israel was destroyed by Titus. Josephus said that he killed 1,100,000 Jews and they carried 97,000 as slaves to Rome. When they heard this, they said, "God forbid!" For they recognized that Jesus was speaking about them. And so then He asked them, "What does this parable mean? That which is written, 'The stone which the builders have rejected, the same is become the chief cornerstone'?" Psalm 118 .

Now Peter, in the fourth chapter of Acts, when he was standing before the elders and the scribes and the high priest, this same group that was challenging Jesus here, when Peter stood before them in Acts the fourth chapter, they were asking Peter, "By what authority did you work this miracle on this lame man? By what name or by what power have you done this?" So they were giving him much the same business as they gave to Jesus. "We want to know, by what power did you do this? By what name?" And Peter said, "Ye men of Israel, if we have been examined this day because of the good deed that has been done to this lame man, you judge for yourselves on that. But be it known unto you that it is by the name of Jesus Christ that this man stands before you whole, and this is the stone which was set of naught by you builders, but He has become the chief cornerstone, and neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved" ( Acts 4:8-12 ). So Peter was here when Jesus was challenged concerning authority. He remembered the answer of Jesus to these men. He remembered this parable that Jesus ended by saying unto them, "What does this mean, 'The stone that was set of naught by the builders, the same has become the chief cornerstone'?" And so Peter brings it right back to them very forcibly, declaring of Jesus, "This is the stone which was set of naught by you builders, but the same is become the chief cornerstone."

Now Jesus declaring, concerning that stone, said, "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken, but upon whomsoever that stone shall fall, it will grind him to powder." You have one of two relationships to Jesus Christ: either that of submitting to Him, falling upon the stone, or resisting Him, and ultimately being ground to powder. Woe unto him who strives with his maker! Many people are so foolish as to fight against Jesus Christ. Fall upon the stone, fall upon Jesus Christ! You'll find you'll be broken; better that you do that than in judgment have Him fall upon you and be ground to powder.

Now the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; but they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them ( Luke 20:19 ).

They got the message. They knew that He was referring to them, and so they were actually wanting, wanting desperately to arrest Him at this point. And yet, because of the popular acclaim of the people, they did not do it.

And so they watched him, and they sent forth spies, which should feign themselves to be just men, that they might take hold of his words, in order that they might deliver him to the powers and authorities of the governor ( Luke 20:20 ).

They're now going to try and trap Him so that they can accuse Him of sedition or of rebellion against Rome and turn Him over to the governor.

And so they asked him, saying, Master, we know that you say and teach the truth, and you do not accept the person of any, but you teach the way of God truly ( Luke 20:21 ):

In other words, "You're no respecter of man's persons. You are a straight shooter. We know this. We know that You don't bow to man, that You tell the truth, You speak the truth. Therefore,"

Is it lawful for us to give taxes to Caesar, or not? ( Luke 21:22 )

If Jesus says, "No, it is not lawful for you to give taxes to Caesar," immediately, they'll run to the Antonio fortress, call for the Roman centurion and have him come down and arrest Jesus for advocating a tax rebellion against Caesar. If Jesus says, "Yes, it is lawful for you to pay taxes to Caesar," these zealots who would not recognize the power of the Roman government, who hated these taxes that were levied by Rome...and there was a certain tax that was levied upon every man just for the privilege of living...this was the tax they were referring to. It wasn't much of a tax, but it was just to show the Roman authority. And so they felt that they had Jesus cleverly trapped; either way, He's wrong. And so He said, "Show me a coin."

Show me a penny. Whose image, superscription does it have on it? And they answered and said, Caesar's. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's ( Luke 20:24-25 ).

If it's got Caesar's image on it, give it to Caesar. But He added, "You should be rendering unto God the things that are God's."

And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marveled at his answer, and they held their peace. And then there came certain unto him who were Sadducees, who deny that there's any resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses ( Luke 20:26-28 )

Now, the Sadducees were materialists. They accepted as authoritative only the five books of Moses. They rejected the prophets; they would not accept them as a part of the scriptures. Only the five books of Moses did they consider to be divinely inspired. And so if you would get into an argument with them and you would quote from the Psalms or quote from the prophets, they would reject it as not being authoritative. Only the five books of Moses. So, they said,

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 a seed unto his brother. Now there were therefore seven brothers: and the first took a wife, and he died without children. And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. And the third, and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and they all died. Last of all, the poor woman died too. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for all seven had her as their wife ( Luke 20:28-33 ).

The endeavor was to make the resurrection seem so ridiculous that people would say, "Well, that's stupid, that's foolish," and thoroughly discount the idea of the resurrection. There have been those who have done the same thing today, only in a little different way. They hypothesize that back in the days of the wild West, when a man was shot in a gun battle and they went out and just dug a shallow grave and buried his body, that as his body decomposed . . . we know the body is made up of chemicals and elements . . . and as the body decomposed, these chemicals just actually went into the soil, became a part of the soil. And the prairie grass, its little roots, went down into the soil and the chemicals of this decomposed body were picked up in the roots of the prairie grass and, of course, came up through the root system and into the grass itself, nourishing the grass. And the cows came and ate the prairie grass that has the chemicals of the decomposed body of this man who was shot in the gun battle. And the cows gave their milk that contained part of the chemicals from the decomposed body and I drank that milk. And thus, those chemicals have become a part of my body now. So that in the resurrection, in what body are these chemicals going to go, because they've been a part of many bodies? And they've tried to make the idea of the resurrection seem ridiculous by these hypotheses that they have created. Now Jesus said, "You err because you do not know the resurrection or the power of God." In the resurrection there will be no marrying or giving in marriage. But we will be as the angels, who neither marry, nor are given in marriage.

As I understand God's purpose for marriage, it is to establish a beautiful healthy environment for children to be raised, to be brought into the world. The basic plan for marriage, that we might reproduce, that we might be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Now, in heaven the angels do not reproduce. Thus, no need for marriage. We will not be reproducing, thus, no need for marriage. We will be as the angels are. A lot of questions... "Will we know each other, then, in heaven?" Of course we will; we're not going to be more stupid there than we are here! The Bible says we will know even as we are known. "But what kind of relationships will we have?" Deeper, richer than any we could ever experience on the earth. Now just how, when all of these relationships, God has not really gone into details with us. He's just told us that we'll be as the angels. Now, there are some poor people that feel, "Well, if I can't be married, I don't want to go there." Well, the alternative is not so pleasant. And there's nothing that says you're going to be married there either.

You say, "But what about that milk I'm drinking?" I'm not going to have this body in heaven. We know that when the earthly tent, this body, is dissolved, we have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. I'm going to get a new body, a building of God not made with hands. So whatever happens to this body, I could care less. Someone said, "Well, what about cremation?" They can do what they want. You know that when this earthly tent is dissolved, and if they do it by cremation it'll be dissolved in thirty-seven minutes. If they let the natural processes go, it'll take a little longer. But I will have moved out and have moved into my new house, the building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I'm going to prepare a place for you." You say, "Oh, but what about the resurrection of our bodies?" Well, what about them?

Paul the apostle said, "Some will say, 'How are the dead raised and what kind of a body will they have?'" And he said, "Don't you realize that God teaches resurrection in nature? For when you plant a seed into the ground the seed does not come forth into new life until it first of all dies, and then the body"...and listen carefully..."the body that comes out of the ground is not the body that you planted" ( 1 Corinthians 15:35-37 ). I feel sorry for you that are so in love with your body that you want to carry it on into the new kingdom. "For the body that comes out of the ground is not the body that you planted, because all you planted was a bare grain and God gives it a body that pleases Him. And if it pleases God, you can be sure it's going to please me. So is the resurrection from the dead," Paul asserts, "for we are planted in corruption and we will be raised in incorruption. We are planted in weakness; we will be raised in power. We are sown in dishonor; we'll be raised in glory. We are planted as a natural body; but we'll be raised as a spiritual body. For there's a natural body and there's a spiritual body, and the glory of the terrestrial differs from the glory of the celestial. And even as we have born the image of the earthen and have been earthy, so shall we bear the image of the heavens" ( 1 Corinthians 15:37-44 ).

So, the body that comes out is not the body that was planted. All we planted was a bare grain. God gives it a body that pleases Him. So I'm really quite interested in that new model and all of the gadgets, the capacities of that new model. It's probably just fantastic. As this corruption puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality. For you see, God created this body out of the earth for the earth, of the earth, earthy, designed it for the environmental conditions of the earth. The atmosphere around the earth is made up of seventy-nine parts of nitrogen, twenty parts of oxygen, and one part of neon and other gases. Now when God made my body, He designed it so that it needed this Luk 79:20 ratio in the atmosphere. It operates well under it. If He put more oxygen in, my heart would beat faster and I would die sooner. More nitrogen, it would have the opposite effect, but I'd still die sooner. My heart would go slower. If He put equal parts of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, we'd all go around like a bunch of laughing maniacs, because that's nitric oxide, which is laughing gas in the dentist chair. So we'd all go around with uncontrollable laughter. So He designed the body for the conditions of the environment of the earth. But to come into the heavenly scene, I need a body that is designed for that environment. And so God has a new body prepared for me, and one day my spirit and soul are going to move out of this body into the new body that God has. And with Paul, I'll say, "Oh, death, where is your sting? Oh, grave, where is your victory?" We have been caused to triumph over them through Jesus Christ. Thanks be unto God who gives us that continual victory through Jesus our Lord.

So, they did not understand. And so,

Jesus said, The children of this world marry ( Luke 20:34 ),

That is, in this age, in this time, they marry.

and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain [that age,] or that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more ( Luke 20:35-36 ):

My new body is indestructible, eternal in the heavens...the building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. So, you better like your new one, because that's where you're going to be.

for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection ( Luke 20:36 ).

Uh-oh, wait a minute! You said something, Jesus. These guys don't believe in the resurrection!

That the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush ( Luke 20:37 ),

You see, these men, only accepting the first five books of the Old Testament, held a position that there was no resurrection. And though there were many arguments prior to the time of Christ as others were seeking to prove the resurrection to them, because they only accepted Moses as authoritative, no one had ever offered them from the writings of Moses any proof of the resurrection. So Jesus goes right back to Moses. "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush,"

when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ( Luke 20:37 ).

Jacob, at the time that Moses stood before the bush, had been dead for 400 years. Isaac and Abraham even longer. And yet, God, when He spoke to Moses out of the bush, said, "I am the Lord. I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." And Jesus adds,

He is not the God of the dead, but of the living ( Luke 20:38 ):

Declaring that 400 years after their recorded deaths, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive in another dimension, another sphere. But still alive, because God is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. And the scribes, when they heard that they said, "Hey, that's all right." They had never been able to argue their case with the Sadducees. But when they heard that argument, they were really pleased at that. "Hey, that's all right! You nailed 'em, you got 'em." And so, they answered Jesus saying,

Master, you have said well ( Luke 20:39 ).

That's good.

And after that they dared not to ask him any more questions. And so he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's Son? ( Luke 20:40-41 )

Now one of the titles for the Messiah was Son of David. Last week you remember when we were in Jericho, and Jesus was entering the city, there was the blind man who cried out, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me." Son of David was a Messianic title, because they were looking for some descendant of David to arise in power and in authority to establish the kingdom and to overthrow the Roman rule. "Thou Son of David": a common title of the Messiah. So He said unto them, "How is it that you say that the Messiah..." and the word Christ is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah ... "How is that you say the Messiah is David's Son?"

David himself said in the book of the Psalms ( Luke 20:42 ),

That is in Psalms 110:0

The Lord [that is Yahweh] said unto my Lord [my Adonai], Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore called him Lord, how then could he be his son? ( Luke 20:42-44 )

You are dealing with a culture that is a very strong patriarchal culture, the father rules. No matter how old he is, as long as he's living he rules over the household. You can be married and have your own grandkids, but if your dad is still alive, he rules. No father would ever call his son "Lord." That was a title for the father, for the patriarch of the family. He ruled. So no father would ever say to his son, "Lord," using that title. So Jesus said, "Look, if he's a son of David, how is it that David called him 'Lord' if he's his son?" And, of course, they had no answer.

Then in the audience of all the people he said to his disciples ( Luke 20:45 ),

And you know, He turns to His disciples now, all the people listening in, He said,

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 in the feasts; which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation ( Luke 20:46-47 ).

Beware of those who seek to make a public show, for a pretense make long prayers, devour widows' houses, send out computerized letters filled with deceit and fraud to the little women on Social Security, asking, "Go down to the bank and borrow some money to send to them to help them out of this emergency;" who love the honor and the greetings and the palavering of man. Pray for them, because Jesus said they will receive the greater damnation.

"

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

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

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

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

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

This parable taught that Israel’s religious leaders who had authority were mismanaging their authority. It also affirmed Jesus’ authority, not just as a prophet, but as God’s Son. The leaders had expressed fear of death (Luke 20:6). Jesus now revealed that He would die but would experience divine vindication. The parable contains further teaching on the subject of proper stewardship as well (cf. Luke 19:11-27).

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 20

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

The parable tells us certain things about God.

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

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

The parable tells us something about Jesus.

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

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

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

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

the Word;

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

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

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

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

The quotation about the stone which the builders rejected comes from 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.)

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 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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

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.

Light of Israel Bible Commentary

PARABLE OF THE TENANTS

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. Luke 20:9

This parable draws imagery from the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-7.<footnote>Barker & Kohlenberger, eds., Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 274.</footnote> The vineyard in this song represented Israel (cf. Psalm 80:8-16; Jeremiah 2:21-22; Hosea 9:10). Bock sees this parable as an actual allegory. While a parable usually has one to three points in its contact with reality, an allegory has many points.<footnote>Bock, Luke, The IVP NT Commentary, p. 321.</footnote>

At the time this parable was told, wealthy absentee landlords were common in the land.<footnote>Keener, The IVP Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 244.</footnote> One almost had to be wealthy to plant a vineyard. In addition to the vines, a wall and winepress had to be constructed. All this was quite expensive and time-consuming. According to the law, a person planting a tree or vine had to wait until the fifth year to eat of it (Leviticus 19:23-25). As a repayment for his effort the landlord was to collect about one third of the crop for his rent each year.<footnote>Pfeiffer & Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1061.</footnote>

"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. He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out" (20:10-12). This parable is strange in that normally the power of wealth and the law was in favor of the owner. Here we get the clear idea that the tenants were aiming to replace the owner and take the vineyard for themselves. The biblical sense here is that the leaders of Israel, who were the tenants, were intent on replacing the true representative of God (cf. 1 Kings 18:13; 22:27; 2 Chronicles 24:19-21; Nehemiah 9:26; Jeremiah 7:25-26; 25:4; Amos 3:7; Zechariah 1:6).

In the US we have the law of adverse possession. By this law a trespasser can take over unoccupied houses or lands by possessing them in an open, hostile and exclusive manner. This must be done over a period of time. This law is so lax in our state of Colorado that trespassers sometimes take over empty houses, change the locks, and gain legal right to occupy, even to the exclusion of the actual owner. It usually takes a court case for the owner to regain his property. It is likely that there was some type of law like this in ancient Israel. The law was initially designed to make sure all lands were in use by somebody. In the Mishnah it is noted that if someone had the use of land for a period of three years that person was presumed to be the owner, in the absence of any other claim (Mishnah, Baba Bathra 3:1).<footnote>Morris, Luke, p. 312. Keener adds, "Landowners always had power, socially and legally, to enforce their will on the tenants; a few even reportedly had hit squads to deal with troublesome tenants. Here the tenants act as if they are the ones with power… This description fits the Jewish tradition that Israel martyred many of the prophets God sent to it." (Keener, p. 244).</footnote>

"Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him'" (20:13). Keener says, "Ancient hearers of the parable would regard the landowner as abnormal; naively benevolent…"<footnote>Keener, The IVP Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 244.</footnote> The picture in some ways is so much like that of God who is longsuffering toward all of us and who in the end has sacrificed his Only Son for our salvation (cf. Luke 3:22; John 3:16; Romans 5:8; Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 1:1-3;1 John 4:9-10). The sending of his Only Son is seen as God's final act for the redemption of the human race.<footnote>Pett, Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible, Commentary on Luke, v. 20:13.</footnote>

"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'" (20:14). The true aim of the tenants is now seen clearly. Coffman feels that the tenants, who were the leaders of Israel, likely recognized Jesus as the Messiah and the true heir to the throne of David.<footnote>Coffman, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Commentary on Luke, v. 20:9.</footnote> They were reluctant to give up their hold on the reins of authority and rather wanted to claim it all for themselves. We cannot overlook the fact that in this parable Jesus gave his own death pronouncement.<footnote>Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 206.</footnote>

"So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 'What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?'" (20:15). According to Jewish law a dead body could not be left in the vineyard without making the harvest impure.<footnote>Keener, The IVP Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 244.</footnote> Thus, as a type and pattern, these bandits threw the son out of the vineyard. How accurately this corresponds to the death of Jesus the True Son in Jerusalem. He suffered and died just outside the city gate (Hebrews 13:12) in a place called Calvary.

"'He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.' When the people heard this, they said, 'God forbid!'" (20:16). Several commentators feel that this is a prediction that the kingdom would be taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles.<footnote>Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke, p. 220.</footnote> We note in the gospels and in Acts a considerable prejudice existing in the Jewish population regarding the Gentiles. Israel had failed to be a light to the nations as God intended. Instead, Israel had come to almost loathe the Gentiles. Their expression of dismay can be seen in other translations, "May it never be!" (NASB); "Certainly not!" (NKJV) and "Heaven forbid!" (NRSV). Such a thought was like the end of the world for devout Jewish people in those days.<footnote>Pett, Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible, Commentary on Luke, v. 20:16.</footnote>

In AD 70 the nation was totally defeated by the Romans and Jerusalem, with her temple, was destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were killed or sold into slavery. The nation would go into eclipse for almost two thousand years. The kingdom was then handed to the Gentiles, who would produce its fruit (Matthew 21:43).

"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?"'" (20:17). Jesus is here quoting from Psalm 118:22, from what was considered as a messianic psalm.<footnote>Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 206.</footnote> The images of the stone and cornerstone became very popular ones for the early Christians as we see from the New Testament (Acts 4:11; Romans 9:32-33; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:7).<footnote>Bock, Luke, The IVP NT Commentary, p. 323.</footnote> Guzik says of the cornerstone that it was, "… designated in antiquity the stone used at the building's corner to bear the weight or the stress of the two walls."<footnote>Guzik, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, Commentary on Luke, vs. 20:16-19.</footnote> We might think of these two walls as being the spiritually redeemed of Israel and the Gentiles.

"Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed" (20:18). This picture apparently comes from Daniel 2:34, 44. We first see that some will fall against the stone and be broken. Isaiah 8:14-15 says, "He will be a holy place; for both Israel and Judah he will be a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare. Many of them will stumble; they will fall and be broken, they will be snared and captured." So in New Testament times, and in the present times, Jesus is a stumbling block for the Jews. People are hurt if they fall against him and they are hurt if he falls against them. The latter expression no doubt speaks of the final judgment (cf. Isaiah 17:13; Amos 9:9).

The rabbis have this humorous comparison between a pot and a stone, "If a stone falls on a pot, woe to the pot! If a pot falls on a stone, woe to the pot! In either case woe to the pot!"<footnote>Brad H. Young, Jesus The Jewish Theologian (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), p. 221.</footnote> Likewise, it seems disastrous for one to fall over Jesus or for Jesus to fall upon them.

"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" (20:19). On several occasions we have seen that the Jewish leaders were cowards. They were afraid of the people over whom they ruled. What a sad and tragic picture they leave with us.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

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

Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible

The last chapter gave in the judgment of present things, another world and eternal things in good and evil, the Lord's instruction for the disciples after the dealings of grace in Luke 15:1-32, and this as the only true power of estimating the present world (that is to say, by the standard of the future the eternal future of God. In order to complete that picture, our Lord gave a sight not only of one blessed man who had lived in what is eternal, while experiencing the bitterness of this evil age, but of another who lived only for the present, despising God's message about eternity.

In Luke 17:1-37 there follow further lessons communicated still to the disciples; and first of all, a solemn warning as to stumbling-blocks. It is possible that offences will come; but woe to him through whom they come! Next, while there is a strong exhortation against stumbling others, there is an equally urgent call to forgive others. We are to be firm against ourselves; we are to be firm for our brethren, even where they touch ourselves. Therefore the apostles, feeling the great difficulty, as indeed it is impossible to nature so to walk, ask of the Lord to increase their faith. The Lord intimates in reply that faith grows, and even in the presence of difficulty. It seeks what belongs not to nature, but to God. On the other hand, in the midst of any answers that God may vouchsafe, and of all service rendered to Him, the admonitory word is added that when we have done all things not when we have failed we are unprofitable servants. Such is the true language and feeling for a disciple's heart. This closes the direct teaching here addressed to His followers (Verses Luke 17:1-10.)

Our Lord is next (ver. Luke 17:11-19) presented in a very characteristic way, showing that faith does not necessarily wait for a change of dispensation. He had been laying, down the duty of faith in many various forms in the early verses of this chapter. It is here shown that faith always finds its place of blessing with God and proves Him superior to forms; but God is only found in Jesus.

In the ten lepers this blessed principle is brought out clearly. The healing of the Lord was equally manifest in all; but there is a power superior to that which cleanses the body, even were it desperately leprous. The power that belongs to and comes out from God is but a small thing, in comparison with the knowledge of God Himself. This alone brings to God in spirit (as it did really by the cross of Christ). Observe, that he who exemplifies this action of divine grace was one that knew not traditional religion as the others did, that had no great privileges to boast of in comparison with the rest. It was the Samaritan in whom the Lord illustrated the power of faith. He had told the ten equally to go and show themselves to the priest; and as they went they were cleansed. One only, seeing he was cleansed, turns back, and with a loud voice glorified God. But the way in which he glorified God was not by merely ascribing the blessing to God. "He fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan."

Apparently this was disobedience; and the others could well reproach their Samaritan fellow that he was unfaithful to Jesus. But faith is always right, whatever appearances may say: I speak not now of a fancy, of course, not of any eccentric humour or delusion too often covered over with the name of faith. Real faith which God gives is never so far wrong: and he who, instead of going on to the priest, recognizes in Jesus the power and goodness of God upon earth, (the instincts of that very faith that was of God working in his heart and carrying him back to the source of the blessing,) he, I say, was the only one of the ten who was in the spirit, not only of the blessing but of Him who gave the blessing. And so our Lord Jesus vindicates him. "Were there not ten cleansed?" said the Saviour; "but where are the nine? There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger."

Faith invariably discovers the way to give glory to God. It matters not whether it be in Abraham or in a Samaritan leper, its path is entirely outside the ken of nature, yet faith does not fail to discern it; the Lord assuredly puts His seal upon it, and grace supplies all needed strength to follow.

But this was in its principle the judgment of the Jewish system. It was the power of faith leaving Judaism to itself, mounting in Jesus to the source of both law and grace, but not putting the legal system down. This was for other hands. Faith does not destroy; it has no such commission: angels will have that province another day. But faith finds its own deliverance now, leaving those who are under the law and love not grace, to the law which condemns. For itself it discovers the blessedness of freedom from the law, yet is not lawless to God, but, on the contrary, legitimately bound ( ἔννομος ) to Christ, really and duly subject to Him, and so much the more because not under law. In the present case, the cleansed Samaritan in going to Jesus was very simply under grace, in the spirit that animated his heart and formed his path, as Luke the evangelist here records.

How admirably this tale is adapted to the whole tone and character of the Gospel, I need not delay to prove. It must be plain enough, I think, even to a superficial reader, that as Luke alone gives the account, so to Luke it is most especially adapted for the purpose that the Holy Ghost had in hand in this Gospel, and also in this particular context.

We have further, in our Lord's answer to the Pharisees, who demanded when the kingdom of God should come, a striking revelation, and most suitable to Luke's purpose. "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation." It is not a question of signs, wonders, or outward show. It is not that God did not accompany His message with signs. But the kingdom of God, revealed in the person of Christ, went deeper appeals to faith (not sight), and demands the Holy Ghost's action in the soul to give the sinner to see and enter it. Here it is not a question exactly of entering or seeing, as inJohn 3:1-36; John 3:1-36, but rather the moral character of the entrance of God's kingdom among men. It does not address itself to the senses or the mere mind of man; it carries its own evidence with it to the conscience and the heart. As being the kingdom of God, it is impossible that His kingdom should come, without adequate testimony in love to man, who is sought for it. At the same time man, having a bad conscience and a depraved heart, slights God's word as well as kingdom, and looks for that which would please himself by gratifying his feelings, mind, or even lower nature. Our Lord, however, first of all lays down this great principle: it is no question of a "lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." The kingdom was actually there; for He, God's King was there. Then, after settling this moral truth which was fundamental for the soul, He turns to His disciples, and tells them that the days would come when they should desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and should not see it; for the kingdom will be displayed by and by. "When they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under. heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation." This is the necessary moral order of God. Jesus must first suffer; so "the sufferings of Christ," as Peter said afterwards, "and the glories that should follow." Such is the invariable method of God in dealing with a sinful world, where He brings in, not a test of man, but the effectual work of His own grace. But this presentation to faith now, as we have seen does not hinder the Lord from speaking of another day, when the kingdom of God would be manifest. Before that day of His appearing there might be a premature "Lo here! or, lo there!" The godly must not follow men's cries, but count on the Lord. He compares it to the days of Noe (that is, to the day of God's past judgment of man and his ways); then to the days of Lot.

First of all, then, we have, for the disciples, God's ways in grace, in the Son of man that first suffers, and finally will appear in power and glory. As for the world, careless indifference and enjoyment of present things will characterise the future as the past; but they will be surprised by the Lord in the midst of heedless folly. To this the Lord appends a peculiar, but not less solemn though brief word: "Remember Lot's wife! "Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it." Apparently the wife of Lot was rescued by angelic power; she was certainly brought out of the doomed city; but it was only the more strikingly to be the monument of God's all-searching judgment. There she stands alone. The others perished; but she abode a pillar of salt, when Moses wrote the (morally speaking) imperishable memorial of God's hatred of a false heart, which, spite of outward deliverance, gave its affections still to a scene devoted to destruction. And so our Lord adds here what touched, not merely the Jewish system, but the condition and doom of the world at large. He lets us know that in that night two should be in one bed; one taken, and the other left. So two women at the mill; for here we have not to do with human judgments. God will then judge the quick; and so, no matter what the association, the employment, or the sex, whether within doors or without, there can be no shelter or exemption. Two might be ever so closely knit together, but God would discriminate according to the nicety of His own discernment of their state: one should be taken, and the other left. "And they answered, and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body. is, thither will the eagles be gathered together." Wherever there is that which is dead, and consequently offensive morally unto God, there unquestionably will His judgments fall.

But along with this we have also prayer (Luke 18:1-43), not merely as suitable to a soul's need, and in connection with the word of God received from Jesus, which we have seen in Luke 11:1-54. Here it is prayer out of the midst of circumstances of desolation and deep trial prayer with evil near at hand, as well as divine judgment. Consequently its ultimate bearing is in connection with the tribulation of the last days. But, at the same time, Luke never confines his view to outward facts. Hence, it is said, "He spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray." It is the more striking, because the circumstances are evidently limited; while that which He draws from them is universal. The Lord is exhorting to prayer, in view of the final trial; nevertheless, He prefaces it with a plain moral precept on the value. of prayer at all times "that men ought always to pray, and not to faint." Certainly God will not be heedless to the continual cry of His own seemingly desolate elect in their fiery trial, where all the might of man is against them; but still the duty always remains true.

Now, it is Luke alone who thus treats the matter; the great moral value attached to prayer, at the same time connected, it may be, with general circumstances of sorrow, but bearing on the circumstances of the last day. The parable is intended to give or increase confidence in the heed God pays to the prayer of distress. Spite of indifference, an unjust judge yields to the importunity of a poor widow. If a bad man so acted, not because of his hatred of the wrong done to her that was oppressed, but to get rid of being always troubled by her cries for justice if it be so even with the unjust, would not God take up the cause of His own elect, that cried unto Him day and night? It could not but be. He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth? (Verses Luke 18:1-8.)

Then follows another parable of a very different character. It is not the value of persistent prayer, and the certainty of God appearing even for the weakest, no matter how apparently deserted (indeed, so much the more, because of it in His own). We have, further, the moral condition of man illustrated in two ways a broken spirit with little light but a real sense of sin, and another soul satisfied with itself in the presence of God. "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous) and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican." Not that the Pharisee represents a man who denies God, or who is not a religious man. He is religious, but such religion is the most damning thing about him. The evil is not merely his sins, but his religion: nothing more blinding to himself and other men, nothing more dishonouring to God. On the other hand, the poor publican has neither clear light nor peace, but at least he realises the commencement of all true light he has learned enough of God to condemn himself. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." He alone of the two judged things according to his little light. He judged himself truly, and, therefore, was in a moral condition to see other things aright, as God should bring them before him. There was as yet no such privilege known as a purged worshipper having no more conscience of sins. Therefore, the convicted publican is found outside, beating his breast, and standing at a distance, not so much as looking up. It was suitable that it should be so; for Christ's work was not yet wrought, still less applied to his soul. It would have been not faith, but presumption, I do not doubt, at such a time, and under such circumstances, for him to have come nigh. All was in its season. But if God invites a believer now to draw near into the holiest of all, is it not equal presumption for that soul to quarrel with the grace of God displayed in Christ's work of redemption, and to raise questions about its effects for itself? God may, and does, bear with the wound to His own grace; and He has His way of correcting such wrong; but there is no ground in the parable to warrant what is too often founded upon it. We owe it to Christ to resent every misinterpretation which goes to undo what He has done on the cross. The publican before us was not meant to give us a full view of the Christian state, or of the blessings of the gospel, but of a man taught of God to feel his own nothingness as a sinner before Him; and God's estimate of him, in comparison with the man who was satisfied with his state. It is humility founded upon the sense of unworthiness, which is always right as far as it goes. (VersesLuke 18:9-14; Luke 18:9-14.)

Next is set forth humility, founded on our littleness (ver. Luke 18:15-17). Many a man is consciously unworthy, because he feels himself a sinner who has no just sense of his littleness in the presence of God. Our Lord here gives this further lesson to the disciples, and uses a child as the text. We shall find how much it was needed if we look into the Gospel of Luke.

Then we have the ruler, to whom our Lord shows that all was wrong where a soul is not brought to know that there is none good but God. Had he really known how good God is he would have soon seen God in Jesus. He saw nothing of the sort. He knew neither God nor good. He looked upon the Lord merely as good after a human fashion. If He was but a man there was no goodness in Him; it is only in God: God alone is good. If Jesus were not God, He was not good. The young ruler had no right, no just title to say, "Good Master", unless that master were God. This he saw not; and therefore, the Lord proves him, and searches the ground of his heart, and demonstrates that after all he valued the world more than God and eternal life. This he had never suspected in himself before. He loved his natural position; he loved to be a ruler, though a young one; he loved his possessions; he loved what he had of present advantages in the world. He really clave to all these things without knowing it himself. The Lord, therefore calls upon him to give them up, and follow Him. He thought there was no demand of goodness but what he was able to meet; but the trial was too much for him. Man was not good God only. Jesus, who was God, had given up beyond all comparison more, yea, infinitely.

What had He not given up, and for whom? He was God, and proved it not least in a self-abnegation truly divine. (Verses Luke 18:18-25.)

Then we have the hearers and disciples disclosing their thoughts. They began to claim something of credit for what they had given up. The Lord admits that there is no abandonment of faith but what will meet with a most adequate remembrance from the Lord another day.

But, at the same time (verses Luke 18:31-34), He takes unto Him the twelve and says, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished." This is what He was looking for, whatever they were. "For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on; and they shall scourge Him, and put him to death; and the third day he shall rise again; and they understood none of these things. And this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." It is an important lesson, and not the first time we find it in Luke, and, indeed, in other Gospels also. Nor can it be too often repeated, that lack of intelligence in Scripture does not depend upon the obscurity of the language, but because the will does not like the truth that is taught. This is the reason why difficulties are felt and abound. When a man is made willing to receive the truth, his eye is single and his whole body full of light. The will is the real hindrance. The mind will be clear, if the conscience and the heart be set right. Where, on the contrary, God breaks down the believer, and sets him free in the liberty wherewith the Son makes free, the conscience is purged, and the heart turned towards Himself. All then becomes right: he is brought into the light of God; he sees light in God's light. Was this the condition of the disciples as yet? Were they not still cleaving to their own cherished expectations of Messiah, and an earthly kingdom? They could not understand Him, no matter how plain the words employed. The hardness of His saying lay not in any lack of perspicuity. Never man spake as this man, His enemies themselves being judges; neither was it from any defect in their natural understanding that the disciples were thus slow. The state of the heart, as ever, was in question; the will was at fault, even though they were regenerate. It was their reluctance to receive what Jesus taught that made the difficulty; and it is the same thing still with believers, as with others.

In verse 35 we enter on the closing section of all the historical Gospels, as is well known, that is to say, the entrance into Jerusalem from Jericho. Only there is a difficulty here to some that Luke appears to contradict what we have in the other accounts of this part of Christ's progress. "It came to pass, that as he came nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the wayside begging." From the other Gospels we know it was when He went out of Jericho, not when He came in. The truth is, that our English version, excellent as it is, goes a little beyond the word of Luke; for our evangelist does not say "When he was come nigh unto Jericho," but "when he was nigh." It is not necessarily a question of coming near, but simply of being in the neighbourhood. The utmost which can or ought to be allowed is, that if the context so required, it might bear the translation (a paraphrase rather) of coming nigh; but this case demands the very reverse. It is evident, whether you go into a place or whether you come out of it, you are equally nigh on one side of the town or on the other. The truth is, that Luke merely states the fact of vicinity here. Further, we know that just as Matthew, for his design, so he displaces facts historically for the purpose of giving a more forcible moral picture of the truth in hand. I have little doubt that in this case the reason for putting the blind man here rather than in leaving, the town was, that for Jericho He reserved the wonderful call of Zaccheus, with the object of bringing that tale of grace, characteristic of His first-advent, into juxtaposition with the question and parable of the kingdom, which illustrated His second advent; for immediately afterwards we have His correction of the disciples, thoughts, that the kingdom of God was immediately going to appear; because He was going up to Jerusalem. They expected that He was going to take the throne of David at once. Accordingly, Luke puts together those two features the grace that illustrates His first coming, and the real nature of the second coming of Christ, as far as regards the appearing of God's kingdom. Now, had the story of the blind man healed at Jericho been left for its historical place, it would have cut the thread of these two circumstances. There is, therefore, in this, as it appears to me, an ample and divine reason why the Spirit of God led the writer to present the cure of the blind man as we find it. But then he does not say what the English version makes him say, "As he was come nigh," but simply, "When he was nigh to Jericho," leaving it open to other Scriptures to define the time with more precision. He only states that it was while the Lord was in the neighbourhood. The other Gospels positively tell us it was as He went out. Clearly, therefore, we must interpret the general language of Luke by the exacter marks of the time and place of those who declare it was as He was going out. Nothing can be simpler. The healing of the blind man was a kind of final testimony that Messiah was there. He was coming in the way, not of the power that once overthrew Jericho, but of grace that showed and could meet the real condition of Israel. They were blind. Had they possessed the faith only to cry to Messiah about their blindness, He was therewith power and willingness to heal them. There was none but a blind man or two to own real need, but our Lord at least healed all who cried. (Verses Luke 18:35-43.)

Then, as He entered Jericho, Zaccheus, the chief of the tax-gatherers, was mightily stirred with the desire to see this wondrous man, the Son of man. Hence he lets nothing stand in the way. Neither personal deficiency, nor the crowd that was there, is allowed to hinder his intense purpose of heart to see the Lord Jesus. He therefore climbs up a sycamore tree by the way; and Jesus knowing well the desire of Zaccheus, and the faith that was at work there however feebly, at once, to his joy and astonishment, invites Himself to his house. "Zaccheus, make haste, and come down; for to-day I must abide at thy house. And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully." All fell to murmuring. It was the same tale at the end as at the beginning. "And Zaccheus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." He had been really a conscientious man. He was a man thus characterised; for it is no promise of what he is going to do, but he mentions that which was no doubt a fact about himself at that very moment. He was what men call a just and good man, yet a chief tax-gatherer and a wealthy one, though they be hard things to put together. Here was a tax-gatherer who, if through in cautiousness or any defect guilty of wrong to another, needed no pressure to restore fourfold. Such was his habit. Our Lord, however, cuts it all short. As a matter of human righteousness it was well; it was the proof that Zaccheus exercised himself as a man to have a conscience void offence in his own way. Nor is this out of keeping with the tenor of Luke's Gospel, as, indeed, it is only here that we have the story at all. Our Lord, however, shows that it was not the time to think or speak of such matters. "This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." How infinite the blessing! Was it a fitting time for speaking of himself? It was not a question of man's walking righteously, or of talking about it. In truth, man was lost; but the Son of man was there to bear his burden. This great and glorious fact superseded all others. Whatever there had been working in him at any time all was now swallowed up in the presence of the Son of man seeking and saving the lost. What can give us amore vivid, true, and blessed representation of the Lord Jesus Christ in His first coming with the grace of God that brings salvation? (Luke 19:1-10.)

Immediately after (and, if I mistake not, expressly put in close conjunction with this) is the parable of the nobleman who goes into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. They were all wrong therefore, in looking for the kingdom of God immediately to appear. Not so. Christ was going away to heaven to receive the kingdom from God there not about to take it from man now and in this world. It is evidently, therefore, a picture of the Lord's return at the second advent, after having received a kingdom. It was not a question of human willingness or power, but of receiving from God. But then, further, He shows that meanwhile His servants are called to occupy themselves till he come. He called His ten servants, and delivered to them ten pounds; and said unto them, "Occupy till I come." Then we find another picture His citizens hating Him; for nothing can be more elaborate than this parable. The Lord's relation to the kingdom at the second advent is contrasted with the grace that flows out in the former part of the chapter. This is the main subject with which the parable opens. Next, we have the place of the servants responsible to use what the Lord gives. Such is another great point shown out here. It is not, as in the Gospel of Matthew, the Lord giving different gifts to different servants, which is equally true; but here it is the moral test of the servants carried out by each having the same sum. This proves yet more than in the other case how far they laboured. They started with similar advantages. What was the result? Meanwhile hatred became apparent in the citizens, who represent the unbelieving Jews settled down in the earth. "When he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded those servants to be called unto Him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy mina hath gained ten minas;" and so with the other; and then we hear of the one who says, "Lord, behold, here is thy mina, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: for I feared thee." There was no confidence in His grace. The consequence is, that, treating the Lord as a froward man, he finds Him froward. Unbelief finds its own response as truly as faith does. As "it is unto thee according to thy faith," so alas! the converse proves true. It is to man according to his unbelief.

Further, we have a remarkable difference in the rewards here. It is not, "Enter into the joy of thy Lord;" but one receives ten cities, another five, and so on. He that was fearful and unbelieving, on the contrary, has his mina taken from him. Again, then enemies are brought forward. The unfaithful servant is not called an enemy, though, no doubt, he was no friend of the Son, and dealt with righteously. But the open adversaries are called into the scene; and as the Lord here pronounces those men His enemies which would not :that He should reign over them, He says, "Bring them hither, and slay them before me." Thus the parable is a very complete sketch of the general results of the Lord's second advent for the citizens of the world, as well as of the occupation and reward of the servants who serve Him faithfully meanwhile. (Verses Luke 19:11-27.)

Next, we have the entrance into Jerusalem. We need not dwell on the scene of the riding in on the colt; but that which is peculiar to Luke claims our attention for a moment. "And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen: saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest."(Ver. 37, 38.) Thus the Spirit of God works to give them a step, and a great step, in divine intelligence beyond the song of the angels at the beginning. What they justly sang at the birth of Jesus was, "Peace on earth: good will that is, God's good will in men," ushered in by glory to God in the highest. Here we have a signal change or converse. "Glory in the highest" is the result, not the introduction; and instead of "peace on earth," (which will, no doubt, be the fruit by and by, as it is according to God's mind, the anticipation from the beginning,) the disciples meanwhile and most appropriately, sing, "Peace in heaven." It was not a question of peace on earth now. The reason was manifest: the earth was unready, was about to judge unjustly, and to be judged. Jesus was on the very point of being cast out and cut off. He was really in heart thoroughly rejected already; but He was shortly to enter on other sufferings, even to the death of the cross. The effect, then, of that which was imminent was not peace for the earth yet, but peace in heaven most assuredly; and therefore we can comprehend how the Lord guided by His Spirit the song of the disciples at the close just as much as at the beginning; that of the angels expressed the general idea of God's purposes the moral effects to spring from the death of the incarnate Son.

After this we hear the murmuring Pharisees rebuked, who would have had the disciples rebuked for their song: if they had not sung it, the stones must have cried out; and the Lord vindicates the blameless (Ver. Luke 19:39-40.)

Then follows that most touching scene, peculiar to and characteristic of Luke Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. It was not at the grave of the one He loved, though about to call from the grave. The weeping in John is in the presence of death, which had touched Lazarus. It is therefore infinitely more personal, though it be also the wondrous sight of One who, coming, with the consciousness of divine power to banish death and bring life into the scene, yet in grace nevertheless did not one whit the less, but the more, feel the power of death as no mere man ever felt, yet as none but a real man could feel. There never was any one that had such a sense of death before as Jesus, just because He was life, the energy of which, combined with perfect; love, made the power of death to be so sensible. Death does not feel death, but life did. Therefore He that was (and not merely had) life, as no one else, weeps in the presence of death, groaning, in spirit at the grave. His having power to banish death weakened His sense of it in no respect. If poor dying man felt it somewhat, the Lord made flesh, the God-man, entered into it in spirit the more because He was God, though man. But here we have another scene, His weeping over that very city that was about to cast Him out and crucify Him. Oh it is a truth for us to treasure in our hearts His weeping in divine grace over guilty Jerusalem, forsaking its own mercies, rejecting its own Saviour the Lord God. Its desolation He predicts, and destruction, because the time of its visitation was unknown. (Verses Luke 19:41-44.) His visit to the temple and its cleansing are mentioned summarily; as also His teaching there daily the chiefs of priest and people, With their desire to destroy Him but hardly knowing how, for all the people hung on Him to hear. In Luke 20:1-47 we have the various classes of religionists and worldly men trooping one after another, hoping somehow to ensnare or accuse the Lord of glory. Each of them falls into the trap which they had made for Him. Accordingly they do but discover and condemn themselves. We have the priests with their question of authority (ver. Luke 20:1-8), then the people hearing the history of God's dealings with them, and their moral condition fully brought out. (Verses Luke 20:9-19.) We have further the crafty spies, hired by the chief priests and scribes, that feigned themselves just, and thought to take hold of His words, and embroil Him with the earthly powers. (Verses Luke 20:20-26.)

We have, after these, the Sadducees denying the resurrection. (Verses Luke 20:27-38.) But here we may pause for a moment; for there are special and profoundly instructive touches peculiar to Luke. More particularly remark this that he alone, of all the evangelists, here characterizes men, in the activities of this life, as "the children of this world," or age. They are persons who live merely for the present. "The children of this world [age] marry, and are given in marriage; but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world [age], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels." In the resurrection state there will be no such relations. The difficulty existed for, or rather was made by, unbelief only. Indeed, what else can incredulity ever pretend to? It imagines difficulties, and nowhere so much as in the most certain truth of God. The resurrection is the great truth to which all things turn which the Lord has shown in its final form, too, in His own person now raised from the dead, then just about to follow. This truth was combated and refused by the most active sect among the Jews at that time, the most intellectual and the best informed naturally. These were the persons who most of all set themselves against it.

But our Lord brings in another remarkable point here. Not only is God not the God of the dead, but of the living; but "all live unto him." (Ver. Luke 20:38; Luke 20:38.) Two great truths are here present living unto God after death, and future resurrection, when Jesus comes and brings in the new age. This was especially of value for Gentiles, because it was one of the great problems for the heathen mind, whether the soul existed after death, not to speak of the resurrection of the body. Naturally the Jews, save the unbelieving portion of them, looked for resurrection; but for the Gentiles the Spirit of God gives us our Lord's answer to the Sadducees, both proving the resurrection which is common to all the Gospels, and bringing in the living, of dead men in the separate state. It peculiarly fell within the domain of Luke.

This truth is not confined to the present portion of our Gospel. We have similar teaching elsewhere. Does not the account of the rich man and Lazarus intimate the same thing? Yea, more; not only the existence of the soul separate from the body, after death, of course) but also blessedness and misery at once. They are not absolutely dependent on the resurrection. Besides, there is the final publicly adjudicated portion of misery for body and soul before the great white throne. But, inLuke 16:1-31; Luke 16:1-31, blessedness and misery at once are felt by the soul in the dissolution of the link with the body. The figures, no doubt, are taken, as they must be, from the body. Thus we find the desire for cooling of the tongue, which men of speculative mind use to prove that it was the time of being clothed with a real body. Nothing of the sort. The Spirit of God speaks to be understood, and (if He is to be understood by men) He must deign to use language adapted to our comprehension. He cannot give us the understanding of a state which we have never experienced, unless it be by figures taken from the present state. A similar truth appears also later on in the case of the converted thief. The point there is just the same immediate blessedness, and not merely when the body is raised from the dead by and by. That is what he looked for when he sought to be remembered, when Jesus comes in His kingdom. But the Lord adds more immediate blessedness now: "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Depend upon it, we cannot be too stringent in maintaining, the importance both of the resurrection, and of the immediate blessedness or misery of the soul separate from the body before the resurrection. To give up the reality of the soul's existence in either misery or blessedness at once is only a stepping-stone to materialism; and materialism is but a prelude to giving up both the truth and the grace of God, and all the awful reality of man's sin and Satan's power. Materialism always is essentially infidel, though far from being, the only form of infidelity.

Towards the end of the chapter (ver. Luke 20:39-44; Luke 20:39-44) our Lord puts the great question of His own person and the position He was just going to take not on the throne of David but on the throne of God. Was not He Himself, David's Son owned as his Lord by David? On the person and position of Christ depends the whole of Christianity. Judaism, lowering the person, sees not or denies the position. Christianity is based not on the work only but on the glory of the person and place of Him who is glorified in God. He takes that place as man. He who humbled Himself as man in suffering is exalted as man to the glory of God on high.

Then follows the judgment but very briefly on the scribes; and in contrast With their selfish hypocrisy, ("which devour widows' houses and for a show make long prayers") the Lord's estimate of real devotedness is the widow's mites. (Luke 21:1-4.) Mark notices it as the service of faith and so brings it into his Gospel of service. Luke shows it as a question of the heart's state and trust in God. It fell therefore, within the domain of these two.

We have after this the hearts of the disciples proved to be still earthly and Jewish; but the Lord brings before them not the glory and beauty yet in store for Jerusalem but it is judgment specially on the temple. (Verses Luke 21:5-36.) At the same time we have particulars which demonstrate the weighty difference between this description of the judgment of the Jews and Jerusalem, and mark it off from the accounts of either Matthew or Mark. Observe more especially this, that here the Lord Jesus brings before us a very direct and immediate picture of the destruction of Jerusalem that was then imminent. Matthew passes by the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and fixes attention upon that which will take place in the end of the age. Luke gives us this last also closes, at any rate, with the future crisis; but the main point is the central portion of Luke is to point out the destruction then actually at hand as a distinct state of things and time from the circumstances of the Son of man's day. This is made perfectly plain to any one who considers it patiently. He says, "When ye shall sec Jerusalem, not "the abomination of desolation" (not a word about it here for it belongs to the last days exclusively; but "when ye shall see Jerusalem) compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains." Not a word about the great tribulation such as never was since time was; it is simply "days of vengeance." "These be the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled." There is retributive severity, but not a sign appears of its being anything unparalleled. "There shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people." So there was. "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations." This is a matter of fact description of what was really fulfilled to the letter in the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus. Thus there is no exaggerated description. The pretence of commentators, who rush to hyperbole as a cover for their misapplication, is cut off. Not that I allow it any more in Matthew. The only reason why men have so spoken of that evangelist is because they turn aside his prophecy of the end of the age to that which has been already accomplished. When the last days come, be assured they will learn too late that there is no hyperbole with God or His word.

And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Not only is there the sack of the city, the slaughter and captivity of the people, but continual occupation by their enemies till the termination of the period God allows the nations to have the supremacy over Israel. These times are going on now. Jerusalem has been trodden down of the Gentiles for many centuries as every one knows, throughout mediaeval and modern history. It seems particularly thus expressed in order not to continue the phrase to the Romans or previous imperial powers from Babylon downwards. Thus at the present time the Turks are the actual holders of it. The fact is notorious, that Jerusalem has been in the hands of many masters who have dealt hardly with the Jews. So He closes this matter.

Next, He introduces the last days. And there shall be signs in the sun and in the moon and in the stars. There was not a word of all this when He spoke of the siege and capture of the city under Titus. After the Gentile domination is over (which clearly it is not yet), there shall be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and distress of nations; men's hearts failing them forfear; for the powers of heaven shall be shaken and then shall they see not when the Romans of old took the city but, in the future crisis, when these astonishing tokens, heavenly and earthly, are given by God then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

He gives then a parable but not of the fig tree only: this would not be suitable to the largeness of Luke's scope. "Behold the fig-tree and all the trees." The difference between Luke and the others is this not that you have not the Jewish portion in his Gospel but that, moreover all the Gentiles are brought in. How perfect it all is! If it be but a parabolic description, the evangelist for the Gentiles not only gives the fig tree which is in Matthew, but the Gentile trees which are heard of nowhere else. That one tree notoriously applies to the Jews as a nation; the other figure ("all the trees") adds the rest, so as to be universal.

Then the Lord adds some moral considerations for the heart: "Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come upon all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth." Need it be remarked here that this again falls in with our evangelist beyond all others? So too the brief picture of His daily occupation in the temple and of His nights apart at Olivet which in no way precluded the people from coming to hear early in the morning. What unwearied travail of love!

In Luke 22:1-71 we see our Lord with the disciples not now as a prophet, but about to become a sacrifice meanwhile giving them the sweetest pledge of His love. On the other hand, there is the hatred of man, the weakness of the disciples, the falsehood of Peter, the treachery of Judas, the subtlety and terrors of the enemy who had the power of death. The day of unleavened bread comes on, and the passover must be killed; and Peter and John go to prepare it. According to the Lord's word, the place was given. "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:14-16.) It was the last act of communion of Christ with them. He eats with them: He will not drink. Another cup was before Him. As for this cup, they were to take it, and divide it among themselves. It was not the Lord's Supper, but the paschal cup. He was about to drink of a far different cup, which His Father would give Him the anti-type of the passover, and the basis of the Lord's Supper. But as to the cup before them, He says, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." It was about to come morally; for Luke holds to that great principle the kingdom of God was about to be established in what you may call the Christian system. The phrase in Luke does not import some future dispensation or state of things about to be above or below, in visible power, but an imminent coming of God's kingdom, really and truly here. The other Gospels connect it with the future; Luke speaks of what was to be made good shortly "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

Meanwhile, He gives them also a new thing. (Luke 22:19-20.) He took bread with thanksgiving, brake it, and gave to them, saving, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant* of my blood, which is shed for you." It was not the point with Luke to say "for many," while this was most appropriate in the Gospel of Matthew, because it intimates the extending of the efficacy of Christ's blood beyond the Jew. The old covenant which condemned was limited. The new covenant (or, rather, the blood of the rejected Christ, the Son of man, on which it was based) refused such narrow barriers. In Luke the same thing, occurs here, as we said applied to His account of the sermon on the mount. It is more personal, and hence deals more closely with the heart and conscience. How many a man acknowledges justification by faith in a general sense, who, the moment you make it personal, would shrink from taking the place of a justified man, as if this would be too much for God to give him! But, in truth it is impossible to go on with God aright, until the personal question is settled by divine grace. So the Lord here settles it for them personally. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you."

* "Testament" is wrong here, and, indeed, everywhere else in the New Testament, save in the parenthesis ofHebrews 9:16-17; Hebrews 9:16-17.

"And truly the Son of man goeth,......... but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!" An awful moral contrast rises before the spirit of the Saviour. Thus He felt it: as it is said elsewhere, "He was troubled." There is much vagueness in minds as to this merging all in the atonement, to the great detriment of their distinctness even in holding the atonement itself. To me it is a grievous thing, this denial practically of a large part of the sufferings of Christ. Pushed out, it rests on a want of faith in the real humanity of the Lord. I take for granted now that there is a firm hold of His bearing God's wrath on the cross. But even where that is maintained in a general way, at least, it is an awful thing to deny any part of His moral glory; and what is it but denying, this, to shut out those real sufferings which prove the extent and character of His humiliation, exalt and endear Himself in our eyes, and issue in the richest streams of comfort for His saints, who can afford to lose none of His sympathy?

Now, the Lord Jesus did feel the traitor's heartless ways (and we may learn it yet more from Psalms 109:1-31.) Surely also we ought to feel it, instead of merely treating it as a thing, that must be, and which Scripture prepares us for, or which God's goodness turns to gracious ends. All true enough; but are these the platitudes that content us before His troubled spirit? Or is not the sense of His sorrow to fill the heart in presence of this ineffable love, which endured all things for the elect's sake? Yea, it was from all: our Lord has to meet shame in those He loved best. "They began to enquire among themselves which of them it was that should do this thing." (Ver. Luke 22:23; Luke 22:23.) There was honesty in these hearts; but what ignorance! what unbrokenness of self! "There was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted greatest." Other evangelists, as well as Luke, mention that, when He was in the midst of His miracles and teaching, they were full of their unseemly rivalry; Luke mentions it where it was beyond comparison most painful and humiliating in presence of the communion of His body and His blood, and when they had just heard of the presence of the traitor in their midst, who was offering to sell their Master for thirty pieces of silver! "And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth." What grace! what a pattern! But forget not the warning. The patronizing, of the lordly benefactor has no place in Christ's mind for His followers. To serve was the Lord's place: may we prize it! (Verses Luke 22:24-27.)

Another touching, and beautiful trait in our Lord's dealing is here worthy of remark. He tells the disciples that it was they who had continued with Him in His temptations. In Matthew and Mark, and even in John, their forsaking of Christ is very conspicuous a little later. Luke alone tells how graciously He noticed their perseverance with Himself in His temptations. Both, of course, were perfectly true. In Luke it was the reckoning of grace. It was really the Lord who had deigned to continue with them, and had sustained their faltering steps; but He could say, "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It is always thus in grace. Matthew and Mark tell us the sad truth that, when He needed the disciples most, they all forsook Him and fled. His rejection was complete; and Old Testament Scripture was amply fulfilled. But, in view of the Gentile calling, New Testament grace has here a happier task.

Again, it is a scene peculiar to Luke, that, in the presence of the Saviour's death, Satan sifts one of the chief followers that belonged to the Saviour. But the Lord turns the sifting, and even the downfall of the saint to ultimate and great blessing not for that soul only but for others. How mighty, and wise, and good the ways of grace! not only its reckoning, but its experiences and its end! It was Simon that furnished the material. "Simon, Simon," says the Lord, "Satan hath desired [demanded] to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Simon, sadly ignorant of himself, is full of bold promises to go to prison or to death; but, says the Lord, "Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me." All the evangelists record the fall; Luke alone records Christ's gracious prayer for, and purpose in, his restoration.

Then comes in another communication of our Saviour not more interesting than full of instruction. It is the contrast of the condition of the disciples during His ministry, and that which must be now that He was going to die. It was indeed concurrent with a change of vast import for Himself not awaiting His death, but in many respects beginning before it. The sense of His rejection and His approaching death not only pressed on the Saviour's spirit, but more or less also affects the disciples, who were under the pressure especially of what was done by men. "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors [or], [rather, lawlessness ἀνόμων ]: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." It is not surprising that the disciples at that time failed to seize His meaning. Though all the rest of His teaching might have taught them better, they took His words in a material sense, and conceived that He urged them to take a literal sword. It is evident He took up the figure of a sword and purse to show, that instead of counting any more on miraculous resources, they must in future use, according to the measure of their personal faith, whatever God furnished them with; that is, they must employ natural things for the Lord, instead of being, as hitherto, shielded by supernatural power in the midst of their foes. We find them afterwards using miracles; but it was for others. In their earlier mission it was never needed. No blow fell upon them. No prison closed its doors upon one of the twelve, or of the seventy. They traversed the length and breadth of the land, everywhere bearing their plain, solemn testimony, ever guarded by God's power: just like their Master Himself. We see how truly miraculous this power was apart from any exertion of it on their own behalf. But now all was to change; and the disciple must be as his Master. Jesus was going to suffer. They must make up their minds to the same thing. Of course, they are not excluded from but exhorted to, the looking up to God, and using faithfully whatever means the Lord gave them.

This, I apprehend, is the clear meaning of His altered language here. The Messiah was about to be openly cut off. The arm that had upheld them, and the shield that had been over them, are removed. So it was with Him. He was now about to face death; first in spirit, then in fact. Such was ever His way. Everything was in that order. He was surprised by nothing. He was not like a mere man who waited till he could not help following, and then went in steel through the trouble. This may be the way of men, to avoid what they can, and think as little as possible of what is painful and disagreeable. It may even be according to men's ideas of a hero, but it is not the truth of Christ. On the contrary, though the true God, He was a true man, and a holy sufferer, having a heart that felt every thing: this is the truth of Christ as man. Therefore He takes all from God, and feels all, as it really was for His glory.

Accordingly our Saviour, at the mount of Olives, (ver. Luke 22:39-46; Luke 22:39-46) shows how true what I have just asserted is; for there it is that He is found first of all telling them to pray, lest they should enter into temptation. Temptation may come and test the heart; but our entering into it is quite another thing. "Pray that ye enter not into temptation. And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." Still farther to show its character, and His unimpeachable relation to God, as well as how really He was a suffering man, "there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." So difficult is the path of faith for men in one direction or another, that (in earlier days when, in the midst of adversaries and full of superstition, men yet clung to the stainless honour of the Son of God)the timid orthodox ventured on the bold step of expunging verses Luke 22:44-45; for what, after all, is so adventurous as this Uzzah-like anxiety for the ark of God? They thought it impossible that the Lord Jesus could suffer thus. Little did they estimate the depth unfathomable of the cross, when God hid His face from Him. Had they discerned this better, and been simple in the faith of His real manhood, and held to the written word about His sufferings on and before the cross, they had not been so easily stumbled. But they were not simple, understood in the Scriptures, and accordingly dared, some to stigmatize these verses, others to strike them out. In modern days they manage things both more prudently and more effectually. They may not obelize or obliterate; but they do not believe them. Men pass them over as if there was nothing for the soul in them, as if the Saviour Son of God condescended to a show, a pantomime, instead of enduring the severest conflict and anguish that ever had been the portion of a human heart on this earth. Never was any thing but reality in Jesus; but if in the days of His flesh there was one passage more affecting than another, any thing which more than another presents to us His sorrows clearly, graphically and with solemn instruction for us, anything for God Himself above all glorifying (the cross alone excepted) it was this very scene where Jesus avoids and wards off no suffering, but bends to every stroke, (and what was He spared?) seeing God's hand in all.

Now their hour was come, and the power of darkness. Before this they could not lay hands upon Him; but now, the active work done, and Himself definitively refused, Jesus accepts all humiliation, shame, and suffering. But he does not see man merely. He does not look at the devil, or Jews, or Gentiles. He feels all man did and said, and owns His Father. He knew full well that His Father could have hindered every pang had He been so pleased could have turned Israel's heart could have broken the nations. But now the Jew is left to abhor Him, the Gentile to despise and crucify Him. Against the holy servant Jesus whom God had anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathering together; but was it not to do whatsoever God's hand and God's counsel determined before to be done? He saw God His Father above and behind all the secondary instruments, and bowed and blessed, even while He prayed with blood-sweat. He would erect no barricade of miracles to shelter Himself. To weigh before God such circumstances as then surrounded Jesus, to anticipate in His presence what was coming, did not lessen, but rather increased the depth of all; and so we find Him praying earnestly to His Father that, if it were possible, the cup should pass away from Him. But it was not possible; and so He adds, "Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." Both were perfect. It would have been hardness, not love, had the cup been treated as a light thing: but this could never be with Jesus. It was part of the very perfection of Jesus that he felt and deprecated the awful cup. For what was in that cup? The wrath of God. How could He wish for the wrath of God? It was right to deprecate it: it was like Jesus, notwithstanding, to say, "Thy will be done." Both the deprecation and the acceptance were thoroughly perfect both equally in their due place and season. Who fails to see it, or would harbour a doubt, that knows who Jesus was, and what the glory of His person? It is not a question, however, of His merely being God; and you destroy the value of the suffering if you do not give full place to His humanity. Not that His Godhead ever made His suffering less; else the result would have been some nondescript estate which was neither Godhead nor manhood, but somewhat made up of both. It was an early error to suppose an impassible Christ. There is no worse invention against the truth, unless it be the lie which denies Him to be God the Son. An unsuffering impassible Christ is of Satan, not the true God and eternal life. It is a false chimera of the enemy. Be assured, that if the suffering be so real and precious to God, it is a dangerous thing to pare down, fritter away, or deny any part of it. For us it is the question of what God tells us in His word of the sufferings of Christ not whether we understand all He says about them. Be assured that we know but in part, and have much to learn, especially of that which does not touch our own immediate necessities; but there is one thing we are always responsible for and that is, to submit to God, to believe Him, even though we enter very little into the depths of all that He has written for us of Jesus.

Only this I would add. It does not become such as say they do not understand this or that, to take the place of being judges. It is intelligible that those who know should judge; not so, as it appears to me, that people should take the place of judging who confessedly do not know. It were wise, not to say becoming humility, to wait and learn.

Next we see Judas, who approaches and kisses Christ: the Lord of glory is betrayed by the apostle. The final scene comes on apace; and not more surely, according to the word of Christ, the murderous malice of the priests, than the energy of Peter, so fatal, to himself, who could not face the difficulty into which his self-confidence carried him. He that could not pray with his Master, but slept in the garden, breaks down without his Master before a servant girl. The rest fled. John tells the tale of his own shame, with Peter's. The scene is complete. There is not a witness for Jesus now. He is alone. Man has it apparently all his own way, in mockery, blows, and blasphemy; but yet he is only accomplishing the will, the purpose, and the grace of God. (Ver. Luke 22:63-65.) The chapter closes with Jesus before the council of elders, chief priests, and scribes. "Art thou the Christ?" was too late now: they had proved that they would not believe. From henceforth [not] ["hereafter,'' as in the A.V.] shall the Son of man be sitting on the right hand of the power of God. It is the well-known transition, we see everywhere, on the rejection of the Messiah. "Art thou then the Son of God?" said they all. He owns to the truth; and they need no more to condemn Him.

In Luke 23:1-56 Jesus is found not before Pilate only, but Herod; and the two men who heretofore hated each other are here reconciled, now that it is a question of rejecting Jesus. It is only Luke who gives us this touch. What a league of peace over the rejection of the Saviour! At any rate the scorning of Jesus proceeds; and Pilate, carried away against his conscience by the will of the people, gave sentence that it should be as they required. Jesus is led away to the cross, and Simon is compelled to bear it after Jesus; for now man shows his needless cruelty in every form

The women that were there lament with the crowd after Jesus: there was much of human feeling in this, though not faith or real love. Why not lament for themselves; for in truth there were days of sorrow coming, when they should say, "Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare; and the paps that never gave suck." "Then they shall begin to say to the mountains fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" Jesus was the green tree; and if Jesus was so treated, what should be their fate, as set forth fully by that dry tree, which was Israel? Undoubtedly Israel ought to have been the green tree of promise; but it was only a dry tree waiting, for judgment. But Jesus, the green tree(where there was all the vigour of holy ways and obedience), was far from honour, and now on His way to the cross. Such was man, to whom He had been delivered! What would be God's judgment of man? (VersesLuke 23:27-31; Luke 23:27-31.)

And they crucified Jesus between two malefactors the one on the right hand, and the other on the left and Jesus says, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." They part His raiment, and cast lots for it. The people behold, the rulers deride, and the soldiers mock; but a superscription was written over Him in Greek, and Roman, and Hebrew letters This is the King of the Jews. (VersesLuke 23:32-38; Luke 23:32-38.)

Jesus works the great work of salvation in the heart of one of the malefactors. It was a real work within: it was not merely a work ever so perfectly done outside. Most assuredly there never was a soul saved but the work was done for him done alone by Jesus He alone suffering, the sinner saved. But where the heart knows the work done for the soul, there is a work done in that very soul. So it was here: and it is of great importance that those who maintain the work for, should equally maintain the work in. Even in this case, where the effect was produced rapidly, the Spirit of God has given us the great moral traits of it. First of all appears a hatred of sin in the fear of God; then the repentant heart rebukes the shameless evil of his fellow, who feels that it is, least of all, a time thus to sin boldly in the presence of death, and of God's judgment. "We indeed justly; but this man hath done nothing amiss." Evidently there was more than righteousness here. There was a sense of grace, as well as of sin, and sensitiveness about God's will. There was delight in "this man," Jesus, whose holiness made such an impression, that the poor felon, now a believer, could challenge all the world, and feel no more doubt of the Lord's blameless life than if he had witnessed it all through. How great is the simplicity and assurance of faith! Who was he that could correct the judgment of priests or governor? "This man hath done nothing amiss." It was a crucified robber! He forgot Himself in Christ the Lord thus vindicated. Then he turns to Jesus, and says, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Yes! and Jesus will remember could not put Him aside. He never cast out either a soul that came to Him, or a prayer that was founded on His glory, and desired association with Him. It could not be. He came down to associate with the poorest and feeblest on earth. He is now gone on high to associate with Himself there those who were once, possibly, the worst on the earth, now with Himself above, cleansed of course (need we say it?) cleansed by water and blood. And so with this soul whom grace had now touched. "Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom." What more convincing proof that the man had not an anxiety about his sins? for if he had, he would, of course, have put it forward. He would have said, "Lord, do not remember my sins." Nothing of the sort was uttered, but "Lord, remember me." What would Christ's kingdom be to him, if his sins were not blotted out? He so counted on His grace, that no doubt or question remained, and he asks to be remembered by Jesus at His advent, ascribing the kingdom to Him who was hanging on the cross. He was right; and Jesus replies with ineffable grace, and according to that style so worthy of God (compare Psalms 132:1-18), which not only answers the prayer of faith, but invariably surpasses it. God must be God in His recognition of faith, as everywhere else. We saw on the mount of transfiguration that there is a blessedness beyond that of the kingdom, where government is not in question. This is not the theme predicted by prophets, but a glory which the person of Jesus alone can account for, and His grace alone introduce to. So here Jesus says to the converted robber, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise" at once, by virtue of His blood, the companion of Christ in the garden of divine joy and delight. (Verses Luke 23:39-43.)

Then the Spirit of God notices the darkness which reigned, and not merely in the lower air around the earth; for the sun was darkened, the splendid orb of natural light, which rules the day. The veil of the temple, too, which characterized the whole system of the Jewish religion, was rent from top to bottom. This was not the effect of an earthquake, nor of other physical causes. The natural light disappeared, and Judaism vanished, that a new and true light might shine, making him who saw it free of the holiest of all. Luke groups the external facts together, and leaves the Lord's death more alone with its moral adjuncts.

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Here there is no cry to God in the sense of being forsaken, when His soul was made an offering for sin. This was given appropriately by Matthew and Mark. Nor is it as the consciously divine person, the Son, pronouncing the work finished for which He had come. It is the ever perfect man, Christ Jesus, with unwavering confidence committing His spirit into His Father's keeping. (Compare Psalms 16:1-11; Psalms 31:1-24) It was the atoning One. On the cross, and nowhere else, was expiation effected; there was His blood shed; there His death, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet knew what it was to have the face of God hid from Him in judgment of sin our sin. But the words here are no expression of His suffering, as thus abandoned and atoning, but of the peaceful departure of His spirit, as man, into the hands of God the Father. He is drinking the cup in Matthew and Mark; He, the true, but rejected Messiah, the faithful servant, now suffering for sin, who had laboured in grace here below. But here the Saviour is viewed in His absolute dependence and trust in Him, whom He had set before Him, as in life always, so with equal affiance of heart in death. It was the province of John to show Him even then above all circumstances in personal glory. It is beyond all controversy, that here the human side of Christ's death is more vividly portrayed than in any of the Gospels perfect, but human; just as in John it is the divine side, though care is taken to prove particularly there its reality, as well as the witness of its efficacy for sinful man. The consistency of this with all we have seen in Luke, from first to last, is unquestionable: Son of God of the Highest, as of David also; but He is emphatically, and in every detail, the Son of man.

Remark here the absence of a crowd of circumstances of the deepest interest to the Jew, when grace makes him meek, and obedient in heart of solemn warning to him, whatever the unbelief which shuts up his heart and seals his ears, to the truth Here is no dream and message from Pilate's wife; here no awful episode of Judas . In remorse and despair, casting the price of innocent blood into the very sanctuary, and going away to hang himself; here no imprecation of His blood on them and on their children; here no detail of the guilty people's unconscious accomplishment of the living oracles of God in the Psalms and Prophets; nor here any allusion to the earthquake, and the rent rocks, and opened graves, or the subsequent appearing of risen saints to many in the holy city. All this has its due place in the Gospel for the circumcision. Luke tells us what had the largest bearing on the Gentiles, on the heart, its wants, and its affections. We see the people beholding, the rulers also with them sneering, the soldiers mocking with vulgar brutality, but Jesus dealing in ineffable grace with a justly crucified malefactor. No doubt there was the deepest of suffering for Himself. Certainly, too, His suffering, though not confined to the cross, there culminated, as there alone was sin judged; there God's necessary intolerance of it was proved, when only, but most really, imputed to Christ. Thus, the only perfect man, the last Adam, who was there rejected of the Jews, and despised of men, with a loud voice, which denied the exhaustion of nature in His death, commended His spirit, as man, to His Father. It is not here, therefore, One speaking in the sense of God's abandonment (as we saw in Matthew and Mark), though this cup He had, indeed, drank to the dregs. But in this Gospel the last words are of One who, whatever the forsaking of God for sin, was perfectly tranquil, and peacefully committed Himself to His Father. It is the act and language of Him whose confidence was unlimited in the One He was going to. He had come to do His will, and had done it in the face of growing scorn and rejection; and God had not guarded Him from the murderous hate of man, but contrariwise, delivered Him into their hands, greater things being in counsel and accomplishment than if He had been received. The truth is the sum of what all tell us. Those who believe God, instead of being fettered to the traditions of a school, good or bad, must open their mouth wide for Him to fill with His good things old and new. He who on the cross tasted, for expiation, the unutterable woe of which Matthew and Mark speak, is the same Jesus who, Luke tells us, never wavered for a moment, not merely in His obedience, but in unreserved confidence in God; and the expression of this, not of atonement, I read in the precious words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." (VersesLuke 23:44-46; Luke 23:44-46.)

Accordingly, the centurion is mentioned here as owning Jesus to be "a righteous man," whatever man might have judged or done. The people seem conscious that it was all over with them stricken in heart over a deed they could not but feel to be dreadful, though hardly defined. God does not leave man without witness. But, as usual, with men without the revealed light of God, though conscious when sin is done that there is something utterly wrong it is soon forgotten; so here, though not without the sense that the case was desperate, they go not only as sheep without a shepherd, but stumble in the dark night. All His acquaintances and the women are seen in their sorrow not vain surely not; but still they stood far off: (VersesLuke 23:46-49; Luke 23:46-49.)

Yet was this the moment when, spite of a traitorous disciple, spite of another too confident that denied Him with oaths, spite of all who ought to have been faithful forsaking and fleeing, spite of the distant and saddened lookers on who had once followed Him devotedly, God emboldens a man of high station, who might have been then the least expected by us (and, as we are told elsewhere, Nicodemus). Joseph of Arimathea was a man that had waited for the kingdom of God for some time, a good man and just, and a real believer, though he had shrunk from open confession of the Lord Jesus; but now, when fear might naturally have more than ever operated to keep him back, grace made him bold. This, at least, was quite right, and like the God of all grace. If the death of our Lord does not unlock a man's heart and tongue, I do not know what will. So this timid Joseph waxes valiant in fight. The honourable counsellor renounced the expediency and prudence of the past, horrified, no doubt, at their counsel and deed to which he had not assented. But now he does more: he add to his faith virtue. He goes boldly to Pilate, and begs the body of Jesus, Which, being obtained, is worthily laid in the rock-hewn sepulchre, wherein never had man beenlaid. (Verse Luke 23:53.)

"And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.'' (Ver. Luke 23:54-56.) It was affection, but with little intelligence. Their love lingered. over the scene of His death and burial, without for the present in the least realizing, that life which was to be put forth soon so gloriously. Had they not heard His words? Would He, would God, not make them good?

On the morrow of the sabbath, very early indeed in the morning, these Galilean women were there, and some others with them. (Luke 24:1) And they found the stone rolled away, but not the body of Jesus. They were not alone; angels appeared. Two men in shining array stood by these perplexed saints. "And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, [what a rebuke to their unbelief!] Why seek ye the living (One) among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you while he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words." (Ver. Luke 24:5-8; Luke 24:5-8.) This last is ever a great point with Luke the emphatic value always of any part of God's word, but especially of the words of Jesus.

Accordingly, after this was duly reported to the apostles and the rest, one like another incredulous, we have the visit of Peter (accompanied, as John lets us know, by himself), who sees confirmation enough, and departed, wondering, in himself at that which was come to pass. (Verses Luke 24:9-12.)

Luke then ushers in another scene, still more precious, peculiar in its details at least to himself the journey to Emmaus, where Jesus joins Himself to the two downcast disciples, who discoursed, as they went, on the irreparable loss they had sustained. Jesus hears this tale of sorrow from their lips, brings out the state of their hearts, and then opens the Scriptures, instead of merely appealing to the facts in the way of evidence. This employment of the Scriptures by our Lord is very significant. It is the word of God which is the truest, deepest, weightiest testimony, even though the risen Jesus Himself were there, and its living, demonstration in person. But it is the written word which, as the apostle himself shows, is the sole adequate safeguard for the perilous times of the last days. Here, too, the loved companion of Paul proves, in the history of the resurrection, the value of the Scriptures. The word of God here the Old Testament interpreted by Jesus is the most valuable means for ascertaining the mind of God. Every Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable yea, able to make us "wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus." Hence our Lord expounds to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. What a sample that day was of the walk of faith! Henceforth it was not a question of a living, Messiah on the earth, but of Him that was dead and risen, now seen by faith in the word of God. On the face of the account, this was the great living lesson that our Lord was teaching, us through the two disciples. (Verses Luke 24:13-29.)

But there was more. How is He to be known? There is but one way that can be trusted in which we can know Jesus. There are those in Christendom that descant upon Jesus as ignorant of His glory as a Jew or a Mahometan. Our own day has seen how men can speak and write eloquently of Jesus as a man here below, all the while serving Satan denying His name, His person, His work, when they flatter themselves they are honouring Him, like the weeping women (Luke 23:27), without a grain of faith in His glory or His grace. Hence was it of all importance that we should learn wherein He is to be known. Thus Jesus sets forth the Only way in which He can be rightly known, or that can be confided in. On this alone God can put His seal. The seal of the Holy Ghost is unknown until there is the submission of faith to the death of Jesus. And so our Lord breaks bread with the disciples. It was not the Lord's Supper; but Jesus made use of that act of breaking the bread significantly, which the Lord's Supper brings before us continually. In it, as we know, bread is broken the sign of His death. Thus Jesus was pleased, Himself with them, that the truth of His death should flash upon the two souls at Emmaus. He was made known unto them in the breaking of bread in that most simple but striking action which symbolises His death. He had blessed, broken, and was giving the bread to them, when their eyes were opened, and they recognised their risen Lord. (VerseLuke 24:30; Luke 24:30.)

There is a third supplemental point, which I only touch on His instant disappearance after He was made known to them in the sign of His death. This is also characteristic of Christians. We walk by faith, not by sight. (VerseLuke 24:31; Luke 24:31.)

Thus the great evangelist, who exhibits what is most real for man's heart now, and what most of all maintains the glory of God in Christ, binds these things together for our instruction. Though Scripture was perfectly expounded by Jesus, and though hearts burned as they heard of these wondrous things, still it must be shown in concentrated form that the knowledge which alone can be commended by God or trusted by man is this Jesus known in that which brings His death before the soul. The death of Jesus is the sole foundation of safety for a sinful man. This is the true way of knowing Jesus for a Christian. Anything short of this, anything other than this, whatever supplants it as fundamental truth, is false. Jesus is dead and risen, and so must be known, if He is to be known aright. "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."

And so, that same hour, we see the disciples returning to Jerusalem, and finding the eleven there, who say, "The Lord hath risen, and appeared unto Simon." (Verses Luke 24:32-34.) Here we have nothing about Galilee. In Matthew, Galilee is the quarter especially noticed. A rejected Messiah, fitly and according to prophecy, finds Himself in Galilee, the despised place. It was so during His life and public ministry (and hence it figures in Mark so prominently). He takes the same place now after His death and resurrection, there resuming relations with His disciples. The godly remnant of the Jews must know the rejected Messiah there. His resurrection did not terminate their path of rejection. The Church knows Him yet more blessedly as ascended, and itself one with Him on high; and its rejection is even more decided. However, in Matthew, Galilee is the sign for a converted Jewish remnant till He come to reign in power and glory. The remnant of the last days will know what it is to be cast outside Jerusalem also, and it is as outcasts that they will find real deepening of faith and due preparation of heart for receiving the Lord when he appears in the clouds of heaven. This Galilean resort Luke does not give here. Substantially Mark gives Galilee for the active life of the Saviour like Matthew, because, as has been said, there His ministry was chiefly exercised, and only occasionally in Jerusalem or elsewhere. Therefore the evangelist of the ministry of Jesus draws attention to the place in which He had ministered most Galilee; but even he does not speak of it exclusively. Luke, on the contrary, says nothing of Galilee at this point. The reason seems to me manifest. His theme is the moral state of the disciples, the way of Christ's grace, the Christian path of faith, the place of the word of God, and the person of Christ, only known safely, according to God, in that which sets forth His death. This at least must he the basis.

There is another truth necessary to be known and proved, His real resurrection, who stood in the midst of them with a "Peace to you;" not without His death, but founded on it, and thus declared. So, in the next scene at Jerusalem, this finds its full display; for the Lord Jesus comes into their midst, and partakes of food before their eyes. There was His body; it was risen. Who could longer doubt that it was really the same Jesus who died, and will yet come in glory? "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself!" As we know, the Lord deigns to go yet farther in John; but there it was to convict Thomas's unbelief, as well as with a mysterious typical meaning behind. He would correct the previously absent and still doubting disciple; it is the sight that is the point there. This is not the question here, but rather the reality of the resurrection, and the identity of Jesus risen with Him they had known as their Master, and withal as still man, not a spirit, but having flesh and bones, and capable of eating with them. (VersesLuke 24:36-43; Luke 24:36-43.)

After this our Lord speaks once more of what was written in Moses and prophets and psalms concerning Him. (Ver. Luke 24:44.) It is the word of God again brought out; not merely to two of them, but its unspeakable value for them all.

Further, He opens their understanding to understand the Scriptures, and gives them their great commission, but bids them remain in Jerusalem till endued with power from on high, when He sends them the promise of the Father. (Ver. Luke 24:45-49.) Here the Lord does not say, "Make disciples of all the Gentiles, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This most fitly has its place in Matthew, spite (yea, because of) His rejection. The suffering but now risen Son of man takes the universal field of the world, and sends His disciples among all the nations to make disciples, and baptize them into the name of the Trinity. It is not, therefore, the old limits of Israel and the lost sheep, but He extends the knowledge of His name and mission outside. Instead of bringing Gentiles to see the glory of Jehovah shining on Zion, they are to be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as now revealed fully; and (instead of what Moses commanded) "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

In Luke we have not the charge of the work committed to the workmen, as in Mark, with signatures of God's gracious power accompanying; but here it is the message of a Saviour dead and risen, the Second Man, according to Scripture, and the moral need of man and the grace of God, who proclaims in His name repentance and remission to all the nations or Gentiles. Therefore, just as we have seen the resurrection of our Lord in connection with Jerusalem, where He had been crucified, so He would have the preaching begun there, not going away, as it were, from the guilty city alas! the holy city, and only the more guilty, because such was its name and privilege. But here, on the contrary, by virtue of Christ's death who put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, all disappears in the presence of the infinite grace of God all blessing secured, if there be but the acceptance of Christ and His work. Hence He says, "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer." No doubt man was guilty beyond measure and without excuse. There were mighty purposes of God to be accomplished; and not only must He rise on the third day, but He enjoins that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name repentance necessarily showing the great moral work in man, remission of sins being God's great provision of grace through redemption to clear the conscience. Both were to be preached in His name. Who that believes and understands the cross could dream longer of man's worthiness? Repentance, so far from allowing it, is the perception and confession that there is no good in man, in me; it is wrought by grace, and is inseparable from faith. It is man giving up himself as altogether bad, man resting upon God as altogether good to the bad, and both proved in the remission of sins by Jesus, whom man, Jew and Gentile, crucified and slew. Remission of sins therefore, with repentance, was to be preached in His name. This was the sole warrant and ground. They were to be preached to all the nations, beginning with Jerusalem.

In Matthew the point appears to be the rejection of Jerusalem, the rejecter, because of its Messiah, the discipular remnant starting from the mountain in Galilee; and the presence of the Lord being guaranteed till the end of the age, when other changes come. In Luke all disappears, except grace, in presence of sin and misery. Absolute grace begins, therefore, with the spot which needed it most, and Jerusalem is expressly named.

We have seen how this chapter settles, if I may so express it, the Christian system on its proper basis, bringing out its chief peculiarities with striking force and beauty. More remains of similar character, especially the very distinct privileges of the understanding opened to understand, and the power of the Holy Ghost; the one given then, the other not till Pentecost. "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day....... And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Thus the Holy Ghost was not given yet as an indwelling person, but rather a reiteration of the Father's promise. Remaining in Jerusalem they should be clothed with power an essential thing for Christianity, and quite distinct from spiritual intelligence already conferred, as is apparent also in Peter's word and way in Acts 1:1-26. In the Gospel of John where the person of Jesus shines so conspicuously, the Holy Ghost is set forth personally, with equal distinctness at least, in Luke 14:1-35; Luke 16:1-31. But here this is not the point, but His power, although He be, of course, a person. It is rather the promise of the Spirit's power to act in man that is brought before us. They, like Christ, must be "anointed with the Holy Ghost, and with power;" they must wait for "power from on high" from the risen and ascended Man.

But even so, the Lord Himself would not terminate the Gospel thus. "And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them." It was a spot that used to be most precious to Him, and, observe it well, was not less precious to Him after He rose from the dead. There is no greater mistake than to suppose, that an object of affection to Him before He died ceases to be such to Him when risen. Hence it would seem to give an open contradiction to those that deny the reality of the resurrection body, and of its proper affections. He was indeed a real man, albeit the Lord of glory. He led them out, then, as far as Bethany, the retreat of the Saviour, to which His heart turned in the days of His flesh. "And he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." He that filled with blessing the hearts devoted to Him in His life, was still blessing them when He was separated from them for heaven. "And they worshipped him." Such was the fruit of His blessing, and of His great grace. "And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God." It was meet it should be so. He that blesses us not only communicates a blessing, but gives the power that returns to God a blessing the power of real worship communicated to human hearts on the earth, by the Lord Jesus now risen from the dead. They "were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God;" but they were associated in life and love with One whose glory was far above them or any conceivable precincts of the earth, and were soon to be made one with Him, and to be the vessels of His power by the energy of the Holy Ghost, who would make this evident in due time.

May the Lord be pleased to bless His own word, and to grant that those who love Him and it may approach the scripture with still more confidence! If aught which has been said here tends to remove somewhat of mist from any eyes, encourages, simplifies, or otherwise helps in reading God's word, surely my little labour will not have been in vain, either now or for eternity. The Lord alone can make His own word sanctifying. But it is much to believe it to be what it really is, not (as unbelief thinks) a field of darkness and uncertainty, requiring light upon it, but a light itself, which communicates light to the dark, through the power of the Holy Ghost revealing Christ. May we prove that it is indeed like Christ, of whom it speaks, needed, real, and unerring light to our souls; that it is also the sole, adequate, and irrefragable witness of divine wisdom and grace, but this only as revealed in and by Christ! I take it to be a token of great good that, as in early days, the person of Christ was not only the fiercest battleground and prime object of the final struggle of the apostles on the earth, but was the means whereby the Spirit of God wrought to give a deeper and deepening enjoyment of the truth and grace of God more profoundly searching, no doubt, but at the same time more invigorating for the saints), so no otherwise, unless I be greatly mistaken, is it now. I remember the time, though unable to boast of any very lengthened scene to look back on as a Christian, when at least almost all for I will not say all were more engaged in attacking ecclesiastical error, and spreading much of kindred and other truth (and, in its place and time, important truth). But it was truth that did not so directly build up the soul, nor did it so immediately concern the Lord Himself. And although not a few, who then seemed strong and courageous enough, are gone to the winds (and a similar sifting still goes on, and will to the end), yet sure am I that in the midst of all these troubles and humiliations God has been elevating the standard of Christ for those who are firm and faithful. God has shown that His name is, as ever, a stumbling-stone for unbelief; but for the simple and spiritual a sure foundation, and most precious. The Lord grant that even these our studies of the Gospels, which have been necessarily curt and cursory, may nevertheless give an impulse not only to younger saints, but to those who may be ever so old; for assuredly there is no one, whatever may be his maturity, who will not be all the better for a fuller acquaintance with Him who is from the beginning.