Introductory remarks:
In the original there is no chapter break, for Christ continued His teaching ministry begun in the last chapter verse forty-seven. This chapter may be outlined as follows: the authority of Jesus questioned vv. 1-8; the parable of the vineyard and the tenants vv. 9-19; paying taxes to Caesar vv. 20-26; the question about the resurrection vv. 27-40; the question about David's Son vv. 41-44; the denouncing of the scribes vv. 45-47.
The Authority of Jesus Questioned
(Matt. 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33)
Verse 1, "And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,"
LGT "And it came to pass on one of those days, as He was teaching the people in the temple, and announcing the good news, the chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders came up,"
As I said in the introduction this chapter is a continuation of the last chapter. As Christ was teaching day by day, that on the morning of one of those days, the religious rabble came up to Him to begin to question Him. This delegation from the Sanhedrim decided to come to the temple while Jesus was teaching and attack Him. Jesus was more interested in announcing the good news of the gospel to the willing hearers, than wasting His time with the so-called religious leaders.
Verse 2, "And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? Or who is he that gave thee this authority?"
LGT "And spoke, saying to Him, Tell us by what authority do You do these thing, or who it is who gave You this authority?"
This religious delegation was interested in one thing only, that is, to trap Jesus into saying something that they could trap Him, and accuse Him of blasphemy, and then they could kill Him and get rid of Him once and for all.
William Barclay remarks:
"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 the people. 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."
Edersheim notes:
"From the formal manner in which the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders are introduced, and from the circumstance that they so met Christ immediately on His entry into the Temple, we can scarcely doubt that a meeting, although informal, of the authorities had been held to concert measures against the growing danger. Yet, even so, cowardice as well as cunning marked their procedure. They dared not directly oppose Him, but endeavored, by attacking Him on the one point where He seemed to lay Himself open to it, to arrogate to themselves the appearance of strict legality, and so to run popular feeling against Him.
For, there was no principle more firmly established by universal consent than that authoritative teaching required previous authorization. Indeed, this logically followed from the principle of Rabbinism. All teaching must be authoritative, since it was traditional - approved by authority, and handed down from teacher to disciple. The highest honor of a scholar was, that he was like a well-plastered cistern, from which not a drop had leaked of what had been poured into it. The ultimate appeal in cases of discussion was always to some great authority, whether an individual Teacher or a Decree by the Sanhedrim. In this manner had the great Hillel first vindicated his claim to be the Teacher of his time and to decide the disputes then pending. And, to decide differently from authority, was either the mark of ignorant assumption or the outcome of daring rebellion, in either case to be visited with the ban."
Verse 3, "And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me."
LGT "And answering He said to them, I also will ask you a question, and you tell Me:"
Christ turns the tables on them and refuses to answer their question until they answer His question, literally logon a word.
Verse 4, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?"
LGT "The baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men?"
These religious rulers could not answer this question regarding His authority, until they answered the question regarding John's authority, without condemning themselves. So they went off and huddled together to try and come up with a logical answer.
Verses 5, 6, "And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, why then believed ye him not? But if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet."
LGT "And they reasoned together with themselves, saying, If we should say, From heaven, He will say, Why then did you not believe him? And if we should say, From man, all the people will stone us to death, for they are persuaded [that] John was a prophet."
They reasoned correctly; The problem with these religious rulers in not being able to find an answer is that they were unbelievers; an unbeliever can never find the correct answer to a spiritual dilemma, because they are spiritually discerned. Remember John would not baptize the scribes and Pharisees that came to him, because they would not repent; they believed they had no need of repentance.
William Barclay notes:
"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. Everyone knew how John had regarded Jesus and how he had considered himself only the forerunner 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 up 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."
Verse 7, "And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was."
LGT "And they answered, they knew not where."
They did not answer His question, because they could not answer it; they were unbelievers and therefore they were unable to answer Truth.
Verse 8, "And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."
LGT "And Jesus said to them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."
Proof positive they were unbelievers. For if they would have believed John's message, they would have believed Christ's message also. These unbelievers had one thing in mind; crucify Him! Christ refused to cast Pearls before swine.
The Parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants
(Matt. 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12)
Verse 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."
LGT "And He began to speak this parable to the people: A [certain] man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and left the country for a long time."
Christ turns back to the people after disposing of the question of the Pharisees, and begins to speak this parable concerning God's program for the coming Kingdom. The absence of the Lord Jesus Christ these long centuries gives man an opportunity to exercise his free will; and it also gives the believer an opportunity to earn eternal rewards.
William Barclay gives an historical note:
"The story itself is the kind of thing which could and did happen. Judea in the time of Jesus was in the throes of economic trouble and unrest. There was many an absentee landlord who let out his land in just 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."
Verse 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."
LGT "And at [the] season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, in order that they might give to him from the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen sent him away empty, having beat him."
At the proper season for the crop to be ripe, the owner of the vineyard sent his servant to collect the proper payment for their rental of the crop; and instead of making the proper payment; they beat his servant, and sent him back. This rental of the vineyard to husbandmen was very familiar to the Jews. The representation is this: the vineyard was the nation Israel; the tenants are the rulers over Israel; the servants are the prophets sent to Israel; the son, the Lord Jesus Himself.
Verse 11, "And again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty."
LGT "And he added to send another servant: but they, having beat him and dishonored [him], sent [him] away empty."
The first phrase of verse eleven is literally And he added to send another servant, which is a Hebraism, that is, the Hebrew way of stating something. Here we have the succession of the prophets, and the next is treated shamefully.
Verse 12, "And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also, and cast him out."
LGT "And he added to send a third: and they also, having wounded him, cast him out."
This verse displays the longsuffering nature of our God down through the Old Testament history of the Jews, of God sending prophet after prophet. Again they cast out the third prophet, representing the final prophet, John the Baptist.
Verse 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."
LGT "And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my son, the beloved one: perhaps having seen, him they will respect."
Luke adds this theological flavor I will send my son, the beloved one (cf. John 3:16), and then Perhaps or it may be they will honor him. The picture is clear, that Son is telling the people this parable.
Verse 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."
LGT "But having seen him, the husbandmen reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: let us kill him, in order that ours may become the inheritance."
The husbandmen (the rulers of the people) were at the time of this parable reasoning among themselves how they might kill Christ (vv. 1,2), and then they would have no opposition to their ruling over the people.
Verse 15, "So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What, therefore, shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?"
LGT "And having cast him forth outside the vineyard, they killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them?"
They took Jesus outside Jerusalem and crucified Him.
Edersheim describes the meaning of the parable thus:
"The owner of the vineyard, God, had let out His vineyard - the Theocracy - to His people of old. The covenant having been instituted, He withdrew, as it were - the former direct communication between Him and Israel ceased. Then in due season He sent 'His servants,' the prophets, to gather His fruits - they had had theirs in all the temporal and spiritual advantages of the covenant. But, instead of returning the fruits meet unto repentance, they only ill-treated His messengers, and that increasingly, even unto death. In His longsuffering He next sent on then same errand 'greater' than them - John the Baptist (Luke 7:26). And when he also received the same treatment, He sent last His own Son, Jesus Christ. His appearance made them feel, that it was now a decisive struggle for the vineyard - and so, in order to gain its possession for themselves, they cast the rightful heir out of His own possession, and then killed him!"
Verse 16, "He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid."
LGT "He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others. And having heard [it], they said, May it never be!"
The term 'God' is not in the original; the phrase is literally may it never be. "This pious protest of the defeated members of the Sanhedrim who began to see the turn of the parable against themselves" (Robertson). "Jesus Christ was the Son and He was telling these religious rulers exactly what was in their hearts and minds to do with Him. They were going to crucify Him, and God was going to permit it" (McGee).
Verse 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?"
LGT "But He looking at them, said, What then is that has been written, and stands written: [The] stone which they that build rejected, this is become [the] head of the corner?"
Jesus was telling them that they will kill Him, but they will not destroy the eternal purpose of God; through the death of Christ He did become the Chief Corner Stone. This quotation of Jesus is from Psalm 118:22,23.
Verse 18, "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."
LGT "Everyone that falls upon that Stone will be broken: but on whoever it may fall, it will scatter him as dust."
The Lord spoke this parable against the religious rulers in predicting His crucifixion at their hands.
"Today you and I can fall on that stone, who is Christ Jesus, and be saved - that is, we have to come to Him as a sinner, broken in spirit, broken in heart. When we do this, we are on the Foundation that no man can lay, which is Jesus Christ the Stone. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). Daniel tells of that Stone which will fall in judgment someday and grind to powder the nations that reject Him (see Dan. 2). What the Lord is saying in this parable is as clear as the noonday sun. It could not have been misunderstood" (McGee).
Verse 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."
LGT "And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on Him in that hour, and they feared the people, for they knew that He speaks this parable against them."
The Sanhedrim was angry enough at that very hour to lay hands on Jesus and kill Him, but they feared for their own lives, because they knew if they made any move at that time to take Jesus away from them, the people would rise up against them.
Paying Taxes to Caesar
(Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17)
Verse 20, "And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which would feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, so that they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor."
LGT "And having watched [Him] they sent secret agents, feigning themselves to be righteous, in order that they might take hold of Him while speaking, so that [they] might deliver Him up to the power and to the authority of the governor."
The Pharisees hired secret agents, acting as part of the interested crowd, to spy out Christ while He was speaking to the crowd, to the end that they might arrest him and take Him before the Roman governor. Among these agents of the Pharisees were representatives from the Herodians, according to Mark 12.
Verse 21, "And they asked him, saying Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly."
LGT "And they questioned Him, saying, Teacher, we know that you say and teach rightly, and accept not [any man's] person, but with truth teach the way of God:"
These spies were disciples of the Pharisees, and as Robertson says 'They begin with the same insincere palaver they address Christ with' calling Him Teacher. They begin by acknowledging that He teaches the Truth, and that Truth to all men equally, not respecting a man's person; and the Truth he teaches is not from man but from God. These spies spoke just like their teachers, the Pharisees, hypocrites that they were.
Verse 22, "Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar?"
LGT "Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not?"
They tried to catch Christ in a dilemma [a catch-22]; if He answered no, they would report Him to Pilate, and if He said yes, He would alienate Himself from the crowd who were faithful to Moses. (See Edersheim's note on Mark 12:13-17).
Verse 23, "But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?"
LGT "But perceiving their craftiness, He said to them, Why do you tempt Me?"
The Lord being able to read their motives, asks the question, Why are you trying to trick Me?
Verse 24, "Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's."
LGT "Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription has it? And they said, Caesar's."
"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 (the Maccabean period was the four hundred years during the intra-testamental period) 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. Those who had the right to put their images and superscription on a coin ipso facto had acquired the right to impose taxation" (William Barclay).
Verse 25, "And He said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which be God's."
LGT "And He said to them, Therefore, render the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God."
Jesus continues to overwhelm them with logic, that is, divine viewpoint. "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.' It remains true that in the life of the Christian God has the last word and not the state" (William Barclay).
McGee adds:
"They were using the legal tender of the Roman Empire. Rome did provide certain advantages and privileges. Rome maintained law and order by her standards and provided protection. Rome made and maintained roads and kept the sea-lanes open. She had a universal currency system, which was an aid to business. The Jews owed Rome something for the use of coins, roads, and law and order. Caesar had something coming to him.
God had something coming to Him also. He provided all the utilities; lights, air, water, and the elements from which roads and coins are made. There are two areas of life in which we have a responsibility. Man has both an earthly and a heavenly obligation. He has both a physical and a spiritual responsibility. Citizens of heaven pay taxes down here. Pilgrims down here deposit eternal wealth in heaven."
Verse 26, "And they could not take hold of his words before the people; and they marveled at his answer, and held their peace."
LGT "And they were not able to take hold of His speech before the people, and wondering at His answer, they were silent."
They could not take hold of anything He said to the people, in order to accuse Him; they marveled at His answer, and did the only thing they could do, they shut their mouths. "It was so discreet and unexceptional, and such an evidence of that wisdom and sincerity which makes the face to shine. Their mouths are stopped; they had nothing to object, and dared not ask Him anything else, lest He should shame and expose them" (Matthew Henry).
The Question of the Resurrection
(Matt. 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27)
Verses 27,28,"Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."
LGT "And having come to [Him] some of the Sadducees, the ones who deny there is a resurrection, they questioned Him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote to us, If anyone's brother should die, having a wife, his brother should take the wife and should raise up seed to his brother."
This law is found in Deuteronomy 25:5,6. The Sadducees were opponents of the Pharisees; the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, and the Pharisees did believe in life after death.
Shepherd notes:
"The Sadducees were Nationalists and did not believe in angels or any invisible powers, nor in the resurrection. Their main dispute with the Pharisees was as to whether the oral tradition was binding. The Pharisees held it of equal value with the written law; the Sadducees said that everything not written might be rejected or was at least open to question [which is stupid in its very conception, for everything was oral before it became written Scripture]. They considered the doctrine of the resurrection a mere matter of pious opinion. They said the doctrine was without authority in the written law, especially since, in their opinion, the prophets were not of equal value with the Pentateuch."
In verse 28 they quote from the law the situation of a brother marrying his brothers wife after the brothers death. The Pharisees and Sadducees are often mentioned together in Scripture, but they are poles apart in their doctrine.
Verses 29-33, "There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife is she? For seven had her to wife."
LGT "Therefore, there were seven brothers: and the first, having taken a wife died childless: and the second, and the third took her, and likewise also the seven did not leave children, and died. And last the woman died. Therefore, in the resurrection, of which does she become wife? For the seven had her as wife."
Here we have a childish hypothetical case made up by the unbelieving Sadducees, which could only happen, as McGee stated, in Hollywood. These Sadducees came up with this cock-a-mamy situation to prove that the resurrection was ridiculous.
Verses 34, 35, "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:"
LGT "And Jesus said to them, The sons of this life marry and are given in marriage, but the ones accounted worthy to obtain that age and the resurrection, which is from among [the] dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage:"
Jesus told them that they were so confused first of all, because they did not believe the Scriptures, that is, the truth about the resurrection, and second that the life to come, to those who are worthy to obtain, that is, all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, will be completely different from this material universe; and to speculate about what heaven will be like is a complete waste of time. We must accept what the Scripture has given us about heaven, and quit trying to confuse ourselves with high-minded speculations.
Verse 36, "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
LGT "For neither can they die anymore, for they are equal to angels, and they are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
In this verse, the Lord sets the Sadducees straight on the fact of the resurrection.
Shepherd notes:
"The Sadducees were not able to bring themselves to believe in the superior spiritual conditions of the resurrection-life. In the life to come, those who attain to the resurrection will not marry or be given in marriage, but will be like the angels. Incidentally, Jesus asserted the existence of spiritual beings in the future life, which doctrine the Sadducees did not accept. He did not mean that there would be no personal recognition in Heaven, or continuance of the spiritual relationships formed in the world. Such relationships will be immeasurably heightened and rendered infinitely more delightful and profitable. In this life, marriage is for the propagation of the race [and it must not be ignored, for recreation also]. No such necessity exists in Heaven."
Verses 37, 38, "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him."
LGT "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed [at the] bush, when he called [the] Lord, the God of Abraham, and [the] God of Isaac, and [the] God of Jacob. But He is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live in Him."
"Jesus went further. As we said, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection or 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 had 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" (William Barclay).
Verse 39, "Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said."
LGT "And some of the scribes answering said, Teacher, You have spoken intrinsically beautiful."
Even though this portion of the party of the Sanhedrim were hostile to Jesus, they praised Him because He quoted from the Pentateuch; remember, the Pharisees and scribes believed in the resurrection, and they were not pleased at all with the Sadducees stupidity on the subject. These scribes were religious, but they were not believers. "They were happy the Sadducees were put down, but not happy that Jesus triumphed" (TEGT).
Verse 40, "And after that they durst not ask him any questions at all."
LGT "For no longer did they dare to ask Him anything [lit. Nothing]."
Robertson remarks, "The courage of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians vanished." These religious rulers had more than met their match in this Teacher; He not only knew the law, they did not like his logic, because they could not find answers to His questions without completely agreeing with Him, and this turned their religious stomachs. How can you accuse someone you have to acknowledge speaks beautifully?
William Barclay notes on Jesus' manner of speech, which the Greek NT calls beautiful:
"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 non-theological minded people, who, after all, are in the 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 Question about David's Son
(Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37)
Verses 41-44, "And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?"
LGT "And He said to them, How do they say the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, The Lord said to My Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I place Your enemies [as] a footstool for Your feet. David therefore calls Him Lord, and how is He his Son?"
I love this passage, which Christ definitely and unquestionably states His deity. In verse 41 the Lord refers to Himself as the Christ, which means the Messiah. "Modern criticism that denies the Davidic authorship of this Psalm has to say either that Jesus was ignorant of the fact about it or that He decided to disturb the current acceptation of the Davidic authorship. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah in Psalm 110 are thus set forth, the very problems that disturbed the Rabbis then, and that upset many critics today" (Robertson).
Pentecost notes:
"The fact that Messiah was David's Son testified to Messiah's true humanity, but the fact that David called Him 'My Lord' testified to His true and undiminished deity, for Lord was a title for Deity. Christ interrogated the Pharisees again, asking 'If then David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?' (v. 44) The Psalm taught the true humanity and the true deity of Messiah. It was just such a claim as the Psalmist foretold of Messiah that Jesus made for Himself. If the Pharisees answered that David called Him his Lord, because He is God, then they could not object to Christ, David's Son according to the flesh, claiming to be the Son of God. If they agreed that Messiah was to be truly human and truly God, they must cease their objections to Christ's claim concerning his person."
The Denouncing of the Scribes
(Matt. 23:1-36; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 11:37-54)
Verse 45, "Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; which devour widow's houses, and for a show make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation."
LGT "And as all the people were listening, He said to [His] disciples, Beware of the scribes, the ones who like to walk around in robes, and love salutations in the market-places, and [the] first-seats in the synagogues, and [the] first places in the suppers, the one who devour the houses of the widows, and as a pretext pray at great lengths: these shall receive more abundant judgment."
This was a very solemn denunciation of the pious wretches, the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees.
William Barclay describes for us why this denunciation:
"The honors 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 [notice the absence of any mention of the mother, as if she had nothing to do with it]; 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 anyone to make them; it was still less good for anyone to have them conceded. But it was claims like that the scribes and Rabbis made.
Jesus also accused the scribes of devouring widow's 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 [this by the way is the way God intended His Word to get out], 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 [godliness]. '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 harbors 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 worst, they did devour widow's 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 those who use a position of trust to further their own ends and to pander to their own comfort."
One can see these scribes and Pharisees every day on TV. They come out with the most ridiculous claims of making the poor and oppressed think they can be rich overnight if they send in their money. I remember my brother Jack telling me of his mother-in-law, how she would send money in to TBN; he would be so frustrated because he could not reach her with any sense of sanity. Those so-called TV evangelists are modern day Pharisees, which devour widow's houses.
In the next chapter Christ will continue His ministry, emphasizing the prophetic portion of this Gospel of Luke.
Share freely but cite the source: http://bbbiblehelps.epizy.com