Luke 19

CHAPTER XIX

Luke 19:1

1 The story of the blind beggar interlocks with that of Zacchaeus as is explained in connection with 18:35. And having entered, he was passing on through Jericho. It was Thursday before the Passion week. On entering it, Jesus did not stop in the city. He passed slowly through it with a group of his disciples and a great following of others that was augmented as he made his way through the city. The reason is plain: the man with whom he intended to stop was not at home, he had gone out to get a glimpse of Jesus. Jesus knew where to find him, out on the other side of the city along the highway, perched in a tree. So he simply crosses the city until he finds the tree and his host for the night.

Jericho is now a degraded village which is probably not even located on the site where the city stood in Jesus’ time. At that time Jericho was a city that was rich and prosperous indeed, was watered by the Fountain of Elisha and other springs, the whole oasis being green and flowery, rich in balsams, myrobalanum, honey, etc.—the city of fragrance, the city of roses, “paradise of God.” It was the place to make a halt before the final ascent from a location 1, 000 feet below sea level to 2, 400 above, to the heights on which Jerusalem rested. A colony of priests lived here, and one might have expected that one of these descendants of Aaron would receive into his home the great Son of David (18:38, 39) on his only visit to Jericho, but the only man who was ready to receive him was of a totally different type.

Luke 19:2

2 And lo, a man called by name Zacchaeus! And he was head publican, and he a rich man. And he was trying to see Jesus, who he was, and was not able due to the multitude because he was small in stature. And having run forward to the front, he climbed up a fig mulberry in order that he might see him because he was about to be passing through that way.

Instead of using the ordinary “there was a man called Zacchaeus,” Luke introduces the man with an exclamation: “Lo, a man called by name Zacchaeus!” This is done because of the highly exceptional things he is about to write about this man. Yet only two pen strokes picture him in advance: his work and his wealth. He was “head publican,” was employed, as is usually assumed, by a Roman principal who had bought up the taxes in that territory from the state and was collecting them. The “head publican” had a force of ordinary publicans under him and managed their business. Zacchaeus was rich, which must mean that he had considerable wealth. His business was lucrative so that, in spite of the odium that was attached to it among the Jews generally (see 3:12), some Jews were always ready to undertake this work. If not his work then his wealth made him a man of importance in Jericho.

He is the only chief publican of whom we read in the New Testament, and we are not surprised to find him located in Jericho with its heavy trade in balsam which was taxed at a high rate. The palm groves and the balsam gardens (now gone) were so valuable that Antony gave them to Cleopatra as a source of revenue, and Herod the Great redeemed them for his own benefit. The two αὐτός instead of a relative are in full accord with the Greek genius, R. 723.

Luke 19:3

3 The two imperfects “he was trying and was not able” to see Jesus due to the crowd and because of his short stature allow us to fill in his various efforts as Jesus made his way slowly through the city. He left his office and his work, but even when he got near Jesus, too many were between him and Jesus in order to see him. “To see Jesus who he was”=“to see who Jesus was,” R. 488. All that follows shows that his desire was far more than the curiosity of the crowds who merely run to gaze on some famous man. His was a far more serious desire which impelled him also to go far beyond what curiosity alone is able to produce.

Luke 19:4

4 He ran forward to the front, some distance ahead of the great mass of people that was moving along with Jesus, and there climbed up a fig mulberry or sycamore fig, which grows to the size of our walnut trees, has heart-shaped leaves which are downy underneath and fragrant, and grows fruit in clusters on little sprigs. This tree stood along the road on leaving Jericho, where Jesus was about to be passing through; the genitive ἐκείνης (ὁδοῦ) is due, it seems, to διά in the verb (but see R. 494). Here, from his vantage point, Zacchaeus was sure to see Jesus. On occasions like this the natural excitement of all concerned allows more freedom than is usual. But even so, for this little man, who was wealthy and widely known, to neglect his dignity and to adopt the tactics of a boy and to perch up in a tree meant much indeed.

Luke 19:5

5 And when he came to the place, on looking up, Jesus said to him, Zacchaeus, with hastening climb down, for today in thy house I must abide! And with hastening he climbed down and received him rejoicing.

Jesus, of course, came to the place since this was the road he took. Do not say that that was accidental. Since the crowds surrounded him, a thousand things should have directed his eyes elsewhere. It is unwarranted to think that he looked up into this one tree accidentally, or that he always looked up into the trees along the road as he traveled. And other men very likely also climbed trees, that of Zacchaeus may have had several of them. What Luke states is that Jesus came to just this place, then looked up and invited himself to Zacchaeus’ house.

He knew that his host was in this tree, knew his name, knew his very heart. His program has been set. Zacchaeus is to hurry down and to do his part in it. Whatever Jesus needed to know in his work and his office, including his contact and his intercourse with men, that he knew; and this knowing was the use he made of his divine attribute of omniscience for his saving purposes. John 1:42–50; 2:24, 25. Only a rationalist like Paulus could suppose that somebody told Jesus who the little man in the tree was.

The action of Jesus surprised everybody; all gazed up at the little man in the tree and wondered who he could be that Jesus called to him. The most astonished individual was Zacchaeus himself. Content just to get a good glimpse at Jesus in order to impress that wonderful image on his heart, Jesus stops for him, for him personally, calls him by name, bids him come down so that he may take him to his house, that he may lodge him for the night. A tumult of thoughts and feelings must have surged through the little man’s heart—this great and wonderful person was coming to be his guest! At that moment Zacchaeus knew that Jesus had read his whole heart even as Nathanael knew it and confessed it when Jesus uttered that one word to him about being under the fig tree. But in the case of Zacchaeus all had a special meaning, for he was not a mere publican as Matthew had been but one who had many a sin on his conscience and was aware of these sins. Yet Jesus was inviting himself to his house!

Luke 19:6

6 Note the correspondence: “with hastening climb down,” and: “with hastening he climbed down,” the minor point of the hastening being stated by a participle in the Greek, which is aorist and expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the main verb. The heart of Zacchaeus began responding to the heart of Jesus as when an organ key is struck, and the pipe for that key sounds and vibrates with its tone.

“He received him rejoicing.” It was not a question of being thus honored by Jesus above all the people of Jericho. Far more vital considerations lay back of that joyful reception. This coming of Jesus to the publican’s house recalled in the little man’s heart the condescension of Jesus to publicans and open sinners (15:1, 2), all his willingness to help those whom others cast out, perhaps what he had said to them about the forgiveness of sins—and Zacchaeus with his troubled conscience longed for this forgiveness.

We cannot conceive the scene as some do who imagine that the house of Zacchaeus stood on the road toward Jerusalem and place the reception of Jesus at the door of the house and that the murmuring of the crowd occurred only when Jesus entered the house. The reception with rejoicing began right under the tree. There is a great probability that because of his wealth and his work as the head of a tax department Zacchaeus had his residence in the city, in one of its finest quarters. Nor were the people in ignorance regarding the intention of Jesus until they saw Zacchaeus ushering him in his door. Jesus declared his intention publicly under the tree—all that were near the tree heard it, and they were many. The whole procession halted while Zacchaeus climbed down from the tree.

Jesus and his disciples started back to the city with Zacchaeus. All soon learned why. The crowd, too, went back with them.

Luke 19:7

7 And, on seeing it, all began murmuring, saying, With an openly sinful man he went to lodge!

This seeing and the consequent murmuring started right at the place where the tree stood. All that the aorist participle does is to state that the seeing preceded the murmuring, and the imperfect has this murmuring go on indefinitely. And this grumbling dissatisfaction was general—“all” objected. The emphasis is first on the phrase “with an openly sinful man” and next on the infinitive “to lodge,” καταλύω, literally, “to loose,” i.e., unhitch animals and make a halt for the night. To think that Jesus should lodge with such a man! The aorist “he went” is only the Greek for our perfect “he has gone” and applies the moment Jesus and Zacchaeus started to leave the tree and by no means only after Jesus entered the house of Zacchaeus.

This murmuring reflects very clearly the general opinion about publicans. They were classed as ἁμαρτωλοί, open sinners, not only because they aided the government which oppressed the Jewish nation but also because they themselves were notorious in practicing oppression by collecting excessive amounts and unlawfully enriching themselves. Whatever estimate Jesus placed on the first point—he never ordered the publicans to drop their business, and he did tell the people to pay their taxes—he certainly objected to any form of overcharging (3:12, 13).

Zacchaeus was a real sinner in the eyes of Jesus. By going to his house he did not even for a moment countenance this man’s sin or let him remain undisturbed in it. The populace overlooked this fact and thus blamed Jesus as the Pharisees had blamed him. The people were right in one respect: it would not have been proper for Jesus to lodge with this publican if the latter were to remain as he was. Jesus never countenanced sinners who intended to remain the sinners they were. But he acted with his unerring knowledge in this whereas in our dealing with open sinners we are compelled to use ordinary prudence and caution lest our very goodness of heart subject us to deception and make us injure the cause we seek to aid.

Luke 19:8

8 Now, having taken a stand, Zacchaeus said to the Lord, Lo, the half of my possessions, Lord, I give to the poor; and if I extorted anything of anyone I duly give back fourfold.

Luke leaves much untold at this point. We cannot agree that Zacchaeus spoke as he did at the door of his house when the complaints rose and met his ears. Or that the mere impression of Jesus brought forth his words after entering his house. Jesus wrought on men’s hearts by his Word, and that is what we assume here. As he had done in Bethany (10:39) and wherever he was entertained, he turned host and dispensed the Word after entering the house of this publican.

Nor was this done in quiet converse with Zacchaeus, “which only the angels heard who rejoice over the sinner that repents,” for the angels also hear the words that are spoken to sinners in public. In v. 9 Jesus speaks to Zacchaeus, but in such a manner that all the others also heard what he said. He speaks of Zacchaeus in the third person and mentions his “house,” his household or family. It was in response to what Jesus said after entering the house, after the cohortationes et monitiones which Jesus brought to this entire household, that Zacchaeus replied as he did. All that were present saw fully why Jesus had invited himself to this man’s home and agreed that the invitation was justified, no matter what the people outside might think or say. Zacchaeus, too, was a Jew who knew the Old Testament with its law and its gospel promises.

Jesus used and advanced this knowledge. The Pharisees simply rejected men like this publican, Jesus helped to restore them.

Before the δεῖπνον or evening meal could be prepared, Jesus, the Twelve, Zacchaeus, and whoever else was present sat in Oriental fashion while Jesus spoke. When he ceased speaking, Zacchaeus stood up. Great things were taking place in his soul, and he acts with grave formality by rising from the rug or the divan on which he had been sitting. Jesus had made his house a church of God, and now Zacchaeus stands as though he were in the presence of God and makes his response to Jesus. He is making a weighty statement, hence we have the exclamation “lo.” First he utters a vow or promise of thanksgiving: “the half of my possessions I give to the poor.” This is the man’s thankoffering for the pardon, the comfort of conscience and the peace of soul he has just received from Jesus. A priceless gift has been given to him, and he acknowledges the gift.

Thanks such as this presuppose faith. The act is wholly voluntary. Jesus made no demand upon him to give any of his wealth away. No special call was extended to Zacchaeus to leave his home to preach the gospel. He was not even told to drop his business as a publican. He might have done so voluntarily because of the temptations that were connected with the tax collecting of that day; if he continued in business he conducted his work in a clean way. Why he gave half and not a different fraction is hard to say. Love has and will always have its own generous measure as those know best who have been prompted by love.

Beside the confession of faith with thanksgiving Zacchaeus places a confession of sin that is coupled with restitution: “And if I extorted anything of anyone I duly give back fourfold.” This “if” does not express doubt, for it is a condition of reality, and whereas all conditions are assumptions in the speaker’s (writer’s) mind, Zacchaeus would not have used this condition unless what he assumed was, indeed, real. The verb (as in 3:14) means to press money out of someone by false assertions. That was the sin of these publicans. To what extent Zacchaeus was guilty cannot be determined. He cannot have oppressed right and left, for he could then not have made fourfold restitution after giving away half of his wealth.

Ἀποδίδωμι = to give what is due. The law required that in cases such as this only a fifth more than the sum that had been illegally gained should be returned, Lev. 6:5; Num. 5:6, etc. But Zacchaeus voluntarily offers to treat any peculations of his as plain and simple theft, for which the law stipulated fourfold or fivefold restitution, Exod. 22:1; 1 Sam. 12:3; Exod. 33:15. Zacchaeus makes amends for his wrongs in the fullest possible measure. The idea is not that amends wipe out guilt. Proper amends are the evidence of a changed heart, and the amends which Zacchaeus intended to make should be regarded as such evidence. “When the Lord enters a house, unrighteousness moves out.” Besser.

Luke 19:9

9 And Jesus said to him: This day salvation came to this house according as he, too, is Abraham’s son. For the Son of man came to seek and to save which has been lost.

In this way Jesus pronounced the absolution on Zacchaeus. Jesus spoke to him by making a statement about him in the hearing of all that were present. We cannot entertain the supposition that this was done before the house, in the presence of the multitude, however much the words of Jesus constitute a refutation of the murmuring. The emphasis is on “today” because Jesus this day brought the salvation to this house, and those dwelling there received it by faith. This “salvation” is rescue, deliverance, plus the state of safety that is thus produced. It is freedom from sin and guilt through the pardon of Jesus and the restoration of the soul to the favor of God as his child and heir. “This house” surely cannot mean only the building as though there now dwelt under its roof a man who was saved.

While nothing specific is said about the family of the publican, “this house” speaks of it as also believing and thus being saved. The aorist ἐγένετο, “occurred” or “came,” states the great fact.

This is “according as” (καθότι), in harmony with its cause, which is that “he, too, is Abraham’s son.” Jew though Zacchaeus was, a true son of Abraham he did not become until “today”; for Abraham is the father of believers, and faith alone makes us sons of his, Gal. 3:7; Rom. 4:11, 12, 16. Thus here, too, Jesus points to faith as being the subjective means of salvation, the faith he himself works in us.

Luke 19:10

10 With γάρ Jesus adds the mighty substantiation for this verdict pronounced on the publican and his family. Their faith and their salvation would be utterly impossible except for what “the Son of man” (see 5:24) came to do and was actually doing. Behind the salvation of Zacchaeus is all the saving work of Jesus. The emphasis is on “came” which is placed forward for this reason, which tells of his coming in its entirety; it is a Messianic term, for Jesus is the One coming and as such was now present.

His great purpose in having come is “to seek and to save which has been lost.” The aorists are important—actually to effect this seeking and this saving. Zacchaeus, like others, was evidence that the great purpose was vastly more than an intention. In Matt. 18:11 we have only the one verb “to save,” here “to seek” is added, but in such a way that both form a unit. The seeking reaches out by the gospel and thus saves. The seeking and saving power in this gospel is the atonement which Jesus wrought, which was effective through the promises of the old covenant and through the fulfillment in the new. The neuter participle “what has been lost,” just because it is neuter, states the object in the widest way, compare John 3:6 and similar neuters.

The perfect tense has its present connotation: “has been and consequently is still lost,” and this in the intensive sense: that which has perished and is now in that condition—a true description of the wreck that sin has made of us. Far from God, in night and darkness, shattered, broken, yea, dead and without a spark of spiritual vitality—this is to be “lost.” It helps us to understand what seeking and saving had to do to reach and to restore the lost. According to the task so is the glory of its accomplishment, and so is the blessedness it brings.

Luke 19:11

11 Little need be said regarding the difference between the parable of the Talents and that of the Pounds. The former deals only with Christ’s followers, the latter also with his enemies and was spoken before the company in Zacchaeus’ house. The former speaks of talents which are unequally bestowed, the latter of pounds which are distributed equally. The two are decidedly distinct.

Now, they hearing these things, he furthermore spoke a parable because he was near to Jerusalem, and they were thinking that the kingdom of God was about to make its appearance at once.

Some are doubtful as to what “these things” mean. Others think of v. 8, Zacchaeus’ disposing of so much property. “These things” refer to the seeking and the saving for which the Son of man came, of which the deliverance of Zacchaeus was a sample. Even the disciples were looking for other things since Jesus was near Jerusalem, only six hours’ travel away. Here at the capital, after a little while, they thought the kingdom would make its appearance, be made manifest in great glory and earthly splendor. The sons of Zebedee had asked for the two most exalted places in this glory kingdom of their expectation. All that had occurred in the house of Zacchaeus was a minor matter to the disciples; they were keyed up for grander things. ΙΙροσθεῖς is used like an adverb: “he spoke futhermore,” literally, “by adding.” Μέλλει with the present infinitive speaks of the immediate future, and the present tense is unchanged from the thought in its direct form: “It is about to be manifested.”

Luke 19:12

12 Jesus had to shatter and correct these false hopes. Accordingly he said: A man well-born went into a distant country to take for himself a kingdom and to return. Moreover, having called his own ten slaves, he gave them ten minas and said to them, Do business while I am coming! But his citizens continued to hate him and sent an embassage after him, saying, We are not willing that this one become king over us!

The figure of this “man well-born” who goes to take a kingdom, leaves rebellious citizens behind, and eventually returns is certainly transparent (τίς = our indefinite article). Jesus is picturing himself, royal and most highly well-born, David’s son (18:38, 39) legally through Joseph (Matt. 1:16), actually through Mary (see 3:23), to say nothing of the deity of his person. His character as it is displayed in the parable is likewise nobility itself.

The parable at once corrects the false ideas of the disciples. This nobleman leaves for a distant country and there, not here among his slaves, not here among his hostile citizens, he takes for himself a kingdom. This far country is heaven. After humbling himself on the cross Jesus ascended to heaven. And the kingdom with which he was invested was the rule and government of the world. That the kingdom of glory is not referred to appears from the fact that the citizens refuse to be ruled by this nobleman; and the fact that the church is excluded is shown by the placing of these rebels beside the slaves. Hence we have no article but only “a kingdom.”

It is enough for the purpose of the parable to say that this nobleman “takes for himself” a kingdom and to leave out the Father who gives to him all power in heaven and in earth, Matt. 28:18. He, indeed, takes it in his own divine right. “To take” means at once on Christ’s ascent into heaven and not at the end of the world. This nobleman remains away. How long is not stated except that it was long enough for his slaves to do much business; but he has gone eventually “to return.” This is Christ’s return to judgment at the last day, Matt. 25:31; 24:27. This is what Jesus bids his disciples to expect: he will leave them and will return after a long delay. No glory kingdom at once.

Luke 19:13

13 This royal prince has slaves who are significantly called “his own,” i. e., of his own household. Their number, “ten,” is symbolical just as we read about ten virgins in another parable, and just as God’s commandments are ten in number, compare Dan. 7:24; Gen. 31:7. Baehr writes that, since ten closes the fundamental numbers and contains them all, it indicates completeness and also implies oneness. “Ten slaves” = all of them, none being omitted, and all as one body. This symbolical number conveys nothing concerning the actual number of those who are Christ’s own, not even that they are few. Nor is the conclusion sound that, since “ten” appears again at the end, Christ meant that he would return during the lifetime of the apostles. That would mean that “ten” is symbolical only in the case of the apostles, and that the parable has nothing to say about later generations of disciples; also that Christ was sadly mistaken about the time of his return—a false prophet. Yet notable men have held this view.

On leaving the prince gave the ten slaves “ten minas,” meaning to each of the ten one mina which amounted to $560 in Hebrew gold, or $32 in Hebrew silver, or $17 in Greek silver. It is best to assume that Hebrew money is referred to. This sum is remarkable even if it is reckoned in gold as being more befitting a royal prince when it is compared with the talents mentioned in the other parable. A Hebrew talent is reckoned as being between $1, 550 and $2, 000, and one slave received five of these, another two, and the lowest, one. The talents picture our varying gifts, which men love to regard as being exceedingly valuable; but the mina signifies the Word of God as the means of grace, and too many value this treasure as being comparatively small. “Ten minas” is again completeness and unity. The prince left all his wealth in the hands of his slaves as one sum. Christ left all his spiritual wealth in the hands of his disciples.

Some misunderstand the mina and offer various opinions. Two points in the parable determine the interpretation: the mina is a capital for trading or doing business, and it is an equal sum for each slave. This fits only the Word which as a means of grace is to be used for the Lord by every disciple, and which every disciple has entrusted to him like every other disciple. In the entire work of the church it is the Word with its power that brings the increase. When Hutten and the knights offered Luther their swords, he waved them aside and said that he would protect them with the Word.

The command of the prince to his slaves is: “Do business while I am coming!” They are to trade with this capital and to increase it as much as possible. This word does not mean “to speculate,” which would attribute to the prince the very thing that is charged against him by the wicked slave: taking what did not belong to him. The readings vary between the aorist imperative and the aorist infinitive, the former being the direct, the latter the indirect discourse. In either case the aorist denotes a complete job of trading.

We know of only the Word as a means of grace which is propagated by faithful preaching and teaching. The Word is not intended for mere private possession and individual enjoyment; it is a capital that is designed for doing spiritual business in the world. Warneck describes it as being both wholesale and retail business which is conducted by church organizations and by individuals.

The readings again vary: ἐνᾧ (or ἕως) ἔρχομαι; but the former does not mean “till I come,” nor does the latter, for both mean “while I am coming” and speak of the whole period of the prince’s absence as being one in which he is coming since he is to be expected at any time. The era between Christ’s ascension and his Parousia is the great mission era. When the gospel shall be preached in all the world as a witness for all nations, then shall the end come, Matt. 24:24. So the slaves took the entrusted capital in order to go about executing that trust.

Luke 19:14

14 The parable broadens and takes in “his citizens” (note that we now do not have the reflexive “his own” as in the case of the slaves). Those who take this to mean “his fellow citizens” forget that this man was “well-born” and entitled to take a kingdom. “His citizens” were the Jews as distinct from the disciples and in a wider sense, as time moved on, the world generally as distinct from the church. These citizens “continued to hate him,” the imperfect to indicate the continuance. No cause is assigned, for none existed: “They hated me without a cause,” John 15:25. Though he was born as a man of their own nation and its royal line, the Jews hated Jesus; though he was divine in his nature and the noblest their nation could possibly possess, they hated him. And this is true regarding the divine Son of man in the whole world. All those who ought to bow before him and acclaim him as their heavensent king hated him, still hate him.

They did this to the extent that they sent an embassage after him which declared, “We are not willing that this one become king over us!” Note the wicked will, where the seat of this hatred is; also the derogatory demonstrative “this one” which does not deign to pronounce his name even as throughout the Acts the Jews used this word and avoided the use of “Jesus.” His very name is still distasteful. Trench has interpreted the “embassage” they sent after him well: every martyr they slew beginning with Stephen, this line of martyrs running through the centuries, the last not as yet having been sent on this embassage. We may add every act of hostility to Christ and his Word and his church, for all these acts send the same notification “after him.” Note the force of the punctiliar aorist: “to become king,” to be set over us as king.

Luke 19:15

15 After describing what this prince left behind when he went for his indefinite stay in the far country, we are told of his return. And it came to pass when he, after taking the kingdom, came back again, he said that those slaves to whom he had given the silver be called in order that he might know what they did gain by doing business.

On καὶἐγένετοκαί see 5:12; and on ἐντῷ with the aorist infinitive 2:27 and 3:21. “And it came to pass” always introduces matters of importance. We are most carefully reminded that this nobleman is “he that took the kingdom” even as he went away for this very purpose (v. 12). The fact that he took it was a matter of course; the matter is mentioned to show that he returned as the reigning king. All power belonged to the human nature of Christ from its conception onward, but not until this nature was exalted to the right hand of God did it use this power in unrestricted majesty. The prince did not return at once after assuming his kingdom in the far country; the participle says only that he returned as a king. In the verb “he came back again” ἐπί describes this as coming back again “upon” his slaves and his citizens. So Jesus will come back, suddenly upon his church and upon the wicked world.

Then the accounting on the part of the slaves began. A hint is conveyed regarding the majesty of this noble prince who is now a king when he says that those slaves “be called” to whom he gave the silver. Who was to do the calling? We ask the same question in v. 24: “Who is to take away the mina?” and in v. 27: “Who is to bring and to slay the rebel citizens?” Ps. 103:20 answers: “His angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening to do the voice of his word.” Jesus ascended alone, but he returns in the midst of the angel host of heaven. This is the prince who now comes as the king.

The purpose of summoning his slaves is a blessed one, “that he might know what they gained by doing business,” the compound verb erhandeln, “trade in,” over against the simple verb used in v. 13, “to trade,” handeln. The subjunctive γνοῖ which is found in some texts is only a later form of γνῷ. The purpose of this summons is to reward all these slaves. The idea is that all these slaves will have faithfully done business, will rejoice to come and to make report as to how they have increased what “he had given” them (the past perfect without an augment). The fact that any slave should have been “slothful in business” (Rom. 12:11)—such an unnatural and outrageous thing is in no way contemplated by this friendly summons.

Luke 19:16

16 Now the first came along, saying, Lord, thy mina did make ten minas more. And he said to him: Well, good slave! Because thou didst prove faithful in a very little, be thou as having authority over ten cities! And the second came, saying, Thy mina, Lord, made five minas. And he said also to this one, Be thou, too, over five cities!

These two are representative of all the Lord’s faithful disciples. “Thy mina” gets all the credit; the slave takes none for himself. This is characteristic of all Christ’s believers. Paul writes: “Not I, but the grace of God.” The psalmist: “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory for thy mercy and for thy truth’s sake” (115:1). Luther testifies: “I have done nothing, but the Word has done it all.” These words are both sincere and correspond with the fact of the case—all the power is in the Word, not in those who preach, teach, and apply it. Would that all realized that fact and trusted the Word fully! We are only channels for the Word, and the only question regarding us is whether any obstructions in us as channels prevent the full flow of the Word. The very greatness of true success in trading with the Word humbles the heart and makes it exclaim: “Behold, what the Lord hath wrought!”

The preposition in the verb means “more” or “in addition to” the one mina. According to the symbolism of ten the gain of “ten minas” denotes the completest gain possible. The fact that Jesus enables a slave to make such a gain is astonishing indeed, full of the greatest encouragement for us all. What joy and glory for us sinners that such astounding gain is possible in our poor hands!

Luke 19:17

17 This nobleman now manifests all his nobility; this king acts in truly kingly fashion. We have first the exclamatory verdict: “Well!” Just the one word and no more, but Oh the blessedness of that one word! And then the reward of pure grace; this elevating this slave over ten cities. The superlative “in a very little” is not absolute as though the Word were but a very little thing but compared with the ten cities that are now entrusted to this slave. The number is again “ten,” which symbolizes the highest possible reward for this slave. The reward corresponds with the gain, but only because of the noble generosity of this prince who is now king.

For this is a “slave” who belongs to his royal master with all his time, labor, and gain. He has no claim on his master, and that master owes him nothing. When that master rewards him, this reward is absolutely gratuitous. Unless that is held fast, the point of the parable is missed. Christ’s disciples are to know that not at this time and in Jerusalem but when their Lord returns at the end of the world he, the King of kings, will elevate all his disciples to kingship to reign with him, 2 Tim. 2:12. This is what that crown means, of which the Scriptures speak so often as in 2 Tim. 4:8 and in Rev. 2:10; 3:11.

What are these “ten cities,” and what does it mean to be over them? All we are able to say is that this pictures the highest degree of glory for the faithful in heaven. Beyond that we must wait until that great day comes. Even Jesus could speak of these supernal realities only in figures, for no human language is able to express the realities.

Luke 19:18

18 The second slave declares that the king’s mina produced five and again places all the credit where it truly belongs. The difference in the verbs, his not saying “made five more,” is without import, for these five were as much “more” as were the other’s ten. The only point is the gain of five compared with the other’s ten. Moreover, this man who brought less than ten represents all those who come with less than the full number. Five is the half of ten, and so other gains are fractions of the perfect number.

This is often taken to mean that the slave who can show less than a full gain is therefore less faithful in proportion. But we have come to doubt this. When Paul and Luther are pointed to as having gained tenfold with the Word, it should be noted that not all men were situated as these two were. Many a disciple is placed in lowly circumstances and could not possibly equal these two mighty servants of the Lord in the gain they made with the Word. Are the former, therefore, necessarily less faithful? The parable of the Talents and passages like 12:48 apply here. Many who have been intensely faithful will be able to bring only five minas, many even only one.

Luke 19:19

19 The wording of this slave’s reward is briefer than that of the other. To argue that he did not do “well,” or that he was not faithful in what had been entrusted to him, is contradicted by the great reward given him. The point does not lie in these features at all, for which reason the wording is briefer. The point lies in the proportional reward, and this proportion is equal. This is the slave who gives us most comfort since he pictures how all of us who are able to bring only a smaller return from our use of the Word will receive our great reward of grace—in the same heavenly proportion.

Luke 19:20

20 And the other came, saying, Lord, lo, thy mina, which I had lying away in a sweatcloth! For I feared thee because thou art a man austere. Thou takest away what thou didst not put down, and thou reapest what thou didst not sow.

Alas, that there should be this other! This is a parable, and in parables men are allowed to speak their inmost thoughts even as God sees and knows them. He, too, says “Lord” and “thy mina,” but in what a different tone! What had he done with this capital that had been entrusted to him for trading? He had done nothing. “There is your money,” he says to his lord. He never had and now has no use for it.

He despised this lord and was sorry for himself because he was the slave of such a lord. The parable has him say that all this while he had had this mina lying wrapped in a sweatcloth (handkerchief) in some hidden place. Since this mina is the Word which is to be preached, taught, and applied, this is the worst that can be done with it by any professed disciple of Christ. If the slave were to make away with the mina, that would make him—in the figure of the parable—a rebel citizen. If a professed disciple rejects the Word openly, that would place him among scoffers and skeptics. Jesus is not picturing these by means of this slave but the sham disciples who take the Word but do nothing with it for themselves or for others.

That sweatcloth is significant. It should be wet with the sweat of faithful work with the mina; without sweat it enfolds the mina itself, dead capital that might as well not exist.

Luke 19:21

21 This slave exposes his real attitude toward his royal lord. He professes that he lived in constant fear of him (the imperfect tense) as being an austere or severe man. If, instead of the manufactured, hypocritical fear, he had only had some genuine fear of his mighty lord! He did not fear to disobey him, to be faithless to the trust entrusted to him.

We are shown how this fellow regarded the prince’s order to his slaves to do business for him: as a lowdown, grasping scheme to get what did not rightfully belong to him, taking up what he did not lay down, sowing what he did not reap, making his slaves slave for him in order to enrich himself with their profits. Not for one moment did he feel the honor that he, a slave and nothing but a slave, should be entrusted with his great lord’s wealth, to handle it as if he were the lord himself. Not for one moment did he feel the nobleness of his lord in making him a trustee of his wealth and the still greater nobleness of his lord’s intention by this means to raise these slaves to royal participation in his own reign.

This slave’s falseness and selfishness are a true picture of all those in Christ’s household who think that the Lord requires too much, that he will gain if they work for him, that they will lose if they sacrifice their ease and their pleasure. What does all such work bring them? And they are right in a way, it brings them nothing—there is nothing of worldly gain in spending and being spent for the Lord. Paul remained poor, lay long in prison, suffered a thousand hardships, died as a martyr, all in working for the Lord with the Word. Yes, it was a hard Lord who took all this from Paul!

Luke 19:22

22 He says to him: Out of thine own mouth do I judge thee, wicked slave! Wast thou aware that I on my part am a man austere, taking away what I did not put down, and reaping what I did not sow—and for what reason didst thou not deposit my silver at a bank, and I myself, on coming, would have exacted it with interest?

This prince is noble and kingly even in pronouncing judgment; he brings no other law to bear upon this slave than the one the latter has invoked: “Out of thine own mouth,” etc. The editors accent either κρίνω, present, “do I judge,” or κρινῶ, future, “will I judge.” The sense is practically the same, for the verdict follows directly. In fact, it lies already in the address, “wicked slave,” this adjective always meaning actively, viciously wicked, and thus being distinguished from κακός, which means merely “good-for-nothing.”

From the slave’s own characterization of his royal lord as being “a man austere,” etc., it by no means follows that the slave was justified in laying away the capital that had been entrusted to him. No austere, greedy man could possibly be satisfied with such treatment of money that he wanted to have invested as capital. That is the trouble with these selfish people in the church—the very logic on which they act is a rank fallacy, by which they damn themselves with their own mouth. All from ᾔδεις to the end of v. 23 is one question, was uttered in one breath.

Luke 19:23

23 The deduction which the slave should have made is stated with a consecutive καί, in interrogative form; and διατί (as distinct from ἱνατί) asks for the reason this correct deduction was not acted on. If this slave knew his master as a severe man as he claimed, and if he did not himself want to do business with the money that had been entrusted to him as capital, the one logical thing for him to do was at least to regard this money as capital and to deposit it in a bank where it might draw some interest for this severe master. The expression means literally, “why didst thou not give upon a table?” The Greek “table” is our “bank” (derived from “bench”) and refers to a banker’s table where the loan “was given” to the banker.

Another consecutive καί states what would have followed: “and I myself (without asking anything further from thee), on coming, would have exacted it (legally demanded it—this technical sense of the verb is found in 3:13) with interest” (“usury” A. V., the old English word for “interest”). The condition (apodosis) is one of past unreality, the protasis being implied in the preceding. So the money would at least have remained capital by drawing interest. But not even this would the wicked slave do—so little he feared the man whom he said he feared so greatly.

The mina=the Word that is entrusted to us as capital with which to do spiritual business for the Lord. The least we can do with that Word is to secure the aid of other capable and expert disciples in getting some spiritual return from it, delegating and helping to assist them so that they may preach, teach, and apply it for us. That would show some concern for the Lord and his Word. But he who will not even pray in faith and support the Word that others preach with his money, he is, indeed, a wicked slave. To the condemnation that was thus pronounced the slave could give no answer, against it he had no defense.

Luke 19:24

24 And to those standing by he said, Take from him the mina and give to him who has the ten minas! And they said to him, Lord, he has ten minas. I say to you, that to everyone who has it shall be given; but from him who has not even what he has shall be taken away from him.

“Those standing by” are the same persons that were ordered to call the slaves in v. 15, the angels, who always serve as the servants to execute the Lord’s will at the judgment. The fact that this wicked slave has the mina taken from him is only just—he never really possessed it. Rightly considered, this is enough. To be deprived of the Word, the fountain of life and salvation, is to sink into darkness and death forever. The talents that were distributed in the other parable are not the Word but the varying personal gifts of the disciples, hence Matt. 25:30 was needed in that parable.

Luke 19:25

25 It still surprises us to read that this mina is bestowed on the slave who already has a gain of ten minas. We should have given it to the one of the ten slaves who had achieved the least gain. But this is due to the fact that our minds have not yet been fully brought into harmony with Christ’s.

Luke 19:26

26 The law in the kingdom of Christ is that everyone who has (by using the Word of God aright and by its getting gain for the Lord), to him shall be given (more and more gain by the Lord himself); but he who has not (by refusing to use the Word), by that very non-having he shall lose even what he has (the very Word itself which was originally given to him as it was to the others). “It shall be taken away” out of these wicked hands by God himself. Justice and mercy are thus combined, and if the king in the parable had followed a different course he would have exhibited neither grace nor justice, nor could he be the king.

Note that the mina is added to the ten that were gained, not to the one through which the gain was made. It is another gain and is rightly so classed, one that was bestowed purely as a gift as the rule of the ten cities was bestowed by grace and gift. This law works even in this imperfect world—what one lets slip falls to another who is more fit to have it. “I tell you” is the voice of authority, an authority that is gracious and just at the same time. This is said to us all through the parable ere it is too late. At the end of life it will, indeed, be too late to profit by this law. Now is the time to have that it may be given to us. Compare 8:18; Matt. 25:18.

Luke 19:27

27 But these my enemies who did not want me to become king over them bring here and slaughter them before me.

ΙΙλήν is always adversative, R. 1187. The aorist infinitive is ingressive: “come to be king,” “come to reign as king.” The ἐχθροί are personal enemies. As rebels they had every inducement to drop their rebellion against this their lawful king. The command is again issued to the king’s host (the angels) which accompanies him on his return.

Yes, this is Oriental imagery, exterminating the king’s enemies in his very presence. But this drastic imagery fits the terrible reality. Let no one say that Jesus could not have uttered these words, or that they were only a part of the outer scheme of the parable, and that they are not to be interpreted as pointing to a reality. The destruction of Jerusalem with its streams of Jewish blood is the preliminary reality that is back of these words. It foreshadows the final reality, the last day, when judgment without mercy shall forever end all rebellion against Christ, the King.

Luke 19:28

28 And having said these things, to correct the false ideas of his own disciples, he went on before them, going to Jerusalem. The thought is that Jesus answered his disciples and let it rest at that. In the morning, when they all left the house of Zacchaeus, he walked ahead of the little band and headed for Jerusalem.

Luke 19:29

29 Luke follows this statement with a brief account of Jesus’ entry into the city. The fuller story is that on Friday Jesus went from Jericho to Bethany, rested there over the Sabbath, was given a banquet by his Bethany friends on Saturday evening when the Sabbath had ended at sunset, and made his entry into Jerusalem on Sunday.

And it came to pass (see 1:8) when he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany at the mount called Olive-place, he sent two of his disciples, saying: Go into the village before you, in which, on going in, you shall find a colt that has been tied, on which no one of men ever sat. Having loosed him, bring him. And if anyone inquires of you, For what reason are you loosing him? thus you shall say, The Lord has need of him.

We are transferred from Jericho (v. 1) to the Mount of Olives to witness the entry into Jerusalem. From John we learn that it was a Sunday. He makes clear that there were two multitudes of festival pilgrims, one which accompanied Jesus as he headed for the city, and another that, on getting the news of his coming, streamed out of the city to meet and to greet him and lead him into the city. John tells us also that the raising of Lazarus caused the great enthusiasm of the pilgrim crowds.

Judging from the way in which Mark and Luke combine Bethphage and Bethany, the two villages were situated close together, the former lying toward Jerusalem, off to the side of the main road. All trace of Bethphage has disappeared, but Bethany is still known. It lies this side of the ridge as one comes up from Jericho. Because Luke has said nothing about the visit in Bethany from Friday until Sunday he combines the two villages and says that Jesus was near them. He had started out from Bethany, and Bethphage lay a little to the side, and facing him (πρός) was the ridge (τὸὄρος) beyond which lay Jerusalem. This entire height was called Ἐλαιῶν (R. 154 on the accent), nominative: “Olive-place,” “Olive-grove,” or “Olivet,” B.-P. 385.

Jesus halted here. This time Jesus did not intend to walk but to ride into Jerusalem. No one knows which two of the disciples he commissioned to bring the colt to him.

Luke 19:30

30 They receive explicit orders. The little cluster of houses is right before them. All they need to do is to go right in and they will without effort find the colt that Jesus wants, the perfect participle stating that it is still tied as if awaiting them to get it. They are to untie it and to bring it to Jesus. Luke speaks only of this colt, a male according to the pronouns, and does not mention the dam since Jesus intended to ride only the colt. The dam was also brought but merely in order to accompany the colt since neither would be content to be alone.

The animal was nothing but the common ass of the Orient, regarding which it has been well said: The ass, the camel, and the woman are the burden bearers. All efforts which regard the ass on which Jesus rode as being a very superior beast (Smith, Bible Dictionary, and others), one that has nothing to do with the meekness of Jesus, are ill-advised. Since the days of Solomon no king bestrode an ass. Whatever asses of superior type and breeding existed in the Orient, the tiny village of Bethphage would be the last place to look for such stock. Nor is the ass more peaceful than the horse, it is only far inferior to it. The idea of peace is, however, in place, because asses were employed in the humble tasks that go with times of peace, horses when wartimes arrived.

So meekness and peace combine in Jesus’ selection of an ass for his entry into Jerusalem. To call the colt “untamed” and thus to see in its use by Jesus a symbol of his power over nature, is a fancy. The colt was naturally gentle enough. When Jesus states that no one had ever ridden it he indicates that it was fitting for him on this great occasion to ride, not an old animal on which others had ridden, but one that was entirely new.

Luke 19:31

31 The disciples are told just what to reply in case anyone says anything to them in regard to their taking the animals. One statement will be enough: “The Lord has need of him.” We draw the obvious conclusion that the owners were very good friends of Jesus and his disciples and only too glad to render him this service.

Luke 19:32

32 Now, on having gone, those that were commissioned found even as he said to them. And as they were loosing the colt, his owners said to them, Why are you loosing the colt? And they said, The Lord has need of him.

Luke goes to some pains to tell us that things happened just as Jesus had told the two disciples they would occur. This is another plain instance in which Jesus used his supernatural knowledge for the purpose of his work and to the extent that was required by that work. It is plainly supernatural and as plainly limited by one purpose and aim.

33, 34) It, too, happened that the disciples were asked why they were untying the colt; and when they answered as Jesus had directed them they were allowed to take the colt. It was all so simple and easy, but behind it all we see Jesus as the divine Lord.

Luke 19:35

35 And they brought him to Jesus. And having cast their robes on the colt, they mounted Jesus. Now, as he was proceeding, they kept spreading under him their robes on the road. And as he was drawing near to the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole host of the disciples rejoicing began to praise God with a great voice concerning all the power works which they saw, saying: Blessed the King coming in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest places!

As soon as the colt is brought, all the acts that follow become spontaneous. Not on its bare back will the disciples let Jesus ride, they saddle and caparison the colt with their long, loose outer robes and walk in only their tunics. Two or three are thrown over the colt’s back, and they then mount Jesus (the verb is causative: “cause him to go up on”).

Luke 19:36

36 This act suggests the next. Presently, as Jesus rides along, others also strip off their robes and spread them under (the preposition in the verb) on the road, making a carpet of their own clothes for Jesus to ride over. This was a spontaneous act of submission which was combined with the highest honor. The imperfect tense states that this was kept up. The robes were picked up in the rear and laid down again in front. The subject of the verbs used in v. 35, 36 is left indefinite, but v. 37 shows us a whole host of disciples, a large number of them helping to provide this carpet for Jesus; and he accepted this sign of devotion. Luke is brief and omits mention of the waving of the branches that were cut from the palm trees.

Luke 19:37

37 So Jesus came to the top of the ridge where it dips down to the valley of the Kidron, a little creek which is dry in summer, just beyond which there rose the walls and the towers of the Holy City. As they reached the top of the ridge, a magnificent view of Jerusalem across the valley burst upon their sight. There stood the Temple, its golden roof flashing in the sun. Back of it rose Zion hill, and the whole city in all its magnificence was spread before their eyes. So the writer saw the present city with the Mohammedan Dome of the Rock in the old Temple’s place. The late afternoon sun shone on the old-gold dome, and imagination brought back the scene of Palm Sunday.

It was here that the holy enthusiasm of the whole crowd of the disciples (regarding as such all who jubilantly greeted him this day) began to reach its height. The memory of all the power works they had seen Jesus do in the past (the Greek is content with the simple aorist εἶδον whereas we should say “had seen”), δυνάμεις, to indicate deeds that show divine power, made them praise God, one shouting to the other that Jesus had done this, another that he had done that. This crowd came from all parts of the country, a large number also from Galilee; they were pilgrims on their way to the great Passover festival. They had seen many miracles; add also the one mentioned in 18:35, etc., and especially, as John 12:17, 18 states, the one that had been wrought upon Lazarus. Luke has the neat idiom which draws the antecedent into the relative clause and makes it and its relative keep their case after περί.

Luke 19:38

38 All the evangelists give us quotations from this shouting, each selects such words as he deemed it best to preserve. All four, however, report the shouting: “Blessed the King coming in the name of the Lord!” and vary only as to the word “King.” All four show that Jesus was being brought into Jerusalem as the great and long-expected Messiah-King. Jesus accepted this acclaim, he was this King and now came as such, and all the world should know this. But the whole manner of his coming shut out all political and nationalistic ideas as he had ever shut them out—riding on an ass, acclaimed because of his miracles, and no wrong note to feed false hopes.

The perfect participle εὐλογημένος, “has been and is now blessed,” makes God the one who rests his blessing upon Jesus. We should note that ἐρχόμενος is specifically Messianic, for the title of the promised Messiah was “the One coming”; this participle means that Jesus is this person. And he is “King” in this Messianic sense even as some added “son of David” (Matthew) and “the kingdom of our father David” (Mark); note 1:32; 18:38, 39. The blessing of “the Lord” (meaning Yahweh, for which Κύριος is the translation, 1:9 and repeatedly in the first chapters) is not a mere verbal benediction but the bestowal of all the gifts and treasures of Jehovah that are implied in his benedictory words; and the acclaim means that Jesus is bringing this blessing with him to dispense its riches here in the nation’s sacred capital. “In Yahweh’s name,” which is quite generally understood to mean “by the Lord’s authority,” means, “in connection with the Lord’s own great revelation,” i. e., his promises; see 9:48.

Luke alone reports the shout: “Peace in heaven and glory in the highest places!” which recalls the angles’ song recorded in 2:14, the sense being practically the same. On “peace,” which is here the condition of peace, see 7:50. “Peace in heaven” means that God is at peace, at peace with men as is evidenced by this Messiah-King who is blessed and sent by him and is now entering Jerusalem. The neuter plural ἐνὑψίστοις refers to places and is a phrase that denotes heaven. Regarding this peace glory shouts and songs are to resound throughout the exalted places of God’s abode, the angels glorify him for making peace through the Messiah.

How much of all that they were saying did this “host” (πλῆθος, the same word is used with reference to the angels in 2:13) of the disciples or friends of Jesus really understand? John 12:16 tells us that the Twelve did not at this time realize that they were fulfilling Zech. 9:9. Further than that we say only this, that whatever wrong, earthly expectations still clouded the minds of all the disciples, this much is certain, a holy enthusiasm swept their hearts on this Sunday, a wave of true spiritual feeling and joy, which was the direct product of the power works of Jesus and caused them to use this holy language in praise of God. Jesus, too, therefore, accepted this welcome by his every act and lent himself to this enthusiasm by riding into the city as the King of Israel that he was.

Luke 19:39

39 And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, Teacher, rebuke thy disciples! And answering he said, I say to you, that if these shall be silent, the stones will yell.

These Pharisees had come along with the multitude that went out from Jerusalem to meet Jesus (John 12:18). They had never before witnessed such a demonstration. It seemed to them that all the world was running after him (John 12:19). They saw no way to stop what was blasphemous praise of Jesus to their ears except by an appeal to Jesus himself that he rebuke this enthusiasm. So they worked their way up to him, perhaps halted him, and made their demand. “Teacher” is only the ordinary “rabbi” which Luke never employs as a title of Jesus.

Luke 19:40

40 They certainly got their answer. With the authoritative “I say to you” Jesus tells them that if these friends of his should be silent, the stones will yell. This is usually understood as being proverbial language which says that Jesus must be welcomed this day. The reference to Hab. 2:11 corroborates neither idea. Jesus speaks prophetically of a time when “these” shall, indeed, cease their acclaim, and when the lifeless stones shall, indeed, “yell” with piercing shrieks when not one stone is left upon another in Jerusalem itself. That yelling will be the voice of judgment for rejecting the Messiah-King.

By wanting the disciples to be silent these Pharisees were asking that this yelling of the stones begin now. This is a clear instance of the future indicative after ἐάν, R. 1010, which makes this a condition of reality, R., W. P.

Luke 19:41

41 And when he got near, on seeing the city, he sobbed over it, saying: If thou hadst realized in this day, even thou, the things for peace—! But now they were hid from thy eyes!

In v. 37 Jesus was approaching the top of the ridge when the acclaim began; he now reached the ridge and had the panorama of the city before him. In v. 37 we thus have the present participle: “he drawing near,” and now the aorist tense of the verb: “he got near.” At sight of the city, as he was riding amid the shouting, jubilant crowds, Jesus “burst into sobs” (ingressive aorist). His own words show why he let his feelings break forth.

Luke 19:42

42 He saw the true condition of the city, which was the very opposite of the joy of this pilgrim host that had gathered from afar for the Passover. He saw also the judgment that was descending upon the wicked city just as clearly as he saw and foretold in detail what was awaiting him in the city on the following Friday (18:32, 33). Cause, indeed, for tears and sobs from a heart like his (v. 10). The first sentence is left unfinished, only the protasis of past unreality is stated without the apodosis. It is thus a case of aposeopesis that is highly effective for expressing Jesus’ deep feeling (R. 1203). “If thou hadst realized” is quite sufficient and implies that Jerusalem had not realized even “in this day,” i. e., the time of Jesus and not merely this Sunday. Jerusalem had all along not realized. R. 834 prefers the aorist ingressive: “if thou hadst come to realize.”

“Even thou” brings out the full pathos of this cry that comes from Jesus’ heart. What Jerusalem never realized were “the things for or toward peace” that Jesus had all along made such efforts to bring to her, those of the heavenly gospel of peace and salvation through faith in him as her Messianic King. If Jerusalem had realized these things, her Sanhedrin and all her inhabitants would be welcoming Jesus as were these pilgrims from afar, who had come only for the days of the festival and were not inhabitants of the city. But this apodosis is omitted. We see no warrant for regarding this unfinished sentence as an unfulfilled wish.

“But now they were hid from thy eyes!” Here, too, the aorist expresses merely the past fact, and all that we can say is that we should in English say “have been hid”; “are hid” found in the A. V. is not correct, nor is the aorist effective in the sense that the end of the action is stressed (R. 835), an act of hiding that at last hid completely. “Were hid” does not refer to the goettliches Verhaengnis but to the wicked perversity of Jerusalem herself. The subsequent, judicial will of God, that those who obdurately will not see shall not see, is not expressed in these words of Jesus but in the next two verses. Compare 13:34, 35, where the second of these verses states God’s judicial will.

Luke 19:43

43 For days will come upon thee, and thine enemies will throw a rampart around thee and will encircle thee and will hem thee in on every side and will dash to the ground thee and thy children in thee and will not leave stone upon stone in thee in return for that thou didst not realize the season of thy visitation.

Ὅτι introduces the future destruction as evidence of the fact that Jerusalem did not know and that the things for peace were hid from her. Καί piles one thing of the same kind upon another, and here the mass rises higher and higher. In order to increase these “and” in their cumulative effect we have the first one where “when” would otherwise be used: “the days and” (when). Because these terse sentences describe so vividly just what happened in connection with the siege of Jerusalem, those who deny predictive prophecy even to Jesus ascribe these verses to Luke and declare that he wrote them ex eventu, after the fall of the city, and put into Jesus’ mouth what he never said and what it is claimed he could not have said. One must then suppose that Isaiah did the same thing when he foretold the same details regarding the fall of Jerusalem (under the name “Ariel”) in 29:1–4. Luke wrote 18:32, 33, and all the prophets and the evangelists the prophetic parts of their books in this way. The χάραξ is a palisaded wall or rampart. The Greek says: “hem thee in from every side,” the action being viewed as coming from the enemy.

Luke 19:44

44 The city and her children or inhabitants were to be dashed to the ground, the latter to be slain; and this destruction was to be so radical as not to leave one stone on another—an absolute and utter ruin. Ἀνθʼ ὧν = “in return for that which” and is usually translated less precisely “because.” Jesus reverts to the guilt of Jerusalem in that she did not realize “the season of her visitation,” ἐπισκοπή, which is used regarding both a gracious and a punitive visit. The verb is used in 1:68, 78; 7:16, “to look in upon someone.” God’s looking in upon us with his grace continues until a certain time; then those that refuse that grace shall receive a far different visitation from him whom they have spurned.

Luke 19:45

45 And having gone into the Temple, he began to throw out those selling, saying, It has been written, And my House shall be a House of Prayer; but you, you made it a robbers’ den.

This occurred on Monday, and Luke records it chiefly for the sake of the words which Jesus uttered. The ἱερόν is the entire Temple complex, its courts as well as its buildings. Jesus threw out both buyers and sellers, Luke mentions only the latter and omits the details that are found in Matt. 21:12, 13; Mark 11:15–18.

Luke 19:46

46 Jesus brands this desecration of God’s Temple with one mighty statement of Scripture. “It has been written” implies: “and stands so to this day.” Jesus quotes Isa. 56:7, but interpretatively by using “my House shall be” for “shall be called.” House “of Prayer” uses this word in the wider sense, “of Worship.” But what did the authorities do with this holy House? Jesus tells them by using Jer. 7:10: “You, you made it a robbers’ den.” This does not mean that they robbed God’s House, for robbers do not rob their own den, they make it their refuge. So even when they desecrated the Temple these Jews imagined that their running to the Temple would shield them from penalty. The Temple will not protect the wicked who seek to make it their refuge. The church is no refuge for sinners who come there to be safe with their sin. Jer. 7:12–15 declare what God would do with this Temple—he would destroy it even as he destroyed Shiloh for the same cause.

Luke 19:47

47 And he was teaching day by day in the Temple. But the high priests and the scribes were seeking to destroy him, also the foremost of the people; but they did not find what they should do, for all the people were hanging to him by hearing.

From Sunday onward Jesus kept teaching in the Temple until he left it for good toward evening on Tuesday. He spent his nights at Bethany or elsewhere outside of the city in order to prevent an arrest before his time. Luke informs us that only the Sanhedrin (see 9:22) “was seeking to destroy him.” The resolution to do that had been passed previous to this occurrence. Their intention was some kind of judicial murder. “The high priests and the scribes” is a standard title for the Sanhedrin although, as is the case in 20:1, “the elders” were at times added as constituting the third group. But Luke adds at the very end “and the foremost of the people.” This does not read like a designation for “the elders,” especially since Luke adds “the elders” in 20:1. These foremost people were not members of the Sanhedrin but those who were prominent generally, who were in full accord with the great official body.

Luke 19:48

48 Despite all their seeking and scheming they were not able to find what they might do. Pleonastic τό before the indirect question merely marks this as being the object clause; the subjunctive is deliberative. They asked themselves often: “What shall we do?” The difficulty lay in “the people,” which means the great mass of pilgrims from all parts of the country and not the inhabitants of Jerusalem who seconded the hostility of the authorities. Luke does not say that the Sanhedrin feared the people, but he says as much when he writes that the people all “hung to him by hearing” his teaching. The verb is very strong: they could not tear themselves away from him. The spelling of this imperfect form ἐξεκρέματο, which governs the genitive αὐτοῦ, varies; this form is derived from ἐκκρέμαμαι. This love of the pilgrims for Jesus held the Sanhedrists in check.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.