Luke 19

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 19 AND THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDSLuk_19:1-28 Luke 19:1 —And he entered and was passing through Jericho.—Luke is the only one that records the events connected with Zac chaeus. As Jesus was passing through Jericho, this event oc-curred. The apparent discrepancy between Luke and the other writers was removed by the explanation that Jesus en-tered the old part of the town, and passed through and entered the new part of the town; as the road passed through the city or some suburb of the city, Jesus came in contact with Zacchaeus. Luke 19:2 —And behold, a man called by name Zacchaeus;—“ Behold” is a term used to call attention to the incident about to be re-lated. “ A man,” the Greek word here interpreted as “ man” means “ a man indeed,” which shows clearly that Zacchaeus was a person of importance and great consideration. He was a Jew as is seen from his name, which is the same as “ Zaccai.” (Ezra 2:9; Nehemiah 7:14.) “ Zacchaeus” means “ pure,” just, or innocent; he was a Jew and a son of Abraham. He was “ a chief publican” ; Jericho was close to the fords of the Jordan and was therefore an appropriate seat for an officer of superior rank to preside over the collection of revenues. Zacchaeus had superior wealth and was able to receive the highest offices of his trade. He was a chief collector of taxes, and was despised as the publicans were by the Jews; there was nothing wrong in his occupation; taxes were necessary, and someone had to collect them. Luke 19:3-4 —And he sought to see Jesus who he was;—He “ sought” ; that is, he continued to get a view of Jesus; probably he had heard much about Jesus and now, since he was passing that way, he desired earnestly to see Jesus. He not only desired to see him, but he was determined to see him. We do not know whether it was through curiosity or from some other motive; we do know that he was determined to see Jesus. He could not see Jesus because of the crowd; Zacchaeus was “ little of stature,” and could not look over the heads of the crowd and see Jesus; hence “ he ran on before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him.” The words “ ran” and “ climbed” showed that Zacchaeus was not to be outdone; he was a man of energy, forethought, and determination. “ Sycomore” was similar to “ fig tree” or mulberry; the fig-mulberry resembled the fig in fruit and mulberry in foliage. It grows with its large branches down and open so that Zacchaeus could easily have climbed into it. Jesus was to pass along by this tree so Zacchaeus took advantage of it to see Jesus. Luke 19:5-6 —And when Jesus came to the place,—It may be that Zacchaeus thought that he could see Jesus, but that Jesus could not see him; but as Jesus came to the place, “ he looked up, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down.” Perhaps Zacchaeus was surprised when Jesus spoke to him. Jesus not only saw Zacchaeus, but he saw the secret history of his heart, and the desire which had brought him to this place of prominence where he could see Jesus; Jesus saw his soul and saw what it needed. If Zacchaeus was surprised when Jesus saw him and spoke to him, how much greater was his astonishment when Jesus told him that he would abide at his house. Although Zacchaeus was a man of authority, prominence, and wealth, yet Jesus commanded him to come down from the tree, and imposed himself upon Zacchaeus as a self-invited guest. This was enough to impress Zacchaeus with the fact that Jesus could and did speak with commanding authority. Luke 19:7 —And when they saw it, they all murmured,—When the Pharisees and others of the multitude saw what Jesus had done and heard what he had said, they “ all murmured” ; some think that the word “ all” included the disciples of Jesus. They did not think that it was becoming in a teacher, prophet, or one who claimed to be the Messiah, to go into the house as a guest of a publican. It seems that they kept murmuring; they were haters of the publicans and murmured because Jesus turned aside to become a guest that day of such a man as Zacchaeus. They said among other things that Jesus had gone “ in to lodge with a man that is a sinner.” It seems that those who murmured here had no enmity against Jesus, but that they doubted the propriety of his being a guest of so notorious a publican as Zacchaeus. Some, however, have classed these murmurers with the Pharisees who seem to have attended Jesus to watch his words and actions to discover some ground of accusation against him. Others think that the murmuring came only from his friends. Luke 19:8 —And Zacchaeus stood,—Probably Zacchaeus heard the murmurings, and bethought himself and the reputation that publicans had, so he at once began to make confession. Zacchaeus “ stood”; that is, he took a posture as of one who is about to make a solemn declaration; he was like the Pharisee in attitude, but different in spirit, though the same word describing the Pharisee’ s posture is used of the publican. Zacchaeus, noting the murmuring of the people, seeks to justify Jesus in entering his house. He denies being an extortioner or unjust, and declares that he has given half of his goods to help the poor; that is, he had given half of his income to help the poor. Some think that Zacchaeus had not been so liberal, but that he now declares his liberality by saying that he would give half of his goods to feed the poor. It seems that he was expressing what he had done and that what he purposed to continue to do. He was willing to restore ac¬cording to the law anything that he had “ wrongfully exacted” of anyone, and restore “ fourfold.” The law of Moses required only the addition of one-fifth to the amount of which the person had been defrauded. (Numbers 5:7.) Zacchaeus was will¬ing to observe the extreme requirements of the law. (Exodus 22:1) Luke 19:9-10 —And Jesus said unto him,—Jesus saw his heart and knew his penitence and his faith. He said: “ Today is salva¬tion come to this house.” Salvation had come to this house because Jesus was present as a welcomed guest; it had come to Zacchaeus in that he was penitent and willing to receive instruction from Jesus. Zacchaeus, Joseph of Arimathaea, Nicodemus, and others remained in the situation in which Jesus found them for the time being. Probably other members of his household became disciples of Jesus. Zacchaeus was a descendant of Abraham and thus entitled to the blessings of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus then announces to Zacchaeus and all others the purpose of his mission: “ For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.” Zacchaeus was one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel; hence, Jesus came to save him. (Matthew 10:6 Matthew 15:24; Luke 15:1-6.) Luke 19:11—And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable,—It seems that this parable was the conclusion of his discourse in the house of Zacchaeus, or as he left the house and went along the way toward Jerusalem. “ He added and spake a parable” to what had already been said; this form of expression is equivalent to saying that he continued his discourse. There are two reasons assigned here for giving this parable: (1) “ because he was nigh to Jerusalem” ; (2) “ because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.” Jesus and his disciples were on the way to Jerusalem, followed with great throngs of excited people; everything betokened the approach of great and stirring events; the nearer the approach to Jerusalem, the more crowded the thoroughfare with excited people. They thought that the kingdom of God was to be announced as set up when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem. Luke 19:12-13 —He said therefore, A certain nobleman—Some have confused this parable of the pounds with the parable of talents recorded in Matthew 25:14-30. They are two different parables spoken at different times and different places. The parable of the pounds was spoken in Jericho or on the way from Jericho to Jerusalem; the parable of the talents was spoken on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem; the parable of the pounds was spoken before Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, while the parable of the talents was .spoken about the third day after his entrance into the city. The parable of the pounds was spoken to the multitudes as well as his disciples, while that of the talents was spoken to the innermost circle of his trusted followers. The scope of the parable of the pounds is wider and more complex than that of the talents. They differ in every essential and important point. “ A certain nobleman went into a far country” to receive a kingdom; this was customary; it is said that Archelaus had done this very thing; hence there was historical basis for this parable. The nobleman called “ ten servants of his” and gave to each of them a “ pound,” or ten pounds to ten servants; they were to trade with these pounds and get gain for their master. The original Greek for pound is “ mimas,” and was equal to about one hundred drachmas, or between sixteen and eighteen, dollars. This was rather a small amount to be committed to the servants, and is small compared to a “ talent.” A “ talent” was equal to 6,000 denarii, or about a thousand dollars, or 240 pounds. In the parable of the talents the Lord is transferring to his servants his entire property, while in the parable of the pounds he is putting into the hands of his ser¬vants only a small amount to test their faithfulness. All prominent men in Rome had many servants; sometimes they had a servant to do each particular task. This nobleman called “ ten” of his servants to him and committed to them this trust. Luke 19:14 —But his citizens hated him,—This actually occurred with Archelaus; when Herod died he was followed by his son, Archelaus; he had no right to the throne until he obtained the sanction of Caesar. He took ship with certain attendants and went to Rome that he might receive the kingdom and return; the people were tired of the Herods; while he was on the way, his citizens who hated him sent an ambassage after him with the message that they would not submit to the reign of Arche laus. Jesus here could recite history with which the people were familiar. It is worthy of note to observe that this decla¬ration was twice made by the Jews: “ We have no king but Caesar,” and “ Write not, The King of the Jews.” (John 19:15 John 19:21.) Luke 19:15 —And it came to pass, when he was come back again,—This nobleman had gone to the proper authority to receive sanction for his reigning over a certain province or kingdom; while he was gone, the people of that kingdom sent to the au-thority from whence the nobleman was to receive sanction, and prejudiced him against the nobleman; however, the noble¬man received “ the kingdom,” and returned. He then “ commanded these servants, unto whom he had given the money,” to come before him and give an account of their stewardship. The day of reckoning had come for them. He first took account of his servants and afterward inflicted judgment on his enemies. Judgment is to “ begin at the house of God.” (1 Peter 4:17.) The reckoning was made to determine who had gained by trading and how much was gained. There is sug¬gested here the stern character of justice. Luke 19:16-17 —And the first came before him,—We know not the order in which he called these servants; we do not know which one ranked first. The first one who had been summoned to give an account to his lord had a very favorable report to make. He reported that “ thy pound hath made ten pounds more.” He had so used what was entrusted to him that it had gained ten other pounds; literally, this means that the one pound had “ worked out” ten other pounds, which was a tenfold increase; this was accomplished because of the wise and energetic management of the servant. This was a splendid report for this servant to make; he was not boasting, but modestly gave a faithful report. The master pronounced a blessing upon his servant and said: “ Because thou wast found faithful in a very little” he would give him “ authority over ten cities.”Luke 19:18-19 —And the second came,—The second servant that re-ported had gained five pounds. The verb “ came” is different in the original and signifies a less intimacy and a less nearness of approach.

The same personal merit is recognized in this servant as that one who had gained ten pounds. The implication is that he had been as faithful as the other, but his ability was not as great as that of the first servant. People with different abilities may be equal in faithfulness or the one with less ability may be even greater in faithfulness. He had gained fivefold, and his reward was in proportion to his faithfulness. He was placed “ over five cities” because he had been faithful. His ability showed that he was qualified to manage five cities. Luke 19:20-21 —And another came,—This one was unfaithful; he was either indolent and did not use his pound to gain for his mas¬ter, or he was dishonest with his gain, or used bad judgment. His report was that he “ laid up in a napkin” the pound and kept it until his master returned. “ Napkin” as here used means a cloth for wiping off the sweat; this servant had been indolent and did not need a napkin for that purpose, hence he used it to wrap around his money. He gave as his reason for not using his pound that he feared his master, “ because thou art an austere man.” It seems that he feared his master unwisely, for he should have been afraid of punishment if he did not use the pound as directed. “ Austere" comes from the Greek which means “ to dry,” hence “ dry,” and thence “ hard”; it means here harsh, stern, unforgiving; in Matthew the word “ hard” is used. The servant proceeded to give some characteristics of his master; he said that he took up that which he did not lay down, and that he reaped where he did not sow. Luke 19:22-23 —He saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth—“ Out of thine own mouth”; that is, on the very principle of the excuse that the idle servant offered for his unfaithfulness, he should be judged. The master will judge this servant according to the principle that he attributed to his master. This is not an acknowledgment on the part of the nobleman that the servant’ s description was correct. The master then told him how he could have handled the matter, since he was too indolent to use the pound in a way to gain; he could have put the “ money into the bank” so that the master would have had in¬terest on it when he came. “ Bank” as used here means the “ table” of the money-changers. The exchangers were the bankers of that day, who sat at the counter or table to transact the necessary business. Luke 19:24 —And he said unto them that stood by,—“ Them that stood by” means his officers of justice, or other servants whose du-ties were to execute the will of the lord; the day of reckoning had come; it always comes. The master commanded that they take the pound from this unfaithful servant and give it to “ him that hath the ten pounds.” No mention is here made of positive punishment inflicted on the unfaithful servant, such as we find inflicted on the man who buried his talent in the parable of the talents. The privation of all privileges and taking away of all gifts and subjecting the servant to such humiliation is punishment to him. The servant that should make good use of his master’ s property should be entrusted with greater honors; this one pound was taken away from the idle servant and given to the one who had ten pounds, because he had proved himself able to manage a larger share of his mas-ter’ s goods. Luke 19:25-26 —–And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.—They were surprised that the one who had gained ten pounds should be given more; this was expressed as implying a doubt in the fairness of the distribution. This verse seems to be parenthetical; some think that it was spoken by those who heard the parable, and hence, it was a criticism against Jesus for his unfairness in distributing affairs. Still others think that his verse forms a part of the parable itself and was spo¬ken by Jesus. In either case the lesson is the same; it shows that the honor placed on faithfulness is in proportion to the trust and responsibility. I say unto you, that unto every one that hath—Jesus here gives point to his parable. He who has neglected to use the trust, however small, committed to him, shall lose it, but he who has diligently used that which was entrusted to him and has thus increased it, to him more shall be entrusted. Fidelity and ability, as shown in the use of the trusts or events, are the tests according to which Christ will bestow trusts in his spiritual kingdom. Here Jesus assigns the reason for the principle; it furnishes a reply to the wondering exclamation of the bystanders; some consider this language as an admonition to the disciples. Those who have acquired by industry and economy shall have more; they are worthy and capable of handling more; but the one who does not have the ability and faithfulness to handle shall lose even that which he has. Even that which was originally entrusted to one, and which he failed to improve, shall be taken from him. Jesus repeated this frequently. (Luke 8:18.) Luke 19:27 —But these mine enemies,—Jesus here reverts to his ene-mies (verse 14). The unprofitable servant represents those Jews who persisted in unbelief when Christ came among them. When this King comes into power the enemies who resisted his claim must be treated as rebels. They assumed this risk when they put themselves in hostile attitude against Jesus; now they must meet their doom; the day of retribution will come and final judgment will be meted out to them. There seems to be three classes of people as represented in the parable; first, those who were open opposers of Christ and the gospel; second, those who were faithful disciples; and third, those who were unfaithful disciples. Luke 19:28 —And when he had thus spoken, he went on before,—Jesus now resumes his journey toward Jerusalem. “ He went on before.” Jesus led the way with determination to meet his ene-mies in Jerusalem; we cannot think of Jesus trailing behind anyone. He knew what awaited him at Jerusalem, but steadily marched, leading the way on to Jerusalem; he did not falter in his purpose, although he knew the suffering that awaited him. Again, he went “ up to Jerusalem.” The road from Jericho leads “ up” to Jerusalem. Jerusalem was geographically several thousand feet above the Jordan plain where Jericho was located. ENTRYLuk_19:29-48 Luke 19:29 —And it came to pass, when he drew nigh—Parallel rec¬ords are found in Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; John 12:12-19. We come to the last movements and teachings of Jesus; the close of his public ministry, except the little that he said during the Jewish and Roman trials, is brought within the scope of the last week. His final teachings are given to his disciples. There is a close verbal resemblance between all the writers of this remarkable portion of our Lord’ s history, yet there is enough diversity of expression to establish their claims to independent authorship. Between this triumphal entry into the city and the visit at the house of Zacchaeus, many place the visit of Jesus at Bethany. (John 12:1; John 12:9-11.) “ Bethphage and Bethany.” These places are mentioned to-gether and may have designated different parts of the same village. “ Bethphage” means “ place of figs,” while “ Bethany” means “ the place of dates”; the first place denotes a fig orchard, while the other denotes a palm grove. Bethany was about a mile and a half from Jerusalem, corresponding to the “ fifteen furlongs” of John 11:18. “ Mount that is called Olivet” is the well-known eminence facing Jerusalem on the east and separated from it by the narrow, deep valley of the Kidron. Luke 19:30 —saying, Go your way into the village— Jesus sent two of his disciples and commanded them to “ go into the village that is over against you,” and that they should find “ an ass tied and a colt with her” ; they should “ loose them and bring them” to him. (Matthew 21:2.) The dam was probably brought because they would go better in company. Jesus fur¬ther describes the colt as one “ whereon no man ever yet sat.” Neither the Jews nor heathen employed in sacred use animals that had been employed for secular purposes. (Numbers 19:2; Deuteronomy 21:3; 1 Samuel 6:7.) Luke 19:31–32 —And if any one ask you,— If anyone should inquire why they were thus taking the animal, they were to reply: “ The Lord hath need of him.” Matthew has “ the Lord hath need of them.” Mark gives the same answer that Luke re¬corded. Jesus who knew that the colt was there also knew that the owner would send him for his use; the man may have been a disciple of Jesus, and would gladly send the colt to him. The disciples “ found even as he had said unto them.” This showed that Jesus had divine wisdom. This must have strengthened the faith of these two disciples in the divinity of Jesus. Luke 19:33-34 —And as they were loosing the colt,— The owner or some of his servants or someone else standing by asked why they should loose the colt; Luke represents the owner of it as asking this question, while Mark represents those “ that stood there” (Mark 11:5) asking the question. They promptly re¬plied that “ the Lord hath need of him.” This was exactly what Jesus had told them to answer. It is very probable that the owner with the others understood this as referring to Jesus. Mark represents them as saying that Jesus commanded them to take it. (Mark 11:6.) The faith of the two disciples should have been strengthened because the owner or others asked the very question that Jesus had predicted. Luke 19:35-36 —And they brought him to Jesus:— Matthew tells us that they “ brought the ass, and the colt” (Matthew 21:7), while Mark and Luke mention only the colt. They put their “ garments,” or mantles upon the colt as .a saddle; the disciples seem to have put their mantles upon the colt, while the multi-tude spread their garments on the highway or along the way. “ And set Jesus thereon.” This is the only case on record in which Jesus “ rode” any animal; it is presumed that he always walked on his tours throughout Galilee, Perea, and Judea. The ancients were accustomed to placing their clothes, branches of tree, flowers, and other objects of adornment along the way before kings and conquerors in their trumphant marches. (2 Kings 9:13.) Luke 19:37 —And as he was now drawing nigh,—The procession was moving from Bethany westward toward Jerusalem; there was a valley between the Mount of Olives and Jerusalem; they had passed down the western slope of the Mount of Olives, and had crossed the narrow valley and were ready to proceed on into Jerusalem. At this point the multitude raised a shout and “ began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen.” Some describe the descent from the Mount of Olives as going down the southern slope and then making a turn. As they turned down to the city the view of Jerusalem stirred the crowd to rapturous en-thusiasm ; this was the first sight of the city on this route which is soon obscured in the descent. The second view burst upon them. (Verse 41.) This praise was a long pent- up enthusiasm which had gathered all along the way from Jericho; now it was unrestrained. Luke 19:38 —Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord:—Matthew records their saying: “ Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” (Matthew 21:9.) Mark records their saying: “ Hosanna, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest.” (Mark 11:9-10.) Here the praise is a quotation from Psalms 118:25-26. John represents a multitude coming out of Jerusalem and meeting the procession and joining in the praise as they con-tinued the march into Jerusalem. “ For this cause also the multitude went and met him, for that they heard that he had done this sign.” (John 12:18.) The chorus of praise started by the procession that accompanied Jesus was swelled by the multitude that came out of the city and joined them. The leaders in this movement were his disciples, yet many who were not so closely associated with him joined in the move-ment; this served to bring his claims prominently before the people of Jerusalem, and in this respect it was of supreme im-portance at the closing stage of his public ministry. Matthew 21:10-11 suggests this: “ When he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, Who is this? And the multitudes said, This is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”Luke 19:39-40 —And some of the Pharisees—The enemies of Jesus were on hand watching his movements, and they caught some word or expression, which they made the ground of accusation. They took offense at the application to Jesus of the prophetic words which could be used only of the Messiah.

They were not willing for the people to ascribe to him the honors of the Messiah. In the same spirit of unbelief the chief priests and scribes rebuked Jesus after he came into the temple for permitting the application to himself of such ascriptions of praise. Some think that these Pharisees had hypocritically disguised their enmity to Jesus and had followed him from Jericho as his friends. They asked Jesus to rebuke his disciples for ascribing to him the praise. Jesus promptly answered them and said: “ I tell you that, if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.” Luke is the only one that records this. Luke 19:41-42 —And when he drew nigh,—The procession led by Jesus descended the slope of Olivet, and when the city ap-peared in view the guilt and future ruin of Jerusalem gave the occasion for the mingled weeping and lamentation over the city; in pathetic sympathy Jesus said: “ If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.” Jesus seems to mean that if Jerusalem and the multitude even who were acclaiming him King had known that he was the Christ, they could have saved the city and themselves from much misery and destruction. Jerusalem had rejected God’ s messengers, the prophets in former times; from the time of their departure from Egypt, they had been a rebellious people; yet if they had at least known in his day they could have done something to avoid the impending destruction. Their prejudice, their ignorance, their unbelief had blinded their eyes to the truth. Truly their hearts had “ waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should turn again, and I should heal them.” (Matthew 13:15.) Luke 19:43-44 —For the days shall come upon thee,—Jesus now points out clearly the doom that awaited the city. Their enemies should “ cast up a bank about thee.” “ Bank” here means stake, palisade, rampart; the ancient mound raised against cities was constructed of earth thrown up and set with sharp stakes or a palisade; the excavation made by the earth thus removed was called the “ trench,” and was on the side of the rampart next to the city. The enemy should “ compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side.” The city was to be completely surrounded, there was no hope of escape. Those who are familiar with the description of the siege of Jerusa¬lem as given by Josephus know how effectively the city was besieged. The manner of destruction was also described by Jesus; the enemies would dash them upon the ground; de¬stroy their children; should not leave one stone upon another because they were ignorant of the time “ of thy visitation.” The erection of the temple was described as the laying of stone upon stone (Haggai 2:15), hence the destruction of it is described as not leaving “ one stone upon another.” The utter ruin of the city and temple was predicted; this vivid description and prophecy of Jesus of the destruction of Jerusalem was so completely fulfilled that critics have denied the predictive prophecy, and said that Luke wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke 19:45-46 —And he entered into the temple,—Jesus after this de-scriptive destruction of Jerusalem entered into the temple. We have parallel records of this in Matthew 21:12-13 and Mark 11:15-18. “ Temple,” as used here, means the sacred place, in-cluding all the enclosure, as well as the temple proper. It is not to be understood that Jesus went into the temple as did the priests; they went into the holy place and the high priest into the most holy, but Jesus did not go into these places. When he went in he “ cast out them that sold”; according to Mark (Mark 11:11-15) this was not done the first day, for he says that Jesus looked round upon all in the temple, and then retired to Bethany as the evening had come. Those who bought and sold animal sacrifices were present and Jesus drove them out and overthrew “ the tables of the moneychangers.” It is probable that they obeyed Jesus here, not only because the multitude were on his side, which does not appear to have been the case when he first came to the temple (John 2:13-22) and cleansed it the first time. This cleansing is the second cleansing of the temple; he cleansed it at the first of his public ministry and now again at the close. And my house shall be a house of prayer:—This is a quotation from Isaiah 56:7; Luke gives the meaning of the quotation, but not the words; Mark gives more nearly an exact quotation. The Jews had violated the sanctity of the temple by bringing these animal sacrifices into the courts and porches of the temple; they were not so much interested in the sacrifices that the people made as they were the profit that they would gain by selling the animals as sacrifices. This vigorous cleansing of the temple was an assertion of the prerogative of Jesus as the temple of God. Jesus so quotes the prophet. It seems that Jesus here quoted Jeremiah 7:11 and applied the epithet of “ a den of robbers” to these money-changers. Their disregard for the sacredness of the temple and their lack of interest in the welfare of the worship, together with their dishonesty, made them “ a den of robbers.”Luke 19:47-48 —And he was teaching daily in the temple.—This is the last week of the earthly life of Jesus; it appears that he spent each night in Bethany, returning to the city and teaching through the day, and then returning to Bethany at night during the last week of his ministry.

He continued his teaching every day of that week up to the time of his arrest; it appears from Matthew 21:14 that he worked miracles also; he occupied the outer court of the temple. “ Chief priests” were those at the head of the twenty-four courses, and probably included the high priest. (2 Chronicles 36:14; Ezra 8:24; Nehemiah 12:7.) David had divided the priests into twenty-four courses, and had appointed a head of each course called a “ chief priest.” (1 Chronicles 24:1-31; 2 Chronicles 22:8.) “ Scribes” were those who transcribed the law; after the Jews were carried into Baby-lonian captivity, they began to build synagogues, and each synagogue needed a copy of the law; this required somebody to write copies of the law; these men were called “ scribes.” They were also teachers of the law; as they transcribed the law they were supposed to know the law, hence became teachers. “ The principal men of the people” included the elders and rulers of the people; all the dignitaries were thus determined to destroy Jesus. They sought to find a way that they might destroy him. They were afraid of the people, as the people believed in Jesus and “ all hung upon him, listening." Verse 1 In Chapter 19, we have the record of Jesus’ announcement of himself as the Messiah of Israel, the hope of all nations and the King of God’s kingdom. Actually, the public declaration of his Messiahship began with the healing of the blind man, a sign which Jesus did as “the Son of David,” as twice proclaimed by the beggar (Luke 19:18:37,38): (1) This first “announcement” (it was actually that) was founded on the fact that restoring sight to the blind was one of the prophetic signs of the Messianic age (Luke 19:4:18; Luke 7:21; Isaiah 29:18; Isaiah 35:5). (2) Jesus’ calling of Zacchaeus, a prominent publican, as a “son of Abraham,” stressed the religious rather than any political quality of his kingdom (Luke 19:1-10). (3) He then gave a great parable (the pounds), identifying himself absolutely as the one receiving from God a kingdom, and affirming his intention of ruling that kingdom without regard to the opposition of enemies who would eventually perish at his command, and also including significant teaching for his own servants (Luke 19:11-27). (4) He staged the triumphal entry, the most dramatic proclamation of his Kingship that could be imagined (Luke 19:28-40). (5) His weeping over the Holy City proved his knowing in advance of his rejection and the consequences of that rejection to Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44). (6) The second cleansing of the temple was an open assertion of his right to rule in Israel (Luke 19:45-46). The chapter closes with Jesus teaching daily in the temple, the great masses hearing him gladly, but with no full understanding of his mission, and with the chief priests and scribes setting in motion the apparatus for his murder (Luke 19:47-48). And he entered and was passing through Jericho. And behold, a man by name Zacchaeus; and he was a chief publican, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the crowd, because he was little of stature. And he ran on before him, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. (Luke 19:1-4) Jericho … This city, dating back to prehistoric times, is some 17 miles east-northeast of Jerusalem on the plain of the Jordan river. The old city (Tell es Sultan) is a mile northwest of er-Riha village (modern Jericho). Either location is properly called “Jericho.” In the times of Jesus, Herod the Great (40/37 B.C.) and his successors built a winter palace with ornamental gardens, near the famous palm and balsam groves that yielded lucrative revenues.[1]In 1952 this city had a population of about 41,000. It is situated 835 feet below sea level; and the 17-mile road to Jerusalem rises to 2,500 feet above sea level, the altitude of Jerusalem, which Isaiah 3,800 feet above the Dead Sea level.[2] Thus, the road that lay before Jesus was a steep one, literally as well as spiritually. Zacchaeus … The meaning of this name is “pure”;[3] and there is nothing known of this man which would entitle men to deny his right to wear it. Chief publican, and … rich … Zacchaeus was not a tax collector, but a superintendent of tax collectors, nor is there any hint here of how Zacchaeus had become wealthy. Herod might have appointed a man independently wealthy to administer the tax system. The idea that “Zacchaeus had amassed his wealth by fraud”[4] is foreign to this passage. As Ryle noted, “Here we see the camel passing through the eye of the needle, and the rich man entering the kingdom of God!"[5]Could not for the crowd … Zacchaeus’ small stature and the press of the crowd effectively shut off Zacchaeus’ view, so that he could not see Jesus; but there was something else that blocked his way. “According to the Judaism of that time, his calling excluded him from membership in the people of God who would benefit from Messiah’s coming."[6] The Pharisees had categorically excluded all publicans.

It could be that Zacchaeus had heard of Jesus’ calling the publican Matthew to the apostleship, or perhaps of Jesus’ compliment paid to the penitent publican in that parable of the Pharisee and the publican. These might well have been stimulants prompting his curiosity to see the Saviour. Climbed up a sycamore … Spence identified this tree as the “Ficus Sycomorus,” the fig-mulberry, having fig-like fruit and leaves like the mulberry.[7] Such trees are strong, with great lateral branches, and are easily climbed. That a man of this chief publican’s dignity would have resorted to such a maneuver suggests his foresight, energy, determination, and ingenuity. It would be well if all men exhibited such qualities in their pursuit of knowledge of the Lord. [1] The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 613. [2] The Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton Publisher, 1961) Vol. 13, pp. 1,6. [3] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 746. [4] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 223. [5] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 290. [6] Donald G. Miller, The Layman’s Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1959), p. 132. [7] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 135.

Verse 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for today I must abide at thy house. And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.Said unto him, Zacchaeus … “The Lord’s perfect knowledge is clearly shown in this case. He knew not only the name of the man in the sycamore tree, but the state of his heart."[8] We are unable to find any grounds of accommodation with those who question whether or not the omniscience of Jesus is in view here, asking, “Did someone identify the rich tax collector in his unusual perch for Jesus?” nor with the conclusion that “In the synoptics, there is none of the emphasis in John on Jesus’ remarkable intuitive knowledge of men."[9] On the contrary, there is such an emphasis here. Furthermore, the synoptics repeatedly stress it: And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? (Matthew 9:4) And knowing their thoughts, he said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself, etc. (Matthew 12:25). But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me? (Matthew 22:18). Behold, I tell you beforehand (Matthew 24:25). And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? (Mark 2:8). And Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power from him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd … to see her (he already knew it was a woman, that she had been healed, that she was a woman of faith, and that he would save her soul) (Mark 5:30). But Jesus perceiving their reasonings, answered and said unto them, Why reason ye in your hearts? (Luke 5:22). But he knew their thoughts (Luke 6:8). But when Jesus saw the reasoning of their heart, etc. (Luke 9:47). Furthermore, the incident before us, as well as that in Luke 22:10, makes it absolutely certain that the Gospel authors intended that we should understand that Jesus was omniscient. Of Jesus’ knowing Zacchaeus, Henry said, “Commentators in general rightly refer our Lord’s knowledge of the name and circumstances of Zacchaeus to his divine omniscience."[10][8] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 295. [9] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 222. [10] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), Matthew-Acts p. 294.

Verse 7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner.“The moment Jesus ran counter to their prejudices, all else was forgotten."[11] That great multitude, clamoring for the kingdom of God to start, did not have the slightest conception of what God’s kingdom truly would be. In just a moment, Jesus would address that epic ignorance with a great parable. ENDNOTE: [11] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 233.

Verse 8 And Zacchaeus stood and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold.Conclusions of scholars with reference to this verse are radically different, some insisting that this refers to what Zacchaeus promised to do on that occasion and in the future, and others being equally certain that it refers to a rule of life that Zacchaeus had already long followed, the latter view being preferred here. As Bliss said, “(This view) has in its favor the present tense of the verbs - `I give, I restore.’"[12] Since the Lord Jesus himself made a momentous argument for the immortality of the soul to turn on the tense of a single verb (Matthew 22:32 f), they must be rash indeed who set aside the present tense in this passage in favor of future tense. Nevertheless, it has been quite popular to do this. As Clarke said, “(The passage means that) probably he had already done so for some time past, though it is generally understood that the expressions only refer to what he now proposed to do."[13] Spence has the following: The chief publican’s words do not refer to a future purpose, but they speak of a past rule of life which he had set for himself to follow, and probably had followed for a long period. So Godet, who paraphrases thus: “He whom thou hast thought good to choose as thy host is not, as is alleged, a being unworthy of thy choice. Lo, publican though I am, it is no gain with which I entertain thee."[14]H. Leo Boles also concurred in this interpretation: “It seems that he was expressing what he had done and that which he proposed to continue doing."[15] Furthermore, the arguments against this interpretation are unconvincing, as noted below.

1. “There is the absurdity of giving half one’s goods and remaining rich."[16] This is an argument from preconceived guesses regarding how rich Zacchaeus actually was. Besides that, the meaning could not possibly be that on regularly stated occasions Zacchaeus delivered half his estate to charity, but rather that total of half his goods had been expended in such activities.
2. “He would then be justifying himself (like the Pharisee in the temple), and Jesus would not have stated that he was saved."[17] The weakness of this is that it could be applied with even more force to a statement of what Zacchaeus merely to do. If there was self-justification in his statement of what he had already been doing, why would not there also be even more self-justification in bragging about what he to do?
3. “No one will extort anything from anyone if he knows that afterward he will have to compensate him fourfold."[18] This argument leaves out the consideration of Zacchaeus’ position as “chief’ of the Jericho tax administration. Through improper action of subordinates, it would have been, as Spence noted, “easy to commit involuntary injustice."[19] In view here is a godly administrator of the tax revenues, who, when a case of injustice had been brought before him, habitually restored, not merely the amount exacted, but fourfold. With such an administrator, there would not have been many violations; and therefore, we must reject the notion that “There was not one (in that vast concourse of people) who had not been robbed by this chief publican through exorbitant taxes."[20]4. Summers insisted that this verse should be translated, “Since I have defrauded,” thus making Zacchaeus here confess that he was a defrauder; but while it is true that such a conditional statement in Hebrew idiom as “If I have defrauded” might be understood as an affirmation of the thing suggested, there is no evidence that such is the case here. Such conditional statements are often used in their primary sense of being conditions. Thus Paul said, “If (Timothy) come shortly, I will see you” (Hebrews 13:23).
4. Some have sought to support their views by the allegation that the murmuring of the crowd proved Zacchaeus to be a public robber, inferring that if Zacchaeus had been accustomed to give great wealth to the poor and make fourfold restitution of extortion, the crowd would not have murmured against Jesus’ association with him. However, that was not a Jericho crowd, but was made up of many pilgrims from all over Galilee and other provinces on the way to Passover. They would have known of Zacchaeus only that he was a publican.
5. “Today has salvation come to this house …” “TODAY confirms the conclusion that Zacchaeus’ financial resolution had just been made."[21] The error in this conclusion is in the idea that, if Zacchaeus had already been doing such charities, he would, therefore, have been saved already. It was not his giving money that saved this man, however; it was his joyful reception of Jesus Christ into his home and heart. Regardless of former charities, the event of that reception had just taken place, and thus Jesus quite accurately said, “Today, has salvation come.” We have pursued this far enough, somewhat more than necessary, because of the interest intrinsically attached to it. Those who desire to look at this incident differently may do so, dogmatism not being possible in a situation where so many students of God’s word have been unable to agree; but the preferable view here is that of Clarke, Boles, Godet, Spence, Dean Plumptre, etc. [12] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press, n.d.), Vol. II, Luke, p. 278. [13] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 476. [14] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 135. [15] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 360. [16] George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 278. [17] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 472. [18] Ibid. [19] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 135. [20] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 270. [21] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), II, p. 94.

Verse 9 And Jesus said unto him, Today is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.Jesus’ singling out Zacchaeus as the only man with whom the Lord ever invited himself to lodge, and the further compliment here to the effect that Zacchaeus was a “son of Abraham,” indentifies the chief tax collector as a part of the true Israel of God, “an Israelite indeed,” as the Saviour said of Nathaniel (John 1:47), and, in such quality, contrasting dramatically with those who were sons of Abraham only by fleshly descent (as were the Pharisees), and further establishing the likelihood that Zacchaeus was a man of rugged honesty, piety, and devotion. It should be noted that Jesus did not say that “Today has this man become a son of Abraham!” He was already that, in the highest and truest sense of the words. He was like aged Simeon, and others who waited for the kingdom of God. “He was a son of Abraham, in spirit as well as by descent. The Jews denied the right of a publican to be considered a son of Abraham."[22]Dean Plumptre has an interesting suggestion that Zacchaeus the publican was the same as the publican in the parable (Luke 18:10-14), who in the temple, smote upon his breast, saying, Lord be merciful to me a sinner. “Is it too bold a conjecture that he who saw Nathaniel under the fig tree had seen Zacchaeus in the temple, and that the figure in the parable is, in fact, a portrait?"[23]Salvation has come to this house … As Ryle expressed it, “Salvation comes to a house when the head and master of it is saved."[24]To seek and save that which was lost …

Significantly, even so upright a person as the chief tax collector, a true spiritual seed of Abraham, was nevertheless “lost” until he should be saved by the Lord of life. All men are alike lost in sin, and without hope whatever, until they shall joyfully receive Jesus and love him. Barclay’s insistence that “In the New Testament, this word lost' does not mean DAMNED, or DOOMED," is obviously wrong. He said, "It simply means in the wrong place.’"[25]Vine defined the meaning here as “spiritual destitution and alienation from God”; and in other New Testament passages, the word means, “the loss of eternal life."[26]It was the great mission of the Redeemer to seek and save the lost; and that was to be done by the sacrifice of himself on Calvary; and there could be no other objective which would justify so great a sacrifice, except that of saving men from eternal damnation. Thus, in what it took to save the lost, one may read the pathetic nature of their state. THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDSThe name of this parable is a little misleading (the name has been assigned by men), because there is much more in it than the analogy concerning the pounds. [22] James William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 187. [23] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 136. [24] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 297. [25] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 245. [26] Vine’s Greek Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1940), II, p. 18.

Verse 11 And as they heard these things, he added, and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.The reasons why Jesus spoke this parable are suggested here. As Geldenhuys noted: It was to teach that the kingdom of God will not take place immediately, that the kingdom will not bring with it a Jewish political triumph, that all of Jesus’ followers must work faithfully until he comes, and that the final judgment is the time when the faithful will be rewarded, and the unfaithful and hostile punished.[27]The parable is as follows: ENDNOTE: [27] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 474.

Verse 12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and return. And he called ten servants of his, and gave them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us. And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants, unto whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading. And the first came before him saying, Lord, thy pound hath made ten pounds more. And he said unto him, Well done, thou good servant; because thou wast faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath made five pounds. And he said unto him also, Be thou over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I kept laid up in a napkin: for I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that which thou layest not down, and reapest that which thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant, Thou knowest that I am an austere man, taking up that which I laid down, and reaping that which I did not sow; then wherefore gavest thou not my money into the bank, and I at my coming should have required it with interest? And he said unto them that stood by, Take away from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath ten pounds. And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.

I say unto you, that every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. It would be just as reasonable to declare this parable as “resembling that of the Ten Virgins” as to declare that it resembles Matthew’s parable of the talents. After all, were there not ten virgins and ten servants! This parable is unique to Luke, and encompasses a wide spectrum of teaching far beyond that found in any other parable. One portion of this parable (the detail of the ten servants and the ten pounds entrusted to them) does, in fact, recall Matthew’s parable; but the lessons and analogies in view are utterly different. As Summers said, “The parable contains much allegorical material."[28] We shall not be concerned with the radical criticism which tries to find here a clumsy melding of two different parables; because the analogies which shall be noted, and the perfect, interlocking unity of the whole parable are devastating to any such notion. IN THE PARABLEThe nobleman = Jesus Christ our Lord His going into the far country = his ascension to God in heaven His receiving of a kingdom = reigning over the church His citizens refusing him = secular Israel’s rejection The ambassage they sent = “We have no king but Caesar.” The ten servants = all of the servants of Christ “Trade ye … till I come” = the faithful work of Christians The ten pounds = the trust God gives to every man The one who gained ten = the faithful Christian The one who gained five = the faithful Christian of less ability The one who hid his pound = the wicked and unfaithful Christian Ten cities and five cities = different kinds of employment in heaven Taking away the pound = punishment of unfaithful servants Slaying his enemies = judgment of Jerusalem as a type of eternal judgment The return of the nobleman = the Second Coming of Christ Extended absence of nobleman = the long period of time before the Second Coming There are collateral analogies in most of the above which will be noted below, making this by far the most extensive of Jesus’ parables, as far as the comprehensive nature of its teaching is concerned. A certain nobleman … What an appropriate comparison for Jesus, who was of the royal seed of David, heir to the theocracy, and legitimate holder of the Davidic throne of Israel. As Barclay said, “This parable is unique among the parables of Jesus, because it is the only parable whose story is based on an actual historical event."[29]Many of Jesus’ hearers could no doubt remember the occasion, following the death of Herod the Great, when his son Archelaus made the long journey to Rome to have his rule over Judea confirmed by Augustus Caesar. While Archelaus was on that journey, Josephus relates that the Jews “greatly complained of Archelaus, and desired that they might be made subject to Roman governors; but when Caesar had heard what they had to say, he distributed Herod’s dominions among his sons, according to his own pleasure."[30]Of course, there is a clear reference, in this mention of a nobleman going into a far country to receive a kingdom, to the historical fact of Archelaus having done so, and with the additional fact of the Jews’ having sent messages to Caesar against him. The point, left out of sight in the parable, is also true that their ambassage did no good; Archelaus reigned anyway! So would Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the very place where Jesus spoke this parable was at Jericho, “where this very Archelaus had built himself a royal palace of great magnificence."[31]“Notice that the story is not about a nobleman who set up a kingdom, but who went into the far country to receive one."[32] Jesus did not set up the kingdom while on earth; the kingdom began on Pentecost, after he received it in heaven. “The crowning of Jesus is still to come,"[33] at the time Jesus spoke this. This occurred in heaven (Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 19:28; 1 Corinthians 15:25, etc.). Citizens hated him and sent an ambassage … This received a most illuminating comment by Trench: Before yet he had gone to receive his kingdom, the Jews cried to Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar,” and again, “Write not King of the Jews” (John 19:21). But the strictest fulfillment was in the demeanor of the Jews after his Ascension in their antagonism to Christ in his infant church.[34]Ten servants … The number “ten” stands for an infinitely greater number, such use of numbers being common among the Hebrews. “His citizens …” mentioned in the next verse (Luke 19:14) were also his, and under obligations to acknowledge this rule; but the servants were especially “his” in the sense of being redeemed by him. The citizens were his because he had created them and was their rightful lord. Ten pounds … Each servant received the same trust, the pound standing for life with all of its emoluments. Literally, “the pound” was “a mina, worth 100 drachmas ($20.00)."[35]The three servants who reported are typical of all, and as Trench declared, “The three are adduced as specimens of classes,"[36] the other seven being passed over for the sake of brevity. We will not that this man reign over us … (Luke 19:14) Of this, Cox remarked, “Servants, what are you doing with the pound entrusted in your keeping? Citizens, we beg you to let this man reign over you, that you may reign with him."[37]The portion of this parable dealing with the pounds is significantly different from Matthew’s account of the Talents. As Boles said, “They are different in every essential and important point."[38] In Matthew, a much larger sum was entrusted, a talent being vastly greater than a mere pound; but there the apostles were in view, and their trust was greater than that of other Christians. There each received, not the same, as here, but according to his ability, etc. Of the unfavorable opinion of his lord, held by the man who hid his pound, it should be observed that the irreligious always have an antagonistic view of God. The king’s answering him out of his own mouth shows that men will not be able to complain if God condemns them. To every one that hath shall be given, etc. … This was a saying of Jesus, intrinsically true, and used on several occasions. Only those who employ their God-given abilities shall keep them and find them expanded. Bring hither, and slay before me … “This pictures the terrible fate of Jerusalem, indicating the inexorable judgments of God in history”;[39] but it prefigures also the Second Coming and final judgment scene. The fact that the unfaithful servant was merely deprived, contrasting with the capital punishment executed here, has led some to suppose that: A distinction is drawn between the reproof of a servant and the execution of an enemy. The judgment of believers for reward and that of the opposing world for condemnation seem to be distinguished here.[40]Such a speculation would seem to be unjustified on the grounds that in Matthew, the Lord said, “Cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30). This bringing of his enemies and slaying them must not be understood as merely inert matter in the parable. As Trench said, “It belongs to the innermost kernel of the parable,"[41] showing the unmitigated wrath of Almighty God as it shall finally be vindicated upon the wicked. In this great parable, it is of the greatest significance that Jesus is the nobleman who went to receive a kingdom. Therefore, Jesus is Lord and King, and such this parable was designed to declare him, no less than it was designed to show that no immediate political victory for the Jews would mark God’s kingdom. The arrogant assertion of many to the effect that Jesus fully expected a glorious kingdom at that point in history is refuted by the implications of this parable, which envisages a time-lapse of centuries. The very fact of Jesus’ prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, as he undeniably did, an event forty years future from his crucifixion, and making that to be a type of the final judgment, as the overwhelming number of Bible scholars agree, shows that the holy Saviour fully knew, and revealed it beforehand, that centuries were involved in the progress of his kingdom to the final judgment. [28] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 226. [29] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 246. [30] Flavius Josephus, Wars, Book II, chapter 6. [31] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 303. [32] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 583. [33] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 173. [34] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 509. [35] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 583. [36] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 511. [37] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 60. [38] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 362. [39] Donald G. Miller, op. cit., p. 134. [40] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 256. [41] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 512.

Verse 28 And when he had thus spoken, he went on before going up to Jerusalem.The verses of Luk 19:28-44, beginning here, “form a transition from Luke’s central section (Luke 9:51 to Luke 19:27) to the final events in Jerusalem."[42] Jesus will enter Jerusalem as King of Israel, knowing already that he would be rejected and crucified; and yet he would do so in such a manner that all ages would see and understand perfectly his purpose and intention. ENDNOTE: [42] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 98.

Verse 29 And it came to pass when he drew nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called Olivet, he sent two of his disciples, saying, Go your way into the village over against you; in which as ye enter ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat: loose him, and bring him.THE ENTRYEverything about the triumphal entry was carefully designed to stress the Kingship of Jesus. “The mount that is called Olivet …” was the point from which Jesus started the entry; and why did he choose that place? Zechariah prophesied that “The Lord shall be king over all the earth” ( Zechariah 14:9), declaring also that “in that day his feet shall stand upon the Mount of Olives which is before Jerusalem on the east”! (Zechariah 14:4). As Miller noted, “Every feature of the story indicates Jesus’ intention to declare himself King."[43]Bethphage, and Bethany … The latter of these was the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead only a few weeks previously. Bethany means “house of dates,” and Bethphage means “house of figs.” Ye shall find a colt tied … Of course, the mother and colt were both tied, and both were taken for Jesus’ use. An unbroken colt would have been unusable by the disciples without the mother also. See parallels in Mark (Mark 11:1-11) and Matthew (Matthew 21:1-17). Believers in the omniscience of Jesus (see under Luke 19:6) do not need to suppose that Jesus had “apparently made previous arrangements regarding the colt,"[44]because such a supposition must also account for other evidences of omniscience. If Jesus pre-arranged this, there would have had to be a definite fixing of a certain time for the disciples to come after it. There could hardly have been a decision to keep the colt and its mother tied up several weeks (since Jesus’ last trip to Jerusalem) until he should send for them. Thus, even if pre-arranged, Jesus would have had to know the exact hour in advance, and that is in itself omniscience. The far more preferable view is to understand this as another instance of the omniscience of the Saviour. Matthew’s mention of the colt’s mother, and all the evangelists’ mentioning, in the case of either the colt or its mother, the fact that it was tied has been thought, since the days of Justin Martyr, to be a reference to Genesis 49:11 where, after Jacob’s prophesy of Shiloh (Jesus Christ), he specifically mentioned the binding of the ass and the ass’s colt, in connection with the washing of Messiah’s clothes in “the blood of grapes,” a reference to his crucifixion. Thus, the bound donkey (Matthew) and the bound donkey’s colt (Mark and Luke) are both laid under tribute to support the prophetic picture of Jesus’ Passion. [43] Donald G. Miller, op. cit., p. 135. [44] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 98.

Verse 31 And if any one ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say, The Lord hath need of him. And they that were sent went away, and found even as he had said unto them. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him.It is clear that Luke intended his readers to conclude that Jesus possessed omniscience, the event unfolding exactly as Jesus had said that it would. If Jesus had prearranged this, the owner would not have asked this question. A well-known pseudocon, based on Mark’s saying that “certain of them that stood there” questioned the disciples, whereas Luke stated that “the owners” did so, barely deserves notice. The same persons are referred to in both cases; the owners were “standing there.”

Verse 35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they threw their garments upon the colt, and set Jesus thereon. And as he went, they spread their garments in the way.Brought him to Jesus …Matthew’s statement that the foal’s mother was brought to Jesus as well as the foal does not contradict Mark and Luke. Matthew’s account is probably intended to emphasize that Zechariah’s prophecy was literally fulfilled.[45]Spread their garments in the way … This was commonly recognized as an act of homage to a king or other royal person. The officers of Jehu’s army paid such a tribute to him (2 Kings 9:13); and Spence says that “Agamemnon walked on costly carpets and tapestries when he entered his palace at Mycenae."[46]Moreover, it must not be thought that there was anything unkingly about Jesus’ riding on a donkey. The donkey was always ridden by a king who was going upon a mission of peace; in war, he rode a horse.

As Ryle said, “In Eastern countries, asses have in every age been used by persons of high rank."[47]The scene was one of unbelievable splendor and magnificence. The number of people was far greater than some have supposed. Some have written this off as “a rather small affair”; but it cannot be doubted that incredibly large numbers of people participated. Hobbs tells us that thirty years after this particular Passover, a Roman governor required a count of the lambs slain at Passover, and the “number was a quarter of a million."[48] Since one lamb was the requirement for every ten people, the total number who partook of the Passover was two and one-half million! Jesus had only recently raised Lazarus; and John’s Gospel recounts how the throng that surged around Jesus was dramatically increased by the countless thousands flowing out of Jerusalem to see Jesus who had raised Lazarus, and by the continuing flood of Passover pilgrims accompanying the Lord on his entry. The fearless Christ was truly the King.

As Barclay said, It is a breath-taking thing to think of a man with a price on his head, deliberately riding into a city in such a way that every eye is fixed on him. It is impossible to exaggerate the sheer courage of Jesus.[49][45] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 483. [46] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 139 [47] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 311. [48] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 278. [49] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 249.

Verse 37 And as he was drawing nigh, even at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God for all the mighty works which they had seen; saying, BLESSED IS THE KING that cometh in the name of the Lord’ peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.Every action Jesus had taken on this entry journey had been taken with the purpose of precipitating just such an acclamation as this which greeted his coming into the Holy City. It was Luke’s purpose to trace this development, and he naturally selected the specific cries of the great multitudes that fitted his purpose. That vast crowd of hundreds of thousands of people “said many things”; only a phenomenal ignorance of crowds can deny this; and, for that reason, there is no need of embarrassment because Matthew and Mark and John related many acclamations that are not repeated here. Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest … There are traces in this of the angel’s announcement to the shepherds; and one wonders if in that vast throng there might have been one of the shepherds who heard the angelic hosts the night the Lord was born. Fittingly, these words recall the events of the Nativity.

Verse 39 And some of the Pharisees from the multitude said unto him, Teacher, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said, I tell you that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.The multitude was shouting BLESSED IS THE KING; the sneering Pharisee was complaining, “Teacher, rebuke thy disciples.” Ash was surely correct in the opinion that “this title (KING) ties this episode to the parable of the rejected king (Luke 19:11-27)."[50]The stones will cry out …; Habakkuk 2:11 has this: “For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam of the timber shall answer it.” Jesus may have referred to this. What he evidently meant was that such an event as God’s sending his only Son into this world would be duly attested, regardless of the objections of the priestly hypocrites. His reply to the Pharisee had the effect of saying, “Look, Pharisee, there is no way for you to hide what is taking place right now!” If that vast multitude could have been stilled by some means, the very stones would have shouted the glory of God for what took place when God’s Son entered Jerusalem. As Lamar said: Years afterward, when the praises of Jerusalem were hushed in fire, and blood, and desolation, how eloquently did the silent stones in the streets proclaim his divinity![51]JESUS WEEPS OVER THE CITYSignificantly, at a time when the most unprecedented outpouring of praise and acclamation was being voiced by the vast multitude, Jesus, far from being enraptured and thrilled by such a demonstration, gave expression of his bitterest sorrow in an outburst of weeping. [50] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 100. [51] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 238.

Verse 41 And when he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now are they hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.He saw the city … Dummelow, Bliss, Childers, Spence, and many others affirm that a most extraordinary view of Jerusalem and the temple was afforded by any of the routes that Jesus might have taken from Bethany into the city; however, Ash says that Jesus could have seen the crowds and the southeast corner of Jerusalem, but not the temple."[52] Barclay says, “The whole city lies fully displayed in sight."[53]And wept …The word does not mean merely that tears forced themselves up and fell down his face. It suggests rather the heaving of the bosom, and the sob and the cry of the soul in agony. We could have no stronger word than the word used here.[54]And why did Jesus weep so bitterly in the very moment of what men would have hailed as his most magnificent hour? All this moved Jesus to tears. He saw something which others did not see. He saw the coming destruction of the city. He knew that all of his efforts to avert the tragedy had been repulsed and rejected.[55]Even more, however, than the physical ruin of the city and the brutal slaughter of tens of thousands of her citizens, Jesus saw in his impending rejection by the people of Israel a second disaster, comparable in every way to the one in Eden. If, and only IF, the Jews had received the Son of God, hailed him as Lord and Saviour of mankind, and led the campaign for all nations to accept his authority, the subsequent centuries would have been times of unbelievable joy and happiness upon the earth. Eden indeed might not have been fully recovered, but humanity blew its second chance when the Jews rejected their King.

This writer believes that it was the incredible moral setback of the human race which was sustained in the rejection of the Saviour which might have precipitated the bitter weeping of this occasion. True, the crucifixion could not have been avoided; the prophecies had foretold it, as well as the rejection; but it was the near totality of that rejection which bound all subsequent ages in wretchedness and frustration, at least as contrasted with what might have been. Shall cast a bank about thee … compass thee … dash thee to the ground, etc. … It has become fashionable in certain school of criticism to allege that the verses containing these prophecies “were not uttered by Jesus, but are a `vaticinium post eventum’,"[56] that is, a retrospective inclusion of these words by Luke writing after the destruction of Jerusalem; but such extravagant claims are the kind that lead intelligent men to reject the totality of such “source criticisms.” This Gospel was written before Paul’s death, long before Titus destroyed Jerusalem; and there simply cannot be any intelligent doubt that Jesus prophesied the very thing that happened. Such is not only proved by the unanimous record of the holy Gospels, but is it likewise proved by the historical fact that not a Christian was lost in the siege of the Holy City. If Jesus did not predict it, how did that come about? Geldenhuys has a marvelous comment on these expressions as the true words of Jesus Christ.[57]This lament over Jerusalem is actually one of three. See fuller comment in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 23:37.

They are in Luke 13:34; Matthew 23:37 and here. Some would meld the three, or suppose only two; but this is not necessary at all. There were good and sufficient reasons on each of the three occasions for Jesus to have exclaimed over the fate of the Holy City which he so clearly foresaw. [52] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 101. [53] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 251. [54] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 484. [55] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 588. [56] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 464. [57] Ibid., pp. 484-485.

Verse 45 And he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold, saying unto them, It is written, And my house shall be a house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of robbers.THE SECOND OF THE TEMPLEThis was the second cleansing of the temple, the first having taken place quite early in his ministry; and there are significant differences. Here there is no order to “cease and desist,” as in the first. It was too late; the day of grace was past. Also, the finality of “ye have made it a den of robbers” was not in the first. This cleansing of the temple, as was also the first, was a symbolical declaration of his Messiahship, and Kingship, on the part of Jesus. It was a fulfillment of Psa 69:9 and Malachi 3:1-3. The zeal for the Lord’s house which was prophesied was here manifested by Jesus, and the holy Messenger of the covenant suddenly came to his temple. Further discussion will be found in this series of commentaries under Matthew 21:12 and Mark 11:15, where are recorded parallel accounts of this second coming.

Verse 47 And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to destroy him: and they could not find what they might do; for all the people hung upon him, listening.Luke here summarized the situation as it existed on Monday of the final week. Only this day and the Tuesday following it remained for Jesus to continue his teachings. The tragic events of the cross would begin to unfold on Wednesday, culminating in the crucifixion itself on Thursday. Sought to destroy him … The glowering hatred of the leaders had reached the boiling point. They would kill Jesus by any means whatever, preferably by assassination (Matthew 26:4); but whatever it took to accomplish their purpose they were ready to do. Their impatience, however, would have to wait upon the Lord. He, not they, would set in motion the forces that led to his death; and his consent, not theirs, was the condition required to be fulfilled before they could act. The consent of Jesus was the sine qua non of our Lord’s Passion. Without that, the criminal and bloodthirsty leaders were reduced to frustration, as so vividly portrayed here. “They could not find what they might do!”

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 191. Through what city did Jesus pass ? 2. What man was there? 3. State his occupation. 4. What was his financial standing? 5. What was his desire? 6. State his handicap. 7. How did he overcome it ? 8. What did Jesus tell him to do ? 9. Tell what Jesus purposed to do. 10. Describe the actions of Zaccheus. 11. Why did some object? 12. What two things did Zaccheus agree to do ? 13. Which was to be done first? 14. What difference would it make? 15. In return what did Jesus bestow? 16. Forasmuch— what? 17. For what was Christ come? 18. What called forth the next parable? 19. Tell what the nobleman went to secure. 20. Before going what arrangement did he make? 21. Describe the actions of the citizens. 22. On his return what call was made? 23. Were all equally responsible? 24. What quality could each have? 25. What had the third man done? 26. State reason. 27. What should this reason have caused him to do? 28. State the punishment for this man. 29. How is something taken from nothing? 30. What is to be done to the rebels ? 31. To what people does this specially apply? 32. What city are they now approaching? 33. Where did he pause? 34. On what errand were 2 disciples now sent? 35. Describe the animal sent for. 36. What explanation to make to the owner? 37. Tell how the colt was saddled. 38. Who then mounted it? 39. How was the way prepared? 40. What mount is he now approaching? 41. How did the disciples acclaim him? 42. State the demand of the Pharisees. 43. Why not grant it? 44. What caused Jesus to weep? 45. Tell the ignorance he charged upon the city. 46. Who were destined to besiege it ? 47. What was to be done to the walls ? 48. How were the children of the city to fare? 49. What did Jesus now do in the temple ? 50. Tell what he quoted. 51. Where and how often did he teach? 52. What was attempted? 53. Tell why it was not done.

Luke 19:1

1 A traveler would come to Jericho soon after crossing the Jordan from the east side; it was not far from Jerusalem (verse 11)_. Jesus passed through the city on his way to the capital where he was soon to close his earthly career.

Luke 19:2

2 The publicans had access to the money of the people, and by reason of that fact they could increase their own possessions. This prominent group of citizens is described at Matthew 9:10.

Luke 19:3

3 The press means the crowd, which was so great that Zacchaeus could not see Jesus, he being little of stature, which means he was not very tall.

Luke 19:4

4 Zacchaeus knew the usual path of travel, hence he found a tree along the route and climbed up into it. The sycamore tree was planted by waysides because it had wide-spreading branches which afforded a good shade.

Luke 19:5

5 Since Zacchaeus was a Jew (Verse 9), he was a proper subject to be commanded by Jesus, for He was sent to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24).

Luke 19:6

6 Received him joyfully. Zacchaeus evidently was surprised (and honored) to be called upon to entertain the great Teacher, knowing the general estimate that was placed on publicans as a class.

Luke 19:7

7 The thing that happened was usual under such circumstances. The people murmured (among themselves after Jesus had gone with Zac-chaeus) because Jesus went to be a guest of one whom they classed as a sinner. That was because he was a publican, most of whom were justly charged with taking unlawful amounts of taxes from the people.

Luke 19:8

8 The speech in this verse was made after reaching the home of Zacchaeus, for in his response (next verse) Jesus refers to this house. This helps us to understand the phrase Zacchaeus stood, the second word of which is defined by Thayer, “To place one’s self, to stand.” He evidently took a position where all that were in the house could see and hear him as he made his promises to the Lord. It is significant that he was to give half of what he had to the poor first, and then reimburse any who were wronged after the division. That adjustment would hence be made out of his half of the original stock. False accusation means, “To exact money wrongfully; to extort from, defraud.” Such a practice was commonly done by the publicans. As this agreement was made in the hearing of the group, any man who had a complaint was given opportunity to state it.

Luke 19:9

9 Salvation is come to this house. Not that every member of the household was saved, for Zacchaeus was the only one who repented; it means that salvation had come to a member of that household. A son of Abraham entitled him to salvation on the basis of the statement of Jesus to the woman (Matthew 15:24).

Luke 19:10

0 This verse states a truth that will apply generally.

Luke 19:11

1 People are inclined to go to extremes with their conclusions. Jesus had frequently told them that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. They concluded, therefore, that it was just upon them, especially because He was headed toward Jerusalem and was even then very near the city. Immediately is from , and Thayer defines it, “On the spot; immediately, forthwith, instantly.”

Luke 19:12

2 The inspired writer tells us why Jesus spoke this parable, that it was because the people thought the kingdom was to be set up as soon as Jesus reached Jerusalem. Were that to be done, virtually all of the preliminary details showing true devotion to the King would be over. That would be possible only under a worldly kingdom like what they expected. Jesus considered it necessary, therefore, to give this parable that would show it was to be a spiritual kingdom, and that its citizens would be placed under strict responsibility. The nobleman is Jesus, and the far country is Heaven. If he must go to that far country in order to receive a kingdom, it follows that he would not set it up in a few days, or as soon as he arrived at Jerusalem.

Luke 19:13

3 The specific lesson intended by this parable is the same as that of the talents in Matthew 25, namely, individual responsibility. The details of the story should not be strained into any other meaning. When Jesus or his apostles select any par-.ticular subject for the purpose of illustration, they will give the details in order to make the main point stand out, but no other use should be made of such items. However, the items that are properly related to the principal subject under consideration will be explained accordingly. The pounds corresponds with the “talents” in Matthew 25, and occupy till I cone is the same as developing one’s talents.

Luke 19:14

4 This verse applies to people in the kingdom who deny the authority of King Jesus. Such persons will not make the proper use of their opportunities.

Luke 19:15

5 This verse refers to the day of judgment, when all mankind will be held to account for the way they have lived and used their talents.

Luke 19:16-17

7 This corresponds with Matthew 25:20-21. In that place the faithful are told to “enter into the joy of their Lord.” In our present passage it is expressed by having authority over ten cities, but the meaning is the same.

Luke 19:18-19

9 This is equivalent to the man with two talents and the reward is to be based on the same principle, namely, faithfulness.

Luke 19:20

0 This man is in the same class as the one who buried his lord’s talent, and he will be condemned for his unfaithfulness. (See Matthew 25:24-28.)

Luke 19:21-26

6 The paragraph preceding this somewhat overlaps it, but it will be well to consider the present paragraph in connection with Matthew 25:25-26.

Luke 19:27

7 This corresponds with Matthew 25:30.

Luke 19:28

8 Went before. He took the lead in journeying toward Jerusalem.

Luke 19:29-35

5 See the notes on Matthew 21:1-7.

Luke 19:36

6 This is explained at Matthew 21:8.

Luke 19:37-38

8 See Matthew 21:9-11.

Luke 19:39

9 Evidently these Pharisees were envious of Jesus because he was receiving so much honor from the disciples. Their suggestion that He rebuke his disciples was on the pretense that it was an unnecessary disturbance, but in reality it was because of their envy. (See Matthew 21:15-16.)

Luke 19:40

0 The reference to the stones is figurative, to illustrate the worthiness of Jesus to be thus honored. John told the Jews that God was able to make the stones give birth to offspring for Abraham (Matthew 3:9), and if necessary we are sure He would cause the inanimate stones to express praises for Jesus, should the devoted disciples be forced to maintain silence.

Luke 19:41-44

4 See the notes on Matthew 23:37-39; Matthew 24:1-2. Visitation as used here means “inspection, investigation,” and applies to the time when Jerusalem was to be visited with distress, as an investigation into her history would justify.

Luke 19:45-46

6 See Matthew 21:12-13.

Luke 19:47

7 He taught daily, also the chief of the leaders sought to destroy him. The connection between these statements is not revealed here. We know, however, it was because Jesus rebuked them for their hypocrisy.

Luke 19:48

8 The people had great respect for Jesus, and these priests and scribes did not want to lose the esteem of the public lest they fail in their own popularity.