Luke 20:15 Komentář

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's answer to the chief priests' question concerning his authority (Luk 20:1-8). II. The parable of the vineyard let out to the unjust and rebellious husbandmen (Luk 20:9-19). III. Christ's answer to the question proposed to him concerning the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar (Luk 20:20-26). IV. His vindication of that great fundamental doctrine of the Jewish and Christian institutes - the resurrection of the dead and the future state, from the foolish cavils of the Sadducees (Luk 20:27-38). V. His puzzling the scribes with a question concerning the Messiah's being the Son of David (Luk 20:39-44). VI. The caution he gave his disciples to take heed of the scribes (Luk 20:45-47). All which passages we had before in Matthew and Mark, and therefore need not enlarge upon them here, unless on those particulars which we had not there.

And it came to pass, that on one of those days,.... According to the account of the Evangelist Mark, it must be the second day, or two days after his public entrance into Jerusalem; for on the evening of the day he made his entry, he went out to Bethany with his disciples; the next morning, as he returned from thence, he cursed the barren fig tree; and when he came to the temple cast out the buyers and sellers; at evening he went out again, either to Bethany, or the Mount of Olives; and the next morning, as he and his disciples returned, the fig tree was observed to be dried up; and when they were come to Jerusalem, as he was walking in the temple, he was attacked by the sanhedrim, and had the following discourse with them: as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the Gospel; for he taught them by preaching that, and which he did most clearly, faithfully, and publicly, being abundantly anointed and qualified for it, and sent to do it. The chief priests, and the Scribes, came upon him, with the elders. The whole sanhedrim being purposely convened together, came upon him in a body; and it may be suddenly, and at an unawares, and came open mouthed against him, and attacked him with great warmth and vehemency.

And he beheld them,.... Looked very earnestly and wistly at them, speaking as it were by his looks, signifying, that verily so it would be, as he had said; that they would reject the Messiah, and put him to death, and bring utter ruin upon themselves, and deprive their posterity of many advantages and privileges: and said, what is this then that is written; that is, what else is the meaning of such a Scripture? is not the sense of that perfectly agreeable to what has been said, that the Messiah shall be rejected by the principal men among the Jews in church and state, and yet he shall be exalted, who will then take vengeance on them? the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? The passage is in Psa 118:22. See Gill on Mat 21:42.

He proposed another parable. “A certain man, a householder, planted his vineyard.” This is like what the psalmist said, “You brought a vine out of Egypt, you drove out the nations and planted it.” He protected it with a hedge, the law, and prepared a pit in it for the winepresses, the altar, and built a tower there, the temple, and sent his servants to bring him its fruit. The first, the next and the last were not received. Then he sent his Son. He was not the last, for although he appeared at the end, he already existed. John witnessed, “A man will come after me, who is before me.” He did not do this because he was unaware that the ancestors were incapable of receiving the produce but to remove the detractions of these stubborn ones from their midst. They were saying that he was not able to direct and prepare everything that he wanted to by the law, so therefore he sent his Son to impose silence on them. When they saw his Son coming, they said, “Here is the heir of the vineyard. Come! Let us kill him, and the inheritance of the vineyard will be ours.” They killed him, but their inheritance was taken away from them and given to the Gentiles. It happened just as he had said, “For to him who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

He rightly puts a question to them, that they may condemn themselves by their own words, as it follows, What then will the Lord of the vineyard do to them? He says, the Lord of the vineyard will come, because in the Son is present also the Father's majesty; or because in the last times He will be more graciously present by His Spirit in the hearts of men.

When then the only-begotten Son was sent to them, the unbelieving Jews, wishing to be rid of the Heir, put Him to death by crucifying Him, and rejected Him by denying Him. Christ is the Heir and the Testator likewise. The Heir, because He survives His own death; and of the testament which He Himself bequeathed, He reaps as it were the hereditary profits in our advances.

The lord of the vineyard thinks to himself saying, "What shall I do?" We must carefully examine in what sense he says this. Does the householder use these words because he had no more servants? He certainly did not lack other ministers of his holy will. When a physician may say of a sick man, "What shall I do?" we should understand him to mean that every resource of medical skill had been tried without success. We affirm that the lord of the vineyard, having practiced all gentleness and care with his farm but without benefiting it in any way, says, "What shall I do?" What is the result? He advances to still greater purposes. "I will send," he says, "my son, the beloved one. Perhaps they will reverence him." Observe in this, that after the servants, he sends the Son as One not numbered among the servants but as a true Son and therefore the Lord. Although he put on the form of a servant for the dispensation's sake, he was God, very Son of God the Father who possessed natural dominion. Did they honor him who was sent as Son and Lord and as One who possesses by inheritance whatever belongs to God the Father? No, they murdered him outside the vineyard, having plotted among themselves a foolish and ignorant plan full of all wickedness. They say, "Let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours."

And they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. The heir of the vineyard is slaughtered outside the vineyard, because Jesus suffered outside the gate to sanctify the people with his own blood. Either he was cast out of the vineyard and killed, because he was first rejected by the heart of the unbelievers, and then given over to the cross. In whose figure Moses set the altar of burnt offering, where the blood of the victims would be poured, not within the tabernacle, but at the door, mystically teaching that the altar of the Lord's cross should be placed outside the gate of Jerusalem, and that Christ himself, the true sacrifice of the Father, whom he had come to sanctify, should not be received in the innermost heart of the house of the Jews, but should be tinged with his own blood outside. But that which according to Mark is said with the order changed: And they took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard (Mark 12), marks their obstinacy, who did not want to believe the apostles preaching of the crucified and risen Lord, but cast him out as if he were a vile corpse. Because, as far as it depended on them, excluding him from their boundaries, they gave him to be received by the Gentiles.

(in Marc. 12.) Or understanding it morally; to every one of the faithful is let out a vineyard to cultivate, in that the mystery of baptism is entrusted to him to work out. One servant is sent, a second and a third, when the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets are read. But the servant who is sent is said to be treated despitefully or beaten, when the word heard is despised or blasphemed. The heir who is sent that man kills as far as he can, who by sin tramples under foot the Son of God. (Heb. 6:6.) The wicked husbandman being destroyed, the vineyard is given to another, when with the gift of grace, which the proud man spurned, the humble are enriched.

What then will the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others. When they heard this, they said: God forbid. They contradicted the Lord's sentence because they recognized that it was against their own perfidy. For they understood the parable not because they were already prepared by the merit of holiness to grasp the words of the mystery, but because they were inflamed with the flames of malice to do what was being said, and therefore they were ready to recognize what they had in mind, although spoken in parables, as something long meditated upon. Therefore, to the Jews denying that it would be just for the knowledge of the divine law which they despised to be transferred to the Gentiles, observe what the Savior replies.

But our Lord most clearly proves that the Jewish rulers crucified the Son of God not from ignorance but for envy. For they knew it was He to whom it was said, I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance. (Ps. 2:8.) And they cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. (Heb. 13:12.) Because Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His blood, suffered without the gate. Or was He cast out of the vineyard and slain, because He was first driven out of the hearts of the unbelievers, and then fastened to the cross?

They "killed" the Son, "casting him out of the vineyard." One could fittingly say: out of Jerusalem, for Christ suffered "outside the gate" (Heb. 13:12). But since above we understood the vineyard to mean the people, and not Jerusalem, it is perhaps more to the point to say that the people did kill Him, but outside the vineyard, that is, they did not put Him to death with their own hands, but by handing Him over to Pilate and the Gentiles. Thus, the Lord suffered outside the vineyard, that is, not at the hands of the people, for they were not permitted to put anyone to death, and so He died at the hands of the soldiers. Some understood the vineyard to mean the Scriptures. Thus, the Lord suffered outside the Scriptures, that is, He was killed by those who did not believe Moses. For if they had believed Moses and occupied themselves with the Scriptures, searching them, they would not have killed the Master of the Scriptures.

Since we have already assumed the people, not Jerusalem, to be the vineyard, it may perhaps be more properly said that the people indeed slew Him without the vineyard; that is, our Lord suffered without the hands of the people, because in truth the people did not with their own hands inflict death upon Him, but delivered Him up to Pilate and the Gentiles. But some by the vineyard have understood the Scripture, which not believing they slew the Lord. And so without the vineyard, that is, without Scripture, our Lord is said to have suffered.

The question concerning the authority of Christ, and the baptism of John, Luk 20:1-8. The parable of the vine-yard let out to wicked husbandmen, Luk 20:9-18. The chief priests and scribes are offended, and lay snares for him, Luk 20:19, Luk 20:20. The question about tribute, Luk 20:21-26. The question about the resurrection of the dead, and our Lord's answer, Luk 20:27-40. How Christ is the son of David, Luk 20:41-44. He warns his disciples against the hypocrisy of the scribes, whose condemnation he points out, Luk 20:45-47.

THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED, AND HIS REPLY--PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN. (Luke 20:1-19) these things--particularly the clearing of the temple.

cast him out of the vineyard--(Compare Heb 13:11-13; Kg1 21:13; Joh 19:17).