ลูกา 20:41 วิจารณ์

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.

Which devour widows' houses,.... As the characters of them, in the preceding verse, expose their pride, this shows their avarice; they were very voracious and cruel; they did not spare widows, but devoured their substance: and for a show make long prayers; to cover their wickedness, pretending great devotion and religion; the same shall receive greater damnation: than openly profane sinners; doing such wickedness under a cloak of religion, will aggravate their condemnation; See Gill on Mat 23:14. Next: Luke Chapter 21

Now, He did not reject the attestation of those who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. If, however, the Scribes thought Christ was David's Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord, what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally confute an error of the Scribes, yet David asserted the honour of Christ, when he more prominently affirmed that He was his Lord than his Son,-an attribute which was hardly suitable to the destroyer of the Creator.

But how consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question! For He, who had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as "the Son of David," then made no remark on the subject, not having the Scribes in His presence; whereas He now purposely moots the point before them, and that of His own accord, in order that He might show Himself whom the Mind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply declared to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord.

They are not blamed here because they acknowledge Him to be David's Son, for the blind man for so doing was thought worthy to be healed. (Luke 18:42.) And the children saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, (Matt. 21:9.) rendered to God the glory of the highest praise; but they are blamed because they believe Him not to be the Son of God. Hence it is added, And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord. (Ps. 110:1.) Both the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, but there are not two Lords, but one Lord, for the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. He Himself sits at the right hand of the Father, for He is coequal with the Father, inferior to none; for it follows, Sit thou at my right hand. He is not honoured by sitting at the right hand, nor is He degraded by being sent. Degrees of dignity are not sought for, where is the fulness of divinity.

Before summarizing his commandments, the Lord included the faith and mercy preceding his passion at the end of his testament. Faith is that we believe Christ is our Lord and God and sits at the right hand of God. … He rebukes those who say that Christ is the Son of David. How then did that blind man deserve healing by acknowledging the Son of David?44 How did the children, saying "Hosanna to the Son of David," give the glory of their lofty proclamation to God? Here Jesus did not rebuke them because they acknowledged the Son of David but because they do not believe him to be the Son of God. The true faith does not confess one versus the other but both. Although at the beginning we judged to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, yet now since we are near the judgment, we already do not know Christ only crucified but also wait for him coming in the clouds. The unbeliever looks on the wounds. The faithful one is taken up and runs to meet Christ in the air. Let us therefore believe that Christ is God and man.

Or, that He sits on the Father's right hand proves His heavenly glory. For whose throne is equal, their Majesty is equal. But sitting when it is said of God signifies a universal kingdom and power. Therefore He sitteth at the right hand of the Father, because the Word proceeding from the substance of the Father, being made flesh, putteth not off His divine glory. We then likewise in answer to the new Pharisees, who neither confess the Son of the holy Virgin to be the true Son of God, nor to be God, but divide one son into two, put the like objections: How then is the Son of David David's Lord, and that not by human lordship, but divine?

The Savior asked them, “How do they say that Christ is David’s son? David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit on my right hand until I place your enemies as a footstool under your feet.” ’ David therefore calls him Lord, and how is he his son?” The beginning of understanding is faith. He says, “If you will not believe, you cannot understand.” The examination of important truths leads to salvation. Emmanuel is the Son and the Lord of David. If anyone would learn in what way he is to understand this, he must certainly begin the exact and blameless examination of his mystery. This was kept in silence from the foundation of the world but has been revealed in the latter ages of the world.

We also will ask the Pharisees of today a similar question. They deny that he who was born of the holy Virgin is very Son of God the Father and himself also God. They also divide the one Christ into two sons. Let these people explain to us how David’s Son is his Lord, not so much as to human lordship as divine. To sit at the right hand of the Father is the assurance and pledge of supreme glory. Those who share the same throne are equal also in dignity, and those who are crowned with equal honors are understood of course to be equal in nature. To sit by God can signify nothing else than sovereign authority. The throne declares to us that Christ possesses power over everything and supremacy by right of his substance. How is the Son of David David’s Lord, seated at the right hand of God the Father and on the throne of Deity? Is it not altogether according to the unerring word of the mystery that the Word as God sprung from the very substance of God the Father? Being in his likeness and equal with him, he became flesh. He became man, perfectly and yet without departing from the incomparable excellence of the divine dignities. He continued in that state in which he had always been. He still was God, although he became flesh and in form like us. He is David’s Lord therefore according to that which belongs to his divine glory, nature and sovereignty. He is his son according to the flesh.

The Pharisees did not answer Christ’s question. They did this in spitefulness, or rather against their own selves, for perhaps being convicted by the inquiry the word of salvation would have shined in them. They did not wish to know the truth, but sinfully seizing for themselves the Lord’s inheritance, they denied the heir, or rather wickedly murdered him. They rejected the faith because of their love of leadership, greed for profit, and for their shameful gains.…To remove from them the habit of thinking and speaking of him in a derogatory and scornful manner, he asked them, “How do they say that Christ is David’s Son, etc.?” As I have already remarked, they were silent from malicious motives and thereby condemned themselves as unworthy of eternal life and of the knowledge of the truth.

And since they had been defeated in argument, they ask Him no further questions, but seize Him, and deliver Him up to the Roman power. From which we may learn, that the poison of envy may indeed be subdued, but it is a hard thing to keep it at rest.

Soon about to go to His sufferings, the Lord preaches about His Divinity, and not openly or with pride, but very humbly. For He asks them and, having brought them to perplexity, leaves it to them to draw the conclusion.

Although our Lord was shortly about to enter on His Passion, He proclaims His own Godhead, and that too neither incautiously nor boastfully, but with modesty. For He puts a question to them, and having thrown them into perplexity, leaves them to reason out the conclusion; as it follows, And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?

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.

How say they - See the note on Mat 22:42-46 (note).

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.

CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID AND MESSIAH, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. (Luk 20:41-47) said, &c.--"What think ye of Christ [the promised and expected Messiah]? Whose son is He [to be]? They say unto Him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit [by the Holy Ghost, Mar 12:36] call Him Lord?" (Mat 22:42-43). The difficulty can only be solved by the higher and lower--the divine and human natures of our Lord (Mat 1:23). Mark the testimony here given to the inspiration of the Old Testament (compare Luk 24:44).