VI. The Closing Ministry. Chs. 19:29 to 21:38
A. The Triumphal Entry. Ch. 19:29-48
29 And it came to pass, when he drew nigh unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called Olivet, he sent two of the disciples, 30 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. 31 And if anyone ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say, The Lord hath need of him. 32 And they that were sent went away, and found even as he had said unto them. 33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? 34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him. 35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they threw their garments upon the colt, and set Jesus thereon. 36 And as he went, they spread their garments in the way. 37 And as he was now drawing nigh, even at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen; 38 saying, Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. 39 And some of the Pharisees from the multitude said unto him, Teacher, rebuke thy disciples. 40 And he answered and said, I tell you that, if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.
41 And when he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. 43 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, 44 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.
45 And he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold, 46 saying unto them, It is written, And my house shall be a house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of robbers.
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: 48 and they could not find what they might do; for the people all hung upon him, listening.
The story of Luke is never lacking in human interest, but no scene is more suffused with sentiment, none more vivid with color, than that which pictures Jesus entering Jerusalem in triumph. We see our Lord mounted as a king, surrounded by acclaiming multitudes, sweeping over the brow of Olivet, while his attendant disciples spread their garments in the way and hail him as the Messiah. We see him lamenting over the doomed city and hear the harsh tones of the rulers who are plotting his death. With all these shouts of joy and sobs of grief and mutterings of malice, surely no scene is so full of emotion and none can illustrate more strikingly the relation between religious feeling and religious faith.
An appeal to the eye and ear and heart may awaken sentiment and prepare the way for the surrender of the will. There is to-day a proper place for music and architecture and eloquence as aids to devotion. In the case of the triumphal entry, Jesus planned every detail. He sent two disciples to secure the colt on which he was to ride; he allowed the disciples to place on the colt their garments, and as he rode toward the city he accepted the acclamations of the crowd. When the Pharisees criticized Jesus for permitting such praise and arousing such excitement, he declared that such homage to himself was not only proper but necessary, and that if the multitudes were silenced the very stones would “cry out” to welcome and to honor him. Jesus was offering himself as King for the last time, and therefore his offer was to be made in the most impressive way. He appealed to the imagination. He stirred the emotions. He did not mean that he was to be such a king as the people supposed; the borrowed colt, the garments of peasants, the banners of leafy branches were not to be the permanent furnishings of a court. He wished to secure the submission of their wills, the complete surrender of their lives, and therefore he made this stirring, dramatic, emotional appeal to the multitudes. He knew that religious feeling is an aid to religious faith.
However, religious feeling is not to be confused with religious faith. Emotion is no substitute for conviction. Jesus was not deceived. As he caught sight of the sacred city and heard the bitter criticism of the Pharisees, he realized the stubborn unbelief he was to encounter; he saw his rejection and death and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem and he pronounced his pathetic lament, “If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace!” He predicted the ghastly horrors of the coming siege and the desolation of Zion and declared that it was due to inability to see that he had come as a Saviour and that his ministry had been a gracious visitation which might have resulted in repentance and in continued life for the nation. It is the sad, sad lament for what might have been.
Jesus entered the Temple and rebuked the rulers for allowing the house of God to be desecrated by degrading traffic. As the story closes we see Jesus standing in the center of the scene, on one hand the rulers plotting against his life, and on his other the multitudes hanging admiringly upon his words. Only too soon the rulers were to persuade the crowds to cry out for his crucifixion, and we are reminded that religious feeling unaccompanied by conviction may soon be chilled into indifference and hate.
There were those, however, like the disciples, who never forgot this scene of triumph. Its fuller meaning was appreciated in later years and as their trust in Christ strengthened, they looked back with ever deeper emotions upon the experiences of that memorable day; for it is true that religious feeling is after all a natural and inevitable consequence of religious faith.
B. The Question As To Authority. Ch. 20:1-8
1 And it came to pass, on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief priests and the scribes with the elders; 2 and they spake, saying unto him, Tell us: By what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? 3 And he answered and said unto them I also will ask you a question; and tell me: 4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? 5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, if we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why did ye not believe him? 6 But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. 7 And they answered, that they knew not whence it was. 8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
After his triumphal entry into the city, Jesus continued to be the popular idol of the multitudes that thronged Jerusalem at the passover season. It was this popularity which delayed the designs of the rulers, as they had determined to put Jesus to death. They must first discredit him with the people. With this in view they sent a deputation from their chief court, the sanhedrin, to entrap Jesus in his talk or to bring him into conflict with the Jewish or Roman rulers. They challenged him to state by what authority he was receiving such honors as the Messiah, or driving the traders from the Temple, or performing his miracles. Their question was framed with subtle skill, “By what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?” They placed Jesus in a dilemma; if he should claim that authority had been delegated to him, then he might be accused of disloyalty and of schism, in supplanting the recognized “authorities” of the Jewish state; if he should claim inherent divine authority, as identified with God, he might be condemned for blasphemy.
Jesus silenced his enemies with a question which involved them in a counter dilemma: “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?” They could not say “from heaven,” for they had rejected John; they dared not say “from men,” for they feared the people by whom John was regarded as a prophet. So they tried to escape by cowardly replying that they did not know. Agnosticism is usually cowardly and deserving of little respect.
But Jesus did more than silence them; he answered them. His question was no irrelevant riddle by which he met a difficulty and delayed the necessity of a reply. He definitely implied that the authority of John was divine and that his own authority was the same; but as they were afraid to deny the divine authority of John they were also powerless to deny that of Jesus; and further he implied that if they had accepted the message of John, they would be prepared to accept Jesus. It is true that if we are afraid to accept the logical conclusions of our doubts and denials, we never can hope to discover truth.
Jesus further rebuked and exposed his enemies. When they said that they did not know, Jesus knew, and they knew, and the crowds knew, that they were not honest; the Lord had laid bare their hypocrisy; he had made it perfectly evident that the real question at issue was not authority but obedience. The enemies of Jesus pretended that they wanted to know more of his credentials; they really wanted to discredit and entrap him. The modern enemies of our Lord declare that they want more proofs, more evidence; what they really lack is love for God and submission to his will. Those who do not repent when John preaches, will not believe when Jesus offers to save. The world needs to-day, not more proof of divine authority, but more obedience to the divine will.
Jesus absolutely discredited his enemies in the sight of the people. They were the constituted authorities in all matters civil and religious, and yet they were made to confess publicly that they were not competent to judge a clear, familiar, important case relating to religious authority. They really abdicated their position. They, therefore, were disqualified to pass an opinion on the exactly parallel case of the authority of Jesus. Jesus had defeated them with their own weapon. No wonder that subsequently, when on trial before such judges, he refused to answer them a word. He had shown their incompetence, their insincerity, their unbelief. Honest doubters are deserving of sympathy; but professed seekers after truth, who are unwilling to accept the consequences of belief, should expect to receive no further light. An increasing knowledge of divine realities is conditioned upon humble submission of the heart and the will to what already has been revealed.
C. The Parable Of The Husbandmen. Ch. 20:9-18
9 And he began to speak unto the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time. 10 And at the season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. 11 And he sent yet another servant: and him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 12 And he sent yet a third: and him also they wounded, and cast him forth. 13 And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him. 14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16 He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. 17 But he looked upon them, and said, What then is this that is written,
The stone which the builders rejected,
The same was made the head of the corner?
18 Every one that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
To the malicious challenge of his enemies Jesus had already replied, claiming for himself divine authority and condemning the rulers for their guilty unbelief. He now added a parable, more clearly stating his claims and more solemnly rebuking these hostile rulers and pronouncing judgment upon the nation they represented. He told the story of a householder who established and equipped a vineyard and let it out to tenants. He lived at a distance and expected as rent a certain portion of the vintage. When he sent for the fruit, however, his messengers were abused and killed; at last his own son was sent and was slain. He determined to come and to exact justice and to deliver his vineyard to tenants who were more worthy.
The parable was so plain that the enemies of Jesus perfectly understood its meaning. The householder was his Father; the vineyard was Israel; the husbandmen were the rulers to whom the nation had been intrusted; the servants were the prophets sent to summon the people to repent and to render to God the fruits of righteousness; the son was Jesus himself, who thus claimed a unique relation to God, distinct from the prophets and from all human messengers; the death of the heir was his own approaching crucifixion; the return of the householder was the coming visitation of divine judgment, the rejection of Israel, and the call of the Gentiles. It was aside from the present purpose of Jesus to refer to the individual Jews who would accept him and to the future conversion of the nation of which Paul wrote. He wished now to emphasize his own rejection and the guilt and punishment of the nation. He declared, however, that this death would issue in his exaltation and triumph; that he was “the stone which the builders rejected,” which “was made the head of the corner.” He also warned his enemies that all who, in unbelief, should stumble on that stone, all who should reject him, would be “broken to pieces,” and all who should attempt to drag down that stone would be ground and scattered as dust.
D. The Question As To Paying Tribute. Ch. 20:19-26
19 And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he spake this parable against them. 20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who feigned themselves to be righteous, that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor. 21 And they asked him, saying, Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, and acceptest not the person of any, but of a truth teachest the way of God: 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, 24 Show me a denarius. Whose image and superscription hath it? And they said, Cæsar's. 25 And he said unto them, Then render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's. 26 And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
The rulers had been defeated, discredited, and disgraced but they had not been discouraged. In their first question they failed utterly to bring Jesus into any unlawful opposition to the religious courts. They now attempted by a new question to draw from him an answer which either would make him unpopular with the people or would bring him under the condemnation of the civil ruler. They asked him a question relative to the payment of tribute to the Roman Government. The more conservative Jews held that God was the ruler of Israel and that possibly it was wrong to pay taxes to support a heathen state. The more liberal party sided with the Herods, who owed their power to Rome. Therefore the enemies of Jesus sent to him representatives of both parties, Pharisees and Herodians, so that if he should avoid offending one party he would displease the other. They approached Jesus with the flattering assurance that he was so truthful and courageous that he would not hesitate to express his true convictions; and then they proposed their artful question: “Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?” Should Jesus say, “Yes”? Then he would cease to be a popular idol, for the people loathed the hateful oppression of Rome. Should Jesus say, “No”? Then his enemies would hurry him away to the Roman governor and the cross, as a traitor and a rebel. The dilemma seemed complete; yet Jesus not only escaped the snare, but, in his reply, he enunciated a law for all time. “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's.”
To make plain his meaning, Jesus first called for a Roman coin, and asked whose image and superscription it bore. The reply, of course, was “Cæsar's.” Jesus therefore declared that those who accept the protection of a government and the privileges provided by a government, are under obligation to support that government. Christianity never should be identified with any political party or social theory; but Christians ever should take their stand for loyalty, for order, and for law.
It is not the whole of life, however, to “render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's;” one must also render “unto God the things that are God's.” The latter higher allegiance includes the former. The enemies of Jesus suggested a conflict of duties; he showed that there was perfect harmony. He intimated, however, that there was danger of forgetting God, and our obligations to him of trust, service, worship, love. The true basis for citizenship is devotion to God, and no political theory or party allegiance can be taken as a substitute for loyalty to him. The enemies of Jesus were answered and rebuked, and his followers were given guidance for all the coming years.
E. The Question As To The Resurrection. Ch. 20:27-40
27 And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection; 28 and they asked him saying, Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, that if a man's brother die, having a wife, and he be childless, his brother should take the wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died childless; 30 and the second; 31 and the third took her; and likewise the seven also left no children, and died. 32 Afterward the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be? for the seven had her to wife. 34 And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the Bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. 39 And certain of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast well said. 40 For they durst not any more ask him any question.
Jesus had foiled the scribes and the chief priests in their plan to entrap him in his public teaching. He was now attacked by the Sadducees who were the priestly and most powerful party among the Jews. They denied the immortality of the soul and believed neither in angels nor in spirits; they represented the modern materialists. It is to be noted that the question with which they approached Jesus was not one which referred only to immortality but specifically to the resurrection of the body. They proposed the case of a woman married successively to seven brothers from each of whom she was separated by death; and they asked, “In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be? for the seven had her to wife.” They hoped that Jesus would either deny the orthodox belief as to the resurrection or would make some statement which would contradict the Law of Moses in accordance with which the successive marriages were made. They implied that this accepted Law was inconsistent with the belief in a resurrection.
In his reply Jesus declared that in the resurrection life will be regulated by larger laws than are known in this present age. Those who will share the glory of that age, and who will experience the blessedness of “the resurrection from the dead” will be immortal in soul and body. Marriage, which is now necessary for a continuance of the race, will no longer exist. The relationships in that life will be higher than even the most sacred relationship of the present life. Those who have a part in this resurrection will be “equal unto the angels,” not in all particulars, but in the fact that their state will be deathless. In that larger sense they will be “sons of God” and “sons of the resurrection,” for death will have lost its power over them.
Such a reply should be carefully weighed by men of the present day who deny miracles and refuse to believe in resurrection and immortality. Many beliefs which are now ridiculed because they seem to contradict established laws of science will some day be vindicated by the discovery of higher and more inclusive laws than are now known.
In his answer Jesus already had rebuked the Sadducees for denying the existence of angels. He next established the fact of the resurrection by a quotation from the very Law on which they had depended to show that resurrection was impossible. He recalled the words recorded by Moses in reference to “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” He then added, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Jesus meant to establish the fact of the continued existence of the dead; yet not merely this, but to prove the resurrection of the dead. The latter was the question at issue. The word “living,” as used by our Lord, indicates those who are enjoying a normal life, not that of disembodied spirits, but of immortal spirits clothed with deathless bodies. Therefore Jesus added, “for all live unto him.” In the mind and purpose of God all are to be raised from the dead and to enjoy that complete and blessed existence which resurrection implies. The confident expectation of such a future state is based on our relation to God. If he is truly our God and we are his people, the triumph of death is not real and permanent but will be ended by the glorious immortality of the body and of the soul.
F. The Question Of Jesus. Ch. 20:41-44
41 And he said unto them, How say they that the Christ is David's son? 42 For David himself saith in the book of Psalms,
The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my right hand,
43 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
David therefore calleth him Lord, and how is he his son?
Jesus had defeated his enemies in debate. They had come to him with a series of crafty questions designed to discredit him as a public teacher and to secure some ground for his arrest. To each of these questions he had given a reply by which his foes had been unmasked and condemned. He then asked them a question. It was intended not only forever to silence his foes, though it accomplished this, for henceforth no man ventured to meet him in public discussion; nor yet did Jesus desire further to humiliate his enemies. In the presence of the people he had already shown them to be ridiculous, contemptible, impotent, and insincere. His real motive was to ask a question, the answer to which would embody the chief of all his claims, namely, the claim that he is divine. It was of supreme importance that this claim should be made at exactly this time. He knew that the rulers had been unable to find a charge on which to arraign him before either the ecclesiastical or the civil court. He realized that they would dare to make no other attempt in public, but he clearly foresaw the fact that, through the treachery of Judas, he would be arrested and, before both these courts, would be arraigned on the charge of blasphemy. His enemies would accuse him of claiming to be not only the Messiah but also divine. On this occasion, therefore, in the presence both of the rulers and the people, he made the defense which never can be broken or forgotten as he definitely demonstrated from Scripture that the Messiah was described by the inspired writers as a divine Being. All that Jesus claimed for himself, as recorded in the Gospel of John, was included in the answer which was implied by the question which he now asked. Even for the present day it involves the supreme problem in the sphere of philosophy and religion. This problem concerns the person of Christ. Is he to be regarded as Man or God, or at once God and Man? Where is he to be placed in the scale of being; or, as Jesus voiced the problem, how could David speak of the coming Messiah as both his son and his Lord? There was but one answer. There can be but one. The Messiah was to be divine. The son of David is also the Son of God. The incarnation is the only solution of our most serious difficulties in the realm of religious belief. By his question Jesus not only silenced his enemies; he also showed their insincerity in condemning him to death and their rejection of the inspired Scriptures in their unwillingness to believe the testimony concerning the person of the Messiah. Jesus unquestionably claimed to be the divine Saviour of the world. The ideal Man is also the incarnate God.
G. The Warning Against The Scribes. Ch. 20:45-47
45 And in the hearing of all the people he said unto his disciples, 46 Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts; 47 who devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater condemnation.
As the long day of public controversy drew to its close, it was not strange that Jesus turned to warn the people against these enemies who had been seeking to defeat him and who were determined upon his death. These professed guides could not be followed safely. These rulers had shown themselves to be unworthy of their place and power. The people must look elsewhere for true teachers. They must find other men to interpret for them the will of God.
The scribes were the professional teachers of the day, the trained expositors of the Law. Most of them were Pharisees. They were of all men the most bitter enemies of Christ; they were jealous of his power; they were angered at his claims; and finally they had been goaded to desperation by their humiliating defeat at his hands. Upon these men Jesus pronounced the most stern condemnation. His words are recorded at length by Matthew. In the brief summary of the discourse made by Mark and by Luke we find only a few short sentences which sketch three principal features in the character of these unworthy leaders of religious thought. The first is their vanity, their ambition for display and for high position, and their love of flattery. The second is their cruel avarice, expressed by our Lord in the suggestive clause, “who devour widows' houses.” The third was their shameful hypocrisy; they are described as men who “for a pretence make long prayers.” It has always been remarked that the most bitter denunciations of Jesus were addressed to the men whose outward lives were most respectable and whose religious professions were most loud. This does not mean, however, that open vice and flagrant sin are better than selfish and proud morality; but it does remind us that great religious privileges and the possession of revealed truth involve solemn responsibilities and that hypocrisy and pretense are abominations in the sight of God.
H. The Widow's Mites. Ch. 21:1-4
1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury. 2 And he saw a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. 3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than they all: 4 for all these did of their superfluity cast in unto the gifts; but she of her want did cast in all the living that she had.
What a contrast this charming sketch supplies to the picture which Jesus drew of the Pharisees! In the eyes of the world the service of the poor widow was meager and worthless, while the gifts of the hypocrites were costly and great; in the eyes of the Lord their offerings were comparatively worthless and she gave more than they all. As a matter of fact, she had brought but two small coins, worth less than a half cent, but they were all that she had. With this scene in mind we should be careful not to call our offerings “mites” unless they are all that we possess; we should be encouraged, however, to know that our Lord looks upon the heart and estimates the gift by the motive and the love and the sacrifice involved; above all, we should be reminded that we can best measure our offerings not by what we give but by how much we keep. The influence of the woman is still moving multitudes toward the treasury of the Lord.
I. The Destruction Of Jerusalem And The Coming Of Christ. Ch. 21:5-38
During the days of his ministry Jesus frequently predicted his death and also his return to glory. He saw clearly before him a cross but on the distant horizon a throne. Again and again he had warned the Jews that their rejection of him and of his call to repentance would result in the destruction of Jerusalem and in the anguish of their race, and quite as frequently he had told his disciples that while indeed he was to die and rise again, a long period of time would pass before he would return in glory to establish his Kingdom. The great, final discourse relating to the future was delivered at the close of his last day of public controversy and teaching. As Jesus sat with his disciples on the slope of the Mount of Olives, as he looked westward and saw the sun si