CHAPTER 20

Luke 20:1. ἐκείνων] is wanting in the authorities of greatest importance. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition for greater precision.

ἀρχιερεῖς] A E G H K U V Γ Δ Λ, min. Goth. Slav. Theophyl. have ἱερεῖς. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. and Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallels.

Luke 20:3. ἕνα] is wanting in B L R א, min. Syr. Copt. Colb. For. Tol. It stands after λόγ. in A K M U* min. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is from the parallels, from which also οὖν is introduced after διά τι, Luke 20:5.

Luke 20:10. δῶσιν] δώσουσιν is so strongly attested by A B L M Q א, min., that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., and δῶσιν to be regarded as a grammatical emendation.

Luke 20:13. ἰδόντες] is wanting in B C D L Q א, min. vss. Ambr., and is condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The superfluous word was omitted on account of the parallels; there was no reason for its addition.

Luke 20:14. ἐαυτούς] Tisch. has ἀλλήλους, following B D L E א, min. vss. The Recepta is from Luke 20:5 and Mark 12:7; comp. Matthew 21:38. From the parallels also comes δεῦτε, which, in accordance with very important evidence, is deleted by Rinck, Lachm. and Tisch. Luke nowhere has the word.

Luke 20:19. With Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderant evidence, read: οἱ γραμμ. καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερ.

Luke 20:20. εἰς τό] B C D L א have ὥστε, which, with Bornemann, Lachm. and Tisch., is to be adopted; the εἰς τό, foreign to Luke, is an interpretation.

Luke 20:23. τί με πειράζετε] condemned by Griesb. and Rinck, deleted by Tisch., following B L א, min. Copt. Arm. Rightly; it is from Matthew 22:18, whence also in C ὑποκριταί, too, is interpolated.

Luke 20:24. Instead of δείξατε Elz. has ἐπιδείξατε, in opposition to decisive evidence; it is from Matth.

After δηνάριον Lachm. has in brackets οἱ δὲ ἔδειξαν, καὶ εἶπεν. Not strongly enough attested by B L א, min. vss. to appear otherwise than a gloss in accordance with the parallels.

Luke 20:27. ἀντιλέγοντες] B C D L א, min. vss. have λέγοντες. Approved by Schulz and Fritzsche, ad Marc. XII. 8. An emendation, according to the parallels.

Luke 20:28. Instead of the second ἀποθάνῃ, B L P א** min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Lachm. [Tisch. 8] have merely ᾖ. An attempt at improvement suggested by ignorance,

Luke 20:30-31. Much confusion among the authorities. Lachm. has retained the Recepta, nevertheless he places before ὡσαύτως another ὡσαύτως in brackets, and throws out the καί which Elz. has after ἑπτά, with Griesb. and Scholz. I agree with Tisch. in regarding as original the text of B D L א, 157: καὶ ὁ δεύτερο καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἔλαβεν αὐτήν· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ οὐ κατὲλ. τέκνα κ. ἀπέθ. Comp. Bornem. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 136; also Rinck, Lucubr. p. 333. To this text the gloss ἔλαβεν αὐτήν was added to ὁ δεύτ.; this occasioned the dropping out of these words in their true place, and there appeared: καὶ ὁ δεύτερος ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν κ. ὁ τρίτος κ.τ.λ. Thus still Copt. The deleting of ἔλαβεν αὐτήν in this spurious place, without restoring them again to the genuine one, occasioned the text of D: καὶ ὁ δεύτερος κ. ὁ τρίτος (without ἔλ. αὐτ.). The Recepta has grown up out of circumstantial glosses. Even the double ὡσαύτως (A E H V Γ Λ, min. Goth. Syr., taken by Matth. into the text) is a gloss; it was thought to be necessary to complete the simple ἔλαβεν αὐτήν. The καί, which Elz. has after ἑπτά, is indeed defended by Rinck, but decisively condemned by the authorities. A connective addition made from misunderstanding.

Luke 20:32 is, as by Tisch., to be read: ὕστερον καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθανεν (Lachm.: ὕστ. ἀπέθ. κ. ἡ γ.). The Recepta is from Matth.

Luke 20:33. The order of the words: ἡ γυνὴ οὖν ἐν τῇ ἀναστ. (B L), is, with Tisch., to be preferred; it was altered in accordance with the parallels.

Luke 20:34. ἐκγαμίσκονται] objectionable, since A K M P U Γ Δ, min. have ἐκγαμίζονται, while B L א, min. Or. Epiph. Nyss. have γαμίσκονται. Read the latter, with Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta and ἐκγαμίζονται are glosses to give greater precision. Equally, however, at Luke 20:35 also is not to be read γαμίζονται, with Matth. Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with D L Q R Δ א, but γαμίσκονται, in accordance with B.

Luke 20:40. δέ] B L א, min. Copt. Tisch. have γάρ. Rightly; γάρ was not understood.

Luke 20:1-8. See on Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33. Luke follows Mark with some abbreviation, and with some material peculiar to himself, as also in the further portions of this chapter.

ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν] (without ἐκείνων, see the critical remarks) is, as Luke 5:17, Luke 8:22, an approximate statement of the date; the days in question are meant, to wit, of the stay in Jerusalem. Schleiermacher is arbitrary in seeing here the beginning of a special document.

ἐπέστησαν] came upon. The idea of suddenness and unexpectedness is not of itself contained in the word, and needed to be expressed (as Luke 21:34; Isocr. viii. 41; Philo Flacc. p. 981 C, al. in Loesner), or at least suggested by the context (comp. on Luke 2:9).

Luke 20:2. ἤ] introduces a more definite idea of the point of the question.

Luke 20:3. καὶ εἴπατέ μοι] καί is the simple and: I will ask you, and tell me (what I shall ask you). Then follows the question itself.

συνελογ.] they reckoned, they considered. Only here in the New Testament, frequently in the classical writers.

Luke 20:6. πᾶς ὁ λαὸς καταλιθ. ἡμᾶς] a later form of the tradition. The word is not elsewhere retained. Comp. καταλιθοῦν in Josephus, καταλιθοβολεῖν, Exodus 17:4. It denotes the stoning down.

Luke 20:9-19. See on Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12.

ἤρξατο] after that despatch of the members of the Sanhedrim.

πρὸς τ. λαόν] “muniendum contra interpellationem antistitum,” Bengel. Otherwise in Matt. and Mark, according to whom the discourse is addressed directly to the members of the Sanhedrim, and these, according to Luke, are also present (Luke 20:19).

Luke 20:10. δώσουσιν] (see the critical remarks): see on 1 Corinthians 9:18; Ephesians 6:3.

αὐτῷ] to him, the possessor of the vineyard, by the servants.

Luke 20:11. προσέθετο πέμψαι] a Hebraism, Genesis 4:2, and elsewhere. Comp. on Luke 19:11, and see Valckenaer, p. 253 f.

Luke 20:13. ἴσως] perchance. The corresponding German word (vielleicht) expresses not mere conjecture, but, although in a still doubting form, his expectation (“spem rationi congruentem,” Bengel). See Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 213; Bornemann, Schol. p. 122 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 855. Only here in the New Testament.

Luke 20:14. ἰδόντες δὲ αὐτόν] with emphasis, corresponding to the previous τοῦτον ἰδόντες.

Luke 20:16. εἶπον] Persons from the people in Luke 20:9, who have comprehended, although dimly, the foreshadowing of evil.

μὴ γένοιτο] (see on Romans 3:4), to wit, that the γεωργοί lay hands themselves on the son, kill him, and bring about the ἀπολέσει κ.τ.λ.!

Luke 20:17. οὖν] what then, if your μὴ γένοιτο is to be allowed, what then is this scriptural saying, etc. It is meaningless, there is nothing in it.

Luke 20:19. καὶ ἐφοβ.] καί, and yet; comp. on Mark 12:12.

ἔγνωσαν] the people, to wit,[235] whose understanding the passage of Scripture, Luke 20:17 f., accompanied by the heart-penetrating glance of Jesus (ἘΜΒΛΈΨΑς), has opened.

[235] See on Mark 12:12. The reference to the scribes and chief priests involves us in subtleties as in Grotius, Lange, L. J. III. p. 494, and others. πρὸς αὐτούς refers first of all to the hierarchs.

Luke 20:20-26. See on Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17.

παρατηρήσ.] having watched, so that they had thus further lain in wait for Him after that hour, Luke 20:19, in order to be able to entrap Him.

ἐγκαθέτους] people instigated, secretly commissioned, Plat. Axioch. p. 368 E; Dem. 1483. 1; Polyb. xiii. 5. 1; Joseph. Antt. vi. 5. 2.

ἑαυτοὺς δικαίους εἶναι] who feigned that they themselves were strict observers of the law, who, therefore, by the pressure of their own consciences (not instigated by other people), came with the following question. These therefore are such “qui tum, quum maxime fallunt, id agunt, ut viri boni videantur,” Cicero, Off. i. 13.

ἐπιλάβ.] The subject is the members of the Sanhedrim.

αὐτοῦ λόγου] in order to take hold of Him on a word. αὐτοῦ does not depend on λόγου (Kypke, Kuinoel, Bleek), but on ἐπιλάβ., and λόγου is the secondary object. See Job 30:18. Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 12 : ἐπιλαμβάνεται αὐτοῦ τῆς ἴτυος. The Vulgate rightly has: “eum in sermone.”

ὥστε (see the critical remarks), as Luke 4:29; Matthew 24:24.

τῇ ἀρχῇ κ. τῇ ἐξουσ. τ. ἡγ.] to the supremacy and (and especially) the power of the procurator. To combine the two (“the supremacy and power of the magistrate,” Beza, de Wette, Bleek) is not indeed forbidden by the repetition of the article, but it is opposed by it, because this repetition would have no motive.

Luke 20:21. λαμβάν. πρόσωπ.] art not a partisan. See on Galatians 2:6.

Luke 20:22. φόρον] capitation and land-tribute, to be distinguished from τέλος, the indirect tribute (the tax on merchandise), see Kypke, II. p. 183 f., and already Thomas Magister, p. 900, ed. Bern. Comp. Romans 13:7. Luke uses the Greek instead of the Roman word κῆνσον, found in Matthew and Mark.

Luke 20:26. Observe the careful depicting of the triumph of Jesus. Comp. Luke 20:39 f.

Luke 20:27-40. See on Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27.

οἱ ἁντιλέγοντες] does not belong by an abnormal apposition to τῶν Σαδδουκαιῶν (thus usually, including Winer, p. 471 [E. T. 668]), but to τινές. These τινές, namely, so far as they were τινὲς τῶν Σαδδουκ., are more precisely characterized by οἱ ἀντιλέγ. κ.τ.λ.: People who there concerted together (participle with article, see Kühner, II. p. 131).

ἀνάστ. μὴ εἶναι] On μή and infinitive after ἀντιλέγ., comp. Xen. Anab. ii. 5. 29, and see in general Bernhardy, p. 364; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 168.

Luke 20:28. καὶ οὗτος κ.τ.λ.] and indeed shall have died without children. See Matthiae, p. 1040.

Luke 20:29. οὖν] for the subsequent procedure took place in consequence of that law.

Luke 20:30 f. According to the rectified text (see the critical remarks): And the second and the third took her; in like manner, moreover, also (as those three who had taken her and died childless) the seven (collectively, comp. Luke 17:17) left behind no children, and died. Logically ἀπέθανον ought to precede, but the emphasis of οὐ κατέλ. τέκνα has occasioned the ὕστερον πρότερον. See Kühner, II. p. 629; Bornemann, Schol. p. 125.

Luke 20:34 f. οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου] Comp. on Luke 16:8. Yet here what is meant is not according to the ethical, but the physical idea: the men of the pre-Messianic periods of the world.

οἱ δὲ καταξιωθ. κ.τ.λ.] but they who (at the Parousia) shall he counted worthy (comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:5) to become partakers of the future age (the Messianic period), and of the resurrection from the dead. Herein is to be observed—(1) that here is likewise a πρότερον ὕστερον (comp. on Luke 20:31), for the resurrection discloses the participation in the αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος; but the context (see also τῆς ἀναστάσ. υἱοὶ ὄντες, Luke 20:36) shows that Jesus has in view only those who are to be raised, apart from those who are still living here at the Parousia, comp. Romans 8:11; (2) according to the connection (καταξιωθ., and see Luke 20:36), the resurrection here meant is defined as the first, the ἀνάστασις τῶν δικαίων (see on Luke 14:14).

The genitives τοῦ αἰῶν. ἐκ. etc. and τῆς ἀναστ. are governed by τυχεῖν. Comp. Aesch. Prom. 239: τοιούτου τυχεῖν οὑκ ἡζιώθην; Winer, p. 566 [E. T. 761]. Moreover, comp. the Rabbinical dignus futuro saeculo זוכה עולם הבא, in Schoettgen and Wetstein.

Luke 20:36. With Lachmann, following A B D L P, we must write οὐδέ[236] (Winer, p. 434 f. [E. T. 614]; Buttmann, p. 315 [E. T. 368]): for neither can they die any more. The immortality of those who have risen again, even if it does not exclude the difference of sex absolutely (comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych, p. 459[237]), still excludes marriage among them, since propagation presupposes a mortal race; ἐνταῦθα μὲν γὰρ ἐπεὶ θάνατος, διὰ τοῦτο γάμος, Theophylact.

ἰσάγγ.… ὄντες] gives the reason of the οὐδὲ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται; their immortality depends upon their changed nature, which will be—(1) equality with the angels; and (2) sonship of God. The former in respect of their higher and no longer fleshly corporeality (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 316 f.; Delitzsch, and others; comp. on Matthew 22:30); the latter plainly not in the moral, but in the metaphysical sense; they, as risen again, have entered into the participation of divine life and divine glory (comp. on Matthew 5:9; Matthew 5:45), in respect of which the freedom from death is essential. See on υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, so far as it is used in Matthew and Luke (in Mark this designation does not occur) of the faithful only in respect of their condition after the Parousia, the apt remarks of Kaeuffer in the Sächs. Stud. 1843, p. 202 ff. But the expression cannot be borrowed from the Old Testament designation of the angels as sons of God (so Wittichen, Ideen Gottes als d. Vaters, p. 43), since the risen ones shall only be angel-like, not angels.

Luke 20:37. Observe the special selected word ἐμήνυσεν, which denotes the announcement of something concealed (John 11:57; Acts 23:30; 1 Corinthians 10:28; Thuc. iv. 89; Herod. i. 23; Soph. O. R. 102; Plut. Tim. p. 27 B).

καὶ M.] i.e. even Moses, to whom ye are nevertheless appealing for a proof of the contrary, Luke 20:28.

ὡς λέγει κύριον κ.τ.λ.] “narrando sc. quod Deus dixerat,” Grotius.

Luke 20:38. πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν] for all (whose God He is) are living to Him. The emphasis lies on πάντες: no one is dead to Him. αὐτῷ is the dative of reference: in respect of Him, that is, in relation to Him who is their God, they are—even although dead in relation to men—living.[238] This state of living actually has place in the intermediate state of Paradise,[239] where they, although dead in reference to living men, continue to live to God, and therewith is established the future resurrection as the necessary completion of this state of living. The argumentation in Luke is accordingly, by the addition of Luke 20:38, not different from that in Matthew and Mark, and it takes no inappropriate turn (de Wette), whereby the thought must have suffered (Weizsäcker), but is the same grand application of the divine utterance as in Matthew and Mark (see on Matthew), only enriched by that short explanatory clause ἀλλὰ ζώντων, which was introduced into the tradition,[240] certainly at a later date, but without affecting the substance, except in the way of indicating the point of the argument. The ΑὐΤῷ, however, cannot without arbitrariness be taken, according to Acts 17:28, as though it were ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ (Ewald: “all men, so far as they have a true life, have it only in God”).

Luke 20:40. ΓΆΡ] (see the critical remarks) gives an explanation as to Luke 20:39. The tables had been turned; a few praised Him, for any further hostile putting of questions, such as might be expected instead of praise, was no more to be thought of. So completely He stood as victor there again (comp. on Luke 20:26). With the narrative of the greatest commandment, Mark 12:28-34, of which Luke is said to have retained only the beginning and the end (Luke 20:39-40), the evangelist has here nothing at all to do (in opposition to Holtzmann). There is nothing of a reminiscence of Mark 12:28 (Weiss) in Luke 20:39; there appears no sort of reason to attribute such poverty to Luke.

[236] Comp. the critical remarks on Luke 12:26. The Recepta οὔτε is to be regarded as a mechanical repetition from what has gone before. Bornemann defends οὔτε by the supposition that it corresponds with the following καί. But in that case ἰσάγγ. γάρ εἰσι must be placed in a parenthesis, which, indeed, Lachmann does, although it is nowise notified, not even by the twofold εἰσί, whereby the two predicates are emphatically kept apart.

[237] Who nevertheless assumes without proof (p. 102) that Adam’s body, before the creation of the woman, was externally without sex, and that this also is the case with the bodies of the risen.

[238] 4Ma 16:25 : αἱ διὰ τὸν Θεὸν ἀποθνήσκοντες ζῶσι τῷ Θεῷ, ὥσπερ Ἀβραὰμ, Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Ἰακὼβ, καὶ πάντες οἱ πατριάρχαι, is so far parallel as in that place ζῶσι τῷ Θεῷ is likewise said of the state of existence in relation to God in Paradise. Moreover, 4Ma 7:19 belongs to this subject, as being a passage in harmony with the text before us. Comp. Grimm thereupon, p. 332.

[239] The ζῶσιν subsists not merely in the view of God, who considers them in reference to their future resurrection as living, as J. Müller, v. d. Sünde, II. p. 397, makes out.

[240] The syllogism of the passage is correctly and clearly expressed in substance by Beza: “Quorum Deus est Deus, illi vivunt, ver. 38; Abrahami, Isaaci et Jacobi Deus est Deus, ver. 37; ergo illi vivunt, et quum nondum revixerint corpore, necesse est, ut suo tempore sint corporibus excitatis revicturi.” On the penetrating and fruitful exegesis of Jesus which leaves untouched the historical meaning, but is able to develope its ideal contents (comp. Matthew 5:17), see the apt remarks in Weizsäcker, p. 359 f.

Luke 20:41-44. See on Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37. εἶπε δὲ πρὸς αὐτ.] to the scribes, Luke 20:39 f., and indeed (otherwise Matthew and Mark) immediately after what is before related. Without reason, Grotius says: De illis, as Luke 20:19.

Luke 20:45-47. See on Matthew 23:1; Matthew 23:6-7; Matthew 23:14; Mark 12:38-40; which latter Luke closely follows after he has proceeded with considerable abbreviation in Luke 20:41-44.