themselves by the rejection of the baptism of John, and spake to them the following parable: 'A certain man planted a vineyard, and he let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. And at the appointed season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they might pay to him the assessment of the produce of the vineyard; but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And he did this also further (went so far in his clemency): he sent a second servant; but they beat him also, and reviled him, and sent him away empty. And he added (even) still further to this, by sending a third servant; but they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: they will surely reverence him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, and said, This is the heir come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. And they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him.'

Thus far did the Lord present the parable in a historical form. But now He let His hearers know how much they and He Himself were concerned in the truth which He held up to their view, by interrupting Himself, and putting to them the question, 'What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?' The answer which He gave lay already in the question itself: 'He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give his vineyard to others.'

When they heard that, they said, 'God forbid!' This can have been said by the people only; and the people can only have said it with reference to the whole parable, the meaning of which was obvious to them. That the husbandmen of the vineyard, the chief priests and scribes, could go the length of killing Him; this, His hearers in general regarded still as impossible.

But He looked on them, and said, 'What is this, then, that is written? The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner (Ps. cxviii.). And whosoever shall fall upon this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder' (Isa. viii.; Dan ii.).

The chief priests and the scribes would have gladly in that same hour laid hands on Him; but (they did it not, for) they feared the people.

They wished, however, to seize Him at once, because they

1 The addition dovres is not sufficiently authenticated.

perceived that He had spoken this parable against them.1 Therefore they now exchanged their project of using violence for that of employing cunning. They sought to catch Him 2—took towards Him the position of a huntsman who watches to ensnare the game-and sent out against Him trained spies, who should feign themselves to be righteous men—righteous in the Israelitish sense, who as such had serious scruples of conscience in regard to a particular point-in order that they might take hold of His words, and deliver Him over to the authorities, and to the power of the governor. And they asked Him, saying, 'Master, we know that thou speakest and teachest uprightly, and acceptest not the person of any, but teachest the way of God in truth.'

To this word of homage, which, with the view of exciting in Him a spirit of fanaticism, expressed an unwilling acknowledgment of a heavenly reality, with all the appearance of human truthfulness, yet with satanic falsehood, there followed the question, 'Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or no?' But He perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, 'Why tempt ye Me? Show Me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it?' They answered, 'Cæsar's.' And He said unto them, 'Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar's, and unto God the things which be God's.' And they were not able to catch Him even in a single word before the people-in whose presence a word recommending obedience towards the Romans might have easily shaken His authority; -and they marvelled at His answer, and held their peace.

When the Pharisees had tried their craft on Him by means

1 That the ἔγνωσαν γάρ first follows after the words καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν haóv, has its ground in the circumstance, that the notice concerning the crafty plans of the enemies of Jesus, which succeeds, is intended to be thereby explained. In ἐζήτησαν ἐπιβαλεῖν ἐπ' αὐτόν, etc., two statements lie conjoined the first, that they would gladly have laid hands on Him; the second, that they could not. Both points are indicated by the Evangelist. That he mentions the last of them first is to be accounted for on the sound logical ground, that he has still to treat of the other in the sequel. This has been misapprehended by Ritschl, p. 102.

2 * Anything short of this cannot be intended by παρατήρησαντες. The expression of Luther-they held at Him-is not only too indefinite, but also too weak.

3 The verdict of Gfrörer regarding this answer of Jesus, see at p. 309. This unworthy conception of the answer of Jesus stands in connection with Gfrörer's misconception of its symbolical significancy.

of a pharisaical question without result, another class of His enemies, the Sadducees, now approached Him with a question, conceived in their spirit, connected with the doctrine held by them, that there is no resurrection.

'Master,' they said, 'Moses wrote (prescribed) unto us (Deut. xxv.), If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die childless, his brother shall take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren. The first took a wife, and died childless. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner all the seven and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be? for seven had her to wife.' And Jesus answering, said unto them, 'The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage. But they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. For they cannot die more (the law of birth stands thus in such relationship to the law of death, that with the last the first also disappears): they are, namely, like unto the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.'

any

The Lord had thus, in the first place, repelled their gross conception, that earthly marriage, and with it even earthly marriage rights, would continue in the world to come. He then fixed His eye on the second point, and proved to them the resurrection of the dead itself from the law of Moses, which they regarded as their exclusive canon: 'Now, that the dead are raised, even Moses made manifest (revealed 1) at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him.'

This triumph of Christ operated so powerfully, that for the moment, it caused even a breach in the alliance between the Pharisees and the scribes against Him. This was shown by several of the scribes breaking silence, and saying, 'Master, thou hast well spoken.'2

1 M

does not mean here, to indicate, notice, show, or prove, as most of the translations make it, but to reveal, unveil. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 28; John xi. 57; Acts xxiii. 30.

2 Gfrörer finds this improbable.

After this, they durst not ask Him any question at all.

His turn had now come to put a counter-question to them :2 'How say they that Christ is David's son? And yet David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. David therefore calleth Him Lord, how is He then his son?'

The Evangelist does not even think it necessary to mention the entire but melancholy silence which followed this question among the Pharisees, the scribes, and the majority of the Jewish people.

On the other hand, he tells us immediately the last words which Jesus spoke to His disciples, in the hearing of the whole assembled people, in reference to His enemies: Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief places at feasts; who devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive a greater damna

tion.'

3

With this, His public work was ended, and He could now look up in restful contemplation. But as His eyes thus wandered meditatively, they fell on the rich men as they were casting their gifts into the treasury-chest. He saw also a poor widow, who cast in two mites. And He said, 'Of a truth, I say unto you, this poor widow hath cast in more than they all. For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God; but she of her penury, hath cast in all the living that she had.'

This last act of Jesus followed the concluding words regarding the scribes, and with it He took farewell of the temple. In it He appears as the founder of the New Covenant, observing and judging, in the character as it were of a guest, the temple ritual of the Old Covenant, now alienated from Him; as a pattern of the candour and charity with which the true children of His

1 After the answers thus given to their captious questions. The word has reference not only to these two questions, but to the whole complex of the attacks of this kind made upon Him.

2 According to Schleiermacher (p. 254), Christ put this question to the Pharisees, in order to give them an example, how He also could instigate the Jews against them. How so, see the passage above quoted.

In this feature, the looking up of Jesus, Gfrörer sees the triviality of `this narrative, p. 315.

Spirit have to judge the pedagogical forms of worship, antecedent to the Christian period. He shows them how they must everywhere distinguish appearance from substance; how they must recognise true piety even in the poorest garb, and with the most limited knowledge; how, on the contrary, they must not allow themselves to be blinded by the stateliest show and the richest gifts of an outward religiousness.

NOTES.

1. This last contest of Jesus with His enemies in the temple, belongs, like the following eschatological address of Christ, to the Tuesday of the Passion Week.

2. Luke has not more closely described the last days spent by Jesus in the temple. In his narrative of the embarrassment of the members of the Sanhedrim, when called on to declare themselves in reference to the baptism of John, he explains more fully its cause-fear of the people (ch. xx. 6). The Lord addresses here the parable of the unfaithful husbandmen to the people; whilst, according to Matthew, He addressed it, together with the previous one of the two sons who were sent into the vineyard, more immediately to the Pharisees and the scribes. Luke makes the evil reception which the servants of the lord of the vineyard experience at the hand of the labourers, assume the form of a distinct climax. He has it in common with Mark, that Jesus Himself speaks the concluding sentence of the parable, which in Matthew is spoken by the Pharisees. The expression of the people, un yévoiтo, ver. 16, he has alone. the royal feast, and the guests who were invited but despised it, he has narrated on a previous occasion (chap. xiv.). The words of Jesus, in which He showed to the Sadducees the difference between the earthly and heavenly life of believers, are given by him more fully than elsewhere (vers. 35, 36). He passes over the third question which Jesus had to answer. The address regarding the scribes is very similar to that of Mark.

The parable of

3. It is a remarkable circumstance, that Luke, the Pauline Evangelist, has sketched so lightly the farewell of Jesus to the temple, whilst in Matthew, the Hebrew Evangelist, this event is placed in the strongest light. One cannot explain the fact by the supposition, that he did not know of a more definite farewell to the temple by Jesus. One might indeed suppose that,