Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary - Alford
And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,Chap. 20:1-8.] His authority questioned. His reply. Matthew 21:23-27. Mark 11:27-33, where see notes. (The history of the fig-tree is not in our text.)
1. τῶν ἡμ.] of the days, viz. of this His being in Jerusalem.
ἐπέστ. without a dative (see ch. 2:38) does not signify any suddenness of approach.
2.] ἤ—or (to speak more definitely).
9.] The parable was spoken πρός, to, the people—but (ver. 19), πρός, at, with reference to, the chief priests and scribes. Bengel suggests that He addressed it to the people, to guard against interruption on the part of the chief priests.
11.] προσέθ. π., a Hebraism: see reff. Gen., Hebrew and LXX.
14. ἰδόντ. δέ] This is taken up from the τοῦτον ἰδόντες of the verse before, and is emphatic—On the contrary, when they saw him.… 17.
17.] The οὖν infers the negation of μὴ γένοιτο—‘How then, supposing your wish to be fulfilled, could this which is written come to pass?’
19.] καί before ἐφοβήθ. is not but: the clause signifies the state of mind in which this their attempt was made: and they did so in fear of the people. 20-26.
20-26.] Reply concerning the lawfulness of tribute to Cæsar. Matthew 22:15-22.Mark 12:13-17Mar_12:13-17, where see notes as before.
20.] παρατηρ., having watched an opportunity. ἐγκαθ.,
ἐγκαθ.,see reff., men suborned, instructed and arranged for that purpose.
ἐπιλάβ., not the spies, but the chief priests.
αὐτοῦ is not the genitive after λόγου, as in E. V., but after ἐπιλ., as in ἐπιλαμβάνεται αὐτοῦ τῆς ἴτυος, Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 12:—that they might lay hold of him by some saying; = αὐτὸν ἀγρεύσωσιν λόγῳ, Mark.
τῇ ἀρχῇ, to the Roman power (genus)—τῇ ἐξ. τ. ἡ., to the authority of the governor (species). The second article renders the separation of the two necessary.
27.] οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες refers to τῶν Σαδ., not to τινες. The main subject of the sentence is sometimes put in the nom., even when the construction requires another case: so Ἀνδρομάχη, θυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος Ἠετίωνος, Ἠετίων, ὃς ἔναιεν.… Hom. Il. ζ. 395. See also κ. 437, and more examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 68.
The use of ἀντιλέγ. μή (or τὸ μή) is frequent in Xenophon, see Wetstein: and cf. Thucyd. i. 95, ἀπολύεται τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν,—ii. 49, ἀπορίᾳ τοῦ μὴ ἡσυχάζειν. See also Herod. i. 68: Soph. Œd. Tyr. 57.
28. καὶ οὗτος] See ch. 19:2.
29.] οὖν, well then—i.e. ‘as an example of this law, …’
31.] The οὐ κατ. τέκ. coming before καὶ ἀπέθ. is by a mixture of constructions—and they had no children by her, and died, leaving none:—not merely from the emphasis being on the leaving no children (as in Meyer). It is meant to express the absence of offspring before their death, and after.
34, 35. οἱ υἱοὶ …] Peculiar to Luke, and important. For this present state of men, marriage is an ordained and natural thing; but in τῷ αἰῶνι ἐκείνῳ, which is by the context the state of the first resurrection (nothing being said of the rest of the dead, though the bare fact might be predicated of them also), they who are found worthy to obtain that state of life and the resurrection from the dead, are no longer under the ordinance of marriage: for neither can they any more die; i.e. they will have no need of a succession and renewal, which is the main purpose of marriage.
36.] The ἰσάγγ. γάρ εἰσιν is alleged, not as shewing them to be ἀπαθεῖς κ. ἀφιλήδονοι (), but as setting forth their immortality.
υἱοὶ θ. is here used, not in its ethical sense, as applied to believers in this world,—but its metaphysical sense, as denoting the essential state of the blessed after the resurrection:—‘they are, by their resurrection, essentially partakers of the divine nature, and so cannot die.’ When Meyer says that the Lord only speaks of the risen, and has not here in His view the ‘quick’ at the time of His coming, it must be remembered that the ‘change’ which shall pass on them (1Corinthians 15:51-54) shall put them into precisely the same ἀφθαρσία as the risen (compare ibid. ver. 42).
37.] καὶ Μ., that very Moses, whom you allege as shewing by inference the contrary.
38.] On πάντ. γ. αὐτ. ζ. see on Matt. vv. 31-33: but we have in this argument even a further generalization than in Matt. and Mark. There, it is a covenant relation on which the matter rests: here, a life of all, living and dead, in the sight of God,—so that none are annihilated,—but in the regard of Him who inhabiteth Eternity, the being of all is a living one, in all its changes.
39, 40.] Peculiar to Luke;—implied however in Matt. ver. 34, and Mark ver. 28.
41-44.] Question respecting Christ and David. Matthew 22:41-46: Mark 12:35-37, where see notes. Luke omits the question of the lawyer, which occurred immediately on the gathering together of the Pharisees after the last incident. This question of our Lord seems to have followed close on that, which (and not that in vv. 27 ff. here) was their last to Him, Mark 12:34.
41.] πρὸς αὐτούς, i.e. the Scribes. The same thing is signified by πῶς λέγουσιν οἱ γρ. in Mark. In Matt. the question is addressed to the Pharisees. I mention these things as marks of the independence of the accounts. The underlying fact is, the Lord addressed the Pharisees and Scribes on a view which they (the Scribes, the Pharisees agreeing) entertained about the Messiah. Hence the three accounts diverge.
42.] On ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμ., Wordsw. says, “added here as conveying information necessary to Gentile readers.” This might be well, did the words occur in the Evangelist’s narrative: but surely not, when they are in a discourse of our Lord. If His words were so loosely reported as this, where is any dependence on the accuracy of the Evangelists?
45.] This particular, ἀκούοντ. δὲ π. τ. λ., is only in Luke.