Luke 19:45-48

1. Expulsion of the Sellers: Luke 19:45-48.

Vers. 45-48. Without Mark's narrative, we should think that the expulsion of the sellers took place on the day of the entry into Jerusalem. But from that evangelist, whose account is here peculiarly exact, we learn that the entry did not take place till towards the close of the day, and that on that evening the Lord did nothing but give Himself up to the contemplation of the temple. It was on the morrow, when He returned from Bethany, that He purified this place from the profanations which were publicly committed in it. If Matthew and Luke had had before them the account of the original Mark, how and why would they have altered it thus? Holtzmann supposes that Matthew intended by this transposition to connect the Hosanna of the children (related immediately afterwards) with the Hosanna of the multitude. The futility of this reason is obvious. And why and how should Luke, who does not relate the Hosanna of the children, introduce the same change into the common document, and that without having known Matthew's narrative!

The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem took place either on Sunday (Comment. sur. l'évang. de Jean, t. ii. pp. 371-373) or on the Monday; it would therefore be Monday or Tuesday morning when He drove out the sellers.

Stalls (חֲ ֻניוֹת) had been set up in the court of the Gentiles. There were sold the animals required as sacrifices; there pilgrims, who came from all countries of the world, found the coins of the country which they needed. There is nothing to prove that this exchange had to do with the didrachma which was paid for the temple. The words καὶ ἀγοράζοντας, and them that bought, are perhaps borrowed from the other two Syn. But they may also have been omitted, in consequence of confounding the two endings ντας.

The saying of Jesus is taken from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. Luke does not, like Mark, quote the first passage to the end: “My house shall be called a house of prayer πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι, for all peoples. ” Those last words, however, agreed perfectly with the spirit of his Gospel. He has not therefore borrowed this quotation from Mark.

The appropriateness of this quotation from Isaiah is the more striking, because it was in the court of the Gentiles that those profanations were passing. Israel was depriving the Gentiles of the place which Jehovah had positively reserved for them in His house (1 Kings 8:41-43). By the designation, a den of thieves, Jesus alludes to the deceptions which were connected with those different bargainings, and especially with the business of the exchangers.

If Israel in a spirit of holiness had joined with Jesus in this procedure, the act would have ceased to have a simply typical value; it would have become the real inauguration of the Messianic kingdom.

Vers. 47 and 48 are of the nature of a summary; the καθ᾿ ἡμέραν, daily, and the imperfects, they sought, etc., prove that Luke does not affect to give a complete account of these last days. The words, the chief of the people, are added as an appendix to the subject of the verb sought. They probably denote the chiefs of the synagogue representing the people, who, with the priests and scribes, formed the Sanhedrim. This singular construction arises from the fact that the real instigators of hostilities against Jesus were the priests and scribes; the chief of the people only yielded to this pressure. This idea forms the transition from Luke 19:47 to Luke 19:48. The people formed the support of Jesus against the theocratic authorities. Certainly, if He had thought of establishing an earthly kingdom, now would have been the time. The passage Mark 11:18 is the parallel of those two verses. But neither of the two accounts can proceed from the other.

Should this event be regarded as identical with the similar one which John places at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, Luke 2:13 et seq.? This seems to have been the generally received opinion in Origen's time (in Joh. T. Luke 10:15). As the Syn. relate none but this last residence at Jerusalem, it would be very natural for them to introduce here different events which properly belonged to previous residences. See, nevertheless, in our Comment. sur. l'évang. de Jean, t. i. p. 391, the reasons which make it probable that the two events are different. Here we shall add two remarks: 1. Mark's narrative must rest on the detailed account of an eye-witness. Comp. those minute particulars: “And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple; and when He had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, He went out unto Bethany with the Twelve” (Luke 11:11); “ And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple ” (Luke 19:16). These are such details as are not invented; it was not tradition that had preserved them (see Luke and Matthew). They proceed, therefore, from an eye-witness. How in this case can we question Mark's narrative, and consequently that of the three Syn.? 2. If Jesus was returning for the first time after the lapse of two years (John 2) to the feast of Passover, which more than any other gave occasion to those scandals (Bleek on Matthew 21:12), He could not but be roused anew against the abuses which He had checked the first time, more especially in the Messianic attitude which He had taken up. Here, then, again John supplies what the others have omitted, and omits what they have sufficiently narrated.