Jesus continues teaching in the temple in the last week of his life after cleansing it and he has just taught on the subject of the poor widow who gave her last two copper coins as a freewill offering to the temple.

5 And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said,

Jesus is teaching large crowds along with his disciples in the temple but Luke does not specify which people initiate the comments that Jesus responds to. Luke just says “some spoke of the temple” whereas the corresponding passages in Matthew 24:1-2 and Mark 13:1-2 isolate the disciples as the speakers. The words are not quoted here in verse 5 but neither are they in Matthew. Mark quotes the disciples saying “Teacher, look at the magnificent stones and buildings!” which is the substance of what Luke writes.

It was true that the temple complex and renovations by Herod were a marvel. The historian Josephus describes the Temple in both of his major works, Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish war:

“Now the outward face of the Temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men’s minds or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun’s own rays. But this Temple appeared to strangers, when they were at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceeding white.” (Jewish War 5.222–223)

“The Temple had doors also at the entrance, and lintels over them, of the same height as the Temple itself. They were adorned with embroidered veils, with their flowers of purple, and pillars interwoven: and over these, but under the crown-work, was spread out a golden vine, with its branches hanging down from a great height, the largeness and fine workmanship of which was a surprising sight to the spectators.” (Jewish War 5.225–226)

“King Herod, having a mind to make this a most illustrious temple… beautified it all over, not only in the inner part, but in the outer courts also. The cloisters he built were on all sides, extended even to the utmost limits of the Temple mount, which was vastly raised and enlarged beyond what it was before.” (Antiquities 15.391–395)

6 “As for these things which you see, the days will come when there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

Jesus responds to the musings of his disciples by prophesying. Many think Jesus is talking about the end of the world be is only talking about the city and temple. He says that “days will come” when no bricks will be standing on another one that is not cast to the ground. He specifically identifies the temple “these things which you see”. This leaves no possibility for misinterpretation on the ears of Jesus’ listeners or the readers of scripture. He is declaring a physical destruction of the temple will take place in the future. This is not the first time Jesus has declared this. The details that Jesus uses line up with that of Josephus:

“NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind” (Jewish War)

7 And they asked him, “Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place?”

In response to Jesus’ prophecy his disciples ask two questions. When will this happen and what will the sign be when it is about to happen. This might seem like the same question asked in different ways but since Jesus used the term “days” he is mostly like referring to an era of sorts, this was how ancient peoples measured time, they did not have our year system. They then ask about what “signs” will there be marking the event. Although throughout Hebrew history the acknowledgement of signs proceeding or marking events as they happen occurred, during the Second Temple Period a large amount of influential Jewish apocalyptic literature was influencing the common folk including the apostles, heavily focused on omens in the skies. These are the signs they are referring to in the second part of their question.

Michael E. Stone, in Scriptures, Sects, and Visions: A Profile of Jewish Apocalypticism, notes that apocalyptic literature such as 1 Enoch and 2 Baruch highlighted cosmic disturbances and signs as markers of the eschaton:

“Signs were often viewed as a form of divine validation and were anticipated in apocalyptic contexts as harbingers of divine intervention in history.”

John J. Collins, in The Apocalyptic Imagination, discusses the role of “signs” in texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls:

“The Qumran community believed that celestial and terrestrial signs would accompany the end of days, confirming the fulfillment of prophecy. The ‘War Scroll,’ for instance, envisions divine intervention marked by extraordinary phenomena 

8 And he said, “Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.

Jesus is attempting to tell his disciples what will happen without causing them to panic. Instead of asking their questions directly he jumps to the point of the dangers of misjudging what is occurring by warning them to not be led astray, that many will claim to be coming in his name, even that they are him and that the time is nigh but they should not follow them. Some of these Messianic imposters are actually mentioned in the book of Acts. The phrasing like much of the Olivet discourse is pulling from the Prophet Jeremiah was was prophesying the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians.

“Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!’” (Jeremiah 7:4)

9 And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified; for this must first take place, but the end will not be at once.”

He continues to try to keep his disciples heads level about the revelations that he is giving to them. When you hear about wars don’t be afraid because these things will occur between now and the end of the old covenant but they are not the actual endings, they are just events that happen before hand and must take place. The end will also not happen all at once, there will be stages that will reach a climax with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

10 Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom;

Jesus now predicts even further turmoil on a much wider scale, nations will war against each other, kingdoms will clash and these are all to happen before the end of the covenant. The great Jewish-Roman war which is the symbolic cosmic conflict of Jew versus Gentile. Nation rising against nation.

11 there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.

All of what Jesus says here is true. In the lead up to the destruction of the temple there will be cataclysms that will effect the world, Colossae was destroyed in the 50’s A.D because of an earthquake, Pompeii and Herculaneum, Roman cities, were nearly entirely destroyed in 62 A.D by powerful earthquakes that had a  magnitude of 5.2-6.1 on the Richter scale, with a maximum intensity of IX or X on the Mercalli scale. This means that the earthquake was extremely violent, causing widespread damage and loss of life.

A great famine struck Jerusalem before the Temple was destroyed, Josephus even recounts in his history on the Jewish War “the famine was so severe that people were eating human flesh, and even the very young children were being devoured by their own parents.” (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Chapter 3).

Finally Jesus says “there will be terrors and great signs from heaven”. This too is corroborated by Josephus who wrote: “Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet that continued a whole year. … So these publicly declared that this signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared … which I suppose would seem a fable, were it not related by those that saw it … before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.”

Jesus is in the last week of his life, teaching in the temple every day. He has passed every test and avoided every trap laid out by the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. Following this Jesus has explicitly called out the scribes by name saying they devour the houses of widows.  “Scribes held significant influence over legal matters and could misuse this power by convincing widows to bequeath property to the Temple or for their own gain. Their services often carried hidden costs, which could result in the financial ruin of vulnerable individuals who depended on their legal guidance.” (Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. 1969) This is juxtaposed against his observation of a widow in the temple in todays reading.

1 He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury;

 Jesus sits opposite the treasury, the location for monetary collection and observed those contributing to it, he specifically observes the rich people putting in their gifts.

“The Treasury was located in the Court of Women, where thirteen trumpet-shaped chests were set up to receive contributions. These chests were designated for different purposes: some were for Temple upkeep, others for sacrifices, and still others for freewill offerings.” (Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services). The Greek word used for “looked up” is anablepō, it has two meanings, one is to look up and the other to recover sight. It carries a purposeful sense of looking, not a casual one. He is not passively watching what is going on, he is going to use this as a teaching opportunity.

2 and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins.

He then sees a poor widow put in two copper coins.  The copper coins the widow put into the treasury is called a lepton. The lepton was a small, thin copper coin, and its value was minuscule compared to other coins in circulation, such as the silver denarius. Two lepta were worth approximately one-sixteenth of a denarius, which was a day’s wage for a labourer. Luke highlights that she is a “poor widow”. A widow in this society was already at the bottom of the societal ladder, without male representation she was at the whims of the world and all its chaos. This is why God has a particular love for Widows and throughout the old testament because of their vulnerability, this same particular love is expressed toward orphans for the same reason. Examples of the Mosaic law’s perspective on widows can be found in Exodus 22:22 where it says “You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child.” and Deuteronomy 27:19 where it reads “Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.” .

 3 And he said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them;

Jesus uses this societal contrast as a teaching moment for those around him, likely including his apostles but also others in the court. It is important to point out that this court where the gifts were offered was open to lots of people including women meaning it was very busy, which is why Jesus used these locations to teach, he could get a lot of peoples attention at one time. He begins his teaching with “truly” this always proceeds significant teachings by Jesus and is a sign for his listeners to pay attention. He states that the poor widows has put in more than all the rich people they have observed. The phrase πλεῖον πάντων (more than all) can grammatically be understood as “more than all of them together” or “more than each of them individually,” depending on the context. Some scholars suggest the collective interpretation (“all of them combined”) because the widow’s offering represents a profound act of self-sacrifice that outweighs even the sum of the others’ contributions in its spiritual value.

4 for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had.”

In addition to mandatory contributions, there were various voluntary offerings, such as freewill offerings Deuteronomy 16:10. The widow’s freewill offering of two lepta is more in value to God than the large total numerical value of those offering percentages out of abundance because the Widows offering put in “all the living that she had”. She sacrificed entirely, whereas the rich sacrificed nothing. Jesus uses the act of the widow to teach people God’s perception of value coming from sacrifice, a contrite heart not the blood of goats or chests of gold.

Jesus has been teaching in the temple, giving lessons to the common people and rebuking those who leave traps for him and question his authority. He gives the parable of the vine-growers which makes the scribes and the chief priests very nervous as they realised the parable was directed them. This leads us to Luke 20:27-40 where the Sadduccees try to trip Jesus on the theological viewpoint that made them stick out among those during the Second Temple Period.

27 There came to him some Sadducees, those who say that there is no resurrection,

Members of the Sadducean party come to Jesus. Luke points them out as “those who say that there is no resurrection” beyond that we do not get much detail about the Sadducees within the New Testament but luckily other sources do exist which highlight this peculiarity. They were an aristocratic priestly party who filled the seats of the sanhedrin and ultimately controlled all of the temple. Their name is supposedly derived from Zadok, the high priest who served under King David and King Solomon. Of all the groups they were the smallest in number, but had great influence because they were essentially all priests of the Temple. Only a priest could offer sacrifice and by the Second Temple Period this group had risen to prominence almost exclusively filling these ranks. They did not just reject the resurrection but the afterlife and spiritual word entirely (see Acts 23:8). They were very strict in there adherence to the Mosaic Law but seemed to deny all supernatural things. Their denial of supernatural things including the resurrection come from the fact that they only accept the first five books of Moses, ignoring the prophets, the writings and also any oral tradition. This illustrates the lack of a unified “canon” of scripture that many modern day people assume existed among the Jews of the Second Temple period but alas, this is a myth.

28 and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the wife and raise up children for his brother.

The Sadducees begin their question by addressing Jesus as “Teacher” didáskalos in Greek, it can mean teacher, doctor, master or instructor. It was typically used to denote a person whose responsibilities involved teaching things concerning the word of God and considering this question ends in some what of a trick, like the previous questions, this might not be being used in a honest fashion. They proceed with invoking a Mosaic Law known as the Levarite Law which is found in Deuteronomy 25:5 where a brother has the responsibility to continue his dead brothers lineage by siring children with his widow. Considering israelites had tribal land allotments which hinged upon inheritance and widows would be destitute by themselves this is actually a very reasonable position to make a law about.

29 Now there were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and died without children;

30 and the second

31 and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died.

32 Afterward the woman also died.

33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife.”

The Sadduccees introduce a scenario where there are seven brothers , the first taking a wife but dying without a child and so the Mosaic law comes into play with the second brother taking up the responsibility required by the law but he also dies and this repeats until all seven have died along with the woman with no children. They take a Law of mercy given by Moses and make a mockery of it by reducing it to an absurd scenario whilst also ignoring the entire point of the law, marriage and the resurrection. Some scholars have noted that this could be a veiled reference to the Book of Tobit where the wife of Tobias is previously engaged seven times to be married but all seven men die before consummating the marriage because of a curse. It is not such a long shot since this was popular literature and they’re already mocking the resurrection so why wouldn’t they use the stories of books they do not believe in as the building blocks of a joke?

34 And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;

Jesus responds to them by saying the men of this age get married. The Greek word for age used here is aiṓn it can mean a period of time or more appropriately “world” or “universe” like a framework of reality. The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage would be an easier to understand translation. What Jesus is doing is describing a difference between this life and the life to come. Marriage is something limited to this world of existence.

35 but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,

Now Jesus begins to elaborate on what makes the world to come different. Everyone who is born is accounted worthy to live or otherwise they would never begin to exist, even those who die were accounted worthy to exist at some point in this age but of the world to come Jesus says they must be “accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead”. In order to enter this age and the resurrection you must be worthy kataxioō in Greek, it is the same word that St Paul uses in 2 Th 1:5 in reference to those who can enter the Kingdom of God. For most people, even in this time period, the point of life was to marry and have progeny but Jesus is shuffling their perception of what the point of life is.

36 for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Why are they not given in marriage? Because the purpose of marriage is due to our mortality, if we do not die, we do not need to reproduce and live on in our proceeding generations. Another purpose for marriage is the sanctification of the spouses (see 1 Corinthians 7:14 and paragraph 1643 CCC), In the world to come, we will not need either because we will behold God as he is. Marriage in this life is a shadow of the divine marriage to the heavenly bridegroom. We still have our familial bonds in Heaven and will actually be able to love them all the more perfectly because of God. Jesus goes further saying they will be equal to the heavenly host and will be sons of God when they are sons of the resurrection. When Jesus says we are equal to angels he means in the context of immortality not that we become angels, unlike angels we will actually exist bodily at the resurrection whereas they will not. This term, “sons of God” is very curious as it pertains to the divine council world view spoken of by Dr Michael Heiser. He points to passages like Deuteronomy 32:8-9 which is a retelling of the events at the Tower of Babel in Genesis. The sons of God are those of the divine council of God who are put in charge of the nations but now we are to be those Sons of God in the advent of the New Covenant. Jesus is the King of Kings, we are called to co-rule with him, we become rulers in his name on Earth and as we are of his body we are also sons of God by adoption as well as in power.

37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.”

Jesus now uses their own witness against them, he invokes Moses to prove the resurrection by recalling Exodus 3:6 (a book the Sadducees do accept) where the Lord calls Moses from the burning bush, identifying himself saying “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”. The “I am” being perpetual and continuous, for the Lord to still be their God, they must still be alive unless either Moses or God is a liar. Which the Sadducees would never dare to say. They thought they had cornered Jesus but he has them now in a very tight spot.

39 And some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.”

40 For they no longer dared to ask him any question.

The scribes give their verdict “Teacher, you have spoken well” the term didaskalos being used again reflects how the Sadducees instigated the conversation in probable mockery but now the professional lawyers of the Law of Moses call him that in defeat as this ends a long string of varying groups all trying to catch him out and none can. Jesus will go on to give one more teaching on the Psalms of David before beginning his “woe” statements against the authorities of the Law.

Jesus has entered Jerusalem, being welcomed like a king by the crowds but is still rejected by the authorities of the Jewish people. After weeping for them and prophesying their future destruction at the hands of gentiles, Jesus proceeds toward the temple. All three synoptic Gospels place the Cleansing of the Temple at the end of Jesus’ ministry whereas John’s Gospel places it at the start. There are a variety of acceptable opinions that explain the apparent contradiction. The historical view which allows for two separate events, one being at the start of Jesus’ ministry (mentioned in John but omitted by the Synoptics) and the second at the end of Jesus’ ministry (mentioned in the Synoptics, omitted by John) with the inclusion and omission being explained by theological and symbolic emphases. Another more common view is that it is a singular event that the authors place differently to serve different theological aims.

45 And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold,

Jesus enters the temple and begins driving out “those who sold.” The other Gospels provide additional context about what was being sold and by whom. For instance, Matthew 21:12–13 specifically mentions pigeons and money changers. Selling within the temple complex was forbidden by Jewish law, yet during Jesus’ time, a lax attitude had allowed the outer courts—the Court of the Gentiles—to become a marketplace. This area was originally intended as a space for Gentiles to worship the one true God.

The temple complex itself was an immense structure, covering 36 acres. It consisted of concentric courtyards that increased in sanctity as one moved closer to the temple building at the center. Therefore, when the Gospels state that Jesus “entered the temple,” they refer not to the temple building itself but to the larger temple precinct, most likely the outer court where such commerce took place.

46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of robbers.”

Here Jesus combines two Old Testament passages to issue a powerful condemnation of the current state of the temple. The first quotation, “My house shall be a house of prayer”, is drawn from Isaiah 56:7. In its original context, this verse emphasizes the temple’s role as a sacred space for all nations, a place where both Jews and Gentiles can worship the one true God. By invoking this verse, Jesus underscores the temple’s intended purpose as a place of prayer and worship, not a marketplace.

The second quotation, “but you have made it a den of robbers”, comes from Jeremiah 7:11, part of the prophet’s condemnation of the corrupt practices of the Israelites. Jeremiah accuses the people of turning the temple into a place of hypocrisy, where individuals sought refuge from their unrighteousness while continuing in unjust behavior.

This combination of two passages serves to critique the temple’s current state. While Isaiah highlights the temple’s sanctity and openness to all, Jeremiah emphasizes the need for purity in worship and the dangers of hypocrisy. By linking these texts, Jesus articulates a comprehensive rebuke: the temple, meant to be a place of prayer for all nations, had become a corrupt institution that failed to fulfill its divine calling.

The method Jesus uses to combine these two scriptures is typical of the rabbinic tradition of His time. Rabbinic exegesis often involved linking different passages to create a fuller understanding of a theological or moral point. Techniques such as gezerah shavah, which connects verses based on shared words or themes, were commonly used.

47 And he was teaching daily in the temple. The chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to destroy him;

Here in this verse we see Luke’s editorial choice to condense the ministry in Jerusalem, omitting the leaving and returning aspects found in Mark. Jesus is teaching daily in the temple, most likely beginning where he just drove out the animal sellers and money changers. This area provided the best vantage point for Jesus to teach the most amount of people as everyone regardless of race or gender was allowed here. Luke highlights the three classes of people who will be responsible for his death. The chief priests: high ranking religious leaders who held authority over the temple and its rituals mostly if not all Sadducees. The scribes: the experts in Jewish Law, typically associated with the Pharisees but their services for consultancy were for anyone who could pay and finally the “principle men of the people” or more literally “first of the nation”. This would be the nobles of Jerusalem, the wealthy aristocracy. These three groups were the main occupiers of the Sanhedrin, the 71 man group that had the highest authority and influence over the temple and people although their authority was more limited under Roman rule. For example they could not stone people to death when they wanted anymore.

48 but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people hung upon his words.

The fact that the religious leaders “did not find anything they could do” reflects their powerlessness in the face of public opinion. While they have the power to plot against Jesus, they are hindered by His widespread support. This foreshadows the eventual arrest and trial of Jesus, where the leaders must rely on manipulation and betrayal (as with Judas) to seize Him, since they cannot act openly while He is still so popular with the people.

The phrase “hung upon” is very interesting as the Greek word is ekkremamai. It is used to convey the meaning “to hang on the lips of a speaker” but it’s literal meaning is suspension or hanging. It is only used once in the entire bible.

John Nolland (Luke: A Commentary) points out that this verse shows the clear distinction between the intentions of the authorities and the people. While the leaders desire to destroy Jesus, the people are eager to hear and follow Him, emphasizing the gulf between these two groups.

Previous to this Jesus has made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, marking the end of his long journey to the holy city which has occupied the past ten chapters of Luke’s Gospel. Jesus was joyfully received by the crowds but some Pharisees among them object to the messianic implications of it even telling him to rebuke his disciples but he responded with telling them the stones would cry out if they were silent. Everything has been building up to this moment and many are filled with joy because they do not understand that the Son of Man must suffer and the holy city must be judged for not recognizing who he really is.

41 And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it,

As Jesus draws near to the city and sees it, he wept over it. Although translated as wept, we should not confuse this with the same word as used in John 11:35 (dakryō) when Jesus weeps over Lazarus which is more of a silent, reserved form of crying. The Greek word used in this sentence is klaiō which is used for public mourning used for family members or national acts of mourning of a nation. It is the same word used to describe the widow in Luke 7:13. It is a very loud grief stricken lament, he has never expressed himself this way until now, the moment he sees the city of Jerusalem in the final week of his life.

42 saying, “Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes.

Jesus begins speaking by addressing the city of Jerusalem as a whole, saying “Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace!”. Here Jesus is implying, as he has for sometime, that there is oncoming tribulation and that if they knew what would “make for peace” (which would be accepting him as the Messiah and the fulfillment of God’s promises) the city would be peaceful, maybe even implying further that it would have been a perpetual peace. The issue is that this acceptance of him is locked into a particular time-frame of his “visitation” which will be mentioned later and Jerusalem as a whole has not accepted him. The end of the verse “But now they are hid from your eyes” has been interpreted by scholars as an enduring spiritual blindness to God by the Jewish people and this moment marks the handing over of God’s preference to the New Covenant Church. It could also be what Paul references in Romans 11:7-10 and 2 Corinthians 3:14-16, a perpetual blindness to God’s revelation.

43 For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side,

Jesus tells them that in some time in the future their enemies will “cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side” it is reminiscent of Jeremiah 6:6 “For thus says the LORD of hosts: “Hew down her trees; cast up a siege mound against Jerusalem. This is the city which must be punished; there is nothing but oppression within her.” The Greek word for “bank” is charax which literally means “to sharpen to a point” but is used by implication to mean a trench or military mound for circumvallation in a siege.

Many times people will debate ad-nauseam about other statements by Jesus, if they are really prophetic of the siege in 70 A.D. but all those inferences are made because of the extremely clear and terrifyingly accurate ones here. When you compare statements made by Jesus with the Jewish historian Josephus even other Roman sources it is striking. In this verse Jesus is saying that the enemies of Jerusalem will set up barricades around them, surround them and hem them in from all sides.

Josephus writes

“Titus… ordered a trench to be dug, a deep and broad ditch, and to this was added the construction of a wall around the city, which was about four miles in circumference”

Titus’ siege was done exactly the way Jesus described.

44 and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

The language Jesus uses is once again pointing back to the past and predicting the future in store for the holy city. It is referencing Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” it is a lament of the hatred the Judeans felt toward their Babylonian captors but now Jesus is directing the words against the city itself and it corresponds to the suffering Josephus describes in the Jewish War “The famine… reached its height; so that the city was full of dead bodies… the upper rooms of the houses and the very streets were filled with the dead”. This famine led to acts like enslavement and even worse, cannibalism of their own children.

“They will not leave one stone upon another in you” is another prophecy of Jesus, words he will repeat in Luke 21:6 directed specifically at the temple itself which was dismantled brick by brick once Jerusalem was conquered by the Romans, Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus confirm this :

“But the [Roman] soldiers, as they were now breaking into the holy house, had a mind to destroy it, and they set fire to it.” (Jewish War 6.4.5).

“The temple was famous beyond all other works of men as a structure of immense wealth and great magnificence… All the walls were overthrown and the temple completely destroyed.”

(Histories, 5.12)

Jesus follows this horrifying future prediction for the Jews with an explanation. “Because you did not know the time of your visitation”. The Greek word used for visitation is episkopē , it is where we get the term Episcopate from, the office of a Bishop and it literally means investigation or inspection but it has a very large divine connotation to it as it was used to describe the act by which God looks into and searches out the ways of men, in order to adjudge them their lot accordingly. The Jews may have acted differently if they had fully understood everything but this is all a test of faith, to fully understand is to rely on your own knowledge and that was not what was required of them.

Another interesting note on these verses actually comes from the perspective of rationalist scholars and I find it very funny. They read the descriptions used by Jesus to describe the siege of 70 A.D. and use it as their primary evidence to conclude that Luke must have written it after the fact. The issue with this perception is that not a single one of the Christians died during the war and Eusebius records in his Ecclesiastical History that this was because Christians listened to divine revelation and left before the siege occurred.

“The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella.” (Ecclesiastical History , Book 3, Chapter 5)

Jesus continues the tail end of his journey on the way to Jerusalem; he has just healed the blind man (named Bartimaeus in Mark) on the roadside outside of Jericho (the one built by Herod), and all are glorifying God in response to the miraculous healing. The incident with Zacchaeus is unique to Luke’s Gospel.

1 He entered Jericho and was passing through.

Jesus enters the city of Jericho and is “passing through” (dierchomai); this indicates the transient nature of his being there. This is important as it implies that Jesus wasn’t staying in Jericho but merely traveling through it, highlighting that His encounter with Zacchaeus is not coincidental but a purposeful detour.

2 And there was a man named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector, and rich.

Our attention is drawn to an individual man named Zacchaeus. The “there was” phrase is “Idou” (ἰδού); it means “behold” or “look.” This is a word used often to signal something significant or noteworthy, calling the listener’s attention, something that is lost with “and there was.” The term for man in Greek is “anēr” (ἀνὴρ), which does mean “man,” but it can also imply a person of some status or character. Zacchaeus is immediately introduced as someone notable, not just any man. Luke uses this word over the more common “anthrōpos” to mark out specific men. The name Zacchaeus comes from the Hebrew name Zakkai, which to all irony means “pure” or “innocent.” This is immediately juxtaposed with his occupation and material wealth. The term “chief tax collector” (Greek: architelōnēs) refers to someone who holds a high-ranking position in the Roman tax system, overseeing other tax collectors. Source .This further indicates the two Jericho’s hypothesis, as Herod’s Jericho was wealthy and modern by their standards, featuring a large palace and governing structure with Roman influence, whereas the old Jericho was historically significant but less sophisticated and was basically a town surrounded by ruins.

Tax collectors were often seen as collaborators with the Roman oppressors, and their profession generally led to negative perceptions within Jewish communities. The Jews were subject to taxation by the Romans, and tax collectors, who were often locals, were viewed as betrayers who worked for the occupying forces. Moreover, tax collectors were notorious for charging more than necessary to line their own pockets, further deepening their disdain within Jewish society.

(Craig Keener, New Testament Commentary)​

3 And he sought to see who Jesus was, but could not, on account of the crowd, because he was small of stature.

Zacchaeus “sought” to see who Jesus was. “Ezētēi,” as it does in the English, suggests an active, intentional search; he is not casually looking at what the noise is about. He wants to perceive who he really is, an implication that he might be more than just a man. Jesus is surrounded by a crowd, and Zacchaeus is too short to see over them. This might just seem like a silly detail, but in the context of the New Testament canon, it is actually extremely unique for a few reasons. This story itself is unique to Luke; the physical description is unique to the New Testament, and Luke singles Zacchaeus out by name. Considering all these points and Luke’s statement of interviewing witnesses in Luke 1:2 it is very likely Luke actually encountered Zacchaeus in person and maybe even got this account from him directly.

4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way.

Little Zacchaeus runs on ahead of the people and climbs a sycamore tree, a desperate and admirable action from our stand point, but in the ancient context, and maybe even to some today, this is an extremely undignified action as it was considered a child’s activity, and Zacchaeus is not only not a child, but he is a man of high status, among Romans at least. This speaks to the humility of Zacchaeus, he is literally willing to become like a little child to see Jesus before He leaves the city.

5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down; for I must stay at your house today.”

Jesus seems to approach the exact tree that Zacchaeus has climbed in order to address him. Jesus calls Zacchaeus by name, even though He has never met him. This indicates Jesus’s divine knowledge and intimacy with Zacchaeus, reinforcing the idea that Jesus is not just passing through but seeking him personally. Jesus tells him that he “must” stay at his house. The use of the divine imperative (dei) further indicates the purposefulness of the actions of Jesus in this passage; this is not a random encounter; Jesus planned this from the start.

6 So he made haste and came down, and received him joyfully.

Zacchaeus “made haste” or “hurried” down the tree; this underscores the urgency and joy he feels at the invitation extended by Jesus. He then “received him joyfully” further expressing the positive nature of the interaction. To receive someone is to take them into your home as a guest, which is what happens here; perhaps Zacchaeus’ home was near the tree, or Luke does not feel the need to describe the walk from the tree to the home as it is not important. To receive someone is also an expression of covenant; to enter the home is to say, “We are family.” It is not something extended to strangers.

7 And when they saw it they all murmured, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.”

The crowds may be amazed at what Jesus can do, but as is highlighted elsewhere, they do not fully understand who he is. A lot of the common crowds preoccupation with him seems almost like they perceive him as a traveling magician who is there to entertain. These at least witnessed his healing of the blind man and praised God, but one positive interaction with someone they think of as undeserving, and they “murmured” against him. This is reminiscent of the tribes murmuring against Moses in the Exodus. One minute they are glorifying God for the great signs he has done for them, thrashing Pharoah and his chariots; the next they are looking towards other gods. This flippancy is deeply rooted in all people and is especially recorded in the psyche of the Hebrews. They murmer against Jesus, saying he has gone to be the guest of a sinner. Sinners were cut off from covenental relationships, and a tax collector’s dealings with the Romans made him both unclean and a traitor in their eyes, so for Jesus to enter his home, a covenental act, they perceive him to be contaminating the covenant itself.

8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.”

Zacchaeus stands up, implying they were reclining in his home, which is typical of a covenental gathering. Zacchaeus’ act of standing in Luke 19:8 holds significant cultural and social implications. In the Jewish context, standing during a meal or gathering typically signified a formal or public action. It could mark a shift from casual conversation to a serious statement, often used for declarations, vows, or addressing an assembly. Zacchaeus’ standing could symbolize his sincerity and the public nature of his commitment to repentance and restitution.

Joel Green, in his The Gospel of Luke commentary, emphasizes how Luke portrays Zacchaeus as using this moment to make a transformative declaration of generosity and justice, publicly responding to Jesus’ acceptance. The act of standing also reinforces Zacchaeus’ initiative to align with the kingdom values Jesus embodies, highlighting a break from his prior life and practices. ​

Zacchaeus calls Jesus “Lord” (Kyrios), a title reserved for God, and announces his pledge to give half of his wealth to the poor. Almsgiving was a fundamental aspect of ancient Hebrew ethics rooted in Deut 15:7–11, and his declaration to do it in verse 8 implies he has notbeene doing this, but his encounter with Jesus has transformed him into being a Jew who abides by the Law given by Moses. He also says if he has “defrauded” anyone (which in substance would be stealing), he will restore to those effected “fourfold.” This echoes Exodus 22:1, where a man who steals or kills a sheep must restore it fourfold. Again, Zacchaeus’ interaction with Jesus has caused him to obediently follow the Law of Moses.

9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.

Jesus tells him that salvation (Sōtēria), which can also mean deliverance, has come to this house. Jesus says this in response to Zacchaeus’ act of repentance. To repent is to turn away from what you are doing, and he is turning away from his life to live in accordance with the Law that was prescribed to the Israelites through Moses. Jesus then declares him to also be a son of Abraham. Until this point, Zacchaeus had been failing to live according to the Law and although by heritage he was of Abraham, he was not by his actions; living according to the Law was a part of the covenant, which was emblematic of the promise God made to Abraham. It echoes the parable of the prodigal son, with Zacchaeus being the son that takes the inheritance and leaves for pagan lands and Abraham being the father waiting for his return.

10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.”

The final verse of today’s readings encaspulates Jesus’ mission to his people before he is to die. He must redeem those who are willing first. Zacchaeus is one of the lost sheep Jesus mentions in Matthew 15:24, and to send this point home that this is his work as the messiah, he uses the Son of Man title prophesied by Daniel. He, as the Son of Man, must fulfill the old covenant first before reinstituting the new covenant.

Seekein” (ζητεῖν) and “sōsai” (σῴσαι) both emphasize action: to seek out and to save. Jesus clarifies that His mission is not just to come for the righteous or the expected, but to actively search for and save those who are lost, just as Zacchaeus was.

“Thus Jesus is provided with his reply to the grumblers: Zachaeus, sinner and renegade Jew though he be, has not forfeited his right to the promise made to Abraham; and in receiving Jesus into his house, he has welcomed the one in whom the promise to Abraham is fulfilled.”

R. Ginns, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St Luke,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 962.

Jesus is approaching Jericho, a prominent city in Hebrew history and is also the longest continuously inhabited city in human history. Jericho is located 15-18 miles northeast of Jerusalem depending on which route is taken. Ancient Roman roads connected the cities and took about 8 hours on foot to traverse on normal conditions. This particular episode in Jesus’ ministry is recounted in all three Synoptic Gospels with some minor and what some perceive to be as major discrepancies. In Matthew 20:29-34 it is two blind men, in Mark 10:46-52 it focuses on a single blind man named Bartimaeus and here in Luke 18:35-43 we have a singular blind man who is not named. These variations could be explained by the particular theological highlights and themes particular to each author.

The majorly perceived discrepancy is that of Luke’s use of “drew near to Jericho” and both Mark and Matthew say Jesus was leaving. Some suggest theological distinctions are being implied here but that is a rather large stretch without much reason behind it. What is more likely is that there were two Jericho’s which at the time of Jesus in the first century, there were. The ancient Jericho of the Old Testament and a newer Jericho built by Herod and they were rather close to each other, with the Herodian Jericho only a few kilometers from the Old city, likely with a connecting road or common route between them. And it is on that route that we begin.

35 As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging;

As Jesus approaches Jericho a blind man sitting by the roadside begging. In ancient Jewish thought being blind was considered a result of divine judgement (Deut 28:28 ) meaning those afflicted with it were considered cursed by God therefore deserving of it, their families would typically abandon them. This is why blind people had to resort to begging, an activity considered shameful but permissible under Jewish Law (Deut 15:7-8). καθήμενος παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν (“sitting by the road”): This imagery evokes a marginalized figure, excluded from full participation in society. The family home represented covenant as did inclusion within the city, by being outside on the road the blind man’s separation from the covenant community is emphasized.

36 and hearing a multitude going by, he inquired what this meant.

This verse illustrates that Jesus is not alone in his journey. The Greek word ochlos implies a large gathering of groups of common people, well beyond that of his disciples, and they are not particularly organized. It can be imagined that everyone is attempting to get Jesus’ attention as they follow him around. ἐπυνθάνετο τί εἴη τοῦτο (“he inquired what this meant”): The verb ἐπυνθάνετο suggests persistent questioning, reflecting the blind man’s determination. In a Hebrew mindset, hearing (as opposed to seeing) often symbolizes faith and perception (e.g., Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel”), so his reliance on sound hints at spiritual attunement, a key theme in messianic expectations (Isa. 29:18).

37 They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”

The blind man is told Jesus of Nazareth is passing by, this implies it was not the multitudes answering his inquiry but someone there with him gave him the answer as it would not make sense for people walking with Jesus to say he is “passing by” so although the story is thought of as “one blind man” he is not necessarily alone, this could help reconcile the minor supposed discrepancies between the Synoptic accounts. The person who tells the blind man this also uses the earthly title “Jesus of Nazareth” indicating a less messianic eye for who Jesus is and if Nathanael’s perspective is common “Can anything good come Nazareth?”(John 1:46) this could have been said with some denigration, this is contrasted with how the blind man “sees” Jesus in the next verse.

38 And he cried, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

The blind man “cried” (boaō ) this word indicates a prolonged or desperate shout for help when in deep distress. The same word is used in the Septuagint to describe Abel’s blood in Genesis 4:10. It is a desperate cry and the words that he cries out are in stark contrast to the earthly title given in the previous verse, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me”. A desperate cry and messianic declaration. “Son of David” is a messianic title rooted in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and Isaiah 9:7, the messiah who will deliver Israel, give sight to the blind and free the captives will be a Son of David. The request for mercy is a central theme of the Psalms of David and has divine implications as it is God that delivers mercy yet here the blind man is requesting it of Jesus.

39 And those who were in front rebuked him, telling him to be silent; but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Verse 39 begins with telling us of individuals that rebuke the blind man for his request but depending on how it is translated it can give of a slightly different context. The RSVCE translates it as “and those who were in front” but a more literal interpretation of the word proagō would actually be “who led the way”. The previous translation could give off the impression of people in front of the blind man whereas the more literal translation gives clearer context, Jesus is in center of a crowd of people as he walks, some trailing behind and others, likely the apostles or more trusted disciples were leading the caravan, it is these who “rebuke” the blind man for his cries. The word for “rebuke” is epitimaō which means to admonish, charge or forbid and he is then told to be silent. He is essentially chastised for even attempting to get Jesus’ attention before being told to be silent, implying that he is especially unworthy, because of his state in society, for trying to talk to Jesus. The blind man does not give up and persists in his cries, exclaiming the messianic title to an even greater degree.

40 And Jesus stopped, and commanded him to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him,

Jesus in response to the persistent cries of the blind man, stops walking, halting the entire multitude of people including those who just admonished the blind man. He then “commands” keleuō , orders for the blind man to be brought to him. When the blind man has gotten close enough, Jesus asks him a simple question.

41 “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me receive my sight.”

Jesus asks “What do you want me to do for you?” (emphasis mine). The same individual exiled to the fringes of society, forced to beg for money and admonished for recognizing the Messiah without even being able to see has just been offered the greatest opportunity in response to his literally blind faith. The man begins his answer with “Lord” Kyrios in Greek, this title has divine implications as it is used for God. From the roadside the blind man recognized Jesus as the messiah, as he drew near he has recognized him as God himself. The blind man then says let me “receive my sight” the Greek is actually a single word, anablepō, it has two meanings, one is to look up and the other to recover sight. It is the same word used to describe Jesus looking up to heaven when multiplying the fish and loaves in Matthew 14:19 and Mark 6:41. The man might appear to just be asking for his sight but what he receives is more than that as is implied in the following verse.

42 And Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.”

Jesus does no physical actions to heal the man, he demonstrates his ability to heal and save by word alone by saying “Receive your sight; your faith has made you well”. Jesus responds with the Greek word meaning to “look up” the same the man said to him in his request then says his faith has made him “well”. The Greek here says sōzō which actually means saved. Jesus has fulfilled the blind mans two meaning request with a two meaning response. He is healed, he is saved.

43 And immediately he received his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.

The man is instantaneously healed of his blindness, a miracle has occurred. The man then “followed him” but the Greek word here akoloutheō has a much deeper meaning that just walking after him physically into the city with the crowds. It means to accompany and follow as a disciple. With this he also “glorifies God” which is a typical Jewish response to divine acts. He considers what has happened to be an act of God and all the people there in multitudes give praise to God in response to this miracle.

In Jesus’ healing of the blind man, we witness not just an act of mercy but a profound revelation of His divine authority. Unlike the Old Testament prophets, who called upon God to perform miracles, Jesus heals by His own word, underscoring His identity as the Son of God and the embodiment of God’s presence on Earth. This healing is both a sign of the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy and a demonstration of the inbreaking Kingdom of God—a kingdom where restoration and salvation are intertwined. Through this act, Jesus not only opens physical eyes but also reveals the ultimate truth: the One who heals is the same One who saves.