Bible Commentaries
Luke 21

Verses 1-38

XXI 1-4 The Widow’s Mite —(Mark 12:41-44), Lk abbreviates. The connexion with the foregoing is clear: Jesus has just denounced the Scribes (and the Pharisees, cf. 11:43, 14:7), one of the chief censures being that they ’devour the houses of widows’, the biblical type of the poor and forsaken. The Pharisees are ?????????? ’lovers of silver’, 16:14. The two types are contrasted here: the rich man, evidently one of those just denounced, ostentatiously casting his offering into the trumpet-shaped collecting box of the temple; the poor widow humbly approaching to put in her two mites, the smallest coin in circulation. The lesson is plain; they have given ’out of their superfluity’; she out of her deficiency hath cast in all the livelihood that she had’. She is an excellent example of that complete self-surrender which Jesus demands of his followers.

5-36 The Ruin of the Temple and the Coming of the Son of Man —In the eschatological discourse (t? ?s?ata the last things) with which the ministry of Jesus closes, Lk’s general plan is the same as Mk’s. But he shows greater precision in describing the details of the ruin of Jerusalem, a fact which leads rationalist critics to conclude that his Gospel was written after that event. Mt’s eschatological discourse is paralleled by Mk and by what Lk contains on the same subject in 17:20-37, material that Mt and Lk are supposed to have drawn from a common source, such as the hypothetical document Q. Lk shows more care in distinguishing the two themes, the ruin of Jerusalem and the Parousia being confused in Mk. Some have suggested that the Synoptists have blocked together two completely different discourses spoken on different occasions; it seems unlikely. Hostile critics maintain that in the mind of Jesus the ruin of the temple was the sure sign of the end of the world, and that he consequently was a victim of deception. But it is clear from the Gospels that he distinguished the two events, even if he treated of both at once. The first was to be the sign for the flight of his disciples; the second was to be a catastrophe from which flight was impossible. The first was predicted as near; the disciples should see it. As for the second, Jesus refrains from predicting the time; that was his Father’s secret. But why did he deal with both subjects together and thus lead to the possibility of error? But the error that the end of the temple would be the end of the world was not suggested to men’s minds by his words; every true Israelite was convinced of this already, just as the idea of a world without the city of Rome was unthinkable for the people of the empire. The complete and final destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the consequent collapse of Judaism and the Mosaic Law! How could the world go on after that? Besides, Jewish Messianism, if it meant anything at that time, meant the triumph of Israel and’ the everlasting supremacy of the Mosaic Law. That is sufficiently clear from the Jewish apocryphal writings. It was therefore necessary for Jesus once more and in an unmistakable manner to disabuse his own disciples of all such notions. He was not that kind of Messias. (But see the commentary on Mt in loc. for a very different view; cf. also § 417g.)

5-7 The Coming Ruin of the Temple —(Matthew 24:1-3; Mark 13:1-4). This prediction is admirably introduced in Mt by our Lord’s apostrophe of Jerusalem, including the words ’behold your house shall be left desolate’, which Lk has put much earlier; 13:34-35. Jesus and his disciples were probably on the slopes of Olivet (cf.Mark 13:3) whence they looked down upon the temple. Lk in his fashion omits such details. The disciples call their Master’s attention to the mighty buildings and ’the offerings’, perhaps the great brazen gates leading into the inner courts which had been given by an Alexandrine Jew; cf. Jos. Ant. 15, 11. But the temple, built for eternity, will soon be no more than a heap of stones, 19:44; Micah 3:12.

8-24 Signs of the Coming Catastrophe —(Matthew 24:4-20; Mark 13:5-18). The horrible prediction had called forth the startled question of the disciples in 7b.8-11. The appearance of false Christs, wars, etc. is not to lead them into the error of thinking that the day of destruction is at hand; Lk omits the concluding apt remark of Mt and Mk, these are (but) the beginning of the birth-pangs’.

12-19. The ruin of the city will be preceded by persecution for Christ’s sake; by omitting Mark 13:10 ’unto all nations the Gospel must first be preached’ Lk avoids the possibility of confusing the time of the two great events. What does 13 mean? Either that persecution will provide the disciples with an opportunity for witnessing to the truth, as 14 seems to indicate, or else that the persecutions will provide that sort of witness, µa?t????? which is borne by martyrdom; this had already been verified when Lk wrote by the deaths of James, Stephen and others; cf. 16b.15. Jesus promises to do for his disciples what God himself had promised to Moses, Exodus 4:11-12; in Mk it is the Holy Ghost who is made the source of inspiration.

18. This seems either out of place or contradictory of 16b, unless it be taken as a proverbial expression (cf. 12:7; Acts 27:34; 1 Kg 14:45; 2 Kg 14:11; 3 Kg 1:52) signifying that God has control of all in such a way that nothing will happen without his will, and his will towards the disciples is all for their good; if they lose their life it will be for the good of their soul (cf. 12:4-7). Hence the conclusion, ’by your endurance win your souls’; cf.Mark 13:13b, ’he who endures unto the end shall be saved’.

20-24 The Ruin of Jerusalem —(Matthew 24:15-20; Mark 13:14-18). ’Lk here puts in clear terms what Mk has wrapped up in symbolical language such as Gentile readers could with difficulty have understood’ (Lagrange). The ’abomination of desolation standing where it ought not’ is missing, though he retains the word ’desolation’ ???µ?s?? and applies it to Jerusalem. ???µ?s?? is an active word meaning ’laying waste’. Jerusalem besieged by armies inevitably recalled to a Jewish mind the thought of Nabuchodonosor’s siege and its result, 4 Kg 25:1 ff. That will be the sign for the disciples to flee from the city, for (22 proper to Lk) this is the punishment decreed by God and it cannot be escaped. 24. Here.Lk neglects the Marcan narrative and describes in great detail the fate of the inhabitants of the city, concluding with the prediction ’ Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot by [i.e. shall be under the heel of] the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled’; cf.Daniel 8:13; Apoc. 11:2. The Gentiles are to take the place of the Jews in the divine plan (cf. 20:16 and Romans 11:25).

25-27 The Coming of the Son of Man —(Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27). The mention of the times of the Gentiles’ provides an introduction to this theme; Lk’s perspective is now carried beyond the ruin of Jersusalem into the future. Omitting the warnings in Mk and Mt about false rumours concerning the second coming of Christ (already dealt with in 17:23-24) he joins them in describing the signs in the heavens and on earth that shall precede the Parousia. In his context the time of the appearance of these signs is indefinite; moreover the fear and distress caused by them are not confined to Jerusalem but spread over the world.

27. The appearance of the Son of Man is described almost in the words of Mk; but instead of Mk’s consolatory words about the gathering together of the elect Lk adds the encouragement of 28. Since, however, there is no promise that the disciples are to see the Parousia, it seems that 28 must be referred to the signs that shall precede the ruin of Jerusalem; but knabenbauer, Schanz and Plummer refer 28 to the coming of the Son of Man. Our Lord always insists that. there shall be no warning signs of his second coming. He will come suddenly, when least expected, like a thief in the night; 17:24 and

28-33 Signs of the Approach of the Kingdom of God —(Matthew 24:32-35; Mark 13:28-31). Here, as in 17:20 ff., Jesus distinguishes between the Parousia and the coming of the Kingdom of God, which in some way is already ’in you’ or ’among you’, 17:21. Note also the distinction between ’then they shall see’ of 27 and ’look you up and lift up your heads’ of 28; there is a break in thought. The ’redemption’ in 28 may be taken as the liberation of the disciples from the restraining bonds of Judaism which are not only the persecutions proceeding from the Synagogue, but also the hindrances arising from the Judaizers among the convert Jews of which Lk will write in Ac. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple solved both of these problems, and provided the occasion for the spread of the Kingdom of God throughout the world, the thing foreseen by the Prophets; Isaiah 2:2 ff.; 65:1 ff.; 66: 19 ff.; Malachi 1:11.30. ’When they already shoot forth [with leaves, not fruit] you know by looking at them that summer is already nigh; so you also . . .’. Consequently it is not a question of the Parousia but of something the disciples (some of them at least) will live to see, something the date of which can be roughly fixed; therefore the ruin of the city.

34-36 Be Ready for the Coming of the Son of Man — (Matthew 24:42; Mark 13:33-37; cf.Luke 12:41-48). Nowhere in Lk do we find the words of Mk and Mt about the ignorance of the Son concerning the last day; he omits them here; cf.Mark 13:32. There is a distinct change of tone in Lk; no more talk of encouragement as in 28, but a warning beginning with the admonitory formula, ’take heed to yourselves’ (cf. 17:3) which takes the place of Mk’s parable. We are back in the situation of 17:26 ff., watching for the coming of the Son of Man. Here, as there, that coming will be a day of Judgement and sifting. ’As a snare’ (or trap) should probably be attached, to 34 rather. than commence a new sentence in 35; ’that day will come upon you like a snare’; a snare is useless unless laid where least expected; cf.1 Thessalonians 5:2. Hence, instead of looking out for signs, be always ready. 36. Lk adds the advice to be constant at prayer ’at every time’.