It will be remarked here that, as He draws nigh to Jerusalem, the Lord
weeps over the city. It is not now as in Matthew, where, while discoursing
with the Jews, He points it out to them as that which having rejected and
slain the prophets-Emmanuel also, the Lord, who would so often have
gathered her children under His wings, having been ignominiously
rejected-was now given up to desolation until His return. It is the hour of
her visitation, and she has not known it. If only she had, even now,
hearkened to the call of the testimony of her God! She is given up into the
hands of the Gentiles, her enemies, who will not leave her one stone upon
another. That is to say, not having known this visitation of God in grace
in the Person of Jesus, she is set aside-the testimony goes no farther-she
gives place to a new order of things. Thus the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus is here prominent. It is the moral character of the temple also of
which the Lord here speaks. The Spirit does not notice here that it is to
be the temple of God for all nations. It is simply (chap. 20: 16) the
vineyard is given to others. They fell upon the stone of stumbling then:
when it falls on them-when Jesus comes in judgment-it will grind them to
powder.
In His reply to the Sadducees, three important things are added to that
which is said in Matthew. 1st, It is not only the condition of those who
are raised, and the certainty of the resurrection; it is an age, which a
certain class only, who are accounted worthy of it, shall obtain, a
separate resurrection of the just (v. 35). 2nd, This class is composed of
the children of God, as being the children of the resurrection (v. 36). 3rd
While waiting for this resurrection, their souls survive death, all live
unto God, although they may be hidden from the eyes of men (v. 38).
The parable of the wedding feast is omitted here. In chapter 14 of this
Gospel we find it with characteristic elements, a mission to the lanes of
the city, to the despised of the nations, which is not in Matthew, who
gives us the judgment of Jerusalem instead, before announcing the
evangelisation of the Gentiles. All this is characteristic. In Luke it is
grace, a moral condition of man before God, and the new order of things
founded on the rejection of Christ. I will not dwell upon those points
which Luke relates in common with Matthew. They naturally meet in the great
facts that relate to the Lord's rejection by the Jews, and its
consequences.
If we compare Matthew 23 and Luke 20: 45-47, we shall see at once the
difference. In Luke the Spirit gives us in three verses that which morally
puts the scribes aside. In Matthew their whole position with respect to the
dispensation is developed; whether as having a place, so long as Moses
continued, or with reference to their guiltiness before God in that place.
