CHAPTER 20
Luke 20, 1-8 = Mth 21, 23-27; Mark. 11, 27-33.
Luke 20.1 One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the scribes arrived with the elders, – «Saint Luke seems not to distinguish between days: he recounts the story of the sellers and buyers driven from the temple, but he remains silent on the various journeys from the city to Bethany, and from Bethany back to the city, the cursed fig tree, the disciples’ astonishment, and the response concerning the power of faith; he says only this: He taught every day in the temple» St. Augustine. Agreement of the Evangelists 2:69. These days represent the last days that Our Lord spent in Jerusalem between his triumph and his death; «one» of these days was Holy Tuesday, according to St. Mark 11:20 (see the commentary). We have already encountered this general formula several times in the third Gospel (5:17; 8:22). He taught the people. The following word, announced the good news, This phrase, so beloved by our evangelist and St. Paul (they use it between them up to 45 times), clarifies the nature of the Savior's actual teaching in the temple: he preached the Gospel, the good news; he spoke of the Messianic kingdom. occurred. The Greek verb often means: to arrive unexpectedly, with hostile intentions. It characterizes much better than the parallel expressions of St. Matthew and St. Mark the goal that the delegation of the Sanhedrin had in mind when it suddenly interrupted Jesus' discourse.
Luke 20.2 and said to him, «Tell us by what authority you are doing these things, or who gave you this authority?» The question has two distinct parts: 1. By what authority… What is the nature of your mandate? 2. (with the particle or as a transition) Through what intermediary was it transmitted to you, and where does it come from? The Sanhedrin had once addressed a similar request to St. John the Baptist, but in a less hostile spirit. John 1, 19 and following. It is so perfectly in accordance with all rabbinic customs, as revealed to us by the Talmud, that Strauss himself does not hesitate to admit the authenticity of this scene.
Luke 20.3 Jesus answered them, «I too have a question for you. Answer me.”. 4 Was John's baptism from heaven or from men?» – What majesty, what calm, what gentleness in Jesus' response! But also, what divine timing in confounding his adversaries during this "day of temptations." cf. vv. 20 ff., 27 ff.; Mark 12:28 ff. Answer me. The Savior's words are quoted more fully in the other two accounts. The baptism of John… In other words, was John the Baptist a prophet or an imposter?
Luke 20.5 But they were discussing this among themselves: "If we answer, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why did you not believe in him?'" 6 And if we answer, "Men," the whole crowd will stone us, because they are convinced that John was a prophet.» – They were thinking to themselves. Embarrassed by this unexpected turn of events in the interview, they deliberate amongst themselves to find a way out. If we answer…How skillfully they weigh all possible outcomes. But in vain; they will not succeed in finding an honorable way out, since they are only concerned with their personal vanity, and not at all with the rights of truth. The entire population will stone us. A very strong word, used only in this one place in the New Testament. The Sanhedrin's reflection is specific to St. Luke in this forceful form (cf. St. Matthew and St. Mark). The fear they express was, moreover, very serious, as demonstrated by various events in the New Testament, relating either to Our Lord Jesus Christ, John 10:31, or to St. Stephen, Acts 7:56-59. Stoning was the legal punishment for religious offenses, and the Jewish crowds did not hesitate to inflict it summarily when the opportunity arose. Because he is convinced that John was a prophet. Another vigorous expression, characteristic of St. Luke. The tense of the Greek verb indicates perfect, unchanging certainty. And it was true. Josephus also affirms that the people's faith in the divine mission of St. John was as ardent as it was unanimous. Ant. 18, 5, 2.
Luke 20.7 So they replied that they didn't know where he was from. – St. Matthew and St. Mark use direct language: «we do not know.» According to a beautiful Talmudic proverb, man must teach his tongue to say «I do not know,» and indeed, in many cases, such a response is noble because it is humble; but here it was a cowardly lie.
Luke 20.8 «And I,» Jesus said to them, “do not tell you by what authority I do these things.” – A perfect application of the axiom: «Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will think himself wise» (Proverbs 26:5). If you are incompetent to judge the authority of St. John the Baptist, you are equally incompetent to judge mine. – See, moreover, the detailed explanation of this entire passage in our commentaries on St. Matthew and St. Mark.
Luke 20, 9-19 = Mth 21, 33-46; Mc. 12, 1-12.
Luke 20.9 Then he began to tell the people this parable: «A man planted a vineyard and rented it to tenants, and then he went away for a long time to a foreign country. – According to the other evangelists, Jesus continued to address the delegates of the Sanhedrin when he told the parable of the treacherous tenants. Both things were true at the same time, since the Sanhedrin members as well as the crowd were then with Our Lord. cf. v. 19. A man planted a vineyard. St. Luke says nothing about the extensive care that had been given to this vineyard. The owner symbolizes God; the vinedressers represent the spiritual leaders of the Jewish nation, which is itself represented by the vine. Cf. Isaiah 5:1-7. He was out of the country for a long time (cf. 8, 29) is a special detail. By this long absence of the owner, we must understand the time that elapsed from the covenant at Sinai and the entry of the Jews into the Promised Land until the coming of the Messiah, that is, about 2000 years. «A long time passed before an injustice was seen. For the more indulgent the liberality, the more inexcusable the obstinacy,» St. Ambrose, Exp. in Luc. 9, 23.
Luke 20.10 When the season came, he sent a servant to the tenants to give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 He sent yet another servant, but, having beaten him also and treated him unworthily, they sent him away empty-handed. 12 He sent a third, but the tenants also wounded him and threw him out. – According to Jewish law, Leviticus 19:23-25, one could not enjoy the fruits of a vineyard until five years after its planting. It was considered impure for the first three years, and in the fourth, the fruits belonged to the Lord as firstfruits. He sent a servant. This servant and the two following him are archetypes of the prophets who, at different periods in Jewish history, acted as intermediaries between God and his people. They beat himThe insults are increasing, as are... patience The owner's truly divine behavior. A man would not suffer such insults twice with impunity.
Luke 20.13 Then the owner of the vineyard said to himself, »What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps when they see him, they will respect him.” – A sublime deliberation, which only St. Luke has fully recounted. As on other solemn occasions, Genesis 126; 6, 7, God, so to speak, consults with himself before making an important decision for humanity. I will send my sonIt's still mercy who wins; but mercy pushed to its extreme limit. Perhaps they will feel respect. This anthropomorphism is very well commented on by St. Jerome: "In saying: they will respect my son, he does not say this as if he were ignorant of it. For what is unknown to the father of the family who here takes the place of God? But it is always said that God asks himself questions in order to leave room for the free will of man.".
Luke 20.14 But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, "This is the heir; let us kill him, so that the inheritance may be ours.". The tenants, seeing him from a distance, recognized the son of their landowner. They immediately deliberated in turn, but their decision was a terrible one: «This man is the heir; let us kill him.» On this title of heir, applied to Our Lord, see Hebrews 1:2. With what force and clarity Jesus reveals to the people the shameful schemes of their leaders and the true motive for the hatred with which they persecuted him. These men had made theocracy their property, and they could not bring themselves to relinquish this power, which they had exploited for their own benefit, into the hands of the Son, who came to claim it in the name of his Father.
Luke 20.15 And having thrown him out of the vineyard, they killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give his vineyard to others.» When they heard this, they said, «God forbid!» – Having driven him out of the vineyard… All three accounts mention this circumstance. Naboth, whom the Holy Fathers readily cite as a figure of the Messiah's death, had likewise been dragged from his vineyard before being stoned (1 Kings 21:13). Cf. St. Ambrose, Exposition in Luke 9:33. What will the owner of the vineyard do to them?… Compare the What would I do? From verse 13. But the conclusion will be quite different. He will come… St. Luke, like St. Mark, seems to place this severe pronouncement on the lips of Our Lord, while, according to St. Matthew, it was uttered by the Sanhedrin. There is no real contradiction, for one can say either (and this is more likely) that the second and third Synoptic Gospels abridge, or that Jesus repeated, to emphasize it, the just sentence that his adversaries had pronounced against themselves. God forbid. (that it should not be so!). This derogatory formula, which appears only in this passage of the Gospels, but which St. Paul uses up to ten times in the single letter to the RomansThis was undoubtedly uttered by the people, as if to avert a bad omen. The audience had therefore understood the meaning of the parable. He will give the vineyard to others. A terrible but perfectly legitimate substitution. Cf. Acts 13:46.
Luke 20.17 But, looking intently at them, Jesus said, «What then is this saying in Scripture: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone?’” 18 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.» – But he, looking at them…a picturesque detail, characteristic of St. Luke. The Greek word (to look into) signifies a fixed, penetrating gaze. What is this that is written?…So, that is to say, if your «not so» were to be granted, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled, which foretell the most severe punishments for the enemies of Christ? Jesus thus gives more force to his threat by inserting it into a divine revelation. The passage quoted, the stone that the builders rejected…, is taken from the same Psalm 117 (v. 22) from which the crowd had recently borrowed its enthusiastic cheers (19:38). It expresses in a new and more forceful form the thought developed in the parable; for Jesus is the stone first despised, then placed at the foundation point of the building, while the builders, like the vinedressers above, represent the Jewish authorities. See St. Matthew. Anyone who falls on this stone…These words compose an antithetical verse, with an ascending gradation of thought in the second hemistich. The Greek correlatives of the verbs break And crush are very expressive. The second, which is even more forceful than the first, has the meaning of sifting. See in 1 Corinthians 1:13 the fulfillment of this threat.
Luke 20.19 The chief priests and the scribes sought to seize him at once, but fear of the people held them back, for they understood that it was against them that Jesus had told this parable. – Jesus had not only refused to answer the Sanhedrin's "dictatorial question"; he had also denounced their anti-theocratic conduct to the people and sounded the thunder of heavenly vengeance over their heads. Therefore, more enraged than ever, they began to deliberate again (cf. 19:47 ff.) to find a way to seize him immediately (at this very hour (This is a detail specific to St. Luke); but again, fear of the people held them back. For they had recognized that he had told this parable against them.. They were right. It was the realization of the adage, "If you change the name, this story applies to you." This observation, common to all three synoptic Gospels, is valuable because it reveals to us the immediate purpose of the murderous winegrowers' words.
Luke 20, 20-26 = Mth. 22, 15-22 Mk. 12, 13-17
See our comments on St. Matthew and St. Mark.
Luke 20.20 They therefore kept a close eye on him and sent spies pretending to be just, to catch him in his words, in order to deliver him to the authority and power of the governor. – A brief historical preamble, more complete in the third Gospel than in the other two. St. Luke uses vigorous strokes to describe the base and hypocritical conduct of Jesus' enemies. therefore did not lose sight of him : in a negative sense, as in other places. cf. 6, 7; 14, 1; 17, 20. – They sent spies. The Greek word, used only in this passage of the New Testament, is a classic term for treacherous men. They lie in ambush in secret places, from where they set traps for others. Parallel accounts tell us that these emissaries were disciples of the Pharisees. Who would pretend to be fair. The expression is perfectly chosen, since it means: to be a hypocrite; it is found only in this part of the New Testament, "The Righteous," models of justice from the point of view of Jewish law and theocracy. To surprise him with his words. This was the direct aim of this dark plot: to catch Jesus in some compromising remark. (cf. Ecclesiasticus 8:11) Then, as a natural consequence if successful, to hand him over to the Roman governor, since they had lost the "right of the sword."«authority refers to Roman authority in general; the governor's power is more special and represents the delegated power of the "procurator" who exercised his functions in the name of the emperor.
Luke 20.21 These people questioned him in these terms: «Teacher, we know that you speak and teach with integrity and impartiality, but that you teach the way of God in truth. 22 Are we permitted, or not, to pay tribute to Caesar?» Not content with cloaking themselves in the mask of legal perfection, the tempters also try to conceal their traps behind a veneer of courtesy and deference. Their compliments take on a particular hue in St. Luke: We know that you speak and teach (the words of the private individual and the teachings of the doctor) with integrity (without deviating from the straight line). It has been very rightly said that there is something in these Pharisaical praises as dreadful as in the kiss of the traitor Judas. Are we allowed to pay tribute to Caesar? St. Luke alone uses a Greek word that designates the annual poll tax and land taxes, as opposed to the tax on goods. A strange question indeed, one that had in no way troubled the holy King Hezekiah, nor the prophet Jeremiah, nor Ezra and Nehemiah; for, without ceasing to be true Israelites, they did not hesitate to acknowledge the suzerainty of Nineveh, Babylon, or Persia; but the narrow principles of the Pharisees had aroused scruples concerning a perfectly clear point. Thus, Jesus, by his answer, could draw upon himself the wrath of either the Romans, if he said No, or his compatriots, if he said Yes.
Luke 20.23 Jesus, knowing their deceitfulness, said to them, «Why are you tempting me? 24 "Show me a denarius. Whose image and name does it bear?" They answered him, "Caesar's."» – Show me a penny. St. Luke, like St. Mark, mentions the denarius in advance; for Our Lord did not ask for a specific coin, but generally a coin, according to the more precise wording of St. Matthew. Whose image does it bear?…This simple question already contained the solution to the problem. They replied: from Caesar. Alas. It was no longer the national and sacred currency, once minted by the Hasmonean princes. It was a Roman denarius bearing the image of Tiberius, the current reigning emperor.
Luke 20.25 And he said to them, «Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.» – This famous answer from Jesus is reproduced almost identically by the three evangelists. The tempters had asked if it was lawful to pay tribute: Jesus answers them that they are obligated to pay it, that is, to pay it as a debt. «Therefore,» because the Savior draws a conclusion from their own words, v. 24. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. The tax and everything else still owed to Caesar besides the tax, for Jesus broadens the concept. And to God belongs what is God's.This saying of the Savior, which the Catholic Church has always taken as the basis of its diplomatic theories, demonstrates how mistaken are those who claim that the Christianity constitutes a danger to the State. See also Romans 13, 6 and 7, where the same truth is strongly instilled. But will we not soon hear (23, 2) the Pharisees claim that Jesus had forbidden paying taxes to Caesar?
Luke 20.26 Thus they could not catch him in any of his words before the people, and admiring his response, they remained silent. – And they could find nothing wrong with his words… This first reflection is unique to St. Luke. It contains a further indication of the goal that the adversaries of Our Lord had set for themselves, who wanted to catch him in his words (v. 20). In front of the peopleThis is emphatic: in the face of the crowd, which was overwhelmingly favorable to Jesus, and which they hoped to alienate from him by discrediting him. Having admired his response… Formerly, the Doctors of Jerusalem had admired the wisdom of the divine Child (2, 47); now, despite themselves, they admire that of the mature man. They remained silent is another peculiarity of St. Luke. «What can be said against Jesus after such a wise, simple, and precise statement? To what tribunal can he be accused? Caesar is satisfied, God is glorified, his enemies are caught by their own words and reduced to silence. He thwarts all their vain artifices with a wisdom that cannot be sufficiently admired, with an unalterable gentleness and a truly divine majesty» (Dehaut, The Gospel Explained, Defended, Meditated, 5th ed. vol. 4, pp. 4 and 5).
Luke 20, 27-40 = Mth. 22, 23-33 Mk 12, 18-27.
Luke 20.27 Some of the Sadducees, who deny the resurrection, They then approached and questioned him: – Some of the Sadducees. On this sect of Judaism, see St. Matthew. Until now the Sadducees had shown themselves much less hostile to Jesus than the Pharisaic party, for Epicurean worldliness is more tolerant than fanaticism; but today all the leaders of the Jewish nation are fighting against the Messiah.
Luke 20.28 «Teacher,” they said to him, “Moses gave us this law: If a man dies and has no children, his brother must take his wife and raise up children for his brother. – Moses wrote…The Sadducees first set forth the principle upon which they will later base their objection. This principle consists of a law enacted by Moses and known as the law of levirate marriage. See Deuteronomy 25:5 and 6. Having a wife, he dies without leaving children… Compare the nuances of expression in the three stories.
Luke 20.29 Now there were seven brothers, the first one took a wife and died childless. 30 The second man took his wife and also died childless., 31 The third one then took her, and so did all seven of them, and they died without leaving any children. 32 After all of them, the woman also died. – Presentation of the difficulty, in the form of a probably imaginary, though possible, moral dilemma (cf. Tobit 6:14), and presented in such a way as to ridicule the dogma of the resurrectionSee our commentary on S. Matthew 22, 23-33.
Luke 20.33 Which one, then, in the time of the resurrection, "Will she be the woman, as she was of all seven?"» – This is the conclusion of the entire preceding argument, vv. 28-32. – Whose wife will she be? ?
Luke 20.34 Jesus said to them, «The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, – To the Sadducees' question, some Rabbi (for the Jewish Doctors had examined the case) would have replied by asserting that the woman would belong in the next world to her first husband. A rather petty solution compared to that of Jesus, who partially opens the gates of heaven for us and allows us to cast a rapturous gaze upon the future state of the predestined. The children of this world: A Hebraism used to designate men as they currently live on earth. Elsewhere (e.g., 16:8; see the commentary) this expression is used from a moral point of view and denotes the most depraved part of humankind; but that is not the case here. They marry and are given in marriage (women who are given in marriage by their parents). Above, 17, 27, this same detail was noted as an indication of a sensual and worldly life; it simply appears in this passage as a necessity of the present condition of men, in contrast to the state of the blessed (vv. 35 and 36). The Greek verb corresponding to given in marriagee (literally: to be given in marriage outside) is not found elsewhere in the New Testament.
Luke 20.35 but those who were found worthy to share in the age to come and in the resurrection of the dead, do not take wives and have no husbands, - THE world to come is contrasted with "of this world." Our Lord was then speaking only of the elect. cf. 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; Apocalypse 34. Compare also the rabbinic expression: “worthy of the world to come”. They will not get married… The verbs are in the present tense in the Greek text, as well as in verse 34.
Luke 20.36 They can no longer die, since they are like the angels and that they are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. – Jesus explains why there will be no more marriages in heaven. His reasoning is that there is a close correlation between death and physical reproduction, the latter having no other purpose than to repair the breaches created by the former. When death is destroyed, marriage will cease as well. Currently, daily births are necessary, otherwise the human species would soon disappear: when the species has become immobile, immortal, there will no longer be a need for new individuals. The tree of humanity will no longer put forth fresh branches, its growth being complete. They are like the angels. The Lord, continuing his argument, indicates the reasons why the resurrected cannot die. Their nature will be transformed, for 1) they will participate in the angelic state (see St. Matthew), 2) they will be children of God, by the very fact that they will be son of the resurrection (Hebrew, which is equivalent to "resurrected"). Our mortal fathers can only impart to us a mortal life; God, when he becomes our father in a most wondrous way through the great act of the resurrectionwhich is “a kind of new generation for immortality” (D. Calmet, hl), will transmit something of its spiritual essence into our transfigured members, and from then on they will no longer be able to die. – As we can see, if St. Luke omitted the beginning of the Savior’s response (cf. Matt. 22:29; Mark 12:24), on the other hand, what precious details he did not preserve.
Luke 20.37 But that the dead are raised, this is what Moses himself made known in the passage of the Burning Bush, when he names the Lord: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. – After refuting the Sadducees' preconceived ideas about the condition of the blessed in the afterlife (vv. 34-36), Our Lord, in this second part of his demonstration (vv. 37-38), proves to them, through Holy Scripture, the certainty of the resurrectionSee the detailed explanation in St. Matthew. Moses himself made known Moses himself, on whom you claim to rely to deny the resurrection deaths. In the passage through the bushAs we have shown in our commentary on the second Gospel, this phrase refers to chapter 3 of Exodus, which recounts God's appearance to Moses at the burning bush. Compare the following examples from the Talmud: Berach. Fol. 2, 1, that is, Isaiah 6:6; fol. 4, 2, that is, Daniel 9:21. See Fritzsche's commentary on the letter to the Romans 112. The use of similar formulas among Roman and Greek writers. – The other two synoptic Gospels directly quote the words of the Lord to Moses; St. Luke uses indirect language, to abbreviate.
Luke 20.38 But he is not the God of the dead, but living people, "For all are alive before him."» – What strength, what depth, and at the same time what simplicity of reasoning. They are all alive before himThese words, unique to St. Luke, are intended to demonstrate that God is preeminently the God of the living. cf. Romans 14, 8-9.
Luke 20.39 Some of the scribes, taking the floor, said to him, "Master, you have spoken well."« – This detail is only recounted by St. Luke. – The Scribes were generally hostile to Jesus; nevertheless, they could not help but admire the wisdom with which he had refuted the skeptical Sadducees: some of them even offered him public praise: You spoke well.. – Our evangelist omits here, probably because he had recounted a similar one above (10, 25 and ff.), the episode relating to the greatest commandment, which took place, according to the other two synoptic Gospels (Matthew 22, 34-40; Mark 12, 28-34), immediately after Jesus had silenced the Sadducees.
Luke 20.40 And they no longer dared to ask him any questions. – cf. Matthew 22:46; Mark 12:34. The Greek text can be interpreted according to two nuances of the same thought. According to the first reading, the Scribes praise Jesus, but are careful not to question him further; according to the second, which is more expressive, their praise was intended to mask their withdrawal.
Luke 20, 41-44 = Mth 22, 41-46; Mk 22, 35-37.
Luke 20.41 Jesus said to them, «How can anyone say that the Christ is the son of David? 42 David himself says in the book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,”, 43 until I make your enemies the footstool for your feet. – The scene took place again in the temple (Mark 12:35), and many Pharisees were gathered around Jesus (Matthew 22:41). How do you say…? Generally speaking: In what sense do we say … – Since David himself…that is to say: And yet David himself seems to assert the opposite. The Lord said to my Lord. The literal translation of the Hebrew text would be: The oracle of the Lord (God) to my Lord (Adonai). Sit on my right. This is the place of honor that God gives to his Christ, a symbol of the powers equal to his own that he entrusts to him. Until I do… cf. 1 Corinthians 15:25.
Luke 20.44 David calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?» At the end of his reasoning, Jesus reiterated his question, clarifying it further: How is it possible to be both inferior and superior to someone? Today, a child in catechism class would answer this difficulty. The Messiah, they would say, is the son of David through his temporal lineage, and the Lord of David through his eternal lineage. But at that time, this was the most delicate, the most complex of theological questions. Thus, for the second time on that memorable day, the Doctors were forced to admit their ignorance. (cf. v. 7).
Luke 20, 45-47 = Mth. 23, 1-36; Mc. 12, 38-40.
Luke 20.45 While all the people were listening to him, he said to his disciples: – A brief historical introduction, the first detail of which, while all the people (with emphasis on All), is characteristic of our evangelist. It was therefore in the presence of a considerable crowd (cf. Matt. 23:1) that Jesus denounced the vices of the Jewish teachers. However, as the following words express, he said to his disciples, he was then addressing himself more specifically to his apostles and disciples, whom he wanted to protect against bad examples coming from so high.
Luke 20.46 «Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, who like to be greeted in public squares, to occupy the best seats in the synagogues and the best places at banquets: – St. Matthew mentions the Pharisees alongside the Scribes. Since the teachers of the law were the most influential members of the Pharisaic party, we have here the part representing the whole. Who enjoy taking walks…These various details admirably highlight the Scribes' ostentatious spirit. On the dress, See 15, 22 and the commentary. The Talmud also denounces and threatens with the supreme court "the hypocrites who drape themselves in their robes to make people believe they are true Pharisees.".
Luke 20.47 Those who devour widows' houses and make a show of long prayers will suffer a more severe condemnation.» – A very classic expression, cf. Hom. Od. 4, 318. According to Exodus 22:21 ff., this was a crime whose voice rose to heaven. Cf. Isaiah 10:1, 2. Josephus, too, in Ant. 18, 2, 4, reproaches the Pharisees for exerting an abusive influence over women. But the Savior's reproach is even more explicitly confirmed by this passage from the Talmud (Sota Hieros, 20, 1): «There are those who conspire with orphans to deprive widows of their food. The wealth of any widow is prey to the Sabbath. Rabbi Eleazar said to one of them: »The plague of the Pharisees has befallen you.’” Under the pretext of long prayers. They thus combined hypocrisy with rapacity. But their punishment will be commensurate with their malice.
