CHAPTER 20
One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. Luke 20:1
Jesus had just deeply humiliated the leaders of Israel by cleansing the temple and essentially calling them all a band of robbers. No doubt, they quickly responded by coming to him publicly and asking him some hard questions concerning his identity and authority. The chief priests, teachers of the law and the elders all gathered to test him. Quite simply, this was an official showdown with the whole religious establishment. These people made up the component parts of the Sanhedrin, or the supreme religious government council.1
“‘Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,’ they said. ‘Who gave you this authority?’” (20:2). Barclay says, “…No Rabbi ever delivered a judgment or made a statement without giving his authorities. He would say, ‘There is a teaching that . . .’ Or he would say, ‘This was confirmed by Rabbi So and So when he said . . .’” 2 Jesus had not sat at the feet of any leading Rabbi. He would not cite any authority, for he himself was the authority. No doubt, they wished him to say who he really was. If he claimed to be the Son of God, they would immediately charge him with blasphemy, the penalty of which was stoning. At least they wished to trap him, incriminating him with the Romans or discrediting him with his supporters.3 Of course, they viewed themselves as being the only people in authority and in charge of all the religious aspects of the temple.4
“He replied, ‘I will also ask you a question. Tell me: John’s baptism— was it from heaven, or of human origin?’” (20:3-4). Jesus answered in the typical rabbinic fashion by answering a question with a question. This question of Jesus would qualify as today’s Catch 22,5 a situation from which it is impossible to escape because of contradictory rules or information. The Jewish establishment in Jerusalem had refused to hear or follow John the Baptist. In their eyes he also did not have proper authority for his ministry. This whole exchange is found also in Matthew 21:23-27 and Mark 11:27-33.
Had they accepted John’s ministry, they would have had to acknowledge several things about Jesus: That he could take away the world’s sin (Jn. 1:29); that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:33); that he was the bridegroom (Jn. 3:29); that he was above all (Jn. 3:31); that he spoke the word of God (Jn. 3:33); that God had given him all things (Jn. 3:35); and that those who believed on him would have eternal life (Jn. 3:36).6 Meyer says, “When anyone has received a divine commission, he does not need to prove it. His credentials are written large upon his life and message. It was so with John the Baptist.” 7
“They discussed it among themselves and said, ‘If we say, “From heaven,” he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, “Of human origin,” all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet’” (20:5-6). John the Baptist was exceedingly popular with the common people. Great crowds went out to the wilderness to hear him and to receive his baptism. The leaders could not dare say that John and his message did not come from heaven. They would likely be stoned on the spot. They could not dare say that John and his message were from heaven or from God. That statement would leave them as standing guilty for not believing and following God’s messenger. They were truly “in a pickle.”
“So they answered, ‘We don’t know where it was from’” (20:7). The great and wise leaders of the Sanhedrin, and even the high priest himself, stood ashamed and red-faced before Jesus. Coffman says, “The best thing they could come up with was an open profession of ignorance, and that before the multitudes!” 8
“Jesus said, ‘Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things’” (20:8). We never come out very good when we try to argue against God. Pett says, “So when Jesus then declared that he was not willing to submit his case to the very people who had admitted that they did not know how to judge a prophet’s authority, the people would recognize that he had really answered their question.” 9
PARABLE OF THE TENANTS
He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. Luke 20:9
This parable draws imagery from the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-7. 10 The vineyard in this song represented Israel (cf. Psa. 80:8-16; Jer. 2:21-22; Hos. 9:10). Bock sees this parable as an actual allegory. While a parable usually has one to three points in its contact with reality, an allegory has many points.11
At the time this parable was told, wealthy absentee landlords were common in the land.12 One almost had to be wealthy to plant a vineyard. In addition to the vines, a wall and winepress had to be constructed. All this was quite expensive and time-consuming. According to the law, a person planting a tree or vine had to wait until the fifth year to eat of it (Lev. 19:23-25). As a repayment for his effort the landlord was to collect about one third of the crop for his rent each year.13
“At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out” (20:10-12). This parable is strange in that normally the power of wealth and the law was in favor of the owner. Here we get the clear idea that the tenants were aiming to replace the owner and take the vineyard for themselves. The biblical sense here is that the leaders of Israel, who were the tenants, were intent on replacing the true representative of God (cf. 1 Ki. 18:13; 22:27; 2 Chron. 24:19-21; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 7:25-26; 25:4; Amos 3:7; Zech.1:6).
In the US we have the law of adverse possession. By this law a trespasser can take over unoccupied houses or lands by possessing them in an open, hostile and exclusive manner. This must be done over a period of time. This law is so lax in our state of Colorado that trespassers sometimes take over empty houses, change the locks, and gain legal right to occupy, even to the exclusion of the actual owner. It usually takes a court case for the owner to regain his property. It is likely that there was some type of law like this in ancient Israel. The law was initially designed to make sure all lands were in use by somebody. In the Mishnah it is noted that if someone had the use of land for a period of three years that person was presumed to be the owner, in the absence of any other claim (Mishnah, Baba Bathra 3:1).14
“Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him’” (20:13). Keener says, “Ancient hearers of the parable would regard the landowner as abnormal; naively benevolent…” 15 The picture in some ways is so much like that of God who is longsuffering toward all of us and who in the end has sacrificed his Only Son for our salvation (cf. Lk. 3:22; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Gal. 4:4-5; Heb. 1:1-3;1 Jn. 4:9-10). The sending of his Only Son is seen as God’s final act for the redemption of the human race.16
“But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours’” (20:14). The true aim of the tenants is now seen clearly. Coffman feels that the tenants, who were the leaders of Israel, likely recognized Jesus as the Messiah and the true heir to the throne of David.17 They were reluctant to give up their hold on the reins of authority and rather wanted to claim it all for themselves. We cannot overlook the fact that in this parable Jesus gave his own death pronouncement.18
“So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. ‘What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?’” (20:15). According to Jewish law a dead body could not be left in the vineyard without making the harvest impure.19 Thus, as a type and pattern, these bandits threw the son out of the vineyard. How accurately this corresponds to the death of Jesus the True Son in Jerusalem. He suffered and died just outside the city gate (Heb. 13:12) in a place called Calvary.
“‘He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.’ When the people heard this, they said, ‘God forbid!’” (20:16). Several commentators feel that this is a prediction that the kingdom would be taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles.20 We note in the gospels and in Acts a considerable prejudice existing in the Jewish population regarding the Gentiles. Israel had failed to be a light to the nations as God intended. Instead, Israel had come to almost loathe the Gentiles. Their expression of dismay can be seen in other translations: “May it never be!” (NASB); “Certainly not!” (NKJV) and “Heaven forbid!” (NRSV). Such a thought was like the end of the world for devout Jewish people in those days.21
In AD 70 the nation was totally defeated by the Romans and Jerusalem, with her temple, was destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were killed or sold into slavery. The nation would go into eclipse for almost two thousand years. The kingdom was then handed to the Gentiles, who would produce its fruit (Matt. 21:43).
“Jesus looked directly at them and asked, ‘Then what is the meaning of that which is written:’ “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone?”’” (20:17). Jesus is here quoting from Psalm 118:22, from what was considered as a messianic psalm.22 The images of the stone and cornerstone became very popular ones for the early Christians as we see from the New Testament (Acts 4:11; Rom. 9:32-33; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:7).23 Guzik says of the cornerstone that it was, “… designated in antiquity the stone used at the building’s corner to bear the weight or the stress of the two walls.” 24 We might think of these two walls as being the spiritually redeemed of Israel and the Gentiles.
“Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed” (20:18). This picture apparently comes from Daniel 2:34, 44. We first see that some will fall against the stone and be broken. Isaiah 8:14-15 says: “He will be a holy place; for both Israel and Judah he will be a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare. Many of them will stumble; they will fall and be broken, they will be snared and captured.” So in New Testament times, and in the present times, Jesus is a stumbling block for the Jews. People are hurt if they fall against him and they are hurt if he falls against them. The latter expression no doubt speaks of the final judgment (cf. Isa. 17:13; Amos 9:9).
The rabbis have this humorous comparison between a pot and a stone: “If a stone falls on a pot, woe to the pot! If a pot falls on a stone, woe to the pot! In either case woe to the pot!” 25 Likewise, it seems disastrous for one to fall over Jesus or for Jesus to fall upon them.
“The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people” (20:19). On several occasions we have seen that the Jewish leaders were cowards. They were afraid of the people over whom they ruled. What a sad and tragic picture they leave with us.
PAYING TAXES TO CAESAR
Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. Luke 20:20
In Matthew and Mark’s versions (Matt. 22:15; Mk. 12:13) we are told that the Pharisees and Herodians joined forces to test Jesus on this occasion. Normally these two groups hated each other but their mutual hatred of Jesus caused them to unite.26 They decided to test Jesus in the area of Roman taxation. Barker and Kohlenber speak of the different forms of Roman taxation which totaled over one-third of a person’s income.27 One particularly hateful tax was the poll tax, which had caused riots in the past.
The questioners no doubt hoped that Jesus would teach against the tax. Then it would be easy to turn him over to the Romans as one guilty of treason. If Jesus taught in favor of the tax, he would no doubt infuriate all his followers who hated the institution. Bock says, “To what had been posed as an either-or question Jesus gives a both-and answer, avoiding the trap.” 28
We need to understand that all governments, even pagan ones, have the God-given right to exist and to tax their people (Rom. 13:6-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). All this is a part of God’s order that he has imposed on the earth. It is designed so that people can live in some degree of peace and prosperity. Of course, when the decrees of man’s government begin to conflict with the decrees of God’s government, then we must resist and put God first (Jer. 29:4-7; Acts 4:19-20; 5:29).29
“So the spies questioned him: ‘Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (20:21-22). The seventeenth century commentator, John Trapp, notes of this duplicity: “Here is a fair glove, drawn upon a foul hand.” 30 This approach was nothing but plain flattery. Jesus saw right through it.
Now, they asked the big question which they hoped would place Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. The question of taxes was a hot one which had led to a disastrous tax revolt some two decades earlier.31
“He saw through their duplicity and said to them, ‘Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied” (20:23-24). Meyer says that Jesus was so poor that he did not even have a denarius of his own.32 Guthrie says, “The coin, a silver denarius, bore Caesar’s image on the obverse and the goddess of peace on the reverse, with an inscription which read, ‘Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus, Chief Priest.’” 33 Of course, the Jews in general objected to an image on anything, as well as use of the title “divine.” Nevertheless, the denarius was the coin of the realm and they needed it, although it was a sure sign of Roman sovereignty over them.
“He said to them, ‘Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’” (20:25). With this statement Jesus approved the paying of taxes to governments. No Christians today can refuse to pay taxes, saying that their only allegiance is to God. It is God who has established the taxes.
No doubt, this statement of Jesus bewildered those who were questioning him. Guthrie says, “Perhaps there is the thought that men are God’s ‘coinage’ for they bear his image.” 34 If we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), then we should reflect God in all our lives and dealings. Our allegiance should be primarily to God. The coin with Caesar’s image should be given back to him and our lives with God’s image should be returned to him and him only.
“They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent” (20:26). It is really tough to outsmart God. Many people today are trying to do that with their morality, or lack of it. People seem to think that God does not know about their shenanigans, but God is all-knowing. God will make a fool of them at the final judgment.
THE SADDUCEES AND THE RESURRECTION
Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.” Luke 20:27-28
The Sadducees must have sat up all night thinking up this supposed dilemma. They probably felt that they could both defeat Jesus and the doctrine of the resurrection, in which they did not believe. The Sadducees made up the priestly aristocracy. They had no problem with the Romans and wanted desperately to maintain the status quo. The Sadducees accepted only the written Law of Moses, while rejecting all the prophets and other books. They did not believe in the resurrection, or in angels or spirits.35 As the old adage goes “they were sad, you see.”
Bock says of the Sadducees, “In the sense that modernist religion abandons any supernatural belief and keeps only moralism, then the Sadducees were modernists…This is the Sadducees; only appearance in Luke’s Gospel.” 36
The Sadducees had come up with a dusty old law that is known as Levirate Marriage (Deut. 25:5ff.). The word Levirate is taken from the Latin levir, meaning brother-in-law.37 This ancient law simply demanded that upon the death of a husband the brother was to take the widow and raise up children for the deceased. It was designed to keep ancient families intact and no doubt keep alive the idea that the Messiah might be born someday from that particular family line. We have no information showing that this old law was still observed in New Testament times. So, the Sadducees came to Jesus with their fabulous trumped up story.
Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. The second and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. Finally, the woman died too. Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” (20:29-33). Their question portrayed such a tangled web that they thought it would no doubt tangle up Jesus. Behind this question was the gravely mistaken idea that physical life as normal would go on in the heavenly realms. Some folks have similar mistaken ideas today. Just a little sane thinking should dash such ideas to pieces. On this earth, the human race can only continue through marriage and the birth of children. Of course, today we have some who would do away with both, instituting homosexual marriage and even transsexualism. It takes very little thinking to see that these things would soon do away with humanity.
This whole convoluted and long-winded question was really quite humorous. It probably made some people chuckle a bit. Bock remarks, “The superstitious person might wonder whether marriage to this woman was hazardous to one’s health!…” 38
“Jesus replied, ‘The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection’” (20:34-36). It is amazing that in one fell swoop Jesus demolished the belief or rather unbelief of the Sadducees. He affirmed both the resurrection and angelic beings in the heavenly places. He denied the continued need of marriage since the children of the resurrection will no longer die or need to be replenished (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-54).
There is an amazing thing about Jesus’ teaching. Quite often he introduces totally new revelation that has come directly from God the Father. We do not have this information anywhere else in the Bible. It quickly settles the matter of marriage in heaven. We should note that angels do not marry but we cannot assume they are sexless. We learn in Genesis that angels, or at least rebellious angels, can reproduce (Gen. 6:1-4; Jude 1:6).
“But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive” (20:37-38). In the original passage of Exodus 3:6, God says to Moses, “…I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob….” This statement is repeated in the parallel accounts of Matthew 22:32 and Mark 12:26. Guthrie explains saying: “As is normal in this type of Hebrew sentence, there is no verb, and Jesus implies that the present form ‘am’ must be supplied (as is done in the LXX), showing that God was still the God of Abraham centuries after his death and that consequently Abraham must still be alive.” 39
The Greek Old Testament or Septuagint (LXX) makes plain that the patriarchs are still alive. God did not say “I was the God of Abraham, until he died,” but “I am the God of Abraham.” Thus the patriarchs are still living and there is life after physical death. This passage dispels many modern ideas about the afterlife, things such as reincarnation, 40 trans-migration of souls, absorption of souls into the divinity and complete annihilation.
“Some of the teachers of the law responded, ‘Well said, teacher!’ And no one dared to ask him any more questions” (20:39-40). Clearly, Jesus overwhelmed the leaders with his wisdom. Even the Pharisees were probably happy that Jesus had routed the Sadducees.41
THE TRUE IDENTITY OF CHRIST
Then Jesus said to them, “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David?” Luke 20:41
Jesus asked a very difficult question regarding the title “Son of David.” We need to give ourselves a little background on this title. Physically speaking Jesus was of the line of David, as the Bible makes plain (cf. 2 Sam. 7:13-14; Matt. 1:1, 20; Lk. 1:27, 32, 33; 2:4; Rom. 1:3; Rev. 5:5). The title Son of David was the most popular title for the Lord Jesus.42 Normally, the Hebrew son was in subjection to his father. However, in the spiritual sense Jesus will show his superiority to David.
“David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” (20:42-44). In this passage David refers to the Messiah as his Lord, indicating that the Messiah was much greater than himself. In John 1:1, we see the eternal nature of the Messiah. His eternal nature was long before spoken of in Isaiah 9:7 and 11:1ff. The Bible makes clear that the Messiah would restore the eternal throne of David and reestablish David’s fallen tent (Lk. 1:32-33; Acts 15:16). Thus, we realize that the Messiah is not only a man of the line of David but the God-man, whose reign is eternal.
THE TEACHERS OF THE LAW
While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.” Luke 20:45-46
The religion of Israel’s leaders had come to be only a public show. They wanted to appear righteous and holy before the people and were not too concerned about really having personal holiness. They wore long, fancy and ostentatious robes to attract attention. Since the seating at banquets was a mark of one’s rank in society, they strove for the most important seats.43 They liked to be greeted as “Rabbi” or “Master.” They prayed on the street corners so that the crowds could notice them (Matt. 6:5).
“They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely” (20:47). Perhaps the worst thing they did was to swindle poor widows. All Rabbis were bound to teach for nothing and to have their own occupation whereby they could earn their bread.44 However, these shysters had figured out some way to cheat poor widows. Perhaps they offered legal advice that would eventually leave them with the property’s title. Wiersbe says, “Of all the rackets, religious rackets are the worst.” 45 Barclay adds, “God will always condemn the man who uses a position of trust to further his own ends and to pander to his own comfort.” 46