Luke 20
BolesLuke 20:1-8
- JESUS
1 And it came to pass, on one of the days,—We are now in the last week of the earthly life of Jesus it is not necessary to attempt to outline what he taught each day of this week; some have attempted to classify what he did and what he taught according to each day of the week. “He was teaching the people in the temple.” Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 21:23-27 and Mark 11:27-33. This was a day of controversy; the chief priests and scribes and elders drew him into controversy at many points; this as many think was the last day of the temple teaching. The leaders had determined to attack Jesus on this morning, both Sadducees, from whom came most of the chief priests, and the scribes who were for the most part Pharisees. Jesus “was teaching” and “preaching the gospel”; the “teaching” the people included the “preaching the gospel.” To “teach” means to instruct, while to “preach” means to proclaim; however, this distinction is not kept throughout the New Testament.
2 and they spake, saying unto him,—These chief men, who were now becoming bolder enemies of Jesus, asked him “by what authority doest thou these things?” They are attempting to get Jesus to make some declaration by which they can condemn him; they are not wanting the truth. They had rejected the evidence that Jesus had given them; they had ignored the miracles that he worked, even the one of raising Lazarus from the dead they now ask for the authority under which he acted. Jesus had given the highest authority and had presented the strongest proofs. He had been with them for more than three years, and in the face of the three years, during which he had taught and worked miracles, they still asked for proof and authority for what he was doing. Their question was double; they wanted to know where he got this authority, or the source of his power.
3, 4 And he answered and said unto them,—There is a dignity and authority in his reply; he does not quibble with them his answer showed that they had not disturbed or disconcerted him by their question. He proposed to answer their question on the condition that they would answer a question which he asked them. He answered by giving them a question as to the authority of John the Baptist. He asked: “Was it from heaven, or from men?” That is, was John’s authority to baptize from men or was it from God? John had called upon them to repent and to believe on the Messiah who was to come; where did he get his authority to demand repentance and baptism? This question put them in a dilemma. This question threw the responsibility back on them as to the source of authority; John had testified of Jesus; he had pointed him out to the people; what can they do now with respect to this question?
5-7 And they reasoned with themselves,—They saw the dilemma and felt the clutches of it. It seems that they went aside and reasoned “with themselves.” The original for “reasoned” is used only here in the New Testament, and it not only means “with themselves,” or “together,” but denotes a very close conference. If they, they said, should say that John’s baptism was “from heaven,” then he would reply “Why did ye not believe him?” They had rejected John’s baptism, and to admit that John’s baptism was from heaven would be to admit that they had rejected the authority of God. On the other hand, if they should deny God as the authority of John’s baptism, they would be antagonizing the people for “they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” They were anxious to retain the favor of the people; they must seek some way to get the people to turn against Jesus. These leaders had resorted to mob violence and had encouraged the people in acts of violence when argument and reason had failed them. Later they practiced this in the death of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60), and at a still later period with respect to Paul (Acts 21:27-36). At this time they feared the people; if they deny to John, whom the whole nation honored as a holy man, the claim of being a teacher sent from God, the people might turn with violence upon them.
8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I—They had convicted themselves of moral dishonesty; they had shown that they did not want the truth. They were not wanting to know by what authority Jesus taught, preached the gospel, cleansed the temple, and worked miracles; they must have known, but would not acknowledge. It was useless for Jesus to give them further evidence. If they rejected John, they would reject Jesus; if they would not believe John’s testimony in his favor (John 1:15; John 1:29-36; John 5:33-36), they would not believe that which Jesus would offer for himself.
Luke 20:9-18
- PARABLE OF THE
9 And he began to speak unto the people this parable:— Parallel records of this parable are found in Matthew 21:23-46 and Mark 12:1-12. This parable is similar to the parable in Isaiah 5:1-7. “He began to speak unto the people this parable”; this cannot mean that he spoke only at this time in parable, neither can it mean that he “began” to speak this parable at this time, but finished it later. Luke has all of the essential features of the parable but his record contains fewer of the particulars, especially the description of the vineyard. Luke is the only writer of the parable that mentions the time in which the lord of the vineyard was absent. The details of the parable are simple enough; a man planted a vineyard and rented it to others called husbandmen; the man then went into another country and remained there “for a long time.” The vineyard is planted, rented to others, a body of laborers, who are to pay their rental out of the products.
10 And at the season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant,—It was customary then to rent vineyards and collect the rent. “At the season” means the vintage time or the time when the fruit ripened and the harvest gathered. The harvest of the vineyard was converted into wine. The landlord sent his servant to receive his share of the product. Those who had rented the vineyard “beat him” and “sent him away empty.” They scourged the servants to intimidate him so that he would not come back; he was sent away without any part of that which belonged to the landlord. Evidently they thought that they would get to keep the rent which should have been given to the owner.
11, 12 And he sent yet another servant:—It is not known whether the first servant returned to the master and reported all that had been done; but the landlord sent another servant, and instead of honestly paying over all that was due the owner, they abused him shamefully, and beat him as they had the other servant, and sent him away empty. They treated this servant even worse than they treated the first one; finally a third servant was sent “and him also they wounded, and cast him forth.” Matthew records that they “took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.” (Matthew 21:35.)
13 And the lord of the vineyard said,—The owner of the vineyard saw that the wicked men to whom he had rented his vineyard cared nothing for his servants; they had shamefully treated them, beating and killing some of them; so the owner thought that they would surely respect his son. He was an only son, and is described as “my beloved son.” If there was left in them any respect for the master, they surely would respect his only son. The owner of the vineyard dearly loved his son and felt that others ought to respect and love him;but he was to be disappointed in this.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him,—When the husbandmen saw the son coming, they reasoned among themselves and said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” (Mark 12:7.) They thought that by destroying the heir they would then claim the vineyard. These wicked husbandmen reached the climax of their crime by murdering the son. They thought they would own the vineyard instead of being tenants. Jesus thus outlines clearly and emphatically the conduct of these Jews; they were planning to do just as Jesus here describes these tenants of doing.
15, 16 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard,—They killed the son. Their crime grew worse; they began by beating and shamefully treating the servants, but have ended in killing the son and the heir; they began by withholding the rent of the vineyard from its proper owner and ended by an attempt to seize the vineyard; they began by robbing the owner of the vineyard and they ended in an attempt to take the vineyard from him. “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?” Jesus answered this question; there could be but one answer to it; he would destroy them and take the vineyard away from them and give it to others who were more worthy. Jesus had asked the question to give point to his parable, and, according to Matthew, those who heard him answered his question. “They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” (Matthew 21:41.)
17 But he looked upon them, and said,—Here Jesus quotes Psalms 118:22. They had said that his parable could not be true, or that it was impossible, and Jesus referred them to this scripture, and asked to what then does it refer? Peter quotes the same psalm in 1 Peter 2:4-7. “The stone,” a stone, one which the builders had cast aside as not fit to go into the building, was later found to be “the head of the corner.” This has been applied to Christ in prophecy and in fulfillment. (Isaiah 28:16; Ephesians 2:20.) It is strange that these leaders could have always referred this scripture to the Messiah, yet did not see that it was fulfilled in the case of Jesus who was rejected by the scribes and priests. (Acts 4:11.) Though the Jews rejected Jesus, yet God has made him the headstone of his spiritual temple, uniting both Jews and Gentiles in himself. (Galatians 3:28.)
18 Every one that falleth on that stone—Jesus added another word of warning to them by still using and applying the figure of a stone. Everyone that shall stumble “on that stone shall be broken to pieces.” This signifies that everyone who stumbles at Christ and his gospel, and refuses to accept him, such a one will be “broken” or destroyed. On the other hand, everyone “on whomsoever it shall fall,” or shall be found unbelieving when Christ appears, shall be destroyed. The first seems to describe the doom of all those who are offended in Jesus and will not accept him; while the last part of the statement describes a more sudden extermination of those upon whom the awful retributions of justice must fall for their sins against the Son of God. It seems that Jesus has here presented himself in four aspects under the figure of the stone (1) a rejected or disallowed stone; (2) the headstone of the corner; (3) a stumbling stone; (4) the stone of retribution.
Luke 20:19-26
- AS TO PAYING TRIBUTE
19 And the scribes and the chief priests—The scribes and chief priests are more determined to bring the issue to a climax. They have two major tasks: first, to get some charges against Jesus; second, to get the people on their side. They attempt to accomplish these two purposes by forcing Jesus to make some decision against the people. They are maddened into rage at the plain application of the parable that he has just announced. “In that very hour” they would have taken him, for they saw that the parable was leveled against them, but their fear of the people compelled them to defer their actions.
20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies,—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17. Matthew tells us that the Pharisees went and “took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.” (Matthew 22:15.) Mark states that the “Herodians” joined the Pharisees in this attempt to “catch him in talk.” (Mark 12 13.) It is probable that the Pharisees took the lead in this. Though the Pharisees and Herodians hated each other, yet they hated Jesus so much more that they could unite in their opposition to him. They “sent forth spies,” who hypocritically acted as though they were friends of Jesus; they desired in pretense to have a great regard for the law and to know how to reconcile their duties to it with respect to the Roman government. They sought by the expression of a single word to get something against Jesus that they might involve him in trouble with the Roman authorities.
21, 22 And they asked him, saying, Teacher,—They affirm here what is true, but they do so hypocritically. Nicodemus used about the same speech, but he was sincere. They came to Jesus not as Pharisees, or Herodians, but just as honest searchers for the truth, hoping by their words to hide their character and purpose, and by flattering Jesus to put him off his guard and lead him into a snare that they had set for him. They pretended to believe him to be all that he claimed and to be ready to abide by his decisions, since they would be absolutely true and just, independent of the influence and authority of men. They hypocritically acknowledged his doctrine to be true and righteous; to encourage him, as they thought, to give a decision that would incriminate him before the Roman authorities, that he would render such a decision without respect of persons;they thus attempted to encourage him to give the very decision that they wanted him to give, which they thought would incriminate him before the Roman authorities. Their question was artfully, skillfully, and adroitly framed “Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” Mark adds: “Shall we give, or shall we not give?” (Mark 12:14.)
23 But he perceived their craftiness,—They thought that they had Jesus in a dilemma; it matters not which horn of it he should take; they thought they would condemn him. If he said that they should pay tribute to Caesar, he would render himself unpopular with the people. This was what the Jews wanted; they wanted to turn the people against him so that it would be easier for them to condemn him. If he said that they should not pay tribute to Caesar, they would condemn him for being in rebellion against the Roman authorities and they were anxious to have the Roman authorities condemn him and put him to death. Jesus perceived their “craftiness.” He knew the thoughts and intentions of their hearts. The original for “craftiness” means “any deed done in wickedness.” The Greek, so translated, is found only five times in the New Testament; it is the same word that is used in describing Satan’s “subtlety” in tempting Eve. (2 Corinthians 11:3.)
24 Show me a denarius.—This was a Roman silver coin, worth about fifteen to seventeen cents. The Jews had a maxim that “wherever a king’s coin is current, there his sovereignty is acknowledged.” This coin was evidence of the Roman dominion over the land, and by using it the Jews acknowledged their subjection to the Roman power. When he received the “denarius” he asked: “Whose image and superscription hath it?” The “image” was probably the likeness of the Roman emperor, Tiberius Caesar the “superscription” was the motto of the coin, the title of the emperor declarative of his sovereignty. The image showed that it was not a Jewish coin, for the Jews put no images on their coins; they did put inscriptions on them.
25 And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things—They had correctly answered his question about the image and the superscription on the denarius. He then made this reply to them. “Render unto Caesar” means “pay off,” or “render a gift,” or “render what is due.” If they had Caesar’s coin in circulation, they should render unto Caesar that which belonged to him. No one could dispute what he had said everyone should give to the government under which he serves that which is justly due it. Sometimes governments claim of their citizens that which is not right; in such a case as this, the citizen does not owe the government that which is wrong. It is a common principle of honesty to give all their dues and no one can dispute this; so they should give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. This principle was expanded in Romans 13:1-7.
The Jews even taught that a king ought to have his dues. The second part of the answer was that they should render unto “God the things that are God’s.”
26 And they were not able to take hold—They were unable to pervert his language and do damage against him at any time. They were astonished and “marvelled at his answer,” but they held their peace. His reply was so unexpected, so apt, so true, and so wise that they were caught in a snare—the one that they had thought to impose upon Jesus. He completely put them to silence; they “held their peace” and “left him, and went away.” (Matthew 22:22.)
Luke 20:27-40
- AS TO THE
27 And there came to him certain of the Sadducees,—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:23-33 and Mark 12:18-27. There is but little difference in the three records of this event. The Pharisees and Herodians had tried their hand to ensnare Jesus, but had been defeated and humiliated before the public. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are now in the midst of the last week of the earthly life of Jesus. The Sadducees now make an attack on him. The Sadducees were a Jewish sect, and were so called either from “righteousness,” the meaning of the name “Zadok,” or from their great zeal for righteousness.
This sect originated about 260 B.C. They were opposed to the Pharisees and rejected the traditions which the Pharisees promoted; they denied the resurrection and the existence of angels or spirits. (Acts 23:8.) They laid stress on the freedom of the will. As a sect they disappeared from history after the first century; they were men of rank, wealth, and education; the priestly families in the days of Jesus belonged to the Sadducees. They had one great argument with which they had frequently defeated the Pharisees; it was a stock conundrum with which they had often gotten a laugh on the Pharisees. They volunteered to try it on Jesus.
28 and they asked him, saying,—They approached Jesus with an apparent regard as a prophet or religious teacher; they also approached him with an air of great respect for the law of Moses. They presented him their problem based on Deuteronomy 25:5-10. The case that they cited required a brother to take his deceased brother’s wife and raise a son unto his brother that his brother’s name might not perish in the genealogy. The Sadducees thought to show from the law the manifest absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection, because they presumed that the present relations of life must continue in the future state.
29-31 There were therefore seven brethren:—It is very likely that this was a fictitious case; it was a favorite argument of the Pharisees with the Sadducees, and illustrates the manner of their opposition to the resurrection. The first born of the wife of the deceased brother was to perpetuate the name, provided the first born was a son. The Sadducees present this case as an actual fact, for they said: “Now there were with us seven brethren” (Matthew 22:25), which presents the case as an actual fact. The number of brethren who had the same woman as a wife presented a very complex problem so the Sadducees thought; the Pharisees were not able to meet the argument. While it may have been a fictitious case, all grant the possibility of such a thing happening, hut the improbability of it is very evident.
32, 33 Afterward the woman also died.—There was no surviving husband and the wife died. The woman had married, according to supposition, successively to seven brothers, from each of whom she was separated by death. The Sadducees thought that Jesus would either deny the belief as to the resurrection, or that he would make some statement contrary to the law of Moses. If he denied the resurrection, he would incur the enmity of the Pharisees, who believe in the resurrection; if he denied the law of Moses or contradicted it, he would he condemned for perverting the holy law. They did not care which Jesus did; they were only seeking an opportunity to condemn him. Whose wife would she be in the resurrection?
The problem was squarely put to Jesus, and from their point of view, there was no escape for him. But they did not know Jesus of Nazareth.
34, 35 And Jesus said unto them,—Both Matthew and Mark preface Jesus’ reply by: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29.) “The sons of this world” marry and are given in marriage; “sons of this world” simply means the present state of being as confined to mortals; the expression simply means that in this life the marriage relation obtains. In the future life, or life after death, there are no regulations of sex. Sex belongs to this fleshly state, and ceases when the fleshly state ceases. Sex belongs to this physical body and was ordained to perpetuate the physical existence. Marriage belongs to the physical existence, or to the physical body for the procreation of the animal part of man; but when the earthly existence and the fleshly body shall have ceased, marriage will have ceased as all the physical elements of marriage have ceased. In the future existence those who have attained unto the resurrection of the dead “neither marry, nor are given in marriage”—there is no such thing as marriage after death.
36 for neither can they die any more:—After the resurrection there is no death, hence no need of procreation. Here we die physically, and the human race would soon become extinct if there was no generation going on to perpetuate the race; but in the future state where there is no death there is no need of marriage to perpetuate the beings there. “They are equal unto the angels”; that is, angels do not die; they have an eternal existence; so after the resurrection we have an eternal existence, and in that sense, we are, equal to the angels. The existence, relations, and state are equal to that of the angels. In the resurrection there is not an earthly state which is sensual and mortal, but heavenly, spiritual, and immortal. They are “sons of God,” which means that they share in the resurrection of the just, and are in possession of a new life. It is evident here that Jesus is speaking only of the resurrection of the just; the resurrection of the wicked does not come into view here.
37, 38 But that the dead are raised,—Jesus gives an invincible argument for the resurrection; he holds that the words spoken to Moses concerning the burning bush (Exodus 3:6) prove the fact of a resurrection. Jesus meets the error of the Sadducees fundamentally; he strikes at the very mistake on which their error is founded. These Sadducees were “materialists”; they held that man was no more than an animal; that death ended all of men. They based their argument against the resurrection on the ground that man has no spirit, and, therefore, no life after the death of his body. Matthew puts this argument in an interrogative form: “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” (Matthew 22:31-32.) Jesus in commenting on this says that God is not “the God of the dead, but of the living.” This shows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still in existence; they were dead physically, but their personality and identity continued; hence there is a life after death, and if a life after death, there is a resurrection.
39, 40 And certain of the scribes answering said,—The scribes belonged to the Pharisees; they enjoyed seeing Jesus put the Sadducees to silence, for they had often encountered their error, and apparently had never been able to refute it so successfully. They complimented Jesus for having answered well, and thought it wise for themselves to ask him no more questions. The courage of the Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees now vanished; they will now have to follow some other course in order to destroy Jesus.
Luke 20:41-47
- A AND A WARNING
41 And he said unto them, How say they—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:41-46; Matthew 23:1-13; Mark 12:35-40. The Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees had been plying questions to Jesus, attempting to ensnare him; they had been unsuccessful. Jesus had put them to silence and they thought it wise not to ask him any more questions. Jesus now puts a question to them; he turns the tables on them. He asked them: “How say they that the Christ is David’s son?” Matthew gives a fuller record and says: “What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42.) They answered that he was “the son of David.” And Jesus then put another question to them and asked how then could David call him Lord, if he was the son of David. They were not able to answer him.
42-44 For David himself saith—Jesus now quotes Psalms 110:1 and makes three points in his argument. First, all the prophets hold that the Messiah is to be in the line of David. (2 Samuel 7:12-29; Isaiah 11:1-10; Isaiah 55:3-4; Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23-24; Ezekiel 37:24; Hosea 3:5; Luke 1:69; Revelation 22:16.) Second, David himself calls this Messiah “Lord” in the passage here quoted from Psalms 110:1. Third, “Lord” is a title of dignity, superiority, used appropriately by a son of his father, but never by the father of his son. How then is this enigma to be solved—that a father speaks of his son as his Lord? What sort of son must this be? All Jews held David in high honor, but what of this yet greater Son?
The Jews referred this quotation to the Messiah, yet they could not tell how he could be a descendant of David, and yet be his Lord, not knowing that beside his human nature, which descended from David (Revelation 22:16), he possessed a divine nature as the Son of God (Romans 1:3-4). The deity and humanity of Jesus disturbed the Jews at that time and is still a matter of much discussion by critics today.
45, 46 And in the hearing of all the people—In the presence of all, while the people were listening, Jesus gave a warning to his disciples, saying: “Beware of the scribes.” Matthew adds “and the Pharisees.” (Matthew 23:2.) Jesus then describes these scribes and Pharisees; he states their ruling passion, which was the love of display and honor “to be seen of men.” (Matthew 23:5.) The seven woes pronounced upon them, recorded in Matthew 23:13-25, are among the most scathing denunciations that Jesus pronounced upon any class. They desired “to walk in long robes”; that is, to go about in long, flowing robes such as were worn by priests and kings and by persons of high rank and distinction. They loved “salutations in the marketplaces.” They loved the complimentary salutations which were performed in a formal and ceremonious way. “The marketplaces” were the places to which people were accustomed to resort. They loved these public greetings in the public place; they were vain and haughty. “Chief seats in the synagogues” means the first seats nearest the reading desk where the sacred books were kept; and they occupied “chief places at feasts.”
47 who devour widows’ houses,—They were like cunning, ferocious beasts; they devoured the substance of widows who were the most defenseless of the poor and the most deserving of sympathy and kindness. They influenced widows to give them of their property as an act of piety, or to bequeath it to them. As spiritual advisers of men, and sometimes as the executors of their wills and the guardians of their children, they had special opportunities to rob widows of their property. “For a pretence make long prayers” is another characteristic of their hypocritical conduct. They made religion a mask in order to gain the confidence and property of even the most helpless. It is said that some of the rabbis would spend nine hours in prayer in a day. Jesus stated that “these shall receive greater condemnations.”