Luke 20
OGC**Butler’s Comments
Chapter Twenty
(Luke 20:1-47)**
THE SON OF MAN SPEAKING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF LIFE
IDEAS TO INVESTIGATE:
Was Jesus dodging the issue of His authority by asking about John’s baptism (Luke 20:1-8)?
Why did Jesus ask the Jews to interpret the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke 20:9-18; cf. Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12)?
What are the things a follower of Christ must render to Caesar (Luke 20:25)?
If there is no marriage in heaven, what kind of personal relationships will there be (Luke 20:34-40)?
Who is my Lord of David’s Psalm (Luke 20:42)?
Special Study THE MESSIANIC HOPE
by Paul T. Butler
The Old Testament made many glorious promises in connection with the Messianic hope. Isaiah, Chapter s 40-66; Daniel 9:24-27; Micah 4:1-13; Micah 5:1-15; Micah 6:1-16; Micah 7:1-20; Zechariah 9:1-17; Zechariah 10:1-12; Zechariah 11:1-17; Zechariah 12:1-14; Zechariah 13:1-9; Zechariah 14:1-21.
When the Jews returned from their captivities (cir. 536-444 B.C.) it was with this hope in their hearts. They believed Jehovah would rule the land directly through a son of David, he would enforce the Law and promote the ritual religion. Some looked for Zerubbabel to fulfill this. Time after time their fulfillment of this hope was frustrated by some foreign (Ptolemies and Seleucids and Romans) or some home-grown (Hasmonean and Herodian) oppression.
As the physical, earthly accomplishment of this hope became less evident (i.e., accomplishment through natural events), the anticipation increased that Jehovah would intervene in a great crisis of the cosmos (see John 12:31 where Jesus uses that very phrase in Greek in connection with His death on the cross) and effect a deliverance of all the righteous Jews (not Hellenistic Jews) and God would suddenly, secretly almost, institute the messianic age.
This hope had never been so much alive, so vivid, nor its fulfillment so urgently awaited, as it was in the first centuries B.C. and A.D.a time of sadness and deep, tormenting, national humiliation. There was a body of literature that arose between the Old Testament and New Testament that expressed the Jewish ideas of the expected messianic age called the Jewish Apocrypha (apocalyptic in nature). The Sybilline Oracles, Book III (150 B.C.); the Book of Enoch (164 B.C.); The Psalms of Solomon (48 B.C.) are the most graphic. The Mishna, Talmud and Targums (rabbinic writings written after Christ but expressing traditions in oral form before Christ) are also valuable for determining the messianic ideas of first century people. They testify generally that the Messiah will:
a.
Attain for the people a literalized fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament prophets (physical prosperity; physical conquest of enemies; physical restoration of Judaism).
b.
Defeat Jewish enemies and force them to serve the Jews.
c.
Restore all Jews to their land forever.
d.
Institute an era of Mosaic purity (as interpreted, of course, by the rabbis).
Josephus speaks of a number of men before and after Jesus who pretended to be the Messiah, obtained followers, fought Jewish enemies, and usually ended up slain in battle or executed. Josephus says there was an ambiguous prophecy (probably referring to Daniel 9:24-27) in the Holy Scriptures which told the Jews that in those times a man of their nation would become the master of the world Wars, 6:312.
Some believed in Jesus-’ day in a personal Messiah. This belief took four forms:
- An Angel:
As earthly powers continued to oppress the Jews with more intensity it was inevitable that the concept of the Messiah should become more and more transcendent. Many despaired of human deliverance and turned to hope in an angelic being coming from heaven with cosmic, supernatural power. See the Similitudes of Enoch (I Enoch, 164 B.C.) where the Son of Man is presented as a heavenly being with no prior human existence. his face has the appearance of a man and yet it is full of graciousness like one of the holy angels. (46:1ff.).
Remember the devil’s attempt to get Jesus to show off some supernatural, angelic power. if he was the Son of God.. Matthew 4:5-6.
- A Prophet:
Some interpreted Malachi 3:1 ff; Malachi 4:5 as referring to the Messiah himself rather than the forerunnerthus he would be a prophet like Elijah. Many of the disciples of John the Baptist refused to abandon their belief in him as the true Messiah and perpetuated into the 2nd century A.D. a sect which held up John the Baptist messiahship in opposition to Jesus (The Mandaens; see Ency. Britt. Vol. 4 and 10).
The Samaritans were expecting a prophetic messiah, John 4:19-26. Many of the Jews thought this also, John 7:40; Matthew 16:14; John 1:21; 1Ma. 4:46; etc. John 6:14.
- A Priest:
In later interbiblical history there appears the idea of a messianic priest. When the offices of High Priest and prince of Israel were combined in Simon the Maccabean, impetus was given to the development of such hope. But as the High Priesthood became more and more secularized and corrupted, this view seems to have found less and less acceptance. See the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (110 B.C.).
- A King:
By far the most popular view was a Messiah-warrior-king. He would appear as a political champion. Jews from all over the world would rally to his side, sweep the pagans from Palestine, subdue the world, plunder its riches, kill all idolaters and make proselytes and servants of the rest.
See this view in all the earliest Jewish apocryphal writings, and, Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15 (cf. Zechariah 9:9-10); Matthew 22:42; Mark 13:35; Luke 20:41; John 6:15; 1Ma. 2:57; Psalms of Solomon 17:5; 17:23, etc.
Even this popular view expected the Messiah’s origin to be shrouded in mystery (John 7:21 ff.) and His mission to be one of cosmic supernaturalisms, Matthew 12:38; John 7:31.
Remember the temptation of the devil to make Jesus an earthly king.
There were many who arose pretending to be the Messiah. Theudas had 400 followers but he was slain (Acts 5:36; Josephus, Antiq. 20:97ff.). Judas the Galilean was also slain (Acts 5:37; Josephus, Antiq. 18:23). An Egyptian gained about 30,000 followers, (Josephus, Wars 2:261ff. and Acts 21:37-38). Menachem bar-Judah and Simeon bar-Giora (Wars, 2:17:8; Wars, 4:9:7 respectively), and many others after Jesus were hoped-for messiahs.
There was great expectancy in the first century A.D., but there was also great confusion and misunderstanding concerning the Messiah and His kingdom. Jesus-’ most frustrating ministry was to try to convert, literally change, the confusion, materialism and patriotic provincialism of the messianic people into what it was really intended to be by God as predicted in the Old Testament prophets.
WHAT DID THE PEOPLE OF JESUS-’ DAY THINK OF THE MESSIAH? (Our best sources are the Gospel records themselves.)
He would be born in Bethlehemthe scholars knew this much.
Some were looking for the consolation and redemption of Israel and Jerusalem.
Many thought John the Baptist might be the Messiah.
Jesus-’ temptations indicate the popular messianic concept.
Jewish leaders knew a connection between Elijah and Messiah and thought John the Baptist might be one or the other.
Nathanael did not believe the Messiah would come from Nazareth.
Samaritans believed when Messiah came he would settle religious disputes.
Jews of Galilee did not accept Messianic prophecies of Isa 61:1-11 being made available to Gentiles.
Apparently the Jews did not think their Messiah would be God incarnate and able to forgive men’s sins.
Apparently Jewish rabbis did not think their Messiah would associate with publicans and sinners.
Messiah is called The Expected One (as in Similitudes of Enoch) by John the Baptist who apparently expected Him to be more militant than Jesus was.
Jewish rulers insisted Jesus must show a sign to prove his messiahship.
People could not imagine Jesus as the Messiah because they knew his origins.
Messiah would be The Prophet and he must be crowned King.
Jesus perceived the people wanted a bread-and-fish Messiahone who would do a work to prove he was the Messiah.
Jesus-’ disciples thought of the Messiah as The Holy One of God.
Disciples show that the people thought the Messiah would be Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets, perhaps. Peter would not believe the Messiah was to die Matthew 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33.
Elijah’s coming must precede that of the Son of Mana literal Elijah, perhaps.
Disciples thought of messianic kingdom in terms of power struggles.
Jesus-’ brothers expected him to prove his messiahship in Jerusalem in some public, spectacular, carnal demonstration of power.
Disciples expect Messiah to punish those who reject him by fire from heaven.
No one is supposed to know where the Messiah comes fromhe is to appear suddenlybut he would perform enough signs for everyone to know himnot just the rulers.
Messiah was not expected to go among the Jewish dispersion.
Confusion about Messiah. Some thought he would be The Prophet from Galilee, others believed from Bethlehem.
Jewish scholars did not expect the Messiah to be an eternal personage.
Messiah must show a sign from heaven.
Jews could not read the signs that their Messiah was to come in judgment upon their nation.
Messiah must keep Sabbath according to their traditions,
Jews were looking for a time of eating of banquets in the messianic kingdom as repayment for their troubles (cf. Isaiah 25:6 ff.).
Mother of the sons of Zebedee understood the messianic: kingdom to be one of position and power.
Some believed the Messiah was to remain forever and not die.
Apparently the Jews did not conceive of the Son of David as also David’s Lord!
Apparently the people did not think of the coming of the Messiah as a judgment upon Jerusalem and the nation. They did think of his coming as the end of the world and Jesus had to correct this view.
; Peter thought of messianic kingdom as needing to be defended with swords.
Apparently the High Priest did not conceive of the Messiah or anyone else calling himself God.
Pilate understood Jesus to be an idealistnot an earthly king. Joseph of Arimathea was looking for the kingdom of God.
Disciples despondent when Jesus did not redeem Israel according to their own hopes. Jesus, however, expected them to have a spiritual view of the Old Testament messianic promises and rebuked them for not having it.
Acts 1:6 :
Even after the resurrection the disciples had a somewhat earthly view of the kingdom of God.
The Jews would not accept any claimant to the messianic throne who would change the customs which Moses delivered.
The humanistic, materialistic traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees and others (Essenes, et al), kept the common people confused about the Messiah and his kingdom. Jesus actually did not convert a single person fully to His teaching of the Messiah and the kingdom. It was only after His death and resurrection and the Day of Pentecost that some of the Jews began to see it correctly (including His disciples). And even then, it took some years before most of the Jews accepted the idea that the messianic kingdom was to be available to the Gentiles on the same basis as to Jews. But the four gospel accounts testify to this:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, SON OF MARY ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, IS INDEED THE ANOINTED (MESSIAH) OF JEHOVAHTHE PROPHET, PRIEST AND KING PREDICTED BY THE OLD TESTAMENT. AND HE IS THE MESSIAH OF ALL THE NATIONS!
For a résumé of modern Jewish messianic theology, see Isaiah, Vol. III, by Paul T. Butler, pub. College Press, Joplin, Mo., pgs. 277-280 and 415-418.
**Applebury’s Comments
CHAPTER TWENTY
Outline**
A.
Luke told how the Jews challenged Jesus-’ authority (Luke 20:1-8).
The challenge (Luke 20:1-3).
a)
The time: One of the days when He was teaching in the temple and preaching the gospel.
b)
The challengers: The chief priests, scribes and elders.
c)
The questions: By what authority do you do these things? Who gave you this authority?
The answer: Jesus asked them a question to force them to answer their own question: The baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men? (Luke 20:3-4).
The reaction to His question (Luke 20:5-7).
a)
Their first reaction: If we say that it was from heaven, He will ask why we didn-’t believe him.
b)
Their second thought: If we say it was from men, the people will stone us, for they were convinced that John was a prophet.
c)
Their conclusion: Teacher, we don-’t know.
The response of Jesus: Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things (Luke 20:8).
B.
Luke recorded Jesus-’ parable of The Husbandmen (Luke 20:9-18).
The facts of the parable (Luke 20:9-15 a).
a)
A man planted a vineyard, let it out to husbandmen, and went to a far country (Luke 20:9).
b)
The husbandmen mistreated those sent to receive the owner’s share of the crop (Luke 20:10-12).
(1)
They sent the first away empty.
(2)
They beat and shamefully treated another, sending him away empty also.
(3)
They wounded a third and sent him away.
c)
The owner finally decided to send his son (Luke 20:13-15 a).
(1)
He said, They will respect him.
(2)
Since he was the heir, they decided to kill him and take over the vineyard.
Jesus applied the lesson of the parable (Luke 20:15 b - Luke 20:18).
a)
The owner’s reaction.
(1)
Jesus asked, What will he do?
(2)
They said, He will destroy them and give the vineyard to others. They said, God forbid,
b)
The meaning of the Scripture.
(1)
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner.
(2)
Jesus explained: Everyone who falls on the stone will be broken in pieces, and on whomsoever it falls it will grind him to powder.
C.
Luke told of the search for an excuse to hand Jesus over to the governor (Luke 20:19-47).
Their reasons (Luke 20:19).
a)
They feared the people.
b)
They knew the parable referred to them.
Their strategy (Luke 20:20-40).
a)
Spies sent to listen to Him (Luke 20:20).
b)
Their first thrust: The question of tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:21-26).
(1)
Their flattering approach.
(2)
The subtle question: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar?
(3)
Jesus-’ answer:
(a)
The denarius with Caesar’s image on it.
(b)
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’S, and to God, the things that are God’S.
(4)
Their defeat.
(a)
They couldn-’t use it against Him before the people.
(b)
They kept still.
c)
The Sadducees took up the battle (Luke 20:27-40).
(1)
Their question was about the resurrection and the Law of Moses.
(2)
Their hypothetical case: A woman married to seven brothers; whose wife will she be in the resurrection?
(3)
Jesus demolished their argument.
(a)
The marriage vow does not extend to the resurrection.
(b)
The case of the Burning Bush proves there is life after death.
(c)
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
(4)
The scribes admit their defeat, Teacher, you have spoken well. They did not dare risk another question.
Jesus-’ counterattack (Luke 20:41-47).
a)
His two-fold question about the Christ (Luke 20:41-44).
(1)
How can they say that He is David’s son?
(2)
How can David call him Lord, since he is his son?
b)
His warning to the disciples (Luke 20:45-47).
(1)
In the hearing of all the people, He warned against the scribes.
(2)
He lashed out against their hypocrisy.
(a)
They loved long robes, salutations in the market places, chief seats at feasts.
(b)
For a pretence they made long prayers.
(c)
They will receive greater condemnation.
Summary
It seems strange that the One to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been should be challenged by men. But the chief priests and the scribes with the elders had the audacity in Jesus-’ day to say, By what authority do you do these things? Who gave you this authority? Their vague reference to these things that He was doing included not only the cleansing of the temple but also the healing of a blind man. What authority, indeed? But Jesus asked them a question that forced them to answer their own, although they were not big enough to admit that His authority was from God, just as John the Baptist’s was. The parable of The Husbandmen shows just what the attitude of the Jews toward Jesus was. They were waiting for their opportunity to kill Him and take over the kingdom of God. They did put Him to death, but the kingdom was given to those who produce the fruit of righteousnessthe believers in Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles. Those who rejected their Messiah have already suffered one devastating blowthe destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. Another act of judgment awaits all who persist in rejecting Him as King. Like the stone that grinds to powder the one on whom it falls, the judgment of Christ will scatter those who oppose Him. But the Jews persisted in their search for an excuse to destroy Him. They sent spies to listen in as He was teaching. They hoped to hear something on which to condemn Him; but He answered their questions and silenced them before the multitudes. They refused to answer His question about David’s calling Christ Lord since He is David’s son. Their hypocrisy was so evident that Jesus took occasion to warn the disciples against them.
Questions
What was Jesus doing when His authority was challenged by the chief priests and scribes?
Why were they not more specific in their charge?
What, if any, is the difference between preaching and teaching?
How did Jesus force the priests to answer their own question about His authority?
Why didn-’t Jesus tell them that He had all authority in heaven and on earth?
Why did He tell the parable of The Husbandmen?
How did He show that He was aware of the thing the Jews were planning to do to Him?
What did the sending of the various servants suggest as to the treatment the Jews had given the prophets?
Who is represented by the son in the parable?
What did they intend to do after killing the son?
What is suggested by the fact that the Lord of the vineyard was to destroy those wicked men?
To whom was the kingdom to be given?
Is the church as the kingdom of Christ producing the fruits of it?
Why did Jesus quote the prophecy about the rejected stone?
What was to happen to those on whom the stone fell?
Why were the scribes and priests searching for an excuse to kill Jesus?
What question did the Herodians ask?
What answer did they evidently expect Him to give?
How did His answer prevent them from accusing Him of wrongdoing?
Who had joined the Herodians in this attempt to trap Jesus?
How did the Herodians react to His answer?
Why did the Sadducees take up the issue?
What was their peculiar belief and how did it differ from that of the Pharisees?
What was the foundation of the story they told?
Wherein had they erred in applying the Law of Moses to the issue of the resurrection?
How did Jesus show them their mistake?
How did He describe the state of those in the resurrection?
What did Jesus mean by saying that God is not the God of the dead, but the living?
What question did Jesus ask them about David’s son?
Why couldn-’t they answer it?
Luke 20:1-8
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 1
Revelation and God (Luke 20:1-8)**
20 One day, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching 20 the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up 2and said to him, Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority. 3He answered them, I also will ask you a question; now tell me, 4Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? 5And they discussed it with one another, saying, If we say, -From heaven,-’ he will say, -Why did you not believe him?-’ 6But if we say, -From men,-’ all the people will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet. 7So they answered that they did not know whence it was. sAnd Jesus said to them, Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.
**Luke 20:1-4 Summons: **Luke’s chapter 20 documents part of the longest day recorded in the entire ministry of Jesus. Matthew gives more of the details of this Tuesday in Jerusalem than any of the other evangelists; almost one-sixth of Matthew’s whole Gospel is taken up in recording this day. It is in Matthew 26:1-2 we come to the end of Tuesday when Jesus says, … after two days the Passover is coming, or, … day after tomorrow the Passover is coming. Consider the following list of events which took place on this Tuesday:
a.
Jesus-’ Authority Challenged (Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8)
b.
The Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32; Mark 12:1 a)
c.
The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1 b - Mark 12:12; Luke 20:9-19)
d.
The Parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son (Matthew 22:14)
e.
Catch Question About Giving Tribute to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26)
f.
Catch Question About the Resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-39)
g.
Catch Question About the Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 20:40)
h.
Christ’s Questions About David’s Lord (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)
i.
Warning to His disciples (Matthew 23:1-12; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 20:45-47)
j.
Sevenfold warning to the Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-36)
k.
Lamenting over Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39)
l.
Commending a Poor Widow’s Gift (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4)
m.
Reflecting About the Coming of the Greeks (John 12:20-36)
n.
The Sinful Unbelief of the Jews (John 12:37-43)
o.
Jesus Summarizes His Own Message and Mission (John 12:44-50)
p.
Discourse on the Destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-34; Mark 13:1-30; Luke 21:5-32)
q.
Discourse on the End of the World (Matthew 24:35-51; Mark 13:31-37; Luke 21:33-36)
r.
More about the End of the World and Judgment (Matthew 25:1-46)
s.
General statements as to His death (Matthew 26:1-2; Mark 14:1; Luke 21:37-38; John 13:1)
The physical and, especially, the emotional stress of such a day was no doubt exhausting to even a strong person like Jesus. It was a day when the political and religious leadership of the nation threw at Him all the pressure and craftiness they could muster to trap Him in some mistake by which they might turn the multitudes against Him. It was a day when the weight of His knowledge of the terrible future of His people pressed heaviest upon His heart. It was a day when the exasperating ignorance of His own disciples had to be patiently dealt with again. It was a day when He was vividly reminded of His vicarious atonement for the sins of the whole world when the Greeks sought Him. It was an emotionally charged and intellectually exhausting day. The day started with an official summons by the chief priests, scribes and elders that He should produce some credentials for the authority He had assumed the day before in driving money-changers and merchants out of the Temple! Furthermore, He is challenged to give reason why He should have acquired such a massive following of people praising Him as the Son of David, etc. This challenge of Jesus-’ authority is not an honest one. As the religious leaders of the nation they were obligated to honestly challenge any desecration of the Temple or violation of the laws of Moses. But Jesus had done neither. The chief priests and scribes were the guilty ones. The timing of this challenge from the authorities betrays the fact that it was not an honest effort to protect the sanctity of God’s house but a scheme to discredit Jesus motivated by envy and hatred. Jesus had cleansed the Temple three years earlier (John 2:13-22) and for three years had been demonstrating His authority (by miracles and fulfilling prophecies) to do so. There had been three full years of publicly demonstrated authority by which they should have accepted Him as Lord of the Templeif the authorities had been asking an honest question, they had the answer. There was, in fact, no need for the question to be asked!
The real reason for the challenge was the way in which Jesus-’ righteous actions had intimidated and humiliated these so-called guardians of the faith in the eye of the public. They could not defend their exploitation of the house of God and to cover up they tried to turn the attack upon Jesus. Jesus put the onus right back upon them by recalling their ridicule and defiance of John the Baptist. They had rejected the baptism of John and thus rejected for themselves the counsel of God (Luke 7:30). In a master stroke Jesus exposed their dishonesty by answering, I also will ask you a question; Now tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?
**Luke 20:5-8 Silenced: **These rulers immediately recognized they were on the horns of a dilemma. That, in itself, betrayed them as hypocrites. They knew how they should answer, but were grasping for a way to hide their dishonesty. If they answered: John’s baptism was from God.. they acknowledged the revelatory nature of John’s message and condemned themselves as opposing God’s testimony through John the Baptist that Jesus was the Messiah. If they answered John’s baptism was not from God.. they alienated the populace which had acclaimed John a prophet of God. So, they said, We do not know. But that answer did not solve their dilemmait only exposed their guilt. Their answer was really a confession that they were in opposition to John’s message and mission. If they could have proved John the Baptist was not from God they would have declared it. To stand there in the presence of the righteous Jesus, with all their knowledge (they had investigated the ministry of John the Baptist many times, John 1:19 ff; John 3:25 ff,; Matthew 3:7 ff.; Luke 7:24-35), and say they did not know showed them to be either the dumbest people in Israel or the most blatant liars!
Jesus specifically asked these rulers about John’s authority for immersing (baptizing) people rather than John’s teaching because of the uniqueness of the act of immersing people in water unto repentance for the forgiveness of sin (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). There could be no quibbling or hedging with this question. Baptism was a concrete, vivid impressive act. No one could say, What teaching? Immersion of the entire individual in water for the remission of sins was doctrinally innovative. The law of Moses proscribed animal sacrifices for atonement. The issue was crucialwhat right had John the Baptist to add to the Old Testament law such a commandment for the remission of sins? He had the right only if his commission came directly by revelation from God! The Jews knew nothing of the practice of baptism as John initiated it (see our discussion in Luke 3:1-6). The only logical and honest conclusion was either to accept John’s ministry and message as a divine revelation from God or prove John to be an imposter. These rulers refused to take a stand either way and thus proved themselves to be imposters.
They were dishonest about John; they were dishonest with Jesus. Jesus refused to declare Himself to men incapable of honesty. What good would it have done? Jesus refused to declare Himself to these men because:
a.
This approach (letting the logic of His challenge about John speak for itself) lets the crowds see more clearly the hypocrisy and dis honesty of their leaders. The multitudes could not hope to save themselves until the stranglehold of these rulers over their thinking was broken.
b.
Jesus had already forced them to answer their own question. John the Baptist had testified Jesus was the Messiah. They would not dis credit John (could not), so they actually were forced to admit Jesus had authority to cleanse the Temple and teach what He taught.
c.
They were not asking for information, but for evil purposesthey did not deserve to have the truth just to pervert it and use it for wickedness. If they were blind to the evidence of John’s credentials, they would be blind to Jesus-’ credentials. It was wilfull blindness and dishonestyJesus treated it as suchit was useless for Him to do otherwise.
Jesus proceeds to teach three parables in which He condemns their methods and their motives. These parables focus on the disobedience of the Jewish religious leaders. Only one of the parables is recorded by Lukethe parable of the wicked husbandmen, Luke 20:9-19. The other two, the parable of the two sons and the parable of the king’s marriage feast for his son are recorded in Matthew’s account only (Matthew 21:28-32 and Matthew 22:1-14).
Applebury’s Comments
The Authority of Jesus Challenged Scripture
Luke 20:1-8 And it came to pass, on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief priests and the scribes with the elders; 2 and they spake, saying unto him, Tell us: By what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? 3 And he answered and said unto them, I also will ask you a question; and tell me: 4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? 5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why did ye not believe him? 6 But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. 7 And they answered, that they knew not whence it was. 8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
*Comments
as He was teaching the people.*Jesus-’ authority was challenged on one of those days when He was teaching in the temple. His whole ministry consisted in teaching, preaching, and performing signs to prove that He spoke the message of the heavenly Father. Jesus taught the people. It is one thing to teach a lesson where the concern is primarily with the content, but another thing to teach a lesson to people. People were always in the mind of the Master as He taught them the lessons about repentance and righteous living. He taught them how to escape from Satan’s clutches and how to serve Godlessons that also need to be taught today.
*and preaching the gospel.*It is probably wrong to make too great a distinction between teaching and preaching. Jesus was a Preacher who taught the people. He taught crowds and He taught small groups; when He had the opportunity, He took time to teach one person, Teaching was the process by which He sought to get people to turn back to God.
The expression preaching the gospelone word in Greekgives us our word Evangelize. It was the process of making people aware of the good news of salvation through Christ. It takes the whole story of the Bible to do this, not just a part of it.
The term proclaim or preach is used many times in the New Testament. It had to do with the spreading of the good news (Luke 4:18). It does not suggest a difference in content, but the manner in which the good news was heralded by the gospel preacher.
All of these terms are brought together in one verse (Matthew 9:35) which tells of Jesus teaching in the synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing all manner of disease.
*there came unto him the chief priests.*The enemy was always present, seeking to find an excuse to condemn Jesus. Priests, scribes, eldersall these should have been helping Jesus in His mission of teaching the peoplewere doing everything within their power to destroy Him.
*By what authority.*They had two questions: (1) By what right are you doing these things and (2) Who gave you this right? Matthew says that He had just been cleansing the temple and healing a blind man (Matthew 21:4). It was difficult to condemn Him before the people for such work as that. Once before they had tried to discredit His miracles by saying that He performed them by the power of Beelzebub, but their effort was a miserable failure. Now they ask about these things, vaguely suggesting that He had done something wrong. They couldn-’t bring themselves to join the people who praised God for the glorious things He was doing for them.
*I also will ask you a question.*They had expected Him to answer as He had done on many occasions that God had given Him the right to perform miracles and teach the people. They could have twisted such an answer and -brought the charge of blasphemy as they had so often done (John 5:17-18). But He saw through their hypocrisy. He asked them a question that forced them to answer their own.
*The baptism of John.*Was John’s authority to baptize from heaven or from men? They discussed it and saw that if they should say from heaven, He would say, Why, then, didn-’t you believe him? John had declared that Jesus was the Lamb of God; that He was the Son of God; and that He was the one to baptize in the Holy Spirit (John 1:19-34). Why didn-’t they believe him? For a possible answer, see John 11:48.
On the other hand, if they should say that John baptized on human authority, they would have to answer to the people who believed that John was a prophet. They were not willing to risk being stoned by the people. No, they couldn-’t say about John’s authority.
*And Jesus said to them.*Neither am I telling you by what right I am doing these things. There was no need to, for they had been forced by their own reasoning to admit that His authority was from God, just as John’s was.
Luke 20:9-18
Applebury’s Comments
The Parable of the Husbandmen Scripture
Luke 20:9-18 And he began to speak unto the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time. 10 And at the season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. 11 And he sent yet another servant: and him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 12 And he sent yet a third: and him also they wounded, and cast him forth. 13 And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him. 14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned one with another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16 He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. 17 But he looked upon them, and said, What then is this that is written.
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner?
18 Every one that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
*Comments
And he began to speak unto the people.*He was teaching the people when the priests and elders interrupted Him with their question about His right to do these things. He silenced them by the question He asked and, according to Matthew, followed up His victory with the parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32). Then, according to Matthew, He introduced the parable of The Husbandmen by saying, Hear another parable, (Matthew 21:33). The parable was spoken to the people, but the scribes and priests also heard it and were aware of the fact that He was talking about them.
*Vineyard. husbandmen.*The vineyard represents God’s people, Israel. The husbandmen are the leaderselders, priests, scribes. They were responsible for the harvestfruit of righteousness in the lives of the people.
*And at the season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant.*The first was sent away empty; a second was beaten and shamefully treated and sent away empty also; a third was wounded and thrown out of the vineyard.
All this represents God’s efforts throughout the years from the beginning of the kingdom at Sinai to the days of Jesus to get the leaders of the Jews to direct the people of the nation in the ways of righteousness.
*I will send my beloved son.*This is such a clear reference to Jesus the Son of God that comment is unnecessary. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and many others had tried to get the nation to do justice, and love kindness, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). John the Baptist had warned them of the necessity of producing the fruits of repentance. Then the Father sent His Son into the world, but they that were his own received him not (John 1:11; John 20:21; Galatians 4:4).
*This is the heir; let us kill him.*Jesus was aware of their murderous plot, and they knew it. But that didn-’t stop them for they were determined to destroy Him and take over completely. They were acting as if the vineyard was theirs and that Jesus was an intruder who was threatening their position and nation (John 11:48).
Jesus had foretold His death at the hands of the leaders of the Jews on several occasions. In this parable, He represents it as an accomplished fact. His question was, What therefore will the Lord of the vineyard do unto them?
*He will come and destroy these husbandmen.*The answer came from the people, since it is unlikely that the priests and scribes would give such an answer. According to Matthew, Jesus said, Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it (Matthew 21:43). So the vineyard represents the kingdom of God, the nation of Israel. Some assume that the nation to which it is to be given will be made up of Gentiles. But it will be composed of believers in Christ whether Jews or Gentiles (Ephesians 2:16; Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 3:10-11). That nation is the spiritual kingdom of Christ, the church (Colossians 1:13).
Are we producing the fruits of it? See Colossians 1:6-12.
*And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.*Perhaps this was the reaction of the people to the whole story: God forbid that the beloved Son should be killed and that the deed lead to the destruction of the husbandmen. The whole senseless plot of the priests and scribes was abhorrent to the people. How strange that in a short time they could be led to cry out, Let Him be crucified, and become parties to this awful deed (Acts 2:23)!
*What then is this that is written.*The quotation is from Psalms 118:22-23. To those who were saying that this thing was too awful to be true, Jesus asked, What then is the meaning of this which is written in the Psalms? The builders rejected the stone that is made the head of the corner. See also Isaiah 28:16; Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:7.
*Everyone that falleth on that stone.*Christ is that stone. To those who oppose Him, He is a stone in their pathway over which they stumble. When that Stone falls on them they will be pulverized and blown away like dust.
Luke 20:9-19
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 2
Responsibility to Grace (Luke 20:9-19)**
9 And he began to tell the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country for a long while.10 When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, that they should give him some of the fruit of the vineyard; but the tenants beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. 11And he sent another servant; him also they beat and treated shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. 12And he sent yet a third; this one they wounded and cast out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, -What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will respect him.-’ 14But when the tenants saw him, they said to themselvs, -This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.-’ 15And they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him, What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16He will come and destroy those tenants, and give the vineyard to others. When they heard this, they said, God forbid! 17But he looked at them and said, What then is this that is written:
-The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner-'?
18Every one who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one it will crush him.
19 The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people; for they perceived that he had told this parable against them.
**Luke 20:9-15 The Parable: **The figure of a vine and a vineyard to portray God’s chosen people was well known to the Jews. The Old Testament is rich in such imagery (cf. Psalms 80:8-18; Isaiah 5:1-10; Jeremiah 2:21; Jeremiah 6:9; Jeremiah 8:13; Jeremiah 12:10; Ezekiel 15:1-8; Ezekiel 19:10-14; Hosea 10:1). The grapevine was considered by some Jews to be the symbol of the Jewish nation. Herod had an ornate and expensive golden grapevine embossed on the great and beautiful gate of the Temple. The grape was the most important crop in the land of Palestine and the entire Mediterranean area at that time. The vineyard was usually planted on a hill; protected from animals and thieves by hedges, rock-fences and watch towers. Wine was the chief by-product of the grape harvest and wine presses and vats were built right into the vineyards and there the juice was squeezed out by the ancient method of human feet tramping on the gathered grapes. Often Jewish farmers merely rented or share-cropped the vineyards. While the farmer did all the labor, he was obligated to pay the owner of the vineyard a fixed amount, usually one-third or one-fourth whether the harvest was large or small. Jesus was using an illustration here in the realm of Jewish literature, of everyday life, and relating to the symbol of their national life. This parable is also recorded in Matthew 21:33-46 and Mark 12:1-12. It should be plain that the owner of the vineyard is God; the tenants are the Jewish people; the three servants the owner sent to collect some of the fruit of the vineyard represent the prophets of old; the heir is Jesus Christ, the Son. Jesus infers in this parable that the Jewish people (especially the religious and political leaders) recognized the heir well enough to decide to kill Him!
**Luke 20:16-19 The Point: **This parable tells about some tenants or stewards who took things into their own hands as soon as the Landlord left them alone, and when the Landlord sent servants to collect the rent, the tenants showed their rebellion by treating the servants shamefully. When the Landlord sent His Son, they killed Him. Redding says: This skit has caught man red-handed in his most characteristic crimeplaying God. The parable of the two sons teaches or exposes the hypocritical disobedience of the Jews; this parable of the wicked husbandmen foretells the fierce wrath of God upon disobedient tenants. This parable is really a tragic conclusion to Isaiah’s vineyard parable (Isaiah 5:1-11). The Jews had many opportunities and privileges following Isaiah’s expose of Israel’s disobedienceeven the Son of the vineyard’s Owner had now comebut the workers still were disobedient. This parable re-enforces Jesus-’ manifestation of authority over the Jewish nation in the cleansing of the Temple by its declaration that He has come to demand fruit from them (repentance), and that He is the Son.
The Jewish nation had been blessed above all the nations of the earth, not because they deserved it, but because of God’s sovereign grace. He blessed them for a purposethat purpose was that they might produce a people (harvest) of righteousness (cf. Amos 3:2; Deuteronomy 26:19; Deuteronomy 28:9-10, etc.). But they wanted to have what God gave them for themselves and produce nothing for Him. There is strong emphasis in this parable on the grace, and long-suffering of God. The most touching picture of God’s love is the sending of His Son to plead with these criminals. But these wicked workers wanted the whole vineyard for themselves (Matthew 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14). It is true to life every day that man undertakes to take possession of his own life and the whole universe and tries to cast the Owner out. God is Owner, never forget that! (Exodus 19:5;1 Chronicles 29:14; Psalms 24:1 ff; Psalms 50:10-12; Jeremiah 27:5, etc.). He cannot be cast out!
Matthew notes that Jesus asked His audience, When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? They said to Him, He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits of their seasons. Luke adds, When they heard this, they said, God forbid. How masterful the Great Teacher’s method: He compels them to come to the only right and just conclusion and thus to judge themselves. As the truth of it all. began to destroy the facade of their pretensions, they said, Let it not be! The Greek text has Me genoito, God is not in the original textit is an English translation.
No truth is more plain in the Bible: The patience of God can be exhausted with impenitent men. There is a limit even to Divine grace. After the wicked husbandmen refused to acknowledge the Son and killed Him, no more mercy could be shown. Why? Because God has reached the limits of what He can do and still leave man a free moral being. If men will kill the Incarnate Word, what else can God do? Man committed the greatest of crimes against God by rejecting Jesus Christ, His Son. The Jews, Jesus said, filled up the measure of their fathers (Matthew 23:29-39) and finished the transgression (Daniel 9:24), and were guilty of all murder from Abel to Christ.
Jesus had led this audience to the inexorable logic that God was going to reject the wicked husbandmen. They knew who these husbandmen were! They cried out, May it never happen! Jesus then plainly declared that the wicked husbandmen were the Jewish nation which would reject its Messiah. Their rejection of the corner stone had been predicted by the Old Testament. Jesus quoted Psalms 118:22. In its original context the verse refers to the covenant nation, the Jews. God had chosen them to be the typical corner-stone in His preliminary redemptive programbut the heathen world rejected that. And while this Psalm had typical and symbolic application to the nation Israel, its ultimate reference, even when it was written, was to the Messiah Himself. The prediction of Isaiah the prophet (Isaiah 28:16) indicates that it was not the nation Israel which was the ultimate stone. the builders would reject, for it would be the builders themselves (the rulers of Israel) who would reject the precious cornerstone. God was laying by prophecy and type that stone even in Isaiah’s day. Who else could that be but the Suffering Servant whom they would despise (Cf. Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12). It may be, as Hobbs says, some Jewish scribes interpreted Psalms 118:22 as teaching the Messiah would be rejected by the builders and later become the stone which would join together two walls, but most modern Jewish interpretations of this verse applies the stone to national Israel, only. Socino Commentary (Jewish) on Psalms 118:22: … Israel, despised by neighborly peoples, has been appointed by God to have an essential function to discharge in the construction of His kingdom on earth. cf. Isaiah, Vol. III, pgs. 277-280, by Paul T. Butler, College Press for notes on Jewish interpretation of the nation as the Messiah.
The builders (rulers of Israel) had been rejecting the messianic concept all the time God had been laying it! They rejected God’s messengers, the prophets. These prophets kept insisting that a personal, humble, righteous, atoning, but suffering Messiah would come to rule in the minds and affairs of God’s covenant people. The leaders of Israel kept on rejecting that teaching and those who taught it. They even killed some of the prophets who predicted such a Messiah. However obscure this passage may have been to the Jewish mind (more because of their own prejudice than its vagueness), Jesus fully expected the Jews of His day to have read it and understood it as applying to the Messiah. Matthew writes that Jesus said here, Have you never read in the scriptures: The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.. It is significant that there is no text of the Old Testament more frequently quoted (6 or 7 times word for word) or paraphrased in the New Testament. That the Messiah (Jesus Christ) was God’s key-stone is thoroughly documented in the Bible (cf. Psalms 118:22; Isaiah 28:16; Zechariah 4:7; Zechariah 10:4; Isaiah 8:14; Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:6-7; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 9:33). The key-stone of man’s relationship to God is a Person, Jesus, not a religious system.
The term, head of the corner is an interesting term. The head of the corner is the key-stone to an arch. In olden days, the procedure for building an archway out of stone was to construct the two sides first and the final, critical stone to be placed into the arch was last, at the very center or apex of the rise (much like the great metal Arch was constructed in St. Louis, Missouri, a few years ago). This is the stone which is absolutely necessary for the completion of the corner or arch. Without this stone being put in place the whole archway falls. The arch was a fundamental architectural support for buildings, aqueducts, bridges and other construction of that day. The Jews cast the key-stone out and their building collapsed and The Stone destroyed them. When they cast off the crucial Stone to their becoming God’s building, they both stumbled over Him to their own destruction (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25) and He fell on them and crushed out their existence (cf. Daniel 2:44-45; Luke 21:5-33). Jesus plainly told this audience that the kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and given to a nation producing the fruits of it (cf. Matthew 21:43). This nation would be the new Israel, composed of both Jew and Gentile, which would listen to the messianic message and believe (cf. Acts 13:46-48; Acts 28:28). The new Israel would be a new creation (cf. Galatians 6:15-16; 2 Corinthians 5:11-21). The Jewish people had been offered the grace of God through the promised Messiah, but they killed their Messiah, and spurned God’s grace. God had given them the privilege to work in His vineyard as husbandmen, but they felt no responsibility or gratitude to His graciousness and greedily schemed to take over God’s vineyard for themselves. There is a great lesson here for all who have now been called by grace into the new Israel. Let no Christian presume to take over God’s vineyard. His kingdom (the church) belongs entirely to Him. No men have ever been enthroned to rule over His kingdom. All men are servantssome faithful and some unfaithful. Wild olive branches grafted into the Tree, may as easily be broken off and thrown away as the natural branches were, if the wild ones become proud and arrogant (cf. Romans 11:17-24). Indifference to the grace of God extended in Jesus Christ will be punished eternally. This is a fundamental issue of life.
There was no doubt in the minds of the chief priests and scribes as to the object of Jesus-’ condemnation. And He had condemned them from their own Scriptures! They perceived that He had told this parable against them. The word against is pros in Greek and means toward, at. In other words, Jesus told this parable and it pointed directly at the rulers. Instead of contrition, repentance and seeking forgiveness, they tried to lay hands on Jesus right there. Apparently they made some overt move to take Jesus bodily and were prevented from doing so by the threats of the crowds listening intently to Jesus-’ searching parable. These crowds had just proclaimed Jesus the Son of David. They would have assaulted the scribes and chief priests had they tried to arrest Him there. The rulers, afraid of the people, craftily postponed temporarily what they fully intended to do later, And in the meantime, they decided to confront Him with hard, catch questions which they hoped would destroy His image before the people. They planned to trap Jesus into giving an answer to a political or theological question which would make Him appear to be a seditionist, a traitor or a blasphemer. If they could do this, they could sway the multitudes into joining them in demanding His crucifixion.
Luke 20:19-47
Applebury’s Comments
The Search For An Excuse Scripture
Luke 20:19-47 And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he spake this parable against them. 20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who feigned themselves to be righteous, that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor. 21 And they asked him, saying, Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, and acceptest not the person of any, but of a truth teachest the way of God: 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, 24 Show me a denarius. Whose image and superscription hath it? And they said, Caesar’S. 25 And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’S, and unto God the things that are God’S. 26 And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
27 And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection; 28 and they asked him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, that if a man’s brother die, having a wife, and he be childless, his brother should take the wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died childless; 30 and the second: 31 and the third took her; and likewise the seven also left no children, and died. 32 Afterward the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be? for the seven had her to wife. 34 And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the Bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. 39 And certain of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast well said. 40 For they durst not any more ask him any question. 41 And he said unto them, How say they that the Christ is David’s son? 42 For David himself saith in the books of Psalms,
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
43 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 44 David therefore calleth him Lord, and how is he his son?
45 And in the hearing of all the people he said unto his disciples, 46 Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts; 47 who devour widows-’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these shall receive greater condemnation.
*Comments
sought to lay hands on him.*The scribes and priests knew that Jesus had been speaking of them in the parable of The Husbandmen, but they completely rejected His warning. They were ready at that very hour to arrest Him. All that kept them from it was their fear of the people who were still glorifying God for all that He had done for them. But they kept close watch on Him and sent spies to listen to Him as He taught the people, hoping that He might say something that would give them the excuse to turn Him over to the governor. They even attempted to flatter Him, hoping to throw Him off guard.
*Teacher, we know.*According to Matthew, it was the Pharisees who sent the Herodians to set a trap for Jesus. The Herodians were a party of the Jews that supported the rule of the Herods whose power was derived from Rome. The Pharisees were, in their way, upholding the Law of Moses and submitting to the authority of Rome only because they had to. But these two opposing parties joined forces in an attempt to find an excuse to destroy Jesus.
What the Herodians said to Jesus was true: What He taught was right; He taught the way of God; He was impartial in dealing with men. They asked, Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not? This could have been a real problem to conscientious Jews, but the hypocrisy of the Herodians was poorly disguised.
*But he perceived their craftiness.*They expected Him to answer Yes or No. They were prepared to pounce on Him for whichever answer He would give. If He should say yes, they were prepared to accuse Him of disloyalty to His people, the Jews. One of the favorite accusations against the early church was their supposed opposition to the Law of Moses (Acts 6:11; Acts 26:22-23). If He should say no, they were ready to report Him to the Roman authorities for disloyalty to the government under which He lived.
*Show me a denarius.*It was a small coin with the image of Caesar on it. The superscription was Caesar’s too. They had planned for two possible answers to their question, but there was only one possible answer to His question, Whose image and superscription are on the denarius? But He had two things to say to them that were unexpected: Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’S, and to God the things that are God’S.
They had intended to catch Him on one or the other of the two issues involved in their question. He, however, caught them on both issues involved in His answer. Had they paid their taxes honestly? Were they giving to God the lives they owed Him?
*not able to take hold of the saying.*He was more than a match for them; they couldn-’t twist His answer so as to use it against Him. They knew that the people were with Him. They marvelled at His answer, but kept still.
*And there came unto him certain Sadducees.*Jesus had so completely routed the enemy in the first encounter that one wonders how the Sadducees found the courage to try their favorite question on Him. But people who hold to views like theirs usually keep on trying them out on everyone who will listen. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection or in angels or spirits (Acts 23:8). While the Herodians had been silenced, these Sadducees seemed confident that their question could not be answered by anyone holding to the doctrine of the resurrection.
*Teacher, Moses wrote unto us.*Jesus frequently appealed to the Scriptures as He taught. They must have felt that they were on safe ground when they referred to Moses. They did quote accurately from Deuteronomy 25:5 which said that if a man’s brother died leaving a childless wife, he was to take the wife and raise up children for his brother. Their hypothetical case: One woman was married to seven brothers before she died. All this was perfectly legal according to Moses! Then the question: In the resurrectionsupposing there is such a thingwhose wife will she be, for they all had her for a wife?
As things like this usually go, it is not too much to suppose that the Sadducees broke out laughing at their clever question, being certain that He couldn-’t answer it. Undoubtedly, they had tried it on many a man, and no one had ever been able to give a satisfactory answer. They had the only solution: There simply couldn-’t be such a thing as a resurrection!
*The sons of the world.*Jesus-’ answer begins with a contrast between this world and the heavenly state of righteousness. Those who belong to this world marry and are given in marriage, but those who attain to that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are they given in marriage. Marriage is for this age, but in the resurrection they are equalin this respectto the angels. They are called sons of God because they have been raised from the dead.
*they that are accounted worthy to attain unto that world.*Jesus does not imply that some will not be raised. He plainly stated that all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment (John 5:28-29).
Paul also speaks of the resurrection both of the just and unjust (Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15:22).
*But that the dead are raised.*Jesus then proceeded to showand from the Scriptures, toothat there is a life beyond the grave. Moses spoke of God, when he told of His appearing in the burning Bush, as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But these men had long since been dead. Jesus explained: He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto Him. That is, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living in the world beyond the grave where the eternal living Godthe Lordwas their God.
*Teacher, thou hast well said.*Some of the scribes were willing to admit that He had given the correct answer, a more gracious attitude than that of the Herodians who chose to remain silent. But there were no more questions of this kind for the Teacher!
*And he said unto them.*It was His turn; they had asked Him two questionsaccording to Matthew, threeand now He had one for them: How can they say that Christ is David’s son? The question seemed elementary, for all the Jews who knew anything about the Scriptures knew that Messiah was to be from the line of David. But the problem was greater than that. Jesus quoted Psalms 110:8, a Psalm of David, which said, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. Then Jesus asked the hard one: Since David calls him Lord, how is he his son?
The answer is perfectly clear to those who know and believe the Word of God. Paul gives it in Romans 1:3-4. Luke had already explained it to Theophilus in his account of the conception and birth of Jesus. Jesus was the son of David according to flesh, but He was demonstrated to be the Son of God according to the spirit of holinessa reference to the eternal One whom John calls The Wordby the resurrection from the dead.
*And in the hearing of all the people.*They could have answered the question about David’s son being Lord, but that would have compelled them to confess that Jesus was the Christ.
Now before all the people, He warned His disciples against these hypocrites. They walked in long robes and publically received the adulation of the people; they sought out the chief seats in the synagogues and at the feasts; they devoured widows-’ houses and for a pretense at being righteous, made long prayers, These were they who had sought to discredit the Lord Jesus Christ.
Summary
It seems strange that the One to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been should be challenged by men. But the chief priests and the scribes with the elders had the audacity in Jesus-’ day to say, By what authority do you do these things? Who gave you this authority? Their vague reference to these things that He was doing included not only the cleansing of the temple but also the healing of a blind man. What authority, indeed? But Jesus asked them a question that forced them to answer their own, although they were not big enough to admit that His authority was from God, just as John the Baptist’s was. The parable of The Husbandmen shows just what the attitude of the Jews toward Jesus was. They were waiting for their opportunity to kill Him and take over the kingdom of God. They did put Him to death, but the kingdom was given to those who produce the fruit of righteousnessthe believers in Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles. Those who rejected their Messiah have already suffered one devastating blowthe destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. Another act of judgment awaits all who persist in rejecting Him as King. Like the stone that grinds to powder the one on whom it falls, the judgment of Christ will scatter those who oppose Him. But the Jews persisted in their search for an excuse to destroy Him. They sent spies to listen in as He was teaching. They hoped to hear something on which to condemn Him; but He answered their questions and silenced them before the multitudes. They refused to answer His question about David’s calling Christ Lord since He is David’s son. Their hypocrisy was so evident that Jesus took occasion to warn the disciples against them.
Questions
What was Jesus doing when His authority was challenged by the chief priests and scribes?
Why were they not more specific in their charge?
What, if any, is the difference between preaching and teaching?
How did Jesus force the priests to answer their own question about His authority?
Why didn-’t Jesus tell them that He had all authority in heaven and on earth?
Why did He tell the parable of The Husbandmen?
How did He show that He was aware of the thing the Jews were planning to do to Him?
What did the sending of the various servants suggest as to the treatment the Jews had given the prophets?
Who is represented by the son in the parable?
What did they intend to do after killing the son?
What is suggested by the fact that the Lord of the vineyard was to destroy those wicked men?
To whom was the kingdom to be given?
Is the church as the kingdom of Christ producing the fruits of it?
Why did Jesus quote the prophecy about the rejected stone?
What was to happen to those on whom the stone fell?
Why were the scribes and priests searching for an excuse to kill Jesus?
What question did the Herodians ask?
What answer did they evidently expect Him to give?
How did His answer prevent them from accusing Him of wrongdoing?
Who had joined the Herodians in this attempt to trap Jesus?
How did the Herodians react to His answer?
Why did the Sadducees take up the issue?
What was their peculiar belief and how did it differ from that of the Pharisees?
What was the foundation of the story they told?
Wherein had they erred in applying the Law of Moses to the issue of the resurrection?
How did Jesus show them their mistake?
How did He describe the state of those in the resurrection?
What did Jesus mean by saying that God is not the God of the dead, but the living?
What question did Jesus ask them about David’s son?
Why couldn-’t they answer it?
Luke 20:20-26
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 3
Religion and Government (Luke 20:20-26)**
20So they watched him, and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might take hold of what he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor. 21They asked him, Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God. 22Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not? 23But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, 24Show me a coin. Whose likeness and inscription has it? They said, Caesar’S. 25He said to them, Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’S, and to God the things that are God’S. 26And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him by what he said; but marveling at his answer they were silent.
Luke 20:20-22 Subtlety: Jesus told the parable of the marriage feast (Matthew 22:1-14) before the Jewish rulers could regain their composure enough to start questioning Him. Soon after He finished this parable, they were ready with their question. The Pharisees had gone to discuss among themselves (Matthew 22:15) and join with the Herodians (Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:13) to devise a plan of attack upon Jesus. The Herodians were influential men who were politically aligned with the Herod family in its campaign to retain the Jewish throne and to Romanize the Jewish culture. The Pharisees, of course, were philosophically in direct opposition to the Herodians. But they were true pragmatists when it came to any threat to their own popularity. Jesus posed a crucial threat to Pharisaic influence, so the Pharisees would compromise their vows and convictions and join with the hated Herodians to destroy Jesus. All three gospel writers positively state the motives of the questioners in this first question as entrapment, in order to get Jesus indicted by the Roman governor (Procurator). Matthew uses the Greek word pagideusosin which means literally, that which grips, binds or snares, (Matthew 22:15). Luke says they sent spies (Gr. egkathetous, those who hide in the bushes awaiting their prey). They were probably some Pharisees they thought would not be recognized by Jesus. This group pretended (Gr. hupokrinomenous, play a part, act, pretend or hypocrite) to be sincere (Gr. dikaious, just or righteous). What they said flatteringly about Jesus-’ honesty and candidness was true. No doubt they said it grudgingly, but they also said it with malice aforethought. They intended to seduce Him with flattery. Flattery is a dangerous thing both for the flatterer and the recipient. Flattery … works ruin (Proverbs 26:28); it does not help the flatterer (Proverbs 28:23); it is exploitative (Daniel 11:21-34; Proverbs 29:5; Jude 1:16). Flattery should never be a part of Christian methods! (1 Thessalonians 2:5). Jesus did not succumb to it.
This group was sure they had the perfect trap for Jesus. They asked Him one of the most loaded questions they could have asked at that time. It had both political and theological ramifications, They asked, Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Luke uses the Greek word, phoron, which means literally, something brought to Caesar, or a monetary tribute. Matthew and Mark use the word kensos from which we get the English word census and meant in Jesus-’ day, poll tax. There were many taxes the Jews had to pay. Taxation, and especially by a foreign oppressor, was a very sensitive subject. The Jews paid the following taxes in Jesus-’ time:
Tributum Soil - Roman land tax
Tributum Capitis - Roman poll tax
Annona - Grain and cattle for Roman military
Publicum - Customs, sales and salt tax for Roman government
Temple Tax - Jewish tax for support of Temple
Synagogue Tax - Jewish religious-education tax
Herod’s Tax - Taxation for Herod’s public works
At first Rome permitted the Jews to coin all their own money without the image of Caesar on it. But Herod Antipas forced the Jews to strike a coin with Caesar’s image upon it as an act of political flattery to the Emperor. Patriotic Jews resented this bitterly as forced humiliation and as a sign of the erosion of their national sovereignty. It was also a theological question as to whether any faithful Jew should pay taxes to a government attempting to paganize Jewish culture. The issue was highly volatile! The silver denarius was the tribute required of every Israelite by Rome. The inscription on this coin read: Tiberius Caesar, Emperor, Son of Divine Augustus, The Illustrious High Priest. When the Law of Moses was given there was no such circumstance for the Jews and so the Law said nothing about this. The Jews did pay tribute to foreign governments many times (cf. 2 Kings 17:3; 2 Kings 18:13-16; 2 Kings 23:33; 2 Chronicles 28:21) before their captivities. They certainly paid taxes to the foreign governments in whose lands they dwelt during their captivities. And the Biblical record also documents that they paid tribute to foreign governments after their captivities and their return to Palestine (cf. Ezra 4:13). They certainly did not like itthey detested it. But tribute to Caesar was nothing new!
**Luke 20:23-26 Skill: **Jesus does not fall into the trap of flattery. He demonstrates the very wisdom and courage they tried to use as flattery. He does not allow Himself to be impaled on the horns of their supposed dilemma. They think if He says, Yes, pay tribute to Caesar they will be able to justly indict Him for being a traitor to His own nation. They think if He says, No, pay no tribute to Caesar, they will be able to get Him indicted as a seditionist against Rome. They apparently hoped He would say No, because at His trial they accused Him (by lying) of forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar (Luke 23:2). Jesus knew their malicious intentions and very skillfully corrects their question. They said, give (Greek, dounai); Jesus said, pay (Greek, apodote). Taxes to government are paid for the value of services received. Taxes are dues (Romans 13:7) for services of enforcement of law and order and protection of inalienable human rights. There are two fundamental, inalienable (non-revocable) human rights granted by the Creator to all human beings: the sanctity of human life and the right to own property. These are sanctioned by the Bible itself from the very beginning. God had ordained the structures of human governments to protect those two basic rights by enforcement of restraint or capital punishment or restitution on evil doers and the approval of right-doers (cf. Romans 13:1-7). No real conflict existed at the time of Jesus between the obligations of the Jews to God and Caesar since the Roman government permitted the Jews complete freedom to worship God as God had revealed and the Roman government maintained proper sanctions (laws) against murder and theft and enforced them. Thus Rome was carrying out, relatively, what God had ordained human governments to domaintain law and order. The Romans had even allowed the Jews liberal measures of self-government. Jesus-’ answer, Pay the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God, is perfectbroad enough to meet the need of any circumstance in which the believer may find himself.
Old Testament political theory and practice is more liberal than the traditions of the scribes. It may be summarized as follows:
a.
The Jews were obligated by the Law of Moses to support their theocratic government by offerings and taxes (see Leviticus and Deuteronomy).
b.
God decreed the Jews would have to support their demanded monarchy with taxes and military and civil service (1 Samuel 8:9-18).
c.
The Old Testament prophets make it clear that God held all human governments (even pagan ones) responsible for maintenance of law and order, certain standards of morality, integrity to international treaties and sanctions (Isaiah 10:5-19; Isaiah 13:1-22; Isaiah 14:1-32; Isaiah 15:1-9; Isaiah 16:1-14; Isaiah 17:1-14; Isaiah 18:1-7; Isaiah 19:1-25; Isaiah 20:1-6; Isaiah 21:1-17; Isaiah 22:1-25; Isaiah 23:1-18; Isaiah 36:1-22; Isaiah 37:1-38; Isaiah 38:1-22; Isaiah 39:1-8; Jeremiah 27:1-11; Daniel 4:27; Daniel 5:17-23; Amos 1:3-15, esp. Amos 1:9; Obadiah 1:11-14, Esther, etc.).
d.
The Jews were told by the Lord to be subservient and not rebellious when they dwelt in the land of foreign people (Jeremiah 29:1-7). In fact, they were told to seek the welfare of those pagan lands in which they dwelt, and to pray for emperors and rulers (Ezra 6:10).
e.
Many Jews became important and influential officials in human governments (even in pagan ones), collecting taxes for pagan kings; Daniel and his three Hebrew companions; Nehemiah; Esther; Mordecai.
f.
Jews were commanded by the Law of Moses to enforce all kinds of sanctions, from capital punishment to personal restitutions for destruction of property. They had standing armies; fought wars against aggressors; assisted other nations in maintaining international law; and had a social welfare system built right into their religious and political structure.
The New Testament political theory and practice may be summarized as follows:
a.
In the New Testament Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 1:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; Titus 3:1-2 are the outstanding passages on the Christian and human government. In Romans 12:1-21, Paul discusses the rendering unto God that which belongs to Him. And in Romans 13:1-7, Paul discusses rendering unto Caesar that which belongs to him. The New Testament commands (not merely suggests) that Christians obey governments which fulfill the functions outlined in the references cited above. The two main functions of human government are the protection of human rights by the maintenance of law and order; public works for the common good of society.
b.
Rationality itself insists there must be structured governments for the very existence of human social order.
(1)
Axioms:
(a)
Law and its enforcement is necessary to the maintenance of social structure (cf. 1 Timothy 1:8-9). If you doubt this just universalize anti-social behavior such as murder, robbery, rape, etc. What if there were no laws against these acts of social anarchy at all?
(b)
Where there are no sanctions (penalties) and where penalties are not executed (speedily), there really are no laws. Laws without penalties being executed are merely writings on paper (cf. Ecclesiastes 8:11). This same principle applies to international laws!
(c)
Punishment must fit the crime. To sustain the majesty of the law against murder, there must be capital punishment (cf. Exodus 21:12).
c.
Revelation from God in the Bible commands that there shall be human governments:
(1)
Government in general:
(a)
Is ordained by God (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; Titus 2:15 to Titus 3:2; Ezra 7:26; Exodus 22:28; Proverbs 24:21-22; Jeremiah 27:5-7).
(b)
Is originated for God to execute His wrath on evil doers (Romans 13:3-4); to restrain the lawless (1 Timothy 1:8-9); to provide peace and tranquility so the world may come to know God’s truth (1 Timothy 2:2-4). The very first commandment God gave Noah by which to start the human race all over again after the flood was the order for capital punishment as the penalty against murder (Genesis 9:6).
(2)
Government on international level:
(a)
Nations which stand for peace, justice and tranquility, must arm themselves and ally one with the other against aggressive invasions of powerless peopleseven by declaring and fighting war if necessary.
(b)
There are no specific New Testament scriptures to this effect, except the example of Paul appealing to the government of Rome for protection against the Jewish countrymen who wanted to kill him unjustly. But there are many Old Testament scripturesand God does not change His principles (cf. Genesis 14:21-24; Joshua 8:1-29; 1 Samuel 30:1-31; Ecclesiastes 3:8; Jeremiah 48:10; Daniel 5:17-28; Obadiah 1:10-14; Amos 1:9).
(c)
There were a number of individuals serving in human governments even as law-enforcers who were Christians in the New Testament: Cornelius, Sergius Paulus, Caesar’s own household, Erastus, the Philippian jailor. John the Baptist told certain soldiers not to extort, but he did not tell them to resign from the army to please God.
Any discussion of Jesus-’ reply to the question of tribute usually brings up the problem of civil disobedience. Our clearest Biblical examples of civil disobedience are found in Acts 4:19-20; Acts 5:20; Daniel 1:1-21; Daniel 6:1-28; and Exodus 1:1-22; Exodus 2:1-25 (Jochebed). It is clear that Paul and Jesus did not acquiesce in the face of illegal treatment (Acts 23:1-10; John 18:19-23). Paul’s attitude toward governmental authority is indicated in his appealing to his Roman citizenship for protection, (Acts 16:37-40; Acts 22:25-29; Acts 26:32). Paul was so conscientious to maintain the proper structure to social order through human government he even advocated capital punishment for himself if it could be sustained that he was guilty of a capital crime (Acts 25:10-12). Civil disobedience must not be taken lightly! It is a desperate act to be taken only when all other means fail. The Christian is bound to say that the law of God takes precedence over the law of man, if the two are in clear, unequivocal conflict. But the Christian must be very certain that there is an irreconcilable conflict before he takes the drastic step of disobeying civil lawwhether he lives under a pagan ruler like Nero or one who espouses Christianity. The devil would like nothing better than to create civil anarchy in the name of Christian civil disobedience! Jehovah is a God of order, peace, discipline and obedience. He does not condone anarchy and social disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33) and especially so in His own kingdom, the church! Of course, God does not condone compromise of His commandments, either. God has instituted the authority of the home, the church and the state. Man’s individual feelings do not supersede any of these. They are not to be violated on the authority of man, but can only be superseded by the higher law of God. What about turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-45)? That is forbidding individual retaliation. No man, especially a Christian, has the right to hand out individual vengeance. God has ordained human governments to meet out vengeance on His behalf (cf. Romans 12:18 through Luke 13:7). Why did Jesus tell the disciples to get swords (Luke 22:35-38)? Two swords were enough to allow the disciples to defend themselves against the imminent mob-violence, but not enough to start a war of vengeance on Jesus-’ enemies. What about Peter’s use of the sword in the garden of Gethsemane (John 18:10-12; Matthew 26:51-54)? Jesus answered three ways: (a) I must drink the cup appointed Me; (b) If this were the time for power against My enemies I could call legions of angels; (c) Those who take the sword shall perish by the sword. Jesus meant to teach Peter not to take the law into his own hands and to predict that the murderous Jews would soon perish by Roman swords. God does a better job of avenging through His use of human governments than the individual could ever do.
A great amount of human speculation has been done on the question of religion and government. Jesus answered the Pharisees and the Herodians skillfully and succinctly. His very concise answer infers He expected His Jewish listeners to know there was a precise Biblical answer. He knew that God had revealed Himself thoroughly on the subject in the Old Testament scriptures. They should know exactly what belonged to Caesar and what belonged to God without any further details from Him! We also believe that the Bible is clear enough and thorough enough that any believer may know what his responsibility is to both Caesar and God. There can be no equivocation on this great issue of life by the Christian, The Christian can have only one conscience about church and statethat is the one which the Bible delineates! For more discussion on this subject see the special study, The Christian and War, Isaiah, Vol. 2, by Paul T. Butler, pgs. 72-82, College Press.
In Christ’s brief answer, He laid the foundation for the principle of the separation of Church and State. Neither should replace or control the other. They may and do have mutual obligations. The State should maintain a peaceful and tranquil society in which the Church is free to do its work. The Church should produce the kind of character which will mean good citizenship. One sharp dividing line exists: neither should control the other or meddle in its affairs. When that prevails, society is blessed. Not only could the Pharisees not trap Him into some faux pas and turn the multitudes against Him, they were so astounded and amazed at the truthfulness and skill of His answer they were dumbfoundedthey were silenced! They dared not pursue the subject further. What Jesus had said was complete.
Luke 20:27-40
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 4
Resurrection and the Grave (Luke 20:27-40)**
27 There came to him some Sadducees, those who say that there is no resurrection, 28and they asked him a question, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the wife and raise up children for his brother. 29Now there were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and died without children; 30and the second 31and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. 32Afterward the woman also died. 33In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife.
34 And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; 35but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 38Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him. 39And some of the scribes answered, Teacher, you have spoken well. 40For they no longer dared to ask him any question.
**Luke 20:27-33 Rationalizations of Humanism: **The next group coming to try to destroy Jesus-’ image with the people were the Sadducees. They also had a catch question which they believed would be unanswerable. They fully expected to destroy Jesus-’ reputation as a teacher in the eyes of the people. Their question dealt with the most crucial issue of human life: Is there life after death?
The sect of the Sadducees were the humanists of the Jewish religious hierarchy. Most Sadducees were priests and their sect likely originated with Zadok, the famous priest of David’s day (cf. 2 Samuel 15:24; 1 Kings 1:32; Ezekiel 40:46; Ezekiel 43:19; Ezekiel 44:15; Ezekiel 48:11). Their name probably comes from the Hebrew word tzaddikim which means literally, righteous ones. It may have been a sarcastic nickname given to them by others or a boastful one given by themselves. They believed in preserving the nation by intelligence, diplomacy and prudence. They asserted Jews need keep only the essential parts of the Mosaic Law (the so-called 613 great principles) and in everything where Moses did not speak they might act according to the requirements of the time. They were pragmatic toward the attempts of the Seleucid (Syrian) conquerors to Hellenize the Jewish culture during the Maccabean era (300-100 B.C.). Sadducees were wealthy, controlled the Temple and its services, but were in direct opposition in almost every issue with the Pharisees. In Jesus-’ day, though they secretly hated the Romans, for the good of their nation they believed it was better to make the best of their situation and go along with most anything the Romans demanded. They were the aristocratic party; they did not believe in Divine providence, miracles or angels. They did not believe in a resurrection from the dead (cf. Acts 23:7-8). They were suspicious of one another and had no group loyalty like the Pharisees had. They renounced all the traditional interpretations and practices of the Pharisees; accepted only the Pentateuch; they insisted on a rigidly literal application of Mosaic Law which led to judicial severity without mercy and made themselves unpopular with the common people.
The Sadducees came to Jesus with a hypothetical question which was probably one of the stock arguments they used against the Pharisees who undoubtedly had a great deal of difficulty providing an answer to it. They proposed the riddle of a woman married to seven husbands who all preceded her in death without ever giving the woman a child. The woman eventually died also, of course. The poser no one was able to answer was, Whose wife will she be in the resurrection, since she had seven husbands. The Sadducees started, of course, with the a priori that the doctrine of immortality was an absurdity and then made up an absurd illustration to prove it. The careful student will note the Sadducees arranged their story so all the woman’s husbands were brothers making it conform to the Levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). They probably thought this would give the added impact of inferring the Law of Moses denied immortality because the Law made life after death an impossibility, If a child had been born in the illustration to one of the husbands, it might have solved the question as to whose wife she would be in heavencraftily they omit children.
**Luke 20:34-40 Revelations from Heaven: **Both Matthew and Mark record Jesus-’ first words in answer to this challenge as: You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24). All humanists make the unforgiveable mistake of a priori rejection of the scriptural record as unworthy of consideration in the subject of life after death. The Bible claims to be an accurate documentation of historical events. It demands to be tested. If its historicity can be established by all the accepted canons of historical verification, it deserves to be studied and believed. The Sadducees were either innocently ignorant or deliberately ignorant of what the Old Testament said about life after death. They were probably like those people described by Peter who deliberately ignored the facts concerning the flood (2 Peter 3:5). The Old Testament says this about life after death:
a.
There are actual, documented cases of resurrection from death in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:35; 2 Kings 13:21).
b.
There are documented cases of translation from this life to the next life without the experience called death (one in the Pentateuch) (cf. Genesis 5:22-24; 2 Kings 2:11).
c.
There is one case, well documented by eyewitnesses, of the reappearance of a man (Samuel) after he had died (1 Samuel 28:12-19).
d.
There are many declarations in the Old Testament of immortality and eternity: (cf. 2 Samuel 12:15-23; Psalms 16:8; Psalms 23:4-6; Isaiah 53:10-12; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Ecclesiastes 12:5-14; Job 19:25-26; Exodus 3:6).
e.
The statements in Genesis concerning the patriarchs who died and were buried, and were gathered to their people (cf. Genesis 25:8; Genesis 35:29) infer immortality. This term is constantly distinguished from death and burial and denotes the reunion in Sheol (place of departed spirits) with family and friends who have gone there before.
Jesus also told the Sadducees they were ignorant of the power of God. This becomes a problem at times even for those who have accepted the historicity and integrity of the Biblical record. The Christians in Corinth to whom Paul wrote two letters had this problem. They said, Since we have no earthly experience by which to determine what kind of body we will have in the resurrection we have doubts that there will be a resurrection. Paul told them, essentially, just what Jesus said here; God has the power to do in the next life what He has never done in the earthly life. The fundamental ignorance of man is his presumption that the life after death, if there is one, would have to be like this life. That is because man wants to reject anything outside his own experience lest he find out he is not his own sovereign. Man does not want to admit there is another Sovereign beyond himself able to do things he himself is not able to do. An all-powerful, all-wise, supernatural God has power to transcend and overcome all the inadequacies and incongruities of this existence by creating another existence, different and everlasting, yet incorporating the best of this one. This was what Jesus tried to convey in His answer to the Sadducees.
Jesus said there would be no marriage or sexual intercourse in heaven. Procreation will not be necessary to the survival of the human race there because those worthy to attain to the resurrection from the dead will be immortal, never dying, like the angels. If we may trust what God has revealed (however little and dim it may be) concerning the next life, we know life and personal intercourse in heaven will be much more thrilling and sensational than any fleshly sexual intercourse could ever be in this life. The apostle Paul was convinced that the next life would be very far better than any experience in this life (cf. Philippians 1:21-23). C. S. Lewis wrote some of his opinions about life after death. Here are some excerpts from The Joyful Christian, by C. S. Lewiswe think they are appropriate to this text:
**Resurrection of the **body: What the soul cries out for is the resurrection of the senses. Even in this life matter would be nothing to us if it were not the source of sensations.. Memory as we know it is a dim foretaste. of a power which the soul. will exercise hereafter. At the present we tend to think of the soul as somehow inside the body. But the glorified body of the resurrection as I conceive itthe sensuous life raised from its deathwill be inside the soul. As God is not in space but space is in God..
**Intercourse in the Afterlife: **Our present outlook of the absence of physical, sexual intercourse in heaven is like that of a small boy who, on being told that the sexual act was the highest bodily pleasure, should immediately ask whether you ate chocolates at the same time. On receiving the answer, No, he might regard the absence of chocolates as the chief characteristic of sexuality. In vain would you tell him that the reason why lovers in their sexual raptures do not bother about chocolates is that they have something better to think of. The boy knows chocolate. He does not know the better thing that excludes it.
We know the sexual life; we do not know, except in glimpses, the better thing, which in heaven, leaves no room for the lesser sensation. In denying that sexual life, as we now understand it, it is not necessary to suppose that the distinction of sexes or personalities will disappear.. What is no longer needed (sexual distinction) for biological purposes may be expected to survive for splendor.
Heaven: Dance and game are frivolous, unimportant down here; for down here is not their natural place. Here, they are a moment’s rest from the life we are placed here to live. But in this world everything is upside down. That which, if it could be prolonged here, would be a truancy, is likest that which in a better country is the End of Ends. Joy is the serious business of Heaven.. At the resurrection of the body. once again the birds will sing and the waters flow, and lights and shadows move across the hills, and the faces of our friends laugh upon us with amazed recognition.
For these reasons, and many more sublime than even C. S. Lewis might imagine, Jesus rebuked the Sadducees for not believing in the power of God to make the next life far beyond the limitations of this one. It is significant that in answering the Sadducees Jesus did not refer to Pharisaic traditions, Greek philosophy, nor even to His own authority (as He did in the Sermon on the Mount), but to the Scriptures! He, of course, was God in the flesh and author of the Scriptures. His deity was, at that point, an excusable stumbling to the Jews. He had every right to insist they believe in life after death merely on His say-so, but giving them the benefit of the doubt about His identity, He appealed to the divine record. They could have no excuse for rejecting the Old Testamentits divine origin was the accepted basis for their existence as a nation and all their hopes for a future messianic relationship to God. Its historicity and integrity had been established by thousands of years of supernatural demonstration to their ancestors. So Jesus cited the Pentateuch itself as the authority for believing in life after death. At the burning bush Moses quoted God as saying that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). All of these patriarchs had been dead for centuries before Moses, yet God said they were living presently with Him. God is not the God of the annihilated or deadbut of the living.
There are still humanists today denying life after death. The Humanist Manifesto of 1933, updated 1973 and called Humanist Manifesto II, says, We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural.. Humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves. Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.. The universe is self-existing and not created. The mind or soul does not exist apart from the body.. Avowed humanist, Corliss Lamont, wrote in the magazine, The Humanist, March-April 1980, Humanists live for actions, ideals on this Earth in our one and only life. Heaven must be built in this world or not at all.. While we-’re here, let’s live in clover, for when we-’re dead, we-’re dead all over.
This is still the most crucial issue in the life of finite manlife after death. Upon the answer to this issue depends true love, morality, meaning, purpose and every human relationship. The only viable answer continues to rest upon the historical integrity and credibility of the Bible for it claims to be the only and final revelation of God concerning this life and the next!One need only compare the after-life concepts of the religions of human origin with that of Christ to appreciate the Biblical revelation. The Buddhist nirvana is an alleged state of non-existence; the Hindu after-life involves an endless cycle of re-incarnations into this world of imperfection and tribulation; the Islamic paradise is a place of sexual promiscuity and fleshly indulgence. Even orthodox Jews today believe that some day a Jew will appear who will announce the end of the world as we know it and the establishment of the kingdom of God, in which finally the lion will lay down with the lamb. This Jew, and he will be a person, not an incarnation of God, as if such a thing were possible, is called Mashiach, or Messiah. When he arrives there will be a resurrection of the dead, called in Hebrew, T-‘chiat Ha-metim, and all the resurrected of the Jews will gather in Israel, there to live forever. Mashiach will be a descendant of the house of David and will be announced by Elijah the Prophet.. Nevertheless, if one were to say, -While not denying what the sages have said, I have no belief concerning any aspect of the life after death or the world to come; all I believe is that my soul is in the hands of God and my faith is in Him-’ such a Jew would not be considered a heretic, even by the most pious. Much more important than speculation about the afterlife is the acceptance of the revelation of the Torah, which is entirely concerned with life and the living. Living Jewish, by Michael Asheri, pub. Everest House, pg. 196. The gospel of Christ is as relevant for the Jews today as it was when Jesus pointed out to the Sadducees that the Torah teaches life after death as a fact and a fundamental tenet of true faith in God. For more information on Old Testament teaching on life after death see special study, The Future Life, Isaiah, Vol. II, by Paul T. Butler, College Press, pgs. 287-299.
The Lord’s reply to the Sadducees destroyed the last stronghold of His enemies. And even the scribes, personally taking pleasure in His humiliation of the Sadducees, dared not ask Him any more questions. They were at least wise enough to see that from then on every trap laid for him would only give Him another opportunity to manifest His divine wisdom and destroy their pretensions. They give up this method of attack.
Luke 20:41-47
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 5
Rationale of Christ’s Glory (Luke 20:41-47)**
41 But he said to them, How can they say that the Christ is David’s son? 42For David himself says in the Book of Psalms,
-The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 43till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.-’ 44David thus calls him Lord; so how is he his son?
45 And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples, 46Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, 47who devour widows-’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.
**Luke 20:41-44 Lord: **Immediately after hearing Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, a lawyer (also a Pharisee) came to Jesus with a sincere desire to know the greatest commandment in the law. Matthew and Mark record Jesus-’ answer (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34), but Luke omits it and goes on to record the question Jesus put to the Pharisees concerning the identity of the Messiah.
This quotation and question of Jesus from Psalms 110:1-7 is probably His clearest claim to deity recorded by the synoptic gospels. John’s gospel, of course, records quite a number of Jesus-’ clear claims to deity, but the Synoptists are more interested in documenting His claims to be the Messiah.
Jesus knew that He would soon be arrested and charged with blasphemy because at the beginning of His second year of public ministry the Jews became aware He was making Himself equal with God (cf. John 5:18). Now, with the end of His life on earth very near, it was imperative that He prove to the Jews from their own Scriptures that if He was the Messiahand the multitudes here at the Passover-time were unquestionably shouting that He wasHe was also Lord God. His claims to be Messiah, however opaque or transparent at different times, was not what enraged the Jewish rulers. They did not, of course, concede to His messiahship since He did not fit their materialistic preconceptions about the Christ. But they never threatened Him about thatfor to have done so would have agitated the multitudes against them. What the Pharisees and scribes continually threatened Him for was His claims to deity. Jewish theologians, for the most part, were never able to understand that the Messiah was to be God Incarnate, and they still do not believe it (see comments on previous text). All Jews are able to answer the first question (as Matthew 22:41-42) Jesus asked, What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he? They would all answer, The son of David! But they cannot, or will not, answer the second question Jesus asked, How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit (Matthew 22:43), calls him Lord.. or as Luke recorded it, For David himself says, in the book of Psalms, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet. David thus calls him Lord; so now is he his son? In other words, How can the Messiah be both the son of David and Lord of David?
The thrust of Jesus-’ second question was to demonstrate (from David’s writings) that the Messiah was to be more than David’s sonindeed the Messiah was to be David’s Lord God. The statement of David in Psalms 110:1 can be understood in no other way. There David represents Jehovah speaking to David’s Lord (Heb. Adonai), who is also David’s Son, enthroning Him at Jehovah’s right hand (co-equal). Jesus is pleading with the Pharisees and scribes to open their hearts to their own Scriptures and believe what God had centuries before promised. Any one of them could have grasped the revelation of God about the Incarnation from their own prophets, had they really wanted to, for some prophecies, at least, were plain enough, (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6-7; Micah 5:2; Malachi 3:1-3).
This was the most pertinent question, then, or ever. It went to the very heart of the animosity those Jewish rulers had for Jesus. Had they acknowledged the Messiah to be God they would not have been bothered by politics, immortality or keeping God’s commandments. It is still the most pertinent question. Men must make up their minds today as to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. Essentially, the question Jesus asked here is the same question He knew He had to have settled in the minds of the apostles when He asked at Caesarea Philippi, Who do you say that I am? (cf. Luke 9:20). The book of Hebrews in the New Testament, written by the apostle Paul, a former Pharisee, gives a thrilling exposition of Psa 110:1-7 (cf. Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 7:17; Hebrews 7:20-22) teaching from it both the humanity and deity of Jesus and His eternal priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. One would expect Jewish priests and scribes to have seen this from their own scriptures, but it was not their desire to do so (see special study, this volume, The Messianic Hope, pages 461-466, and notes from Isaiah, Vol. III, by Paul T. Butler, College Press, pgs. 277-280 and pgs. 415-418).
It is significant that in Jesus-’ question about the identity of the Messiah, He added an answer to each of the previous questions asked of Him. To the Sadducees, who did not accept any of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch, Jesus said (as Matthew records, Matthew 22:43) that David wrote Psalms 110:1-7 by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To the Pharisees who rejected the concept that the Messiah could be God Incarnate Jesus said Psalms 110:1-7 predicts the Messiah will be David’s Lord (God in the flesh). For the multitudes it is not only a revelation of His deity, but also a warning to those who are plotting to crucify Him of the terribleness of the deed.
**Luke 20:45-47 Legislator: **Luke now summarizes Jesus-’ great denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees which Matthew records in much detail (cf. Matthew 23:1-39). The details concerning Jewish scribes and Pharisees would not be of much interest to Luke’s Gentile readers, and since Matthew had treated the subject thoroughly and Luke himself had documented an earlier denunciation of the scribes by Jesus (Luke 11:37-54), he simply summarizes here.
Jesus-’ condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees means He claims the right to judge men’s motives and actions. His rationale for deity comes from scripture (Psalms 110:1 ff.) and from His very evident power to actually discern the thoughts and intents of men’s hearts as He does here.
Beware, He commands, to the crowds, His disciples, and even to the Pharisees themselves, of the scribes.. Before the nation could be won to Jesus-’ spiritual kingdom, the false teachers and their worldliness and hypocrisy had to be exposed for what it was. He challenged His disciples and the multitudes to disown the whole false system the Pharisees had imposed on the nation. These religious leaders loved the wrong thing. The motive for everything they did was self-centered. Pride and power were the motives for their actions, They loved to go about in long robes, to be saluted in the market places as Rabbi, Master, and the chief seats of honor in the synagogues and at feasts. Pride and lust for power always produces unmercifulness and greed. They devoured widows-’ houses, all the while making a pretense to be very religious by reciting long prayers. Josephus records that the Pharisees had especial influence over wealthy women accepting hospitality and rich presents from them, devouring their riches for their own political purposes. The wife of Pheroras, brother of Herod the Great, paid the fines of thousands of Pharisees who had been fined for refusing to swear loyalty to Caesar. The Talmud gives evidence of the plundering of widows. The Pharisees and scribes claimed a very exact knowledge of the law and a perfect observance of it. They pretended to stand for justice toward the poor, friendship for the distressed and were willing to aid those who were in financial straits. They could therefore induce widows and poor people to commit the management of their property to them as guardians and executors, and then took advantage of them and defrauded them. The Talmud records the warning given by Alexander Jannaeus (Maccabean ruler) to his wife on his death-bed against trusting any advice of the Pharisees.
These are the last recorded words Jesus ever spoke to the Pharisees and scribes (except at His trial), and they were words of judgment and condemnation. And even these words are spoken with a broken heart, hoping at the last moment to drive them to repentance. He can do no more. If they now refuse both their own scriptures and His demonstrations of deity, judgment must come and they will receive the greater condemnation for they have been granted the greater privilege and have spurned it! Truly, they filled up the measure of their fathers (Matthew 23:32) and Jesus was forced by their obstinacy to forsake them and leave them with their house desolate (Matthew 23:37-39).
So ended the public prosecution of Jesus. The Pharisees and Sadducees never attempted to publicly discredit Jesus again. He answered all their questions with divine wisdom and, what they thought would ruin His reputation, began to work toward their own ruin. It was a tragi-comedy of trifles. The Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians pretended to raise the fundamental issues of life. Jesus revealed that the fundamental issue of human life is to identify and surrender to the God who became Incarnate in the Son of David. Everything else in man’s life is peripheral. To put anything before this is trafficking in trifles.
STUDY STIMULATORS:
Would referral to John’s baptism still be, a good answer to anyone (especially religious leaders) today who would challenge Jesus-’ identity and authority?
Is the parable of wicked husbandmen who refused to give the Owner his due only applicable to the Jewish nationor could it be applied to anyone now? Who?
If Jesus expected the Jews of His day to have read and understood the Old Testament prophecies referring to the Messiah and to have seen their fulfillment in Him, what does He expect of Jews today? What about Gentiles?
Why is the key-stone of man’s relationship to God a Person, Jesus, instead of a religious system, or plan of salvation?
How did Jesus react to the flattery of the Pharisees and Herodians? What should the Christian do about flattery?
How should a Christian look upon paying taxes to his government?
Would it be wrong for a Christian to serve in the armed forces of his country? Just what should be rendered to Caesar by the believer?
Where should the Christian stand on civil disobedience?
What is the basis upon which most unbelievers reject the idea of life after death?
What is the only viable evidence that there is life after death? Why?
If there is no marriage in heaven, how can there be any enjoyment?
Why should the Jews of Jesus-’ day have understood that the Messiah was to be God in the flesh? Why didn-’t they? Is that a problem for people today? How is it to be answered?
Special Study THE MESSIANIC HOPE
by Paul T. Butler
The Old Testament made many glorious promises in connection with the Messianic hope. Isaiah, Chapter s 40-66; Daniel 9:24-27; Micah 4:1-13; Micah 5:1-15; Micah 6:1-16; Micah 7:1-20; Zechariah 9:1-17; Zechariah 10:1-12; Zechariah 11:1-17; Zechariah 12:1-14; Zechariah 13:1-9; Zechariah 14:1-21.
When the Jews returned from their captivities (cir. 536-444 B.C.) it was with this hope in their hearts. They believed Jehovah would rule the land directly through a son of David, he would enforce the Law and promote the ritual religion. Some looked for Zerubbabel to fulfill this. Time after time their fulfillment of this hope was frustrated by some foreign (Ptolemies and Seleucids and Romans) or some home-grown (Hasmonean and Herodian) oppression.
As the physical, earthly accomplishment of this hope became less evident (i.e., accomplishment through natural events), the anticipation increased that Jehovah would intervene in a great crisis of the cosmos (see John 12:31 where Jesus uses that very phrase in Greek in connection with His death on the cross) and effect a deliverance of all the righteous Jews (not Hellenistic Jews) and God would suddenly, secretly almost, institute the messianic age.
This hope had never been so much alive, so vivid, nor its fulfillment so urgently awaited, as it was in the first centuries B.C. and A.D.a time of sadness and deep, tormenting, national humiliation. There was a body of literature that arose between the Old Testament and New Testament that expressed the Jewish ideas of the expected messianic age called the Jewish Apocrypha (apocalyptic in nature). The Sybilline Oracles, Book III (150 B.C.); the Book of Enoch (164 B.C.); The Psalms of Solomon (48 B.C.) are the most graphic. The Mishna, Talmud and Targums (rabbinic writings written after Christ but expressing traditions in oral form before Christ) are also valuable for determining the messianic ideas of first century people. They testify generally that the Messiah will:
a.
Attain for the people a literalized fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament prophets (physical prosperity; physical conquest of enemies; physical restoration of Judaism).
b.
Defeat Jewish enemies and force them to serve the Jews.
c.
Restore all Jews to their land forever.
d.
Institute an era of Mosaic purity (as interpreted, of course, by the rabbis).
Josephus speaks of a number of men before and after Jesus who pretended to be the Messiah, obtained followers, fought Jewish enemies, and usually ended up slain in battle or executed. Josephus says there was an ambiguous prophecy (probably referring to Daniel 9:24-27) in the Holy Scriptures which told the Jews that in those times a man of their nation would become the master of the world Wars, 6:312.
Some believed in Jesus-’ day in a personal Messiah. This belief took four forms:
- An Angel:
As earthly powers continued to oppress the Jews with more intensity it was inevitable that the concept of the Messiah should become more and more transcendent. Many despaired of human deliverance and turned to hope in an angelic being coming from heaven with cosmic, supernatural power. See the Similitudes of Enoch (I Enoch, 164 B.C.) where the Son of Man is presented as a heavenly being with no prior human existence. his face has the appearance of a man and yet it is full of graciousness like one of the holy angels. (46:1ff.).
Remember the devil’s attempt to get Jesus to show off some supernatural, angelic power. if he was the Son of God.. Matthew 4:5-6.
- A Prophet:
Some interpreted Malachi 3:1 ff; Malachi 4:5 as referring to the Messiah himself rather than the forerunnerthus he would be a prophet like Elijah. Many of the disciples of John the Baptist refused to abandon their belief in him as the true Messiah and perpetuated into the 2nd century A.D. a sect which held up John the Baptist messiahship in opposition to Jesus (The Mandaens; see Ency. Britt. Vol. 4 and 10).
The Samaritans were expecting a prophetic messiah, John 4:19-26. Many of the Jews thought this also, John 7:40; Matthew 16:14; John 1:21; 1Ma. 4:46; etc. John 6:14.
- A Priest:
In later interbiblical history there appears the idea of a messianic priest. When the offices of High Priest and prince of Israel were combined in Simon the Maccabean, impetus was given to the development of such hope. But as the High Priesthood became more and more secularized and corrupted, this view seems to have found less and less acceptance. See the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (110 B.C.).
- A King:
By far the most popular view was a Messiah-warrior-king. He would appear as a political champion. Jews from all over the world would rally to his side, sweep the pagans from Palestine, subdue the world, plunder its riches, kill all idolaters and make proselytes and servants of the rest.
See this view in all the earliest Jewish apocryphal writings, and, Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15 (cf. Zechariah 9:9-10); Matthew 22:42; Mark 13:35; Luke 20:41; John 6:15; 1Ma. 2:57; Psalms of Solomon 17:5; 17:23, etc.
Even this popular view expected the Messiah’s origin to be shrouded in mystery (John 7:21 ff.) and His mission to be one of cosmic supernaturalisms, Matthew 12:38; John 7:31.
Remember the temptation of the devil to make Jesus an earthly king.
There were many who arose pretending to be the Messiah. Theudas had 400 followers but he was slain (Acts 5:36; Josephus, Antiq. 20:97ff.). Judas the Galilean was also slain (Acts 5:37; Josephus, Antiq. 18:23). An Egyptian gained about 30,000 followers, (Josephus, Wars 2:261ff. and Acts 21:37-38). Menachem bar-Judah and Simeon bar-Giora (Wars, 2:17:8; Wars, 4:9:7 respectively), and many others after Jesus were hoped-for messiahs.
There was great expectancy in the first century A.D., but there was also great confusion and misunderstanding concerning the Messiah and His kingdom. Jesus-’ most frustrating ministry was to try to convert, literally change, the confusion, materialism and patriotic provincialism of the messianic people into what it was really intended to be by God as predicted in the Old Testament prophets.
WHAT DID THE PEOPLE OF JESUS-’ DAY THINK OF THE MESSIAH? (Our best sources are the Gospel records themselves.)
He would be born in Bethlehemthe scholars knew this much.
Some were looking for the consolation and redemption of Israel and Jerusalem.
Many thought John the Baptist might be the Messiah.
Jesus-’ temptations indicate the popular messianic concept.
Jewish leaders knew a connection between Elijah and Messiah and thought John the Baptist might be one or the other.
Nathanael did not believe the Messiah would come from Nazareth.
Samaritans believed when Messiah came he would settle religious disputes.
Jews of Galilee did not accept Messianic prophecies of Isa 61:1-11 being made available to Gentiles.
Apparently the Jews did not think their Messiah would be God incarnate and able to forgive men’s sins.
Apparently Jewish rabbis did not think their Messiah would associate with publicans and sinners.
Messiah is called The Expected One (as in Similitudes of Enoch) by John the Baptist who apparently expected Him to be more militant than Jesus was.
Jewish rulers insisted Jesus must show a sign to prove his messiahship.
People could not imagine Jesus as the Messiah because they knew his origins.
Messiah would be The Prophet and he must be crowned King.
Jesus perceived the people wanted a bread-and-fish Messiahone who would do a work to prove he was the Messiah.
Jesus-’ disciples thought of the Messiah as The Holy One of God.
Disciples show that the people thought the Messiah would be Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets, perhaps. Peter would not believe the Messiah was to die Matthew 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33.
Elijah’s coming must precede that of the Son of Mana literal Elijah, perhaps.
Disciples thought of messianic kingdom in terms of power struggles.
Jesus-’ brothers expected him to prove his messiahship in Jerusalem in some public, spectacular, carnal demonstration of power.
Disciples expect Messiah to punish those who reject him by fire from heaven.
No one is supposed to know where the Messiah comes fromhe is to appear suddenlybut he would perform enough signs for everyone to know himnot just the rulers.
Messiah was not expected to go among the Jewish dispersion.
Confusion about Messiah. Some thought he would be The Prophet from Galilee, others believed from Bethlehem.
Jewish scholars did not expect the Messiah to be an eternal personage.
Messiah must show a sign from heaven.
Jews could not read the signs that their Messiah was to come in judgment upon their nation.
Messiah must keep Sabbath according to their traditions,
Jews were looking for a time of eating of banquets in the messianic kingdom as repayment for their troubles (cf. Isaiah 25:6 ff.).
Mother of the sons of Zebedee understood the messianic: kingdom to be one of position and power.
Some believed the Messiah was to remain forever and not die.
Apparently the Jews did not conceive of the Son of David as also David’s Lord!
Apparently the people did not think of the coming of the Messiah as a judgment upon Jerusalem and the nation. They did think of his coming as the end of the world and Jesus had to correct this view.
; Peter thought of messianic kingdom as needing to be defended with swords.
Apparently the High Priest did not conceive of the Messiah or anyone else calling himself God.
Pilate understood Jesus to be an idealistnot an earthly king. Joseph of Arimathea was looking for the kingdom of God.
Disciples despondent when Jesus did not redeem Israel according to their own hopes. Jesus, however, expected them to have a spiritual view of the Old Testament messianic promises and rebuked them for not having it.
Acts 1:6 :
Even after the resurrection the disciples had a somewhat earthly view of the kingdom of God.
The Jews would not accept any claimant to the messianic throne who would change the customs which Moses delivered.
The humanistic, materialistic traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees and others (Essenes, et al), kept the common people confused about the Messiah and his kingdom. Jesus actually did not convert a single person fully to His teaching of the Messiah and the kingdom. It was only after His death and resurrection and the Day of Pentecost that some of the Jews began to see it correctly (including His disciples). And even then, it took some years before most of the Jews accepted the idea that the messianic kingdom was to be available to the Gentiles on the same basis as to Jews. But the four gospel accounts testify to this:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, SON OF MARY ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, IS INDEED THE ANOINTED (MESSIAH) OF JEHOVAHTHE PROPHET, PRIEST AND KING PREDICTED BY THE OLD TESTAMENT. AND HE IS THE MESSIAH OF ALL THE NATIONS!
For a résumé of modern Jewish messianic theology, see Isaiah, Vol. III, by Paul T. Butler, pub. College Press, Joplin, Mo., pgs. 277-280 and 415-418.