Luke 20

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 20 JESUS Luke 20:1-8 Luke 20:1 —And it came to pass, on one of the days,—We are now in the last week of the earthly life of Jesus; it is not necessary to attempt to outline what he taught each day of this week; some have attempted to classify what he did and what he taught according to each day of the week. “ He was teaching the people in the temple.” Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 21:23-27 and Mark 11:27-33. This was a day of controversy; the chief priests and scribes and elders drew him into controversy at many points; this as many think was the last day of the temple teaching. The leaders had determined to attack Jesus on this morning, both Sadducees, from whom came most of the chief priests, and the scribes who were for the most part Pharisees. Jesus “ was teaching” and “ preaching the gospel”; the “ teaching” the people included the “ preaching the gospel.” To “ teach” means to instruct, while to “ preach” means to proclaim; however, this distinction is not kept throughout the New Testament. Luke 20:2 —and they spake, saying unto him,—These chief men, who were now becoming bolder enemies of Jesus, asked him “ by what authority doest thou these things?” They are attempting to get Jesus to make some declaration by which they can condemn him; they are not wanting the truth. They had rejected the evidence that Jesus had given them; they had ignored the miracles that he worked, even the one of raising Lazarus from the dead; they now ask for the authority under which he acted. Jesus had given the highest authority and had presented the strongest proofs. He had been with them for more than three years, and in the face of the three years, during which he had taught and worked miracles, they still asked for proof and authority for what he was doing. Their question was double; they wanted to know where he got this authority, or the source of his power. Luke 20:3-4 —And he answered and said unto them,—There is a dig-nity and authority in his reply; he does not quibble with them; his answer showed that they had not disturbed or disconcerted him by their question. He proposed to answer their question on the condition that they would answer a question which he asked them. He answered by giving them a question as to the authority of John the Baptist. He asked: “ Was it from heaven, or from men?” That is, was John’ s authority to baptize from men or was it from God? John had called upon them to repent and to believe on the Messiah who was to come; where did he get his authority to demand repentance and baptism? This question put them in a dilemma. This question threw the responsibility back on them as to the source of authority; John had testified of Jesus; he had pointed him out to the people; what can they do now with respect to this question? Luke 20:5-7 —And they reasoned with themselves,—They saw the di-lemma and felt the clutches of it. It seems that they went aside and reasoned “ with themselves.” The original for “ reasoned” is used only here in the New Testament, and it not only means “ with themselves,” or “ together,” but denotes a very close conference. If they, they said, should say that John’ s baptism was “ from heaven,” then he would reply: “ Why did ye not believe him?” They had rejected John’ s baptism, and to admit that John’ s baptism was from heaven would be to admit that they had rejected the authority of God. On the other hand, if they should deny God as the authority of John’ s baptism, they would be antagonizing the people for “ they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” They were anxious to retain the favor of the people; they must seek some way to get the people to turn against Jesus. These leaders had resorted to mob violence and had encouraged the people in acts of violence when argument and reason had failed them. Later they practiced this in the death of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60), and at a still later period with respect to Paul (Acts 21:27-36). At this time they feared the people; if they deny to John, whom the whole nation honored as a holy man, the claim of being a teacher sent from God, the people might turn with violence upon them. Luke 20:8 —And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I—They had convicted themselves of moral dishonesty; they had shown that they did not want the truth. They were not wanting to know by what authority Jesus taught, preached the gospel, cleansed the temple, and worked miracles; they must have known, but would not acknowledge. It was useless for Jesus to give them further evidence. If they rejected John, they would reject Jesus; if they would not believe John’ s testimony in his favor (John 1:15 John 1:29-36 John 5:33-36), they would not believe that which Jesus would offer for himself. PARABLE OF THE Luke 20:9-18 Luke 20:9 —And he began to speak unto the people this parable:— Parallel records of this parable are found in Matthew 21:23-46 and Mark 12:1-12. This parable is similar to the parable in Isaiah 5:1-7. “ He began to speak unto the people this parable”; this cannot mean that he spoke only at this time in parable, neither can it mean that he “ began” to speak this parable at this time, but finished it later. Luke has all of the essential features of the parable but his record contains fewer of the particulars, especially the description of the vineyard. Luke is the only writer of the parable that mentions the time in which the lord of the vineyard was absent. The details of the parable are simple enough; a man planted a vineyard and rented it to others called husbandmen; the man then went into another country and remained there “ for a long time.” The vineyard is planted, rented to others, a body of laborers, who are to pay their rental out of the products. Luke 20:10 —And at the season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant,—It was customary then to rent vineyards and collect the rent. “ At the season” means the vintage time or the time when the fruit ripened and the harvest gathered. The harvest of the vineyard was converted into wine. The landlord sent his servant to receive his share of the product. Those who had rented the vineyard “ beat him” and “ sent him away empty.” They scourged the servants to intimidate him so that he would not come back; he was sent away without any part of that which belonged to the landlord. Evidently they thought that they would get to keep the rent which should have been given to the owner. Luke 20:11-12 —And he sent yet another servant:—It is not known whether the first servant returned to the master and reported all that had been done; but the landlord sent another servant, and instead of honestly paying over all that was due the owner, they abused him shamefully, and beat him as they had the other servant, and sent him away empty. They treated this servant even worse than they treated the first one; finally a third servant was sent “ and him also they wounded, and cast him forth.” Matthew records that they “ took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.” (Matthew 21:35.) Luke 20:13 —And the lord of the vineyard said,—The owner of the vineyard saw that the wicked men to whom he had rented his vineyard cared nothing for his servants; they had shamefully treated them, beating and killing some of them; so the owner thought that they would surely respect his son. He was an only son, and is described as “ my beloved son.” If there was left in them any respect for the master, they surely would respect his only son. The owner of the vineyard dearly loved his son and felt that others ought to respect and love him; but he was to be disappointed in this. Luke 20:14 —But when the husbandmen saw him,—When the husbandmen saw the son coming, they reasoned among them-selves and said: “ This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” (Mark 12:7.) They thought that by destroying the heir they would then claim the vineyard. These wicked husbandmen reached the climax of their crime by murdering the son. They thought they would own the vineyard instead of being tenants. Jesus thus outlines clearly and emphatically the conduct of these Jews; they were planning to do just as Jesus here describes these tenants of doing. Luke 20:15-16 —And they cast him forth out of the vineyard,—They killed the son. Their crime grew worse; they began by beating and shamefully treating the servants, but have ended in killing the son and the heir; they began by withholding the rent of the vineyard from its proper owner and ended by an attempt to seize the vineyard; they began by robbing the owner of the vineyard and they ended in an attempt to take the vineyard from him. “ What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?” Jesus answered this question; there could be but one answer to it; he would destroy them and take the vineyard away from them and give it to others who were more worthy. Jesus had asked the question to give point to his parable, and, according to Matthew, those who heard him answered his question. “ They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” (Matthew 21:41.) Luke 20:17 —But he looked upon them, and said,—Here Jesus quotes Psalms 118:22. They had said that his parable could not be true, or that it was impossible, and Jesus referred them to this scripture, and asked to what then does it refer? Peter quotes the same psalm in 1 Peter 2:4-7. “ The stone,” a stone, one which the builders had cast aside as not fit to go into the building, was later found to be “ the head of the corner.” This has been applied to Christ in prophecy and in fulfillment. (Isaiah 28:16; Ephesians 2:20.) It is strange that these leaders could have always referred this scripture to the Messiah, yet did not see that it was fulfilled in the case of Jesus who was rejected by the scribes and priests. (Acts 4:11.) Though the Jews rejected Jesus, yet God has made him the headstone of his spiritual temple, uniting both Jews and Gentiles in himself. (Galatians 3:28.) Luke 20:18 —Every one that falleth on that stone—Jesus added another word of warning to them by still using and applying the figure of a stone. Everyone that shall stumble “ on that stone shall be broken to pieces.” This signifies that everyone who stumbles at Christ and his gospel, and refuses to accept him, such a one will be “ broken” or destroyed. On the other hand, everyone “ on whomsoever it shall fall,” or shall be found unbelieving when Christ appears, shall be destroyed. The first seems to describe the doom of all those who are offended in Jesus and will not accept him; while the last part of the statement describes a more sudden extermination of those upon whom the awful retributions of justice must fall for their sins against the Son of God. It seems that Jesus has here presented himself in four aspects under the figure of the stone: (1) a rejected or disallowed stone; (2) the headstone of the corner; (3) a stumbling stone; (4) the stone of retribution. AS TO PAYING TRIBUTE Luke 20:19-26 Luke 20:19 —And the scribes and the chief priests—The scribes and chief priests are more determined to bring the issue to a climax. They have two major tasks: first, to get some charges against Jesus; second, to get the people on their side. They attempt to accomplish these two purposes by forcing Jesus to make some decision against the people. They are maddened into rage at the plain application of the parable that he has just announced. “ In that very hour” they would have taken him, for they saw that the parable was leveled against them, but their fear of the people compelled them to defer their actions. Luke 20:20 —And they watched him, and sent forth spies,—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17. Matthew tells us that the Pharisees went and “ took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.” (Matthew 22:15.) Mark states that the “ Herodians” joined the Pharisees in this attempt to “ catch him in talk.” (Mark 12:13.) It is probable that the Pharisees took the lead in this. Though the Pharisees and Herodians hated each other, yet they hated Jesus so much more that they could unite in their opposition to him. They “ sent forth spies,” who hypocriti¬cally acted as though they were friends of Jesus; they desired in pretense to have a great regard for the law and to know how to reconcile their duties to it with respect to the Roman government. They sought by the expression of a single word to get something against Jesus that they might involve him in trouble with the Roman authorities. Luke 20:21-22 —And they asked him, saying, Teacher,— They affirm here what is true, but they do so hypocritically. Nicodemus used about the same speech, but he was sincere. They came to Jesus not as Pharisees, or Herodians, but just as honest searchers for the truth, hoping by their words to hide their character and purpose, and by flattering Jesus to put him off his guard and lead him into a snare that they had set for him. They pretended to believe him to be all that he claimed and to be ready to abide by his decisions, since they would be absolutely true and just, independent of the influence and author¬ity of men. They hypocritically acknowledged his doctrine to be true and righteous; to encourage him, as they thought, to give a decision that would incriminate him before the Roman authorities, that he would render such a decision without re-spect of persons; they thus attempted to encourage him to give the very decision that they wanted him to give, which they thought would incriminate him before the Roman authorities. Their question was artfully, skillfully, and adroitly framed: “ Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” Mark adds: “ Shall we give, or shall we not give?” (Mark 12:14.) Luke 20:23 —But he perceived their craftiness,—They thought that they had Jesus in a dilemma; it matters not which horn of it he should take; they thought they would condemn him. If he said that they Luke 24:27 —And beginning from Moses— Jesus presented a compre-hensive view of all the Messianic prophecies from the first of the series of predictions in the writings of Moses down through the prophets to the time of his appearance; then the fulfillment of these predictions in himself; Jesus thus declared that he was the heart of the Old Testament scriptures. In ac¬cepting the scriptures with the prophets, they should have un¬derstood that Jesus was their long-looked-for Messiah. should pay tribute to Caesar, he would render himself unpopular with the people. This was what the Jews wanted; they wanted to turn the people against him so that it would be easier for them to condemn him. If he said that they should not pay tribute to Caesar, they would condemn him for being in rebellion against the Roman authorities; and they were anxious to have the Roman authorities condemn him and put him to death. Jesus perceived their “ craftiness." He knew the thoughts and intentions of their hearts. The original for “ craftiness" means “ any deed done in wickedness." The Greek, so translated, is found only five times in the New Testament; it is the same word that is used in de¬scribing Satan’ s “ subtlety" in tempting Eve. (2 Corinthians 11:3.) Luke 20:24 —Show me a denarius.—This was a Roman silver coin, worth about fifteen to seventeen cents. The Jews had a maxim that “ wherever a king’ s coin is current, there his sovereignty is acknowledged.” This coin was evidence of the Roman dominion over the land, and by using it the Jews acknowledged their subjection to the Roman power. When he received the “ denarius" he asked: “ Whose image and superscription hath it?" The “ image" was probably the likeness of the Roman emperor, Tiberius Caesar; the “ superscription” was the motto of the coin, the title of the emperor declarative of his sovereignty. The image showed that it was not a Jew¬ish coin, for the Jews put no images on their coins; they did put inscriptions on them. Luke 20:25 —And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things— They had correctly answered his question about the image and the superscription on the denarius. He then made this reply to them. “ Render unto Caesar" means “ pay off," or “ render a gift," or “ render what is due." If they had Caesar’ s coin in circulation, they should render unto Caesar that which belonged to him. No one could dispute what he had said; everyone should give to the government under which he serves that which is justly due it. Sometimes governments claim of their citizens that which is not right; in such a case as this, the citizen does not owe the government that which is wrong. It is a common principle of honesty to give all their dues and no one can dispute this; so they should give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’ s. This principle was expanded in Romans 13:1-7.

The Jews even taught that a king ought to have his dues. The second part of the answer was that they should render unto “ God the things that are God’ s.”Luke 20:26 —And they were not able to take hold—They were unable to pervert his language and do damage against him at any time. They were astonished and “ marvelled at his answer,” but they held their peace. His reply was so unexpected, so apt, so true, and so wise that they were caught in a snare— the one that they had thought to impose upon Jesus. He com¬pletely put them to silence; they “ held their peace” and “ left him, and went away.” (Matthew 22:22.)

AS TO THE Luk_20:27-40 Luke 20:27 —And there came to him certain of the Sadducees,—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:23-33 and Mark 12:18-27. There is but little difference in the three records of this event. The Pharisees and Herodians had tried their hand to ensnare Jesus, but had been defeated and humiliated before the public. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are now in the midst of the last week of the earthly life of Jesus. The Sadducees now make an attack on him. The Sadducees were a Jewish sect, and were so called either from “ righteousness,” the meaning of the name “ Zadok,” or from their great zeal for righteousness.

This sect originated about 260 B.C. They were opposed to the Pharisees and rejected the tradi¬tions which the Pharisees promoted; they denied the resurrec¬tion and the existence of angels or spirits. (Acts 23:8.) They laid stress on the freedom of the will. As a sect they disappeared from history after the first century; they were men of rank, wealth, and education; the priestly families in the days of Jesus belonged to the Sadducees. They had one great argument with which they had frequently defeated the Pharisees; it was a stock conundrum with which they had often gotten a laugh on the Pharisees. They volunteered to try it on Jesus. Luke 20:28 —and they asked him, saying,—They approached Jesus with an apparent regard as a prophet or religious teacher; they also approached him with an air of great respect for the law of Moses. They presented him their problem based on Deuteronomy 25:5-10. The case that they cited required a brother to take his deceased brother’ s wife and raise a son unto his brother that his brother’ s name might not perish in the genealogy. The Sadducees thought to show from the law the manifest absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection, because they presumed that the present relations of life must continue in the future state. Luke 20:29-31 —There were therefore seven brethren:—It is very likely that this was a fictitious case; it was a favorite argu¬ment of the Pharisees with the Sadducees, and illustrates the manner of their opposition to the resurrection. The first born of the wife of the deceased brother was to perpetuate the name, provided the first born was a son. The Sadducees pre¬sent this case as an actual fact, for they said: “ Now there were with us seven brethren” (Matthew 22:25), which presents the case as an actual fact. The number of brethren who had the same woman as a wife presented a very complex problem so the Sadducees thought; the Pharisees were not able to meet the argument. While it may have been a fictitious case, all grant the possibility of such a thing happening, but the im-probability of it is very evident. Luke 20:32-33 —Afterward the woman also died.—There was no surviving husband and the wife died. The woman had married, according to supposition, successively to seven brothers, from each of whom she was separated by death. The Sadducees thought that Jesus would either deny the belief as to the resurrection, or that he would make some statement contrary to the law of Moses. If he denied the resurrection, he would incur the enmity of the Pharisees, who believe in the resurrection ; if he denied the law of Moses or contradicted it, he would be condemned for perverting the holy law. They did not care which Jesus did; they were only seeking an opportunity to condemn him. Whose wife would she be in the res¬urrection?

The problem was squarely put to Jesus, and from their point of view, there was no escape for him. But they did not know Jesus of Nazareth. Luke 20:34-35 —And Jesus said unto them,—Both Matthew and Mark preface Jesus’ reply by: “ Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29.) “ The sons of this world” marry and are given in marriage; “ sons of this world” simply means the present state of being as confined to mortals; the expression simply means that in this life the marriage relation obtains. In the future life, or life after death, there are no regulations of sex. Sex belongs to this fleshly state, and ceases when the fleshly state ceases. Sex belongs to this physical body and was ordained to perpetuate the physical existence. Marriage belongs to the physical existence, or to the physical body for the procreation of the animal part of man; but when the earthly existence and the fleshly body shall have ceased, marriage will have ceased as all the physical elements of marriage have ceased. In the future existence those who have attained unto the resurrection of the dead “ neither marry, nor are given in marriage”—there is no such thing as marriage after death. Luke 20:36 —for neither can they die any more:—After the resurrection there is no death, hence no need of procreation. Here we die physically, and the human race would soon become extinct if there was no generation going on to perpetuate the race; but in the future state where there is no death there is no need of marriage to perpetuate the beings there. “ They are equal unto the angels”; that is, angels do not die; they have an eternal existence; so after the resurrection we have an eternal existence, and in that sense, we are equal to the angels. The existence, relations, and state are equal to that of the angels. In the resurrection there is not an earthly state which is sensual and mortal, but heavenly, spiritual, and immortal. They are “ sons of God,” which means that they share in the resurrection of the just, and are in possession of a new life. It is evident here that Jesus is speaking only of the resurrection of the just; the resurrection of the wicked does not come into view here. Luke 20:37-38 —But that the dead are raised,—Jesus gives an invinci-ble argument for the resurrection; he holds that the words spoken to Moses concerning the burning bush (Exodus 3:6) prove the feet of a resurrection. Jesus meets the error of the Saddu- cees fundamentally; he strikes at the very mistake on which their error is founded. These Sadducees were “ materialists”; they held that man was no more than an animal; that death ended all of men. They based their argument against the res-urrection on the ground that man has no spirit, and, therefore, no life after the death of his body. Matthew puts this argument in an interrogative form: “ Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” (Matthew 22:31-32.) Jesus in commenting on this says that God is not “ the God of the dead, but of the living.” This shows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still in existence; they were dead physically, but their personality and identity continued; hence there is a life after death, and if a life after death, there is a resurrection. Luke 20:39-40 —And certain of the scribes answering said,—The scribes belonged to the Pharisees; they enjoyed seeing Jesus put the Sadducees to silence, for they had often encountered their error, and apparently had never been able to refute it so successfully. They complimented Jesus for having answered well, and thought it wise for themselves to ask him no more questions. The courage of the Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees now vanished; they will now have to follow some other course in order to destroy Jesus. A AND A WARNINGLuk_20:41-47 Luke 20:41 —And he said unto them, How say they—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 22:41-46 Matthew 23:1-13; Mark 12:35-40. The Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees had been plying questions to Jesus, attempting to ensnare him; they had been unsuccessful. Jesus had put them to silence and they thought it wise not to ask him any more questions. Jesus now puts a question to them; he turns the tables on them. He asked them : “ How say they that the Christ is David’ s son?” Matthew gives a fuller record and says: “ What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42.) They answered that he was “ the son of David.” And Jesus then put another question to them and asked how then could David call him Lord, if he was the son of David. They were not able to answer him. Luke 20:42-44 —For David himself saith—Jesus now quotes Psalms 110:1 and makes three points in his argument. First, all the prophets hold that the Messiah is to be in the line of David. (2 Samuel 7:12-29; Isaiah 11:1-10 Isaiah 55:3-4; Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23-24 Ezekiel 37:24; Hosea 3:5; Luke 1:69; Revelation 22:16.) Second, David himself calls this Messiah “ Lord” in the passage here quoted from Psalms 110:1. Third, “ Lord” is a title of dignity, superiority, used appropriately by a son of his father, but never by the father of his son. How then is this enigma to be solved— that a father speaks of his son as his Lord? What sort of son must this be? All Jews held David in high honor, but what of this yet greater Son?

The Jews referred this quotation to the Messiah, yet they could not tell how he could be a descendant of David, and yet be his Lord, not knowing that beside his human nature, which descended from David (Revelation 22:16), he possessed a divine nature as the Son of God (Romans 1:3-4). The deity and humanity of Jesus disturbed the Jews at that time and is still a matter of much discussion by critics today. Luke 20:45-46 —And in the hearing of all the people—In the presence of all, while the people were listening, Jesus gave a warning to his disciples, saying: “ Beware of the scribes.” Matthew adds “ and the Pharisees.” (Matthew 23:2.) Jesus then describes these scribes and Pharisees; he states their ruling passion, which was the love of display and honor “ to be seen of men.” (Matthew 23:5.) The seven woes pronounced upon them, recorded in Matthew 23:13-25, are among the most scathing denunciations that Jesus pronounced upon any class. They desired “ to walk in long robes” ; that is, to go about in long, flowing robes such as were worn by priests and kings and by persons of high rank and distinction. They loved “ salutations in the marketplaces.” They loved the complimentary salutations which were performed in a formal and ceremonious way. “ The marketplaces” were the places to which people were accustomed to resort. They loved these public greetings in the public place; they were vain and haughty. “ Chief seats in the synagogues” means the first seats nearest the reading desk where the sacred books were kept; and they occupied “ chief places at feasts.”Luke 20:47—who devour widows’ houses,—They were like cunning, ferocious beasts; they devoured the substance of widows who were the most defenseless of the poor and the most deserving of sympathy and kindness. They influenced widows to give them of their property as an act of piety, or to bequeath it to them. As spiritual advisers of men, and sometimes as the executors of their wills and the guardians of their children, they had special opportunities to rob widows of their property. “ For a pretence make long prayers” is another characteristic of their hypocritical conduct.

They made religion a mask in order to gain the confidence and property of even the most helpless. It is said that some of the rabbis would spend nine hours in prayer in a day. Jesus stated that “ these shall receive greater condemnations.” Verse 1 In this chapter, which details Jesus’ teachings on Monday of the final week, there are the following units; the Pharisees questioned Jesus’ authority (Luke 20:1-8); he gave the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke 20:9-18); he answered the question of tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:19-26); he exposed the question of the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (Luke 20:27-40); he confounded them with a question of his own (Luke 20:41-44); and he uttered a sharp condemnation and warning against the scribes (Luke 20:45-47). All of this chapter is contained in the parallel accounts of both Matthew and Mark; and twice already in this series, a line-by-line exegesis of these teachings has been presented. To avoid needless repetition, the several units of this chapter are discussed in a more general manner. I. The Pharisees questioned the authority of Jesus, their purpose no doubt being to embarrass the Lord. That Jesus had no authority from THEM was certain; and, supposing that they alone could grant authority to religious teachers, they must have felt rather smug in propounding their question. 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 and the elders; and they spake unto him, saying unto him, Tell us: By what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? And he answered and said unto them, I also will ask you a question; and tell me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they knew not whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. (Luke 20:1-8) Parallels: Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33. Their question was snide, as was evident in the malice and dishonesty of them that asked it; and yet, despite this, the question itself is the most important that any man may ask concerning the authority of Jesus. Whence is it? That question must be answered by every person hoping to enter into eternal life. There is a dramatic contrast in the manner of Jesus’ feeding the same words of those hypocrites back to them. They demanded that Jesus “Tell us”; but Jesus threw their hand grenade back into their own faces, saying “TELL ME!” By such a shocking refusal of their rights to pass on the credentials of the Christ, the Lord exposed them before all the people. John the Baptist’s authority was indeed from God (John 1:5); and the chief priests, scribes and elders of Israel well knew this; for the mighty herald had unequivocally identified Jesus thus: The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29) He that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33) He that hath the bride is the bridegroom (John 3:29) He … cometh from above, is above all (John 3:31) He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God (John 3:33) God hath given to the Son all things (John 3:35) He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life (John 3:36) He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36) With a corpus of testimony like that, well known to all the people, and coming from a man even the priests recognized as universally hailed a true prophet of God - the name “John the Baptist” must have struck fear and embarrassment into the hearts of Jesus’ challengers. So great was the impact of Jesus’ question that it appears they withdrew somewhat, and held a council among themselves on the answer they would give. It quickly appeared that not Jesus, but they, were trapped. The best thing they could come up with was an open profession of ignorance, and that before the multitudes!

Verse 9 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. 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. And he sent yet another servant: and him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And he sent a third: and him also they wounded and cast him forth. And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him.

But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance will be ours. And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. 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?

Every one that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust. Parallels: Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12. THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED . This great parable is the central member of a trilogy of magnificent parables, all three of which were spoken by Jesus to set forth the rebellious behavior of official Israel. The full trilogy is found only in Matthew (Matthew 21:28 to Matthew 22:14). The independence of the synoptic Gospels (and all of them, for that matter) is nowhere more evident than here. This trilogy of parables is arranged in ascending order of power and dramatic effect (see full discussion of this in my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 22:14). They are the Parable of Two Sons, the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, and the Parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son.

If either Mark or Luke had access to Matthew’s Gospel, or if either one of them had ever seen it, there can be no logical explanation of why they would have selected the central member of the trilogy and left out the other two. On the other hand, there is no logical device by which it may be supposed that Matthew took Mark’s (and Luke’s) single parable and formed it into a trilogy, because the trilogy carries within itself the most positive and overwhelming proof of originality, an originality that plants it undeniably in the authentic words of Jesus our Lord. The ancient convictions that all of the sacred authors wrote independently of each other is justified by many such things in the Gospels. Analogies in the parable are easily seen. God, the householder, let out his vineyard, which is the chosen people with their privileges and protection from the Father, to the husbandmen who are the leaders of Israel. Such things as the planting of the vineyard, the hedge, the winepress, etc., represent the establishment of Israel as the chosen people and such religious devices as the law, the temple, etc. The servants whom God sent to Israel to receive the fruits of his vineyard were the prophets of the Old Testament, leading up to and including John the Baptist. Maltreatment of the servants represents Israel’s rejection, abuse, and even murder of the prophets. The householder’s (God’s) desire for fruits in season was God’s desire for true spiritual fruits from Israel, including especially a recognition on their part of the need of salvation.

The beloved Son in the parable is Jesus Christ. Their casting him forth and killing him prophesied the hierarchy’s crucifixion of Jesus without the camp of Israel. The fact of the Son’s coming last of all shows the finality of God’s revelation in Christ who is God’s last word to man. God’s taking the vineyard away from the wicked husbandmen and giving it to others is the replacement of Israel with Gentiles in the main possession of the gospel. The householder’s going into another country for a long time stands for the absence of God, in a sense, during the long ages when Israel was left unpunished for countless rebellions against God, in the period required for the bringing of Christ into the world. This is the heir; let us kill him … This parable shows very clearly that the leaders of Israel recognized Christ as the true heir of the throne of David, the head of the Theocracy, and as the promised Messiah. The only flaw in their identification of Christ was in this, that they failed to see that he was GOD come in the flesh. He will destroy these husbandmen … is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In the third member of the trilogy, this prophecy took the form of a king sending his armies, killing those murderers, and burning their city (Matthew 22:7). The stone which the builders rejected … By this, Christ referred to himself. He is the chief cornerstone; the builders (those wicked leaders) rejected him, but they are not through with him; he will be the head cornerstone of the New Covenant. For article on “Christ the Living Stone,” see my Commentary on Romans, Romans 9:33. Every one that falleth on that stone … This means “all who stumble at the teachings of Christ.” On whomsoever it shall fall … The imagery here appears to be from Daniel 2:34; Daniel 2:44, in which the little stone “cut without hands” smote the kingdoms of the world and ground them to powder. The Jews were still dreaming of the secular kingdom; and by such a word as this Jesus called their attention to what God would do with their worldly kingdoms. Jesus himself is the little stone; and in the figure he warned the leaders that, although they were planning to kill him, there would come the time when he would fall upon them. Scatter as dust … The scattering of Israel is in this. Frequently that word appears in the New Testament, and not a few times it refers to God’s judgment and scattering of the chosen people because of their rejection of Christ. Too little is made of this prophecy, the fulfillment of which is before the eyes of all generations. III. The theme of events being narrated in this chapter is that of the leaders of Israel seeking to “destroy” Christ. In the question regarding authority, they had been completely frustrated; and likewise in the parable of the wicked husbandmen, it was quite obvious at last, even to the wicked leaders, that Christ was speaking about them. They rallied and came back with a series of trick questions, hoping to procure some word from Jesus that they could use as a pretext for formal charges against him. The most likely area for them to explore was the political issues of the day. This they did at once.

Verse 19 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. And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who feigned themselves to be religious, that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor. 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: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Show me a denarius. Whose image and superscription hath it? And they say, Caesar’s.

And he said unto them, Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. Parallels: Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17. The purpose of the leaders was clearly stated by Luke in this paragraph. They planned to trip Jesus up with a dilemma. If Jesus said it was unlawful to give tribute to Caesar, he might have lost much of his popular following; and if the Pharisees could have turned the vast multitudes away from Christ, they could have killed him without causing the uproar they feared. On the other hand, if he said that it was not lawful to give tribute to Caesar, they were planning to prefer charges before the Roman governor against him as a seditionist, that is, a man rebelling against lawful authority and forbidding the people to pay taxes. The hypocrisy of the leaders is seen in the spies and their flattering approach to Jesus, but his omniscience is seen in the perfect understanding of his questioners and their wicked devices. Kings and rulers in all ages, as well as all governments, held that the coinage of the realm was the property of the issuing authority. This is still true today in the United States of America. Thus Christ’s reaction to this trick question was: (1) to establish that Caesar’s coinage was in circulation, which he did by inquiring for a coin; (2) then to point out that it could not be wrong to “give back” to Caesar that which was already his! The powerful thrust of this is implicit in two words that surfaced in the confrontation. The Pharisees spoke of “paying” tribute; Jesus spoke of “giving back” what already belonged to the central authority! (3) Next, he took a step forward from this and demanded that those hypocrites also “give back” to God what was his, namely the temple which they had usurped and made a den of robbers, and themselves, created in God’s image, they should “give back” to God. The ages have not diminished the glory of this astounding answer. IV. One is a little surprised at the Sadducees appearing in this cabal against the Lord; and the desperation of the Pharisees’ case is evident in their including those old enemies of theirs in the contest. This was due to the fact that the Sadducees were the stronger political party, holding most of the high offices, including that of high priest; and these were in fact, the principal architects in the plot to kill Jesus. At any rate, they tried their luck against the Lord of Life.

Verse 27 And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, they that say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, that if a man’s brother die, leaving a wife, and he be childless, his brother shall take the wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died childless, and the second, and the third took her; and likewise the seven also left no children, and died. Afterward the woman also died. In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be? for the seven had her to wife. Verse 34 And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the bush when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. And certain of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast said well. For they durst not any more ask him any question.Parallels: Matthew 22:22-33; Mark 12:18-27. The Sadducees’ question regarded a projection that was theoretically possible, but actually quite unlikely and ridiculous on the face of it. It is impossible to see how they considered this any greater problem than if only two brothers had been involved in the marriage of one woman. Nevertheless, because, under the Levirate marriage required in Moses’ law, such a development was not impossible, Jesus ignored the unlikelihood of it and answered it. First, regarding marriage, such an institution will not be found in the eternal world. In this connection, one cannot help wondering about “marriage for eternity” as taught in Mormonism! Just as other fleshly relationships shall have been left behind, so marriage also will not exist in the next world. Two worlds are clearly spoken of by Jesus in this passage. “This world” (Luke 20:34) and “that world” (Luke 20:35) are the designations Jesus used of the “here” and the “hereafter,” nor is there the slightest hint of anything unreal about the future world. The Lord spoke with full authority of conditions there; and his words should illuminate all who heed them. They are equal to the angels … The Sadducees had raised no question about angels, although, of course, as a matter of fact, they denied that any such beings existed; but Jesus applied the stretchers to their brains in this department also. The Lord not only spoke of angels as actual beings, but he revealed that men shall be equal to angels in the hereafter (see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:14). Sons of God … sons of the resurrection … This use of the two expressions synonymously is a pledge of a resurrection for the sons of God. The doctrine of the resurrection is a fundamental of Christianity; and no faith is adequate which denies it (see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:2). Even Moses … taught the resurrection of the dead; and the ignorance of the Sadducees of this was the reason for their not believing. Jesus said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ at once cited an example of Moses’ teaching on the resurrection; and the incident referred to brings in focus Exodus 3:6 : And he (God) said, I AM the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Significantly, Jesus made the argument for the resurrection to turn upon a single verb, AM, and the tense of the verb at that! Such faith in the Scriptures on the part of Jesus should inspire his followers to trust the Bible. It is also significant that Jesus applied these words, I AM, to himself, referring to himself as “I AM” in Mark 6:30; Mark 14:62, and John 18:5; and there can be no understanding of Jesus’ use of this expression except as an affirmation of his Godhead. Naturally, after such a devastating defeat at the hands of Jesus, the questioners withdrew, no more daring to ask any question of the Lord. However, Jesus would turn the tables and ask them a question.

Verse 41 And he said unto them, How say they that the Christ is David’s son? For David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. David therefore calleth him Lord, and how is he his son? Parallels: Matthew 22:41-46;Mark 12:35-37. V. Jesus himself asks his questioners a question. As seen from the parallels, this is an abbreviation of a very significant question which Jesus’ questioners were utterly unable to answer. Its importance merits some further study of it.

1. The question itself. This was simple enough. In Psalms 110:1, which Jesus quoted, David had referred to the coming Messiah as “My Lord,” and, despite this, the most widely received title of the Messiah, and one used throughout Israel in those times, was that which entered into the first verse of the New Testament, “Jesus, the Son of David.” This was the title used by the Syro-Phoenician woman, and the beggar at Jericho. Jesus, therefore, said to the religious leaders, “How can the Christ be BOTH the Lord of David and the Son of David at the same time?”
2. The true answer to the question. AS GOD, Jesus is the Lord of David; and in the flesh, he is the Son of David. In God’s great promise of the Saviour coming into the world, the GOD-MAN who would save from sin, it was mandatory that the prophecies reveal both natures of the Holy One. Implicit in such a revelation was the built-in necessity of apparent contradiction, due to the antithetical natures of God and man. He who was BOTH would naturally possess antithetical attributes.

It is this which led to the Old Testament prophecies that Jesus would be Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, etc., and, at the same time, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. This dual nature of the promised Messiah the Jewish leaders never understood. Their pride led them to dwell upon the more glorious qualifications of the Messiah revealed in prophecy and to rationalize the prophecies of Messiah’s sufferings, rejection and death. They even projected two Messiahs, one the Conquering Hero and the other the Suffering Priest. This misunderstanding of holy prophecy was the undoing of Israel’s leaders, for it led them to reject the Christ. 3. Jesus’ purpose in bringing up this question was apparently that of finding one last means of breaking through their unbelief; but they would not consent to learn anything from him. Not knowing the answer to his question, they nevertheless did not ask him the meaning. VI. Jesus’ question which fingered the precise point of the leaders’ ignorance was scorned by them as something they did not care to know; and in this their inherent evil was glaringly evident. There could be no divine accommodation with such willful and arrogant sinners. The Lord responded to their obduracy by giving the people a warning against them.

Verse 45 And in the hearing of all the people he said unto his disciples, 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; who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these shall receive greater condemnation.How trifling are the things men love. Honorable greetings in the markets of the world, seats at “the head table” at dinners, “the Amen Corner” in churches, medals, titles, a ribbon, a red hat, or a surplice. Looking across nineteen centuries, how insignificant do those special seats at the front of ancient synagogues appear! Yet it was for things like these that the priestly hierarchy of Israel bartered away their love for the Lord of Glory. Nor were such embellishments of their vanity the only trouble with those leaders. With bold selfishness they “devoured widows’ houses.” Just how they did this is not known but there may be a glimpse of this in the parable of the unrighteous judge, who for private reasons heard a widow’s plea; but left in the background is the impression that this instance of “justice” stood isolated in his conduct. Through their influence with such men, the Pharisees had many opportunities to pervert justice. Long prayers … Capping the picture of Israel’s self-serving rulers is this detail of the “long prayer,” uttered on street corners or other public stands, full of hypocritical piety, an affront to God and man alike.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 201. Where did Jesus now do his teaching? 2. Who came against him one day ? 3. State their question. 4. To what did he refer? 5. In answering, what did Jesus ask him? 6. Did they answer it? 7. Was it humanly possible to answer? 8. How many difficulties were facing them ? 9. Why not answer the question correctly ? 10. What did a certain man plant ? 11. To whom did he let it out? 12. Whom did he send at the season? 13. How was he treated ? 14. Tell how many servants he sent. 15. Which did he treat best? 16. Why did he send liis son? 17. How did they reason on the matter? 18. What did they do? 19. State the question Jesus now asked. 20. And the answer. 21. What scripture did this suggest? 22. Who is the stone? 23. Who were the builders? 24. Which fall will be more disastrous? 25. Who made application of all this teaching? 26. They wished to do what with Jesus? 27. By what means did they next tempt him? 28. If successful what would they do to him? 29. With what flattery did they approach him? 30. What did they then ask him? 31. Who was Caesar? 32. What did Jesus perceive in them? 33. For what did he call? 34. What ownership did they admit for it? 35. What things are God’ s? 36. To whom should an owner’ s property be delivered ? 37. How did all this affect them? 38. What did the Sadducees deny? 39. State the question they asked. 40. On what theory was it based? 41. What will not take place after the resurrection ? 42. Will the righteous become angels? 43. What can they not do then? 44. How did Moses show that the resurrection was true ? 45. Why was Abraham said to be living? 46. Who endorsed this teaching of Jesus? 47. Who questioned him next? . 48. Tell the question he asked them. 49. Did they answer? 50. Will you answer the question? 51. Of whom did he warn his disciples ? 52. State what these people craved. 53. Whom did they oppress ? 54. How did they seek to hide it ? 55. What shall they receive for this?

Luke 20:1

1 The priests were a religious group, the scribes were those who copied the law for the people, and the elders were the seniors, members of the Sanhedrin.

Luke 20:2-8

8 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 21:23-27. We should remember that Jesus never evaded answering any proper question, but He knew these people were insincere in their questioning; it was prompted by an evil motive.

Luke 20:9-17

7 The reader will find this explained at Matthew 21:33-43.

Luke 20:18

8 The stone is Christ who had been rejected by the Jewish leaders. The significance of falling on or being fallen upon is explained at Matthew 21:44.

Luke 20:19

9 The priests and scribes properly applied the preceding parable to themselves. They would have tried to do bodily harm to Jesus but for public sentiment.

Luke 20:20

0 The priests thought they could mislead Jesus into saying something that would get him into trouble with the secular government. Spies which should feign means men who were hired to act the hypocrite in pretending to be just men. That means they were supposed to be concerned about the dignity of the government.

Luke 20:21

1 These spies really did know all the things they claimed to know, and their statements were the truth. But their motive in saying them was to flatter Jesus, which they should have known would be a failure.

Luke 20:22

2 In their ignorance of the nature of the kingdom of heaven, they thought Jesus would be opposed to all other governments. Were that the case he naturally would oppose giving them financial aid. Had he answered them to that effect, it would have been ground for accusing him of disloyalty to “the powers that be.”

Luke 20:23

3 Craftiness means trickery which Jesus recognized to be their purpose in the question they asked him.

Luke 20:24

4 Jesus met the situation in a manner that was doubtless unexpected. Instead of answering their question with a direct yes or no, he asked for a piece of the very kind of money that was being used in paying for tilts government’s financial support. He then asked about the image and wording on it, as to whose it was. They said it belonged to Caesar, the ruler involved in their question.

Luke 20:25

5 In their answer they committed themselves beyond recall, for they directly said the whole thing belonged to Caesar, the very thing he was asking people to give him as tribute. No one would say it is not. “lawful” to give to a man what belongs to him. They had said this money belonged to Caesar, hence it would be lawful to give it back to him. And by the same token it would be right to give to God what belongs to him, namely, their religious devotion.

Luke 20:26

6 Could not take hold means they had no reply they could make to the reasoning of Jesus. Marveled is defined by Robinson, “To wonder, to be astonished, to be amazed,” not that they were favorably impressed with the wisdom of the Teacher.

Luke 20:27

7 The Sadducees are described at Matthew 16:12.

Luke 20:28-36

6 See the comments on Matthew 22:23-30.

Luke 20:37-38

8 This is explained at Matthew 22:31-32.

Luke 20:39

9 Since it was the Sad-ducees who had been baffled in their attempt to entrap Jesus, the scribes doubtless found much satisfaction in complimenting Him.

Luke 20:40

0 See the comments about the end of their questioning, and the reason for it, at Matthew 22:46.

Luke 20:41-44

4 See Matthew 22:41-45.

Luke 20:45

5 The audience included the masses of the people and the disciples, but in this part of his speech Jesus was speaking to his disciples.

Luke 20:46

6 Long robes were worn to attract attention, and obtain special salutations in public, such as in marketplaces where many people resorted. Highest seats were the front pews that faced the audience. Chief rooms means favorite places at the table.

Luke 20:47

7 Devour widows’ houses is figurative, referring. to advantages those hypocrites took of the needy and helpless among the people. (See Matthew 23:14.) Greater damnation is explained at the same passage in Matthew.