Chapter 20 Luke 20
The Question of Jesus’ Authority (vv. 1-8)
1 One day a when Jesus was in the Temple teaching the people and preaching the Good News, the chief priests and the teachers of the Law, together with the elders, b came 2 and said to him, “Tell us, what right do you have to do these things? c Who gave you such right?”
3 Jesus answered them, “Now let me ask you a question. d Tell me, 4 did John’s right to baptise come from God or from man?”
5 They started to argue among themselves, “What shall we say? If we say, ‘From God,’ he will say, ‘Why, then, did you not believe John?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From man,’ this whole crowd here will stone us, because they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it came from.”
8 And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you, then, by what right I do these things.”
Interesting Stuff:
a Together with the accounts found in the Gospel of Mark, it would seem that the events of 20:1-21:36 all occurred on Tuesday of Passion Week. This ‘one day’ most likely followed the cleansing of the Temple (Monday) which followed the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Sunday).
b These three groups, chief priests, teachers of the Law, elders, made up the Sanhedrin. This thus looked like an official inquiry from the Sanhedrin because Jesus’ recent activities had upset them. They were legally entitled to examine the claims of a new teacher or rabbi. Each rabbi had his certificate or diploma which was usually given to them by a distinguished rabbi.
c ‘These things’ probably referred to the cleansing of the Temple in 19:45-46. Jesus’ action had not only defied the authority of the Jewish leaders but also hurt their monetary profits. They may have been looking for a way to discredit Jesus in the eyes of the people or raise suspicion of him as a threat to the authority of the Romans.
d This was a familiar form of dialogue between rabbis in which a question was answered by another question designed to catch the questioner in his own inconsistency. The controversy here was typical of the kind of challenges thrown at Jesus by his opponents and we see how hostile they were to Jesus and his teachings. Jesus’ question implied that his authority, like that of John’s baptism, came from God. He, however, put the burden of proof on his opponents. They had only two alternatives, that John’s baptism was either God-inspired or men-devised. By refusing to answer, they placed themselves in an awkward position.
Questions:
- What was Jesus doing in the Temple (v. 1)?
2. What question did the chief priests, teachers of the Law and the elders, ask Jesus (vv. 1-2)?
3. What were ‘these things’ that they were referring to (v. 2; 19:45-46)?
4. How did Jesus respond to their question (vv. 3-4)?
5. Why did they find it difficult to answer Jesus’ question to them (vv. 5-7)?
6. How did Jesus respond to their answer (v. 8)?
Summary of Section:
- One day, Jesus was teaching and preaching the Good News in the Temple when the chief priests, teachers of the Law and the elders came up to him.
- They asked Jesus where he got his authority to carry out all that he was doing.
- Jesus answered their question by asking them a question. He wanted them to tell him where John the Baptist got his authority to baptise from.
- They argued amongst themselves about what to say. If they said that John’s authority came from God, Jesus would ask them why they did not believe John. If they said it came from man, the crowd would stone them because they believed that John was a prophet.
- So they told Jesus that they did not know.
Nuggets of Wisdom
- Having reclaimed the Temple for its rightful use, Jesus’ practice now was to teach there daily. His enemies, however, were all out to get him.
- The elders referred to those who came from the more influential families of Jerusalem, mainly the tribal and family heads of the people and the priesthood. They were all, like the chief priests, mainly Sadducees.
- They wanted to portray Jesus as an outsider, not one to be held in high regard. So they tried to shame him publicly by casting doubt on his authority. They were all members of the Sanhedrin and so were well respected by the people. Jesus was in their eyes, a ‘nobody’. He was not a priest, and he had no official role in the Temple.
- However, their attempts backfired when Jesus countered their question with a question on the source of John’s authority. If they were to allow that John’s message originated with God, it would be tantamount to admitting that Jesus’ ministry was itself sanctioned by God because John’s role was to prepare the way for Jesus. If they did not acknowledge John’s message as being from God, they would face mob action.
- In referring to John whom the people accepted as being a prophet sent by God, Jesus was also clearly laying claim to divine authority for himself as well.
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (vv. 9-19)
9 Then Jesus told the people this parable: e “There was once a man who planted a vineyard, rented it out to tenants, and then left home for a long time. 10 When the time came to gather the grapes, he sent a slave to the tenants to receive from them his share of the harvest. f But the tenants beat the slave and sent him back without a thing. 11 So he sent another slave; but the tenants beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him back without a thing. 12 Then he sent a third slave; the tenants wounded him, too, and threw him out. 13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my own dear son; surely they will respect him!’ 14 But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the owner’s son. Let’s kill him, and his property will be ours!’ g 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard h and killed him.
“What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to the tenants?” Jesus asked. 16 “He will come and kill those men, and turn the vineyard over to other tenants.” When the people heard this, they said, “Surely not!” i
17 Jesus looked at them and asked, “What, then, does this scripture mean? j
‘The stone k which the builders rejected as worthless turned out to be the most important of all.’
18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be cut to pieces; and if that stone falls on someone, it will crush him to dust.” l
19 The teachers of the Law and the chief priests tried to arrest Jesus on the spot, because they knew that he had told this parable against them; but they were afraid of the people. m
Interesting Stuff:
f The refusal of the leaders to accept Jesus’ authority led him to tell them this parable that not only clearly affirmed his authority but also pointed to his death and his vindication by God. This parable tends more towards allegory (An allegory is a story in which people, things or happenings have a hidden or symbolic meaning) than most of Jesus’ other parables in that most of the characters or symbols in the story directly represent real people. The vineyard owner represents God; the son, Jesus; the vineyard, Israel; the tenants, the religious leaders; the slaves, the prophets. The Jews would be able to identify Israel as the vineyard because there are many references to Israel as God’s vineyard in the Old Testament.
f Normally an agreement would have been made in which the landowner would receive a fixed amount from the harvest. At the proper time, he would expect to receive his share.
g They might have thought that the landlord had died and the son had come to take possession or that the father had transferred the property to the son. Tenants were known to claim possession of land they had worked for absentee landlords. In a day when the title of land was sometimes uncertain, anyone who had use of land for three years was presumed to own it if no one else claimed it.
h Killing the son in the vineyard would defile the land with the corpse and make it more difficult for them to sell their produce.
i The remark may be taken as expressing horror at the reaction of the owner or at the whole course of events. But in either case, the people probably knew that the application of the story was to the Jewish leaders.
j Jesus pointed them to Scripture because what was written there must be fulfilled. He told them that if the destruction of which he spoke was not to occur, then how would they explain the verse from Ps 118:22?
k Some versions translate this ‘stone’ as the ‘capstone’, literally meaning ‘head of the corner’. This is a large stone which is either set at a corner in the foundations to determine the position of two walls and so shape the whole building, or a stone at the top of the wall binding the whole together and completing the work. Either way it is of great importance. Even though the Jews made the same kind of mistake as the builders and rejected Jesus, God’s purposes would still be fulfilled. In Psalm 118, the reference was most likely to the king (whose victory was being celebrated) who had been looked down upon by the kings who were invading his kingdom.
l The imagery changes. It is now not the value placed on the stone but the destructive power of a stone against flesh and blood. As a pot dashed against a stone is broken, and as one lying beneath a falling stone is crushed, so those who reject Jesus as the Messiah will be doomed. People may reject and oppose Jesus, but it is they who would suffer in the end. This second part of the saying refers to the future judgment they would face.
m They were afraid of provoking a riot which might lead to the intervention of the Romans. When that happened, the privileged would lose their privileges and that was not something that they wanted.
Questions:
- Relate the parable of the vineyard owner and his tenants (vv. 9-16).
2. Explain what you think is the mearning of the parable.
3. Why do you think Jesus told this parable to the people?
4. How did the people react to what they heard (v. 16)?
5. What was Jesus’ response to their reaction (vv. 17-18)?
6. Why did the teachers of the Law and the chief priests try to arrest Jesus?
Why did they not go ahead with their plans to do so (v. 19)?
Summary of Section:
- Jesus told the people the following parable:
a. There was once a man who planted a vineyard, rented it out to tenants and left home for a long time.
b. When the time came for harvest, he sent a slave to the tenants to receive his share from them.
c. The tenants beat the slave and sent him back without a thing.
d. The owner sent a second and a third slave and they did the same thing to them.
e. He finally decided to send his son who was dear to him because he thought that the tenants would respect him.
f. But when the tenants saw the son, they told one another to kill him so that they could take over the property.
g. So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
h. Jesus then asked what the owner would do to the tenants. He answered himself by saying that the owner would come and kill them and turn the vineyard over to other tenants. - When the people heard this, they reacted strongly to how the parable ended.
- Jesus looked at them and pointed out that Scripture must be fulfilled. He quoted the verse about the stone, which the builders rejected as worthless but which turned out to be the most important of all. He was thus referring to himself.
- Then he quoted another verse about everyone who falls on that same stone would be cut to pieces and if it falls on someone, it would crush him to dust referring to the judgment on those who reject him.
- The teachers of the Law and the chief priests tried to arrest Jesus on the spot because they knew that he had spoken the parable against them.
- They could not do so, however, because they were afraid of the people.
Nuggets of Wisdom
- The refusal of the Jewish leaders to accept Jesus’ authority led him to tell this parable. It not only served to affirm his authority as God’s Son but also to warn them of their impending judgment if they continued to reject and to seek to get rid of him.
- Before Jesus had refused to reveal the nature and source of his authority, but now he did so through a parable. Even though the parable was spoken to the people, its main target was reserved for the teachers of the Law and the chief priests. Surprisingly, the message that the parable applied to them was very clear to them. They recognised that Jesus had identified them as the tenants who oppose God and thus they wanted to arrest him. They were unable to do so only because they feared the reaction of the people.
- By asking the people what the Scripture text meant (v. 17), Jesus was pointing to the fact that the sequence of events outlined in the parable was already foretold in Scripture. Jesus, as symbolised by the ‘stone’ would die but he would be exalted in the end. The stubborn, violent tenants, the Jewish leadership, who rejected and killed the son would be destroyed.
- Jesus was also warning the people to distance themselves from the tenants, their own leadership, so that they would not be similarly judged for their part in the death of the owner’s son, i.e., Jesus himself.
The Question about Paying Taxes (vv. 20-26)
20 So they looked for an opportunity. They bribed some men to pretend they were sincere, and they sent them to trap Jesus with questions, so that they could hand him over to the authority and power of the Roman Governor. n 21 These spies said to Jesus, “Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is right. We know that you pay no attention to a man’s status, but teach the truth about God’s will for man. 22 Tell us, is it against our Law for us to pay taxes o to the Roman Emperor, or not?”
23 But Jesus saw through their trick and said to them, 24 “Show me a silver coin. p Whose face and name are these on it?”
“The Emperor’s,” they answered.
25 So Jesus said, “Well, then, pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, q and pay to God what belongs to God.”
26 There before the people they could not catch him in a thing, so they kept quiet, amazed at his answer.
Interesting Stuff:
n Fearing to take action themselves, the Jewish leaders hoped to draw some statement from Jesus that would cause the Roman officials to take action against him and remove him from his contact with the people.
o The Jews were subjected to heavy taxation by the Romans. They had to pay different types of taxes which totalled over one third of a person’s income. A question on taxation seemed certain to them to result in an answer which would bring Jesus into trouble with either the Romans, who wanted the taxes paid, or the Jews, who did not. The question was thus aimed at alienating Jesus from the people who supported him, or alternatively, putting him in a position where the Romans would take action against him.
p This was the denarius. On one side was the portrait of Emperor Tiberius and on the other, the inscription in Latin ‘Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus’. The coin was issued by Caesar and was used for paying tax to him.
q Jesus was stating a principle here, not a compromise. To give what the government requires is the responsibility of every citizen and does not break any of God’s laws.
Questions:
- What did the teachers of the Law and the chief priests do to trap Jesus (v. 20)?
2. How did the spies try to trick Jesus (vv. 21-22)?
3. How did Jesus respond to their trickery (vv. 23-25)?
4. What was the result of their interchange with Jesus (v. 26)?
Summary of Section:
- The teachers of the Law and the chief priests looked for an opportunity to trap Jesus.
- They bribed some men to pretend to be sincere and sent them to trap Jesus with questions so that they could hand Jesus over to the Roman Governor instead.
- The spies asked Jesus whether it was against their Law to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor or not.
- Jesus saw through their trick and asked them to show him a Roman silver coin. He asked them whose name and face was on the coin.
- When they identified the person as the Emperor, Jesus told them to therefore pay to the Emperor what belonged to him, and to pay to God what belonged to God.
- They were so amazed at Jesus’ answer that they kept quiet, unable to trap Jesus at all.
Nuggets of Wisdom
- The parable of the tenants upset the Jewish leaders greatly but because of the people’s favourable attitude towards Jesus, they did not dare use violence against him. Thus they chose another way to discredit Jesus – either by alienating him from the people or by arousing suspicion against him by the Roman authorities.
- The description of Jesus by the agents of the chief priests and teachers of the Law was not to honour him. They wanted to draw attention to the fact that Jesus was indifferent to people’s opinions, and therefore to draw him into showing that same kind of indifference to Caesar.
- They worded their question in such a way as to trap Jesus into having to make a stand of loyalty either to God or to the Emperor. Either way, he stood to lose. If he were the rival king as acclaimed by the people as he came into Jerusalem and he forbade payment, then he would be marked a rebel by the Romans and be executed accordingly. But if he allowed payment, then he would lose face and support from the crowd that had welcomed him into Jerusalem.
- In practice, the Sanhedrin was responsible for collecting the tax on Rome’s behalf. Jesus’ answer left no room for accusation of disloyalty to the Emperor or to God. While not denying having to give back what was owed Caesar, Jesus asserted the more important claim of God on their loyalty and obedience. He was saying that we are citizens both of heaven and earth at the same time. We need to obey the laws of the State we are in except when it comes into conflict with the laws of God.
- Jesus’ answer showed the agents that the logic of their trap was faulty. However, instead of leading them to repentance, it only caused them to wonder in silence.
The Question about the Resurrected Life (vv. 27-40)
27 Then some Sadducees, r who say that people will not rise from death, came to Jesus and said, 28 “Teacher, Moses wrote this law for us: ‘If a man dies and leaves a wife but no children, that man’s brother must marry the widow so that they can have children who will be considered the dead man’s children.’ s 29 Once there were seven brothers; the oldest got married and died without having children. 30 Then the second one married the woman, 31 and then the third. The same thing happened to all seven – they died without having children. 32 Last of all, the woman died. 33 Now, on the day when the dead rise to life, whose wife will she be? All seven of them had married her.”
34 Jesus answered them, “The men and women of this age marry, 35 but the men and women who are worthy to rise from death and live in the age to come will not then marry. t 36 They will be like angels and cannot die. They are the sons of God, because they have risen from death. 37 And Moses clearly proves that the dead are raised to life. In the passage about the burning bush he speaks of the Lord as ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is the God of the living, not of the dead, for to him all are alive.”
39 Some of the teachers of the Law spoke up, “A good answer, u Teacher!” 40 For they did not dare ask him any more questions.
Interesting Stuff:
r The Sadducees are mentioned here for the first time. This is not surprising because they exercised their influence mainly in Jerusalem. They were an aristocratic, politically-minded group willing to cooperate with the Romans. This was what enabled them to maintain their privileged position. They controlled the high priesthood at this time and held the majority of the seats in the Sanhedrin. They did not believe in the resurrection or the afterlife and rejected the oral tradition of the Pharisees (refer to ‘The Sadducees’, p. xiii).
s Jesus would quote from the Pentateuch (refer to ‘The Scriptures and the Traditions’, p. ix) when arguing with the Sadducees since they only accepted the authority of these five OT books. This reference is to the levirate law (from the Latin word levir which means ‘brother-in-law’) where if a man dies without a son, his brother must marry his widow and fulfil his duty as a brother-in-law (Dt 25:5-6). The first son she bears shall carry the name of the dead brother so that his name would continue through the family line. This law is also to protect the rights of the widow.
t Jesus’ questioners had failed to realise that the life to come would be essentially different from this life. This is because the Jews believed that the resurrected life would be the same kind of life as their present one except that their enemies would be overthrown and pleasures would be multiplied. Jesus rejected this belief and pointed out that life in heaven would be significantly different from anything on earth. Jesus spoke only of the saved, not of all the dead. He said three things: (i) marriage does not apply to them (ii) they cannot die any more (ii) they will be similar to angels and are sons of God
u The Sadducees were not popular and many were glad to see them lose their argument with Jesus.
Questions:
- What was the question that was presented to Jesus by the Sadducees (vv. 27-33)?
2. What was Jesus’ reply to them (vv. 34-38)?
3. What was the response of the Sadducees and some of the teachers of the Law (vv. 39-40)?
Summary of Section:
- Some Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection came to Jesus and referred him to the Law of Moses which required a man to marry his brother’s widow who is childless so that she can have children who will carry on the brother’s name.
- They told him a story of a woman who had married the eldest brother of a family of seven brothers. The eldest died without leaving any children. The widow married the other six brothers, one after another because the same thing happened to all seven brothers. Then the woman died herself.
- They wanted to know who would be considered the woman’s husband when the dead are raised to life since all seven had married her. Their intent was to discredit as well as to embarrass Jesus with the absurd story because they thought Jesus would not be able to answer without showing himself to disobey Moses’ Law.
- Jesus told them that those who are considered worthy to be raised from death would not marry in the age to come. They are sons of God and would be like angels and cannot die.
- He added that Moses had clearly proved that the dead are raised to life when he spoke of God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the passage about the burning bush. God is thus the God of the living, not the dead, for to Him all are alive.
- The Sadducees did not dare ask Jesus any more questions. Some of the teachers of the Law were pleased to see the Sadducees lose their argument.
Nuggets of Wisdom
- The Sadducees now joined the teachers of the Law and the chief priests in trying to discredit Jesus and embarrass him in front of the crowd. The issue at stake was not only the nature of Jesus’ authority but also faithfulness to Scripture and the authority to interpret Scripture accurately. For the Sadducees, the Scriptures they hold as authoritative would be the Torah.
- They wanted to trick Jesus by appealing to the authority of Moses. Thus, they made up a ridiculous story that required Jesus to answer the question of whether he followed Moses or not.
- The Sadducees denied the whole doctrine of the afterlife with its rewards and punishment. Here they were trying to ridicule the idea of the resurrection by referring to the levirate marriage. Jesus’ answer was that the people living in the age to come would not die, and therefore there would be no need for a levirate marriage at all.
- Not only that, Jesus went on to point out to them that Moses himself bore witness to the resurrection belief. At his burning bush encounter, he spoke of God as the God of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This implied that they are still alive because God would not have talked about a relationship with people who no longer exist.
- In a masterful way, Jesus turned the Sadducees’ question away from obedience to Moses to one of understanding Moses. They might be obedient to the Law of Moses but they failed to interpret the Law correctly.
The Question of the Messiah’s Authority (vv. 41-44)
41 Jesus asked them, “How can it be said that the Messiah will be the descendant of David? 42 For David himself says in the book of Psalms, v
‘The Lord said to my Lord: w
Sit here at my right side
43 until I put your enemies as a footstool
under your feet.’
44 David called him ‘Lord’; how, then, can the Messiah be David’s descendant?”
Interesting Stuff:
v This was taken from Ps 110:1.
w Jesus was clearing up their misunderstanding of the Messiahship. People who used the title ‘Son of David’ understood the Messiah as someone who would defeat all Israel’s foes and bring in a new kingdom of David. They thought of David’s son or descendant as similar to David in character and achievement. Jesus meant them to understand that the Messiah was not David’s descendant in that sense but that he was Lord over all, far greater than merely another David. If he were merely David’s descendant then why would David, the honoured king, call him ‘Lord’?
Questions:
- What was the question posed by Jesus to his listeners (vv. 41-43)?
2. What was Jesus’ intention in raising that question (v. 44)?
Summary of Section:
- Jesus asked the people how it could be said that the Messiah would be just a human descendant of David when David himself called the Messiah ‘Lord’ in the book of Psalms.
- He was implying that the Messiah was more than an earthly king. As in the parable he had just told, the Messiah was Jesus himself, who is the Son of God.
Nuggets of Wisdom
- It seems most likely that the people saying that the Messiah was a human descendant of David were the teachers of the Law, the legal experts. So here Jesus was again calling into question their authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
- Jesus’ reading of the psalm was that it would be problematic to see David as the ancestor of the Messiah if he called the Messiah his ‘Lord’. Although Jesus did not go further to explain the identity of Messiah, he was implying that the Messiah must be more than just a human descendant of David. It was only later after his death and resurrection that his disciples came to understand how Jesus was honoured as ‘Lord’.
Jesus Warns against the Teachers of the Law (vv. 45-47)
45 As all the people listened to him, Jesus said to his disciples, 46 “Be on your guard against the teachers of the Law, who like to walk around in their long robes x and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplace; y who choose the reserved seats z in the synagogues and the best places at feasts; 47 who take advantage of widows and rob them of their homes, a’ and then make a show of saying long prayers! b’ Their punishment will be all the worse!”
Interesting Stuff:
x The teachers of the Law wore long, white linen robes that were fringed and almost reached to the ground and which they loved to parade around in.
y Public greetings and reserved seats in the synagogues and feasts were marks of importance that were eagerly sought by the teachers of the Law.
z This was a reference to the bench in front of the ‘ark’ where the sacred scrolls were kept. Those who sat there could be seen by all the worshippers in the synagogue.
a’ It was forbidden to teachers of the Law to accept money for teaching. They must, and did, make their knowledge available without charge. But there was nothing to stop people from making gifts to them and this was regarded as a praiseworthy thing. Evidently, some of the teachers of the Law encouraged impressionable widows to make gifts beyond their means. Widows were considered the most defenceless group of the day because they were poor and had no male protectors.
b’ Another thing against them was that they prayed long prayers which were not from the heart. Such prayers gave the impression that they were very religious but they were just pretence in God’s eyes.
Questions:
- Who did Jesus warn his disciples against (vv. 45-46)?
2. What reasons did Jesus give for his warning (vv. 46-47)?
Summary of Section:
- Jesus warned his disciples to be on guard against the teachers of the Law who
a. liked to walk around in their long robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces
b. chose the reserved seats in the synagogues and the best places in feasts
c. took advantage of widows by robbing them of their homes and then made a show of saying long prayers. - Such people, Jesus said, would receive a greater punishment for their dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Nuggets of Wisdom
- Having silenced his opponents publicly, Jesus now went on the offensive against them. He had shown that the teachers of the Law had failed to interpret Scripture correctly. Now he went on to reveal that they had also failed to respond faithfully to Scripture. In so doing, he was warning his disciples against following people such as these.
- Jesus condemned their public behaviour of seeking honour and status among man and neglecting the needs of the most vulnerable group in society, the widows. Worse still, they actually took advantage of this defenceless group of society’s poorest.
- Jesus was pointing out that our condemnation by God would be in proportion to our pride and lack of mercy. Thus the greater our pride resulting in the greater praise of men, and the greater our lack of mercy for the poor, the greater would be our judgment by God.
Copyright © 2020, Pristine World Sdn Bhd.
All rights reserved.