Read or listen The Gospel of Luke, chapter 20 online (ESV, Bible Gateway)

The Authority of Jesus challenged – Luke 20:1-8

Luke tells of a total of six debates between Jesus and his opponents during Holy Week. Mark says that we are living on Tuesday of Holy Week (Mark 11:19-20). For Luke, the place of the discussions is more important: the temple in Jerusalem (verse 1).

The first controversy concerns Jesus' authority. It was probably also caused by the cleansing of the temple (Luke 19:45-48), which was a clear rebellion against the authority of the priests. But the cause of the dispute was certainly the whole activity of Jesus. In particular, the forgiveness of sins had irritated his opponents many times.

Answering with a question was common in rabbinical discourse (verse 3). Everyone understood that an answer about John the Baptist would also be an answer to the question about Jesus’ authority. At the same time, the question came up for an answer, whether God could speak through anything other than the priests, the scribes, and the temple cult.

Jesus’ opponents, the priestly and lay representatives of the Sanhedrin (verse 1), who were usually on bad terms with each other, began to calculate and the result was that they did not dare to answer anything.

The Sanhedrin had tolerated the activities of John the Baptist because of his popularity. The Pharisees had questioned John about his authority (John 1:19-27), but this had led to nothing. It is clear that the representatives of the Sanhedrin did not believe that John was a prophet, but when the people believed that four hundred years of silence had finally ended, the religious leadership of the people did not dare to openly oppose John.

An honest answer would have been too dangerous (verse 6) – so the only option was to remain silent (verse 7). They chose the easy way out. The first martyr, Stephen, did otherwise: he knew full well that an honest answer would indeed lead to stoning, but he did not remain silent (Acts 6:12-7:60).

The failure of Jesus’ opponents to answer meant that they were not qualified to judge spiritual matters—which would have been the very task of the Sanhedrin. Thus they disqualified themselves for their task. So Jesus did not answer their question (verse 8). It was pointless to answer people to whom the truth meant nothing. Or, in fact, he did answer—with a parable, which is in verses 9-19.

Jesus had already been asked about his authority earlier (John 2:18-22), but then the discussion ended with the questioners misunderstanding him: they thought Jesus was talking about the temple in Jerusalem and not about his own body.

Parable of the tenants of the vineyard - Luke 20:9-19

The parable is based on the idea, well known to Jews, of Israel as the vineyard of the Lord (Isaiah 5:1-7).

"For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts
is the house of Israel,
and the men of Judah
are his pleasant planting;
and he looked for justice,
but behold, bloodshed;
for righteousness,
but behold, an outcry!"
(Isaiah 5:7)

At that time, especially in Galilee, there were many farms that were rented. The wealthy owner usually lived in Rome and collected rent from his farm.

This time, the tenants were not willing to pay the rent. The tenants treat the Master's servants worse and worse (verses 10-12). The owner would have had the law on his side, but he is incomprehensibly patient and finally sends his own son to deal with the matter (verse 13). The tenants kill his son.

The background may be the teaching of the Talmud – the Jewish interpretation of law – that if the ownership of the land is unclear and the tenant has held the land for at least three years, he can claim the land for himself. When one crime, namely non-payment of rent, which at the same time questioned ownership, is added to another crime, namely killing the son, the result could be getting the land for oneself.

Seeking their own interests, the tenants kill the son outside the vineyard (verse 15), as blood would have polluted the land and made it impossible to sell the produce. Jesus also died outside the city (John 19:17, cf. Hebrews 13:12-13, but his death sanctified all mankind).

It was a similar hypocrisy that the Jewish leaders did not want to go to Pilate’s palace, lest they become unclean and therefore could not eat the Passover lamb—but they were not bothered by the false accusations that Jesus was being killed (John 18:28).

The killing of the son finally causes the landowner's patience to run out: he must punish the guilty and give the land to others.

In spiritual life, the message of the parable is clear. Israel has been an unfaithful people of God. The Old Testament could be called a history of apostasy. Now God has sent his only, beloved Son (verse 13 is the same expression as in Luke 3:22, when a voice was heard from heaven at Jesus' baptism). He will be killed and the kingdom of God will be given to the Gentiles (Romans 11:11-12). The parable does not please the hearers (verse 16).

The cornerstone (verse 17) is mentioned in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments (see, for example, Isaiah 8:14, Daniel 2:34, Luke 2:34). One of the passages is just before the hosanna section of Psalm 118 (verse 22, hosanna verses 25-26), which the people had just earlier shouted to Jesus (Luke 19:38).

The messengers of the Great Council understood that they had received the answer to their question (verse 19), but they wanted to act like the tenant farmers of the parable: kill the only, beloved son. But that would not give them ownership of the kingdom of God. Verse 14 shows that Jesus knew of the plan of his opposers to kill him (compare Luke 19:47), but that did not stop them either.

In this chapter, Luke uses three different Greek words for time:
in verse 9 khronos – current time,
in verse 10 kairos – time of day,
and in verse 34 aioon – era.

God gives time to turn to Him – but not indefinitely!

Question about paying tax to the emperor - Luke 20:20-26

In verse 21, Jesus is addressed as a rabbi, a respected teacher. It is surprising how often this type of flattery works among people. The question (verse 22) could not be answered either in the negative or in the positive, in the opinion of the questioners, without causing problems. Apparently they expected and hoped that Jesus would answer "no". Then he could be taken to the Romans as an instigator of rebellion (compare v. 20). Later some of them "remembered" Jesus' answer this way: "...forbidding us to give tribute (tax) to Caesar" (Luke 23:2).

The religious disputes of the Jews would not have caused the Romans to sentence Jesus to death, but that was precisely what his opponents were aiming for (see John 18:31). Therefore, a serious charge, such as rebellion, had to be found that would be acceptable to the Romans. But if Jesus had urged people to pay the tax, then the people would have turned against Jesus.

It was a kind of life tax, which had to be paid in Roman money and the proceeds of which went to the emperor's personal use. The pious Jew had many reasons to object to the tax. There were of course many types of tax money, from the times of many different emperors. They were in both Latin, which was the official language of the empire, and Greek, which was the common language, especially in the eastern part of the empire. At that time, the emperor was Tiberius, who struck the Latin coins with the text: “Emperor Tiberius son of the divine Augustus (/worshipped)”, even on Greek money, Emperor Augustus was spoken of as a god. Such a thing was of course an abomination to the Jews. A pious Jew would not have been allowed to bring such pagan money into the temple area, but some inquirer had it anyway (verse 24).

It would have been more pious to give up such pagan money and pay taxes with it than to keep it for yourself! In fact, the Jews benefited from the great Roman empire, because they were merchants and craftsmen. But they were not willing to pay for it.

The church father Tertullian has given a good interpretation of Jesus' response (verse 25): "Give Caesar money, for therein is his image, and give God your heart, for therein is his image". Compare Genesis 1:27:

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

The Reformer Martin Luther taught that there are two regiments, or governments, in the world: spiritual and and secular. Both are God’s will. Note also that the apostle Paul urged serving the authorities, even though he himself had suffered much at the hands of the Roman authorities (Romans 13:1-8)

Question about the resurrection - Luke 20:27-40

The Sadducees (verse 27) were the majority in the Jewish Sanhedrin. They were the high priesthood and descendants of the priest Zadok, a contemporary of David and Solomon (1 Kings 1:8, 2:35).

At that time the movement was very secular. They did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits (Acts 23:8). They also did not accept the oral tradition compiled by the Pharisees. They considered only the five books of Moses to be holy scripture. Their religion was practically entirely of this nature. It can be said that today's liberal Western Christianity resembles Sadduceanism in many ways.

The Sadducees valued the Jerusalem temple and its worship – after all, they were the highest priesthood and thus gained power. The Sadducees were rulers, not thinkers. They were willing to cooperate with the Romans; this ensured the preservation of their power.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Pharisaism was the only remaining branch of Judaism. The Sadducees' thinking is known only from the writings of their opponents and the Jewish historian Josephus.

Their question seemed to be based on Scripture at first glance (verse 28), but in his answer Jesus showed them that their problem was precisely that they did not know God’s revelation (Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:24). They distorted God's revelation to show it to be false and impossible, just as many atheists do today in their criticism of Christianity.

The Sadducees’ question was related to the Jewish concept of land. They believed that all the land belonged to God. After the entry under Joshua, the Promised Land was divided among the families. The land could not be transferred from one family to another. The land could not be sold, it could only be leased until the next Jubilee (Leviticus 25, every 50th year), when it would revert back to the original family.

Therefore, in cases where a man died childless, his closest unmarried male relative was to marry the widow, and the first-born child was considered the deceased man's child, inheriting his father's property and land. This practice was called brother-in-law or levirate marriage (Numbers 36:1-13, Deuteronomy 25:5-6, see also Ruth 4:1-6).

The Sadducees’ idea was to prove the resurrection impossible—after all, a woman could not have been the wife of all seven husbands in the resurrection (verse 33). The Pharisees were thinking about such questions too. Their picture of the resurrection was largely that the future life would be “an improved version of the present.” They would have replied that a woman would be married to her first husband in the resurrection. The Pharisees taught that children will also be born after the resurrection.

In time, Islam was influenced by Pharisaic teachings about the resurrection. It has been said that one of Islam's strengths is its appealingly accurate depiction of life after death.

Jesus’ answer is quite different: the resurrection is not an extension of this life, but there we will be like angels (verse 36 – we wish Jesus had said more). There is only one family in heaven; we are all children of God.

The Bible does not so much tell us what it will be like after the resurrection, but rather what it will not be like there (Isaiah 25:8, verse 36: no death). Notice here another criticism of the Sadducean doctrine: there are angels.

Finally, Jesus shows the Sadducees that the books of Moses already teach the resurrection: When Moses encountered God at the burning bush, God introduced himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died long ago, but to God all are alive (verse 38). Therefore, there must be a resurrection. Note that in verse 35 Jesus speaks of the resurrection of the saved. This does not justify the idea that there is no perdition.

The doctrine of the teachers of the law was in many respects close to the teachings of Jesus - so it was easy for them to side with Jesus. The Pharisees were on bad terms with the Sadducees. The Sadducees are mentioned only a few times in the New Testament – ​​in Luke only here: they were so far from Jesus that they did not even have arguments with Jesus. At this point, the desire to question Jesus ceased (verse 40).

Son of David and Lord of David – Luke 20:41-44

Now it is Jesus' turn to ask. The rabbis considered Psalm 110 to be a messianic psalm – like other so-called royal psalms of David.

"The Lord says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”
(Psalm 110:1)

Jesus' question is: if the Messiah is a descendant of David - therefore lesser than him - how can he also be David's Lord - greater than him? The answer is simple in itself: the Messiah is the son of David, his descendant, but also the Son of God, in which case he is also David's Lord.

Rabbinic literature remains silent for the next two hundred years on the whole of Psalm 110. They had not thought about it, and they did not want to accept Jesus’ answer to the problem. Note also that when Jesus was questioned by the Sanhedrin about whether he was the Messiah, he answered by specifically referring to Psalm 110 (Luke 22:69).

Matthew says that no one answered Jesus (Matt. 22:36). Jesus again proved their expectation of an earthly Messiah wrong. But when the alternative would have been to consider the Messiah as God who became man, there was no alternative suitable for the Pharisees.

Beware of the teachers of the law! – Luke 20:45-47

In Matthew, the debates are followed by a long list of Jesus' cries of woe to the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-39). Matthew wrote to Jews, but Luke to Gentiles; so he has less need for criticism of the scribes (compare, however, Luke 12:1-3, which also contains criticism of the Pharisees).

Jesus says that the teachers of the law are guilty of three sins: ambition, greed, and self-sufficiency (verses 46-47, cf. Matt. 6:1-6). The formal attire of the teachers of the law included a long robe (verse 46, which is also a type of the priestly stole). Their worship was largely a spectacle, an outward show (verse 46). Light had become darkness (Luke 11:35).

The teachers of the law were not allowed to receive a salary for their teaching, but gifts were possible (verse 47). In return for the inheritances received from widows, prayers were promised (verse 47).

The teachers of the law also did good: they preserved the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and Jewish tradition.