Down to Earth But Heavenly Minded

What does Luke Chapter 20 mean?

In Luke’s account, Jesus has spent the last several chapters teaching the disciples about the kingdom of God (Luke 9:51—19:27). Then He entered Jerusalem like a king (Luke 19:28–40). At that time, He also lamented that His people will not accept Him (Luke 19:40–44). Jesus cleared the Court of the Gentiles so devout non-Jews who had come for the Passover could worship God at the temple, and He taught at the temple daily (Luke 19:45–48).

In this passage, Luke describes how Jerusalem’s religious leaders fight with Jesus over His authority. Among these critics are scribes, priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees. The chapter has a subtle chiastic structure, meaning its themes are mirrored around a midpoint:

A. The religious leaders challenge Jesus’ authority (Luke 20:1–8).
B. Jesus uses a parable to compare His authority to that of the religious leaders (Luke 20:9–18).
C. The scribes and chief priests use the Law to try to discredit Jesus (Luke 20:19–26).
C’ The Sadducees use the Law to try to discredit Jesus (Luke 20:27–40).
B’ Jesus uses Scripture to compare His authority to that of the King David (Luke 20:41–44).
A’ Jesus challenges the religious leaders’ authority (Luke 20:45–47).

A: A group of chief priests, elders, and scribes challenge Jesus’ authority to alter their traditional religious practices. Jesus had cast merchants and money changers out from the temple courtyard (Luke 19:45–46). The chief priests and elders, who likely benefited from those merchants, bring lawyers to challenge Jesus’ authority to do so. Jesus turns the challenge around; John the Baptist told them where His authority comes from; do they believe John? If they say yes, they validate Jesus. If they say no, the crowd, who still thinks John is a prophet, will stone them. Rather than having courage in their convictions, the religious leaders claim they don’t know. Since they’re insincere, Jesus has no reason to give them an answer (Luke 20:1–8).

B: Jesus compares His authority as the Son of God to the authority of the religious leaders. The message of the parable of the wicked tenants is clear. God gave religious leaders the authority to lead His people in worship to Him. When they failed, He sent prophets to get them back on track. But they beat and killed the prophets. Now, God sends His Son. They will kill Him, too. So, God will remove their authority, destroy them, and replace them with better leaders. Jesus’ audience knows He is claiming to be the Son of God (Luke 20:9–18).

C: The scribes and chief priests challenge Jesus’ authority to teach the Mosaic law. They plant spies to ask loaded questions, hoping to catch Jesus in a mistake. One of the spies asks Jesus whether Jews should pay the Roman tax. If Jesus says yes, He will seem to support the Romans over the Jews. If He says no, the Romans can arrest Him for insurrection. Jesus deftly points out that they need to pay Caesar what is due him, but they also need to give God what is due Him (Luke 20:19–26).

C’: Sadducees use the Mosaic law to challenge Jesus’ authority to teach doctrine. The Sadducee sect held to only the first five books of the Old Testament. They also rejected the idea of resurrection of the dead. Attempting to trip up Jesus, they present a puzzle about death and marriage. Jesus responds by saying there is no marriage in death, so their hypothetical situation doesn’t apply. He then uses verb tenses in the Old Testament to show that the patriarchs still exist—they are still “alive”—and God is still their God. With that, the leaders stop challenging Him (Luke 20:27–40).

B’: Jesus compares His authority as the Christ to the authority of Israel’s kings, using a psalm of David. Again, the religious leaders know He’s talking about Himself. In Psalm 110, David seems to speak of both God and someone who ranks above David but not above God; who is this mystery person? How can David call someone both his Lord and his son? Jesus uses this reference to show that there’s nothing irrational about the concept of God’s “Son” being associated with the Messiah. (Luke 20:41–44).

A’: Jesus again challenges the authority of Jerusalem’s scribes: experts in Old Testament law. They are vain, proud, and corrupt. They will be seriously judged. The people should beware of them (Luke 20:45–47).

The religious leaders’ challenges have one purpose: to try to “catch [Jesus] in something he might say” (Luke 11:54). They hope for one of several outcomes. Perhaps they can justify arresting Jesus for breaking the Mosaic law. Or they might trick Him into breaking Roman law. At the very least, they want to humiliate Him in front of the crowds. They learn this is impossible (Luke 20:26). In the end, these enemies resort to false testimony and extortion to destroy Jesus (Mark 14:55–59; John 19:12).

The next chapter begins with a foil for the religious leaders: a faithful, poor, honorable widow (Luke 21:1–4). Then Jesus prepares His disciples for the future, both the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the end times. Luke chapter 22 covers the Last Supper, Jesus’ arrest, and the first of His trials. Luke chapter 23 completes the trials—including one before Herod Antipas—and describes the crucifixion. In Luke chapter 24, the risen Christ stuns the disciples and ascends to heaven.

Chapter Context
Luke 20 is a chiasm about authority. Jesus has entered Jerusalem and cleansed the temple (Luke 19:28–46). Now, the priests and teachers attack Jesus’ authority in religion, law, and doctrine; Jesus defends Himself and shows their sinful lifestyles disqualify them for authority. After holding up a widow as a better role model (Luke 21:1–4), Jesus warns His disciples about the challenges they will face in the coming years, including the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:5–38). The events in Luke 20 are also discussed in Matthew 21—23 and Mark 11—12.

Verse by Verse

Verse 1. One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up

Mark 11 seems to specify that this encounter happened a few days after the triumphal entry. Luke later says, “And every day he was teaching in the temple, but at night he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet. And early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him” (Luke 21:37–38). Jesus is not inside the inner areas of the temple, itself. Rather, the temple site is bordered by porticoes and hallways. There, rabbis can teach whoever is willing to listen. For Jesus, this audience includes some immensely powerful men.

The “chief priests and the scribes with the elders” may include members of the Sanhedrin: the religious authority over the Jews. “Chief priest” is not a title God ordained in the Mosaic law; it likely refers to former high priests and/or priests with notable influence and power. “Scribes” are the equivalent of lawyers; they are experts in the written Old Testament law. Scribes could also be Pharisees: members of a sect fanatical about adherence to a set of traditional laws meant to protect the people from breaking God’s law. However, most of the Sanhedrin are Sadducees: a branch of Judaism which only accepted the first five books of the Old Testament and generally dismissed spiritual or supernatural ideas. “Elders” are influential laymen, most likely businessmen in Jerusalem. The Sadducees and elders have good relations with the Romans and wouldn’t want Jesus to drive them out. The Pharisees are against the Romans, but they are too jealous of Jesus to support Him as a replacement.

The leaders’ immediate purpose seems to be questioning Jesus’ authority to drive out the money changers and merchants who had filled the Court of the Gentiles (Luke 19:45–46). The high priest’s family almost certainly received kickbacks from those merchants; the elders probably owned some of those stands. All three groups have reasons to want Jesus gone.

Context Summary
Luke 20:1–8 begins the religious leaders’ attack on Jesus’ authority. Chief priests, scribes, and elders question Jesus’ religious authority regarding the cleansing of the temple (Luke 19:45–46). In turn, Jesus challenges them to judge John the Baptist, the witness to Jesus’ authority. Afraid of the crowd who believed John was a prophet, the religious leaders refuse to answer. Jesus responds with a parable about the Son of God (Luke 20:9–18). In the mirror image of this segment, Jesus will describe how the scribes’ own sinful actions prove them unqualified to lead (Luke 20:45–47). Matthew 21:23–27 and Mark 11:27–33 also give accounts of this interaction.

Verse 2. and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.”

This occurs during what is often called “Passion Week:” the days between Jesus’ triumphal entry and His crucifixion. Jesus is on the Temple Mount, likely teaching in one of the porticoes. A group of chief priests, scribes, and elders approach (Luke 20:1). These may be members of the Jewish religious council. They’re also the type of men who benefit from the vendors and the money-changers Jesus drove out from the Court of the Gentiles (Luke 19:45–46). Elders are lay businessmen and may have hired the vendors. Those vendors would likely pay the family of the high priest for the privilege of selling necessary sacrificial items to pilgrims. Jesus’ defense of the devout Gentiles has cost them money.

Now, the leaders want to know why Jesus thinks He has the authority to expel the merchants. Jesus could turn the tables and ask about their own authority. Why do they think they can allow the Court of the Gentiles—the one area Gentiles can come and worship God—to be filled with hucksters who cheat worshipers out of their money?

Instead, Jesus discusses authority in a way that threatens what His accusers value most: public perception. He asks them about the authority of John the Baptist (Luke 20:3–4). They are trapped between affirming John—and therefore Jesus—or risking the anger of the people. So, they pretend they have no opinion (Luke 20:5–7).

Verse 3. He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me,

After the triumphal entry, Jesus returned to the Temple Mount. There, He found the Court of the Gentiles filled with crass and corrupt business—merchants selling supplies for sacrifice and money changers exchanging Greek coins for a half-shekel—and a fee—for the temple tax. Jesus responded by driving them out. Not only were they cheating the Jews who had traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover, they were making it impossible for devout Gentiles to approach the temple and worship God (Luke 19:45–46).

A day or so later, Jesus returns to the Temple Mount to teach. Some priests, lawyers, and respected businessmen approach—just the sort of men who benefit from all those vendors. They ask Jesus by what authority He acted (Luke 20:1–2). Jesus cleverly turns the question around. He challenges the men to publicly declare whether they believe the most popular earthly witness to His authority: John the Baptist. Do they think John’s teaching was purely manmade, or do they think it was divine (John 20:4).

John’s baptism was a vow of repentance from sin and dedication to God. These city leaders should be able to affirm John’s baptism; repentance is certainly consistent with the Mosaic law. An added incentive is that the people love John, even though he’s been dead for about three years, and if they reject him, the people might stone them (Luke 20:6).

However, Jesus’ enemies have several problems. First John called them a “brood of vipers” in front of a crowd (Matthew 3:7). More importantly, assigning John’s teaching to God’s will requires them to agree with what John said about Jesus: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). That would mean admitting Jesus’ authority comes from God.

Instead, they claim to not know (Luke 20:5–7). Jesus has proven their insincerity; there’s no reason to answer their question if they lack the conviction to answer His (Luke 20:8).

Luke’s timing is vague, but Mark’s Gospel provides more details (Mark 11:11–15, 20, 27).

Verse 4. was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?”

Jesus is talking to a group of chief priests, scribes, and elders. They are just the sort of men who would have lost money when Jesus drove out the crooked merchants from the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple Mount (Luke 19:45–46). The elders likely owned some of those stalls and gave a gratuity to the family of the high priest; the scribes are lawyers, perhaps there to make sure their clients get what they want (Luke 20:1).

These men desperately want Jesus gone (Luke 19:47–48). They ask who gave Him the authority to run out the merchants (Luke 20:2). If He says God, they can arrest Him for heresy. Instead of naming His authority, however, He names His witness: John the Baptist.

Baptism is a sign that someone wants to be known for following that teacher’s message. John’s baptism is best known as an agreement that one needs to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). The bulk of John’s message, however, is that the Lamb of God is coming, and that this figure is Jesus (John 1:29). John’s purpose is to make a way so that when Jesus arrives, the people will be ready to follow Him and be saved (Luke 3:4–6).

To agree with John’s baptism is to agree with his teaching that Jesus is the Messiah. If Jesus’ accusers disagree, they’re in social trouble. John has been dead for about three years, but his following is strong and very loyal. The crowd around them may stone them. They choose the only option that maintains their dignity: to lie and say they don’t know (Luke 20:5–7).

Verse 5. And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’

A group of Jewish leaders has challenged Jesus, asking who gave Him the authority to drive out merchants and money changers from the Temple Mount. These were businesses from which Jesus’ accusers probably made money. If Jesus says He received His authority from heaven, the Old Testament lawyers can accuse Him of blasphemy. Jesus goes a different direction: He challenges them to declare whether they believe John the Baptist, the witness who claimed Jesus’ authority came from heaven (Luke 19:45—20:4).

This puts the group in a bind. They would love to be able to say that John the Baptist was a heretic. But it is the week before Passover. Jerusalem is filled with hundreds of thousands of Jews, many of whom had once flocked to John and took his baptism of repentance. The love of John is so strong that years later, Paul will meet twelve men in Ephesus who still follow John’s message. As John intended, that message prepared them to accept Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 19:1–7).

Despite how much Jesus’ accusers would like to disavow John, they’re afraid. They’re surrounded by people who are listening to Jesus teach—the same Jesus whom John claimed is the Lamb of God, the Son of God (John 1:29–34). The leaders want Jesus arrested, but they want to not be stoned by the people more (Luke 20:6). So, they will take the least honest and safest approach: to lie about their convictions to avoid trouble (Luke 20:7).

Verse 6. But if we say, ‘From man,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.”

A group of Jerusalem’s religious leaders are in a dilemma. Jesus has driven out merchants and money changers who cheated pilgrims. Most of the victims were Jews traveling for Passover, in need of birds for sacrifices and special coins for the temple tax (Luke 19:45–46). The elders probably owned some of those merchant booths and paid some of the priests for the opportunity. They have asked Jesus who gave Him the authority to cost them so much money and they’ve brought lawyers with them. If Jesus says He got the authority from heaven, they can arrest Him for blasphemy (Luke 20:1–2). Maybe they can even describe it as an attack on the temple itself—it was a capital offense against Roman law to damage a religious structure.

But Jesus, having turned over literal tables at the temple, “turned the table” on this attack. He doesn’t tell them where He got His authority. Rather, He asks a question to establish what they mean by “authority.” He asks if they believe the prior witness to Jesus: John the Baptist. Do they believe in the baptism of John (Luke 20:3–4)? To believe in a teacher’s baptism is to believe in his body of teaching. That would include the part where John called Jesus the Lamb of God, the Son of God, and He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (John 1:29–34).

It would easy for the leaders to deny John as well as Jesus, if not for the people surrounding them, listening intensely. The leaders want Jesus to blaspheme God in front of the crowd. But they are afraid to publicly deny John; the crowd around them loves John nearly as much as Jesus (Luke 7:28–30). Even though John had been killed about three years prior (Mark 6:14–29; Luke 9:9; 20:5), the common people think of him as a prophet, perhaps even the return of Elijah (John 1:21). The leaders want Jesus dead, but not at the expense of their own lives.

So, they prevaricate: they dodge the issue with an evasive, ultimately untrue answer. They say they don’t know (Luke 20:7). They lose their argument and keep the crowd from reacting in anger. Jesus recognizes this as a lack of conviction, and therefore a lack of sincerity. If these men cannot say how they view authority, and cannot say what they really think, there is no reason for Jesus to respond to their questions (Luke 20:8).

And yet, Jesus won’t set the issue aside. He tells a parable about tenants of a vineyard who rebel against the owner. After they kill the owner’s only son, the owner kills and replaces them. The Jewish leaders understand the threat and increase their efforts to destroy Jesus (Luke 20:9–18).

Verse 7. So they answered that they did not know where it came from.

The Jewish leaders know Jesus has outmaneuvered their attempted trap (Luke 20:2–4), and they themselves are now caught (John 20:5–6). Rather than face the truth of their own beliefs, they decide to lie. They pretend not to have an opinion about the ministry of John the Baptist.

Those making the challenge are priests, scribes, and elders in Jerusalem (Luke 20:1). They want to destroy Jesus, but not for the same reason as other groups, such as the Pharisees. Elders are non-priests and non-politicians, likely respected and powerful businessmen. The chief priests may be related to Caiaphas, the high priest. Caiaphas is the son-in-law of Annas, the former high priest. Annas may be the most powerful priest of his age, manipulating the system to try to ensure he has a relative in the coveted position of high priest.

This group is probably angry because Jesus’ actions have cost them a lot of money. Hundreds of thousands of Jews travel to Jerusalem every year for the Passover. Few can afford to bring the animals they need for sacrifice, so they buy them when they arrive. Likely it was the elders who made it easy for them—and profitable for themselves—by setting up vendors and moneychangers in the Court of the Gentiles just outside the temple. Jesus didn’t like that this blocked the way for Gentiles to worship God, so He drove them out (Luke 19:45–46). Not only did the elders lose money, but the family of the high priest lost the gratuity the elders likely gave them.

The critics’ aim is to at least convince the crowd that Jesus has no right to do what He has done. They ask from where He received His authority, presumably referring directly to the expulsion of the merchants. Instead of answering “from heaven,” which would trigger the attending lawyers to arrest Him for blasphemy, He challenges them to respond to His witness: John the Baptist (Luke 20:1–4). This is not a dodge, but a request for the critics to define what they mean by “authority.”

Now, the accusers are stuck. If they say that John was right, Jesus will accuse them of being hypocrites who do not act on John’s message: that Jesus is the heaven-sent Messiah. If the religious leaders say John was wrong, they’ll not only risk losing the business of the people, but they may also risk losing their lives to a crowd who believes John was a prophet. Even now, about three years after John’s death, his following is strong (Luke 20:5–6).

So, the accusers weasel their way out and say they don’t know. This is a lie and an attempt to limit the damage being done. Jesus doesn’t entirely allow them to escape, however. He follows the conversation with a parable that shows they should fear God’s justice more than the crowd’s. If they deny Jesus’ authority, God will take their authority and their lives.

Verse 8. And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

Jesus has abruptly stopped a verbal challenge from Jewish leaders who have come to accuse Him. The leaders want to know who gave Him the authority to drive the merchants out of the Temple Mount. Jesus counters, but not by telling them that His authority is from God. Instead, He challenges them to define their view of authority: specifically, what do they think of John the Baptist? With that step, the hunters have now become the hunted (Luke 20:1–4).

The conversation is happening amid a crowd who has been listening to Jesus teach. John has been gone for about three years, but he’s still extremely popular. And John said that Jesus is the Messiah (John 1:29–34). If Jesus’ accusers say that John’s ministry was divinely approved, Jesus will rightfully counter that they ought to believe in Him. But if the religious leaders deny John, the crowd may stone them. So, they try to avoid the issue by saying they don’t know.

If they refuse to answer, neither will Jesus answer (Luke 20:5–7). This is reasonable: Jesus asked for clarification of their question, and His critics gave no answer. That means they’re not sincere about the topic, and there is no reason to provide them with an answer.

And yet, Jesus will provide an indirect answer. He’ll explain the parable of the wicked tenants. A man rents his vineyard to tenants who decide to keep the land. When the owner sends servants to collect rent, the renters either beat up or kill the servants. When he sends his son, they kill him, too. So, the owner drives out the renters, kills them, and finds new tenants. Jesus ends by saying they are rejecting the very cornerstone of their faith, and that cornerstone will be their deaths (Luke 20:9–18).

Jesus was angry with the merchants because they were cheating the people, but also because they were filling the Court of the Gentiles (Luke 19:45–46). The Jews were supposed to be a blessing to the Gentiles (Genesis 12:1–3), “a light for the nations” (Isaiah 42:6) who introduces them to the Savior of the world. Instead, the Jewish leaders reject the prophets and their Messiah. So, God will drive them out in the Roman attack of AD 70.

Verse 9. And he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants and went into another country for a long while.

The parable of the wicked tenants is the second of six passages discussing authority. In particular, the question is whether it belongs to Jesus or the religious leaders of Jerusalem. Jesus is on the Temple Mount, days after He entered Jerusalem in a style reflecting His rightful place as King of the Jews. The next day, on the Temple Mount, He drove out merchants who were cheating Jewish travelers and blocking the way for Gentiles to worship God. A group of chief priests and elders, who likely profited from those merchants, asked Jesus who gave Him the authority to do so. The inclusion of their lawyers suggests they were waiting for Him to say something against the Mosaic or Roman law. Instead, He turned the question around and caught them in their own trap (Luke 20:1–8).

Jesus isn’t finished, yet. He wants the Jewish leaders to understand the consequences if they do not show good stewardship in the role God has given them. They ought to lead others in right worship of God. If they don’t, God will remove their authority and give it to others. In Matthew’s account, Jesus started this lesson by telling the parable of the two sons (Matthew 21:28–32). Jerusalem’s established leaders are like a son who tells his father he will obey but then doesn’t. God would rather have a son who says he won’t obey but does.

The parable which begins here is similar. A landowner finds tenants to tend his vineyard. The landowner sends servants to collect fruit from the vineyard, but every time the tenants beat the servant and send him away with nothing. Eventually, the landowner sends his son, whom the tenants kill. In response, the owner kills them and brings in new tenants.

In the prophets’ writings, Israel is occasionally referred to as God’s vineyard (Isaiah 5:1–7). In one particularly poignant verse, God says, “Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard; they have trampled down my portion; they have made my pleasant portion a desolated wilderness” (Jeremiah 12:10). This speaks to how the religious leaders of that time had abused the people they were supposed to lead.

To “let” something is to rent it out. The KJV uses the term “husbandmen” instead of “tenants.” A “husbandman” is a farmer or a hired agricultural worker.

Context Summary
Luke 20:9–18 records Jesus’ response to religious leaders who challenged His authority (Luke 20:1–8). This comes in the form of the parable of the wicked tenants. The underlying meaning is that as the Son of God, Jesus has proper authority over religious leaders. However, the leaders of His era will kill Him, and God will destroy them. In the mirrored structure of Luke 20, the parallel argument is that Jesus is also superior to the line of the Jewish kings (Luke 20:41–44). In between, religious leaders foolishly challenge Jesus’ understanding of the Mosaic law (Luke 20:19–40). This passage echoes the records in Matthew 21:33–46 and Mark 12:1–12.

Verse 10. When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, so that they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed.

Jesus is on the Temple Mount telling the parable of the wicked tenants. The lesson begins with a landowner who plants a vineyard and finds tenants to care for it (Luke 20:9). At harvest time, the owner sends a servant to collect some of the grapes. Instead, the hired workers abuse the messenger and throw him out.

In Jesus’ audience are chief priests, lawyers, and elders—businessmen (Luke 20:1). They are the leaders of the people: the tenants to whom God has entrusted His “vineyard.” They are probably angry that Jesus cleaned the Temple Mount of the merchants who made them rich (Luke 19:45–48). The identity of the vineyard is likely the Jewish people, the fruit being God’s followers’ worship and obedience (Isaiah 5:1–7). The servant is one of God’s prophets whom God sends to ensure the leaders are directing their own and the people’s praise and honor to God—that they are living out the righteousness and justice that reflects His character and His commands. God, of course, is the landowner. The tenants send the servant back “empty-handed;” they will not lead the people to God. They’d rather keep the people’s praise for themselves (John 12:42–43).

Occasionally in Israel’s history, kings and priests would listen to God’s prophets. Huldah (2 Kings 22:14—23:3; 2 Chronicles 34:22–33) and Isaiah (2 Kings 19:1–7; Isaiah 37:1–7) are examples of prophets whose words were heard. Often, however, Israel’s rulers so resented God’s will that they beat (Jeremiah 20:1–2) and even killed (1 Kings 18:13) His prophets (Matthew 23:34–37). Stephen mentions this before he is martyred (Acts 7:51–53) in the early days of the church.

In the parable, the landowner continues to send servants and the tenants continue to beat or kill them. Finally, he sends his son, presuming they will show him honor. Yet they kill him, too. In response, the landowner kills the tenants and replaces them. The listeners are incredulous and respond, “Surely not!” (Luke 20:16). They refuse to believe that the comparison applies to them and their abuse of power. Like the kings and religious leaders of old, they behave as if the leaders’ positions are greater than God’s words.

The “time” that has come may mean harvest, but because this is a new vineyard it may have been five years if the owner followed the Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:23–25). The landowner in Jesus’ parable was in “another country for a long while” (Luke 20:9) so there is a sense of the tenants being given ample opportunity to tend to the land as well as ample opportunity to respond to the multiple servants sent.

Verse 11. And he sent another servant. But they also beat and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed.

Jesus is using the parable of the wicked tenants to warn a group of Jerusalem businessmen and high priests. If they do not accept the authority of God’s messengers, they’re going to lose everything (Luke 20:9–18).

In the parable, a landowner sends a servant to collect some of the grapes from tenants who take care of his vineyard. When the first servant arrives, the tenants beat him; they do the same for the second. “Shamefully” means disrespectfully, which was a great offense in an honor/shame culture such as the ancient Middle East. By shaming the servant, they show public disrespect for the servant’s master.

The parable is an allegory: a simplified symbolic representation of other events or persons. In this case, the landowner is God. The tenants are the Jewish leaders (Luke 20:19). The servants are God’s prophets. Being God’s prophet in the days of the Old Testament was dangerous (1 Kings 18:4; Acts 7:51–53).

The job of the prophets was mainly to remind the kings what God wanted them to do: to rule the people justly, encourage God-worship, destroy pagan idols, and rely on God for the nation’s protection. Some kings did this well, but most didn’t. The kings’ sins were a major factor in the dissolution of the northern kingdom of Israel and the Babylonian captivity of the southern kingdom of Judah. It is why the Romans ruled over Israel during Jesus’ earthly ministry.

The Jews had such a long history of abusing God’s prophets that Jesus spends three verses repeating the fates of these poor servants. Matthew 21:35–36 explains that sometimes the servants went in groups, and some of them were killed.

Verse 12. And he sent yet a third. This one also they wounded and cast out.

The third servant is sent but his fate will be no better than that of the first two. Jesus is telling the parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:9–18). A landowner has planted a vineyard. When the vines are ready, he sends servants to his tenants to collect some of the grapes. Instead, the tenants beat the servants and give them nothing.

In the parable, the owner is God, the tenants are leaders, the vineyard is God’s people, and the servants are prophets. God charged the leaders to guide the people rightly. They were to teach a proper relationship with the Lord, and in return they would receive the Lord’s blessings. To ensure they were rightly leading the people, God occasionally sent prophets. But Israel’s leadership does not show a history of treating prophets well. There are a few exceptions, such as Isaiah with king Hezekiah, but Isaiah was probably murdered by Manasseh, Hezekiah’s evil son.

Jesus drives the point home, here, by mentioning three servants. All of them suffer the same fate. In Matthew’s account, some of the servants are killed (Matthew 21:35). Finally, the landowner sends his son. The tenants kill him, too.

At that point, the landowner is finished. He drives the tenants out, kills them, and finds replacements. The Jewish leaders who are listening know Jesus is speaking about them: He’s saying God is going to remove their authority as leaders of His followers and replace them. That just makes them want to destroy Jesus more (Luke 20:19).

Verse 13. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.’

The parable of the wicked tenants is in the form of an allegory, where each character represents something true. A landowner plants a vineyard and hires tenants to farm it. When the vine is mature enough, he sends servants to collect some of the grapes. The tenants beat and kill (Matthew 21:35) the servants and send them away empty-handed. So, the owner sends his son.

In much the same way, God established how He ought to be worshiped. He chose a people to worship Him. He designated leaders for that people. Then He sent prophets to remind the leaders how they should worship Him in their time and context. The leaders beat and killed the prophets. So, God sends His Son.

The tenants think if they can get rid of the son, they can keep the fruit of the vineyard. But after they kill him, the owner destroys them and finds new tenants. Likewise, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day think if they can kill Jesus, they can keep the authority of their positions. Instead, God destroys them and the church is made without them.

Jesus uses this parable to answer and warn a group of chief priests, scribes, and elders. They had asked Jesus what gave Him the authority to drive merchants and money changers from the Temple Mount (Luke 19:45–46). Jesus turned the question back on them, demonstrating their hypocrisy (Luke 20:1–8). This parable, however, gives His answer: He is the Son, sent by His father. They may kill Him, but God will destroy them.

Verse 14. But when the tenants saw him, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him, so that the inheritance may be ours.’

In this parable, the tenants have taken care of the owner’s vineyard since he planted it. That might have gone on for five years (Leviticus 19:23–25). They have patiently tended the vines to maturity, waiting for the first grape harvest. Just as the grapes are ready, a man shows up, claiming to work for the owner. He says he’s there to collect some of the harvest to take back to the owner. The tenants are angry. Perhaps they think the owner has been gone too long. Or, that they’ve put so much work into the vineyard that they have earned this harvest. They beat up the servant and force him out empty-handed (Luke 20:9–11).

Another servant shows up. They do the same to him. Then another, and they do the same. Now the owner’s son has come. This presents an opportunity for the hired laborers. The owner is apparently too busy to come himself, but if they get rid of the son, they can keep the vineyard (Luke 20:12–13).

That attitude simplifies the wrong-headed thinking of Jerusalem’s religious authorities. God established His nation and chose leaders to ensure the people worshiped Him alone. Throughout the years, God sent prophets to keep the leaders on track. Often, the leaders saw the prophets as a threat to their authority, so they beat and killed them.

In the moment Luke is recording, God’s Son is right there, on the Temple Mount. Like the tenants, the Jewish leadership is jealous of Jesus. He is drawing the people away from them. But if they kill Him, maybe things will go back to normal—or so they think—and they can continue receiving the honor and the money of the people.

In the parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:9–18), Jesus explains that that’s not how the story ends. God will not ignore these corrupted leaders; He will destroy them. Then He will find other men to lead His people. Despite a warning that could not be clearer, the leaders continue to work out how they can destroy Jesus (Luke 20:15–20).

Verse 15. And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?

This is the climax of the parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:9–18). The owner of a vineyard has sent servants to his vineyard and its hired hands. He expects the servants to bring back some of the harvest. However, the tenants have beaten or killed all the servants (Matthew 21:35). Finally, the owner sends his son. The tenants think if they kill the son, they will inherit the vineyard. In Jewish culture, patriarchs did sometimes adopt a servant as his heir (Genesis 15:3), and the owner has been in another country for a long time (Luke 20:9).

Jesus is telling this parable on the Temple Mount to a crowd that includes chief priests, scribes, and elders (Luke 20:1). These men are the religious, legal, and civil leaders of the Jewish people. Jesus has interrupted their smooth rule of Jerusalem, positions which earn them both honor and money. If they can get rid of Him, they can go back to reaping the rewards of their labor.

Jesus warns that their plan will fail. The owner of the vineyard will return and avenge his son. Then he will find new tenants to keep his vines. And in the same way, God will destroy the corrupt Jewish leaders who refused to guide the people in worship of their Messiah. Instead, He will find others—like lowly fishermen (Mark 1:16–17) and even Gentiles (Acts 15:17)—to lead His people. This makes the priests and scribes want to kill Jesus even more (Luke 20:16–19).

Verse 16. He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “Surely not!”

Jesus is finishing the parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:9–15). Hired workers have been caring for a vineyard for several years. Seeking to keep the harvest for themselves, they beat or killed all the servants sent by the landowner (Matthew 21:35). Now, they’ve killed the landowner’s son, thinking they will inherit the vineyard. Instead, the owner finally returns, kills them, and finds new tenants.

The crowd quickly gets the meaning of Jesus’ parable. A group of priests, scribes, and elders have challenged Jesus’ authority (Luke 20:1–8). They represent the “tenants” whom God has chosen to lead His people in right worship of Him. For hundreds of years, God has sent prophets to remind kings, priests, rabbis, and civil leaders to direct the people’s attention to God and to walk in His ways. But the leadership likes the attention—and the money—they take from the people. So, God will destroy the priesthood, the temple, and Jerusalem. He will choose new leaders, like fishermen (Mark 1:17), doctors (Colossians 4:14), and sellers of purple cloth (Acts 16:14), and expand His vineyard into the Gentile nations (Acts 15:17).

The crowd is incredulous. They like how Jesus defends them against corrupt leaders. But to destroy them all, and to install new leaders seems extreme. They cannot imagine such a thing could ever happen. What the common people did not realize is that those same scribes and priests are already conspiring to kill Jesus, the Son. The telling of this story builds the scribes’ and priests’ murderous resolve even more (Luke 20:19–20).

Verse 17. But he looked directly at them and said, “What then is this that is written: “‘The stone that the builders rejectedhas become the cornerstone’?

This establishes the moral of the parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:9–16). In the story, a landowner hired workers to care for his vineyard. When he sent his son to collect some of the grapes, the tenants killed him, thinking they would now inherit the land. In the same way, God has established religious, legal, and civil leaders to ensure the people properly worship Him and live according to His ways. Now, He has sent His Son. Those leaders will kill His Son to keep control over the people: religiously, legally, and civilly.

After the tenants kill the son, the landowner returns, destroys the tenants, and finds new farmers for his vineyard. About less than forty years after the Jewish leaders kill Jesus, God allows the Romans to destroy the temple and Jerusalem and send the surviving priests and scribes into exile.

Jesus doesn’t give specifics, but the people can’t understand how God could take the Jewish leaders out of power. Jesus explains that it’s because of Him. He is the cornerstone of God’s kingdom. God’s kingdom is built on Him. The Jewish leaders can reject Him all they want, but it makes no difference. He quotes Psalm 118:22. The stanza talks about how the righteous will enter the gate of Yahweh, that God is their salvation, it is His doing only, it is marvelous and worthy of rejoicing (Psalm 118:19–24).

The Jewish leaders may kill the Son, but that doesn’t stop God’s plan. He is the foundation of a new manifestation of God’s people: the church (1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20).

Verse 18. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

Jesus finishes His warning to the Jewish leaders, as well as to the Jewish people who are listening. In the parable of the tenants, Jesus gives an allegory. Throughout history, the people of Israel had rejected God’s prophets and would soon kill His very Son. The leaders will do so to maintain their authority and to keep gathering money and honor from the people. But if they reject God’s Son, God will reject them, removing their authority and destroying them. He will replace them with better tenants (Luke 20:9–16; Matthew 21:41).

When the crowd reacts, Jesus responds by quoting Psalm 118:22: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” Jesus was always the cornerstone. His death and resurrection make it possible for people to be God’s people. The builders—the Jewish leaders—don’t have to reject Him. Some won’t (Mark 15:43; John 3:1–3; Acts 6:7).

Everyone who rejects Christ, however, will be destroyed (John 3:36). Jesus’ death and resurrection will prove to be an obstacle to the Jewish people. It’s a concept they cannot get past to continue in their journey with God (1 Corinthians 1:23).

The chief priests and the scribes understand what Jesus is saying. They know He is telling them God is going to destroy and replace them. Instead of taking the warning to heart, they continue their mission to destroy Jesus (Luke 20:19–20). But they’re afraid of the people. So, they try to turn the people against Him by challenging His authority, first in His legal interpretations (Luke 20:21–26) and then in His doctrinal teachings (Luke 20:27–40). Jesus counters by proving the authority of the Christ—Himself—is greater than even King David (Luke 20:41–44).

Verse 19. The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people.

Scribes, chief priests, and elders approached Jesus and asked Him where He received the authority to drive the merchants and money changers from the Temple Mount. The chief priests and the elders probably had financial interest in those vendors. Jesus’ response was so shaming that apparently the elders—powerful businessmen in Jerusalem—bowed out of the conversation (Luke 20:1–18). Jesus is a minor threat to their businesses but a major threat to the religious authority the scribes and priests hold.

The scribes and priests understand the cutting truth of Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:9–18), which only heightens their desire to get rid of Him. But arresting Him would disenfranchise the very people they’re trying to win back. So, they wait quietly for a chance to entrap Him into breaking the Roman law (Luke 20:20).

In His parable (Luke 20:9–18), Jesus described a landowner who planted a vineyard and hired tenants to care for it. When the vineyard was ready for harvest, the owner sent several servants to collect some of the produce. Instead, the tenants beat and/or killed the servants. Eventually, the owner sent his son and the tenants killed him. In response, the owner returned, killed the tenants, and hired replacements.

Jesus’ opponents understood His subtext. He’s saying that God granted them—Jerusalem’s religious leaders—authority over His peoples’ expression of worship; over the centuries their predecessors have beaten and killed the Lord’s prophets. The generation represented in this passage will kill His Son. So, God will destroy them and establish new leadership.

It’s human nature to be offended when we’re rebuked about sin. Sometimes, we take the correction as disrespect, and become so angry that we ignore the warning and end up fulfilling it. Jesus told His attackers that if they kill Him, God will destroy them. Rather than being cautious, they spitefully work ever harder at finding a way to kill Him.

The opposition to Jesus from Jerusalem’s leadership is an unusually ecumenical project. Scribes, sometimes called “lawyers,” are experts in the Mosaic law. They can be Pharisees or Sadducees. Matthew typically identifies them as Pharisees. Most priests of the era are Sadducees. But Matthew says they also bring in Herodians: those loyal to the tetrarch over Galilee and who tolerate the Roman occupation (Matthew 22:15–16). The Pharisees and Herodians are political enemies; the Pharisees and Sadducees are religious rivals. It’s rare that all three factions join behind support of the same cause.

Context Summary
Luke 20:19–26 continues a long discussion about authority. Chief priests and Old Testament lawyers try to force Jesus into a difficult choice: follow unpopular Roman law or show rebellious loyalty to the Jewish nation. If the trap succeeds, either Jesus’ disciples will reject His authority or the Romans will arrest Him. Jesus disarms the trap by pointing out that the people are responsible for following both principles. Next, the Sadducees challenge His authority on doctrinal matters but fail so miserably Jesus’ attackers withdraw (Luke 20:27–40). This interaction is also recorded in Matthew 22:15–22 and Mark 12:13–17.

Verse 20. So they watched him and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might catch him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor.

Jesus has told a parable which local religious leaders rightly interpret as a warning directed at themselves: He is the Son of God and if they kill Him, God will destroy them. They become so angry that they try harder to kill Him. A major problem for these spiteful leaders is that Jesus is immensely popular with the common people; the leaders crave the crowd’s adoration, not their anger (Luke 20:9–19).

Since Jesus came, the religious leaders have had to work harder to maintain the goodwill of the people. They can’t compete against miracles of healing and meals for thousands of people. Just recently Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43–45). Their scheme not only requires killing Jesus, but it also means taking out Lazarus as well (John 12:9–11).

The topics at hand are power and authority. The leaders want to trick Jesus into either disenfranchising the people or breaking a law which would result in arrest by the Romans. Jesus recently cleared the temple court (Luke 19:45–46); the religious leaders don’t like that, but when they tried to challenge Jesus’ authority, He threatened their standing with the crowd (Luke 20:1–8).

The leaders try again. The only way they see to destroy Jesus without dirtying their hands is to trick Him into breaking the Roman law. During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the people and lands of Judea are under occupation by the Romans. Even though Jews have received special permission to worship their own God, they still need to pay the census tax. The assumption behind their impending trick (Luke 20:22) is that Jesus must choose one of two bad options: to endorse Rome, thereby alienating the Jews, or to speak against the occupiers, thereby being viewed as an enemy of Rome.

The scribes are from the Pharisee sect and they send in their disciples as spies. Herodians who have been conspiring with the Pharisees to destroy Jesus since the beginning of His ministry also join in (Matthew 22:15–16; Mark 3:6). The priests are mostly Sadducees. The only popular sects not mentioned are the zealots, who want to conquer the Romans with violence, and the Essenes, semi-mystics who generally stick to the desert.

First the Pharisees (Luke 20:19–26) and then the Sadducees (Luke 20:27–40) discover Jesus can’t be tricked. The priests later try to find people willing to falsely accuse Him (Mark 14:55–56). When the “witnesses” can’t agree, their last resort is coercing the Roman governor to execute Jesus by threatening accusations of treason (John 19:12–16).

Verse 21. So they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God.

The Jewish religious leaders are tempting Jesus to declare authority over the Romans. The lawyer-teachers and priests are jealous of the crowds who are following Jesus because He raised Lazarus from the dead (John 12:9–11). They seek a way to discredit Jesus’ authority without angering the common people. If Jesus overtly broke Roman law, their enforcers would do the dirty work of Jesus’ enemies (Luke 20:19–20).

To that end, the scribes and chief priests have planted spies in the crowd listening to Jesus’ teaching. At the opportune time, a spy asks Jesus a seemingly innocuous question. In that culture, rabbis and students discuss hypothetical situations all the time. The difference here is that if Jesus answers wrong, He will be encouraging the crowd to break the Roman law.

The questioner is likely a follower of the Pharisees or Herodians. The flattering introduction is meant to make the man sound like one who respects Jesus. The assumption is that this will soften Jesus up so He won’t notice the ramifications of the question. The question is, “Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:22).

The assertion that Jesus shows “no partiality” is part of the trap. Based on recent history, Jesus is willing to condemn the Herodians, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. The questioners hope that their question will pressure Jesus to antagonize Rome this time.

“Tribute to Caesar” just means the poll tax or census tax. It doesn’t refer to any requirement to worship Caesar, which Jews of that era were not required to do. The underlying question is whether Jesus agrees that Jews should submit to Rome—which is what the Herodians and Sadducees would say. Alternatively, He might suggest the Jews refuse to pay the tax in a show of Jewish independence—which is what the Pharisees and Zealots would prefer.

Jesus’ enemies aren’t interested in an actual solution. They simply want Jesus to tell the people to revolt against Caesar, or to cave to the nation’s hated oppressors.

Verse 22. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?”

Luke chapter 20 contains several altercations about authority. First, representatives of Jerusalem’s leadership asked Jesus who gave Him authority to clear the Temple Mount of vendors and money changers (Luke 19:45–46). Jesus countered by forcing them to define their sense of “authority.” He did this by asking if they believed John the Baptist acted under the authority of God. If they said no, the crowd would turn against them. If they said yes, they would have proven themselves hypocrites who deny John’s claim that Jesus has the authority of God. Faced with an impossible choice, they gave an evasive, dishonest answer and retreated (Luke 20:1–8).

Jesus followed this with the parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:9–18). The story implied that God gave the religious leaders authority, but they rebelled to the point of beating His prophets and killing His Son. Soon, God will destroy them and give their authority to others.

The scribes and chief priests know Jesus is talking about them, so they try to trick Jesus into assuming authority over Caesar and the Roman law. Should Jews recognize the authority of Rome by paying the census tax? If Jesus says yes, it sounds like He is against the idea of a free Israel. He will lose the loyalty of the people. If He says no, He is breaking the Roman law and can be arrested (Luke 20:19–21).

Jesus explains that this is a false choice. Roman taxes and worship of God are not mutually exclusive. The Jews owe the Romans the tax because Rome is their civil authority. But they also owe God their worship and obedience. They need to pay both debts (Luke 20:23–25).

Verse 23. But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them,

Jesus is on the Temple Mount teaching a crowd. Someone shows Him honor by saying, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God” (Luke 20:21). Then he poses the question: “Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:22). That is, is it consistent with the Mosaic law to pay the census tax to the Romans?

This style of philosophical discussion with a rabbi was common in Jesus’ era. Examples of these debates are recorded in the Gemara: an important work of Jewish writing preserving varied interpretations of the Torah and the Oral Law. The text is something like commentary, theological discussion, debate, and a modern blog rolled into one.

The flattering opening and the philosophical question seem to invite Jesus to speak freely—even carelessly. But Jesus knows what’s happening. The questioner is a plant. The scribes and chief priests are angry at Jesus’ suggestion that God will destroy them if they kill Him (Luke 20:9–18). The questioner is a disciple of the Pharisees (Matthew 22:15–16). He isn’t asking for a benign, lively debate; he’s trying to trap Jesus.

If Jesus seems to endorse the Roman tax, the crowd will react as if He approves of the occupation of Judea and Galilee. If He says it’s not good to give tribute to Caesar, He’s encouraging the Jews to break the Roman law. In one case, He alienates the people. In the other, He’s at risk of being arrested. The religious leaders would be happy either way.

Jesus knows this isn’t a true-or-false question, however. The Jews owe taxes to the civil authority God has placed over them: the Romans. But they owe something to God, too, which is not contrary to that obligation. They need to pay both debts (Luke 20:24–25).

Verse 24. “Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar ‘s.”

Jesus is defusing a trap set by His enemies. The Pharisees and chief priests are upset about a parable Jesus has recently given. His gist was that these religious leaders were going to kill God’s Son—Jesus—and God was going to destroy them and give their authority to someone else. Adding insult to injury, Jesus made this declaration to a crowd of the very people the religious leaders think should be listening to them. In response, the leaders have planted some of their own disciples to join the mass of people listening to Jesus’ teaching. They’re looking for an opportunity to get Jesus to say something that will get Him arrested (Luke 20:9–20; Matthew 22:15–16).

The set-up is subtle. The planted spy first gushes about Jesus’ integrity and wisdom. Then he asks a question that seems like an opening to a harmless philosophical debate: should the Jews pay the Roman census tax (Luke 20:21–22)? This is the Passover when Jewish men need to pay half a shekel for the temple tax. How is it right that they should have to pay Caesar?

Jesus knows what’s going on. The underlying question isn’t about taxes; it’s about whether Jews must respect Caesar’s authority. If Jesus simply tells them they need to pay the tax, He will appear to approve Rome’s occupation of the Promised Land, rejecting the idea that Israel should be free. If He simply says Jews should not pay the tax, He’s calling on Jews to break Roman law. Either way, He’s speaking in front of a crowd of witnesses.

Jesus asks for a coin. Ideally, Jews of that era would only do business with shekels. Roman coins, like the denarius, were imprinted with the faces of royalty, far too like a graven image for Jewish tastes. But the coin is presented immediately, showing that members of the crowd do use Roman coins. They need these for daily trade. They also use Roman roads and enjoy the Pax Romana—the relative peace in the Roman Empire that makes trade and travel possible. It is because they use Roman coins that the money changers were on the Temple Mount; Jewish people didn’t even carry the half shekels they needed to pay the temple tax.

Jesus says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Luke 20:25). He’s telling them they owe Caesar. They owe the local secular government for what it does making it possible to carry such coins. But He also says the people must give “to God the things that are God’s” (Luke 20:25). They enjoy the privileges of living in the Roman Empire, but they are also responsible for worshiping and obeying God.

Part of Jesus’ response is a challenge. Do the people really do this? Or do they merely come to Jerusalem for the Passover when they must, but live like pagan Romans the rest of the year?

Verse 25. He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar ‘s, and to God the things that are God ‘s.”

This is Jesus’ response to a trick question posed on behalf of His enemies. They hope to force Jesus into one of two mistakes: to alienate the common people by endorsing the hated Roman empire, or to violate Roman law and subject Himself to arrest. The man who asked the question (Luke 20:20–21) followed either the Pharisees or the Herodians (Matthew 22:15–16; Mark 12:13). The Pharisees resent the Roman occupation, although not to the point of violence like the Zealots. The Herodians support Herod Antipas and have little problem with the Romans. The nominal question is whether Jesus supports “tribute to Caesar:” the census tax (Luke 20:22). It’s a fitting time for the question because it’s nearing Passover, when male Jews must pay the half-shekel temple tax.

Jesus says the tribute belongs to Caesar; the Jews owe money to the literal and symbolic government. Then Jesus effectively tells the people they should meet both obligations. The Jewish people need to obey Rome as their civil authority, put in place by God (Romans 13:1–7), as long Rome’s commands do not directly contradict God’s laws (Acts 5:29). Paying taxes and allegiance to the Lord are not either-or issues.

Many people today find this hard to accept. Obviously, we’d prefer Jesus to say, “no, you should not pay taxes.” But that’s not the only challenging aspect of His response. The implication of His comment distinguishes between real religious persecution and simply being asked to follow policies we don’t like. In most cases, secular rules and regulations don’t contradict faith, either blatantly or by implication. But when those don’t align with preferences, we bristle and want to resist under the pretext of “faith.”

We should resist the temptation to claim “faith” as a blanket excuse for ignoring secular authority. At the same time, the opposite error is condemned: to ignore God’s expectations because of worldly concerns. Rather, we are to give God His due. We fail that obligation when we disobey God due to secular concerns: that obeying God would be too controversial, unconventional, uncomfortable, inconvenient, unprofitable, and so forth.

Both mistakes inappropriately blend distinct issues, which Jesus gently separates here. Properly worshipping God does not require using every nuance we prefer. When laws complicate preferences regarding faith or worship, that is not the same thing as religious persecution. The fact that law or culture might cause problems for those who obey God is not good reason to set aside spiritual truth. Insisting that these two sides must be in contradiction is often the result of a lack of creativity, a lack of perspective, or a desire for power and authority.

God never says that following Him will not come with a cost (Luke 14:25–33). For the Jewish people alive during Jesus’ earthly ministry, it included the need to pay two taxes.

Verse 26. And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but marveling at his answer they became silent.

Jerusalem’s chief priests and scribes have been trying to trap Jesus. They hope He’ll encourage the people to break Roman law. They ask Him if Israelites should pay the census tax to Caesar. Part of the underlying question is whether they should make a public display of loyalty to their Roman conquerors, or should they maintain loyalty to their God? Jesus counters the false dilemma by saying Israel owes a debt to Rome as their civil authority. But Israel also owes a debt to God. They need to fulfill both debts—and the two are not mutually exclusive (Luke 20:19–25).

Jesus’ accusers want Him to defy Rome’s authority in front of the crowd to provide witnesses to Jesus’ crime. During the trials after Jesus’ arrest, the hand-picked witnesses will not be able to coordinate their lies (Mark 14:55–56). Eventually, the priests will settle on extortion. They’ll infer that if the local governor doesn’t execute Jesus, it means he affirms Jesus as king: treason against the Roman Empire (John 19:12–16).

Mark 12:13 points out the scribes are members of the Pharisees: religious leaders who follow the Jewish Scriptures and add the Oral Law. They want Israel to be free of Rome but are not willing to engage in open violence like the Zealots. Herodians are also present; this group is less religious, supporting the appointed puppet king, Herod Antipas, and appreciating that Rome gives him authority. As different as the two sects are, they have been working together to destroy Jesus since the beginning of His public ministry (Mark 3:6).

So far, the priests, Pharisees, and Herodians have failed miserably. Next, the Sadducees take their turn. They follow only the Torah, not any of the Pharisees’ extra laws. The Sadducees are more worldly and generally have a good relationship with Romans. Most of the priests and members of the local ruling council are Sadducees. One distinction is that they do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They know Jesus does, so they’ll try to catch Him in a logical paradox regarding death and marriage. They want to destroy His authority to speak on doctrinal issues, showing the crowd He is not a worthy teacher. Jesus destroys their argument, instead, and they retreat as well (Luke 20:27–40).

Verse 27. There came to him some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection,

Modern Judaism involves multiple groups with widely varied beliefs. The same was also true in Jesus’ era; during His earthly ministry He interacted with various political and religious perspectives depending on the faction involved. However, most of Jesus’ recorded interactions are with a particular group: the Pharisees, along with their Old Testament lawyers, called “scribes.” In that time, Pharisees could be found wherever Jewish people lived. They used their piety to win the approval of the common people. The Pharisees followed the Mosaic law plus a set of regulations written after the Babylonian captivity. This “Oral Law” claims to clarify—and expand—the Law of Moses. Pharisees did not approve of Rome’s occupation of Judea but were too jealous of Jesus’ popularity to trust Him to free the Jews. Among their spiritual beliefs was resurrection of the dead: that faithful Jews of years gone by would one day enjoy God’s blessings.

Other than the most basic aspects of Judaism, the Sadducees were opposites of the Pharisees. They lived primarily in and around the urban environment of Jerusalem. Sadducees followed the five books of Moses, but no other Old Testament writings. They had no use for the Pharisees’ extra-biblical Oral Law. They considered Pharisees an unreasonably progressive group. Spiritually, Sadducees were much more worldly and utilitarian. They did not accept the resurrection of the dead nor the immortality of the soul. Their sect was friendly with the occupying Romans because of the financial benefits. Scholars believe most of the priests in Jesus’ era were Sadducees.

This chapter began with local leaders challenging Jesus’ authority to clear merchants and money changers from the Court of the Gentiles. Part of their motive was to discredit Him in front of the crowd; Jesus knew this and reversed the trap, presenting a dilemma that threatened to turn the crowd against His critics. Then He told a parable warning that His enemies were going to kill the Son of God and face judgment (Luke 20:1–18).

Next, priests and Pharisees (Matthew 22:15) tried to trick Jesus. They tried to force a decision between two terrible options. First was appearing to revere the pagan emperor; this would make Him break the Mosaic law. The other was honoring Moses while appearing to violate Roman law. Jesus defused the challenge by explaining that Jews needed to follow both non-conflicting obligations (Luke 20:19–26).

The Sadducees have seen religious and legal traps fail. So, they try something theological. They provide a scenario that seems to say that if the resurrection of the dead is true, women will have multiple husbands in eternity. Jesus disputes the foundation of their argument—as there is no marriage in eternity—and then uses the words of God as recorded by Moses to prove that death is not the end (Luke 20:28–40).

Context Summary
Luke 20:27–40 records the Sadducees trying to discredit Jesus’ authority to teach. They plan to present a paradox about marriage and the resurrection of the dead. Leaders of other religious sects have already failed to embarrass Jesus regarding the law and civil responsibilities (Luke 20:19–26). Jesus easily explains away the Sadducees’ argument using the very text which their sect reveres: the Torah. He continues with proof that the Christ has authority over David and warns the people to be wary of the scribes’ hypocrisy (Luke 20:41–47). This debate is also recorded in Matthew 22:23–33 and Mark 12:18–27.

Verse 28. and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man ‘s brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.

The Sadducees are a Jewish sect that follows the Mosaic law and does not believe in the resurrection of the dead (Luke 20:27). Their representatives are trying to catch Jesus in a theological paradox. It is days before the crucifixion, and Jesus is teaching in the temple court. Pharisees, lawyers, and chief priests have already tried to discredit Him by presenting unanswerable puzzles. All of them have failed (Luke 20:1–26).

Their “question” is really a challenge which supposedly demonstrates the absurdity of resurrection. Attempting to prove that Jesus is not a good spiritual authority, the Sadducees ask about the tradition of levirate marriage with respect to resurrection of the dead. Levirate marriage was a common cultural practice found in the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Land, along with fertility, was one of God’s greatest blessings to the Jews. Inherent in the possession of land was the continuation of a man’s genetic line.

The most detailed example of levirate marriage is found in the story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38). Judah, one of Jacob’s sons, gave his daughter-in-law to a younger brother when the older son, her husband, died. That son died also, and neither had produced an heir. Judah refused to give his third son to Tamar; he claimed to be waiting for the son to mature. Tamar quickly realized this was a lie. Eventually, she tricked Judah into impregnating her, and he admitted he had not treated her fairly.

The Sadducees present a similar situation about a woman who legitimately married multiple men prior to her own death. In their heightened example, a woman consecutively marries seven brothers and still has no sons. The Sadducees will eventually ask, “In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be?” (Luke 20:33).

Verse 29. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died without children.

The Sadducees are trying to discredit Jesus and His teachings, using what they see as an absurd implication of belief in resurrection (Luke 20:27). They base this on the idea of levirate marriage. In their scenario, a woman marries the oldest of several brothers, but he dies with no children. As the Mosaic law dictates (Deuteronomy 25:5–6), she marries the next youngest brother, who is obligated to provide her with a son who will inherit his brother’s place in the family. But he dies as well. This repeats over and over, until she has married seven brothers before herself passing away.

The Sadducees pose the question of which brother will be the woman’s husband after the resurrection. It’s not really a “question,” but a claim that the situation is ridiculous. The thought of a woman with seven husbands is unfathomable, as is the thought of a man sharing his wife with his six brothers. In their minds, this proves that Jesus’ teaching about the resurrection is silly, so they shouldn’t follow Him.

Like other critics before them (Luke 20:1–26), these men are trying to pull the common people away from Jesus. Too many are starting to follow Him. The Sadducees are so wrapped up in their sectarian and cultural beliefs that they can’t see a simple truth that destroys their argument: that there is no marriage in heaven.

Verse 30. And the second

From the time of Abraham until Joshua, the Israelites were nomads. While settling in some places for brief periods, the only land they owned was the burial place of Sarah (Genesis 23). The “Promised Land” is just that: land that God promised to give to the Israelites as an inheritance. The ownership of land by tribe, clan, family, and sons was an important part of the culture and the identity of Israel.

A man dying without a son to inherit land was seen as a tragedy. If he had daughters, they could at least marry within the tribe and their husbands could hold the land in his name (Numbers 36). Otherwise, they Israelites practiced “levirate marriage.” Under this process, a younger brother would marry his older brother’s childless widow with the intent of producing a son—who would be considered the child and heir of the deceased brother. Then, the ownership of the land would continue down the original husband’s line (Deuteronomy 25:5–6).

The Sadducees are a religious sect that honors the Mosaic law but does not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They are attempting to use levirate marriage to show that Jesus’ teachings—such as resurrection—are false (Luke 20:27–33). They propose this scenario:

A man marries a woman, dies with no heir, and so she marries the next younger brother. That brother dies with no heir, and so forth until the woman has been married to all seven brothers but never had children. Given that scenario, the Sadducees ask, which brother is her husband after the resurrection? Only one—so the other six were false? All of them—so she’s married to seven men at once? The real point isn’t about levirate marriage, polygamy, or even the resurrection of the dead. It’s the Sadducees’ attempt to discredit Jesus.

However, the Sadducees have based their argument on a faulty assumption: that “marriage” is a concept that exists in heaven. In fact, it does not.

Verse 31. and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died.

Jesus is teaching in the court around the temple. Local religious leaders, jealous and fearful of His popularity, are trying to discredit Him using religious, legal, and theological paradoxes. So far, they’ve not only failed, but they’ve humiliated themselves (Luke 20:1–26).

Now comes the Sadducees’ turn. They don’t believe in the resurrection of the dead, but they know Jesus does. They value the Mosaic law, which includes the practice of levirate marriage. If a married man died before his wife could conceive an heir, his line would die and he would be dishonored. The cultural answer, which God incorporated into the Law as “levirate marriage,” was for the deceased man’s brother to marry the widow; their first son would be the original husband’s heir (Deuteronomy 25:5–6).

The Sadducees combine the two concepts: a woman marries, but her husband dies with no heir. She marries his next-oldest brother, but he dies with no heir. This continues through seven brothers. Then, she dies. If the resurrection is true, which brother is she married to? All of them? Just one? This is not really a question as much as a claim: that the concept of resurrection is ridiculous (Luke 20:27–33).

In Jesus’ era, interactions like this were common. Rabbis and students would ponder thought experiments, attempting to better understand and apply Scripture. The problem here isn’t the question itself, but the motive in which it’s asked. The goal is not enlightenment. It’s to prove Jesus is not worth following.

Of course, Jesus was and is exactly who He claimed to be. He is worth following. And fallible humans can’t trap the Son of God in a false paradox.

Verse 32. Afterward the woman also died.

Chief priests and Pharisees have tried to discredit Jesus by questioning the source of His authority and His views on paying taxes to a pagan government (Luke 20:1–26). The Sadducees set a smaller, tighter trap. They want to prove that Jesus’ teaching about the resurrection of the dead is inconsistent with the Mosaic law. The Law of Moses—the first five books of Scripture—is the foundation of the nation of Israel and the identity of the Jewish people. If the Sadducees make it appear that part of the Law and one of His teachings—resurrection—are incompatible, the Sadducees will win back the hearts of the people.

The law in question is “levirate marriage.” This practice meant that if a man dies married but childless, his widow is to marry his brother and their first child will be the first man’s heir. Their thought experiment suggests a woman who marries a man, but he dies childless. So, she marries his next brother; he also dies childless. Then a third, and a fourth, and so on through seven brothers (Luke 20:27–31). Then she dies.

Their question is, “In the resurrection…whose wife will the woman be?” (Luke 20:33).

Under most circumstances, this discussion would be legitimate. Rabbis and their students would debate such questions regularly. Jesus plays along, despite their insincerity. First, He explains that their question doesn’t even make sense: there is no marriage in eternity. Then, He uses their own preferred authority of Moses and the Patriarchs to prove that resurrection is true. His answer is so clever and convincing, no one dares to ask Him anything more (Luke 20:34–40).

Verse 33. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife.”

This verse is the point where members of the Sadducee faction spring their philosophical trap on Jesus. He is on the Temple Mount, teaching His disciples and whomever else wants to listen. Religious leaders have been throwing out questions, trying to show the crowd that His teaching is wrong and the people shouldn’t follow Him. First, they asked about who gave Him authority. He countered by threatening to reveal their sharp disagreement with the common people (Luke 20:1–8). Next, they asked Him if they should pay taxes to Caesar. He told them they should honor both Caesar and God (Luke 20:19–26).

The Sadducees continue the pattern of attempting to discredit Jesus without understanding potential flaws in their own argument. They tell a story about a woman whose husband died with no children. Following levirate marriage laws (Deuteronomy 25:5–6), she marries his brother to hopefully have a child who can inherit her first husband’s birthright. The brother dies, as well. So, she marries the next. And then the next. In all, she marries seven brothers but never has a child. Then, she dies (Luke 20:27–32).

The Sadducees are trying to prove that the Mosaic law is incompatible with the resurrection of the dead. The assumption is that a woman can’t be married to seven men. But this woman married seven, and after the resurrection they’re all alive. So, whose wife is she?

Jesus points out that their scenario requires a false assumption: that there is marriage after the resurrection. There isn’t (Luke 20:34–36). Once the woman dies, her marriages are fulfilled and resolved (Romans 7:2–3). This is not because they had no meaning, but because the purposes of marriage don’t apply to the post-resurrection world.

Turning simple rebuttal into a devastating counter, Jesus then uses the Mosaic law and the Patriarchs to prove the resurrection is true (Luke 20:37–40).

Verse 34. And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,

The Sadducees are trying to trap Jesus in a theological paradox. They do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They know that Jesus does; He regularly talks about the judgment people will receive after they die (Matthew 5:21–22).

What the Sadducees do believe in is the Mosaic law. And they believe Jews are responsible for doing what is right. This includes practicing levirate marriage. If a man is married and dies childless, his brother is responsible to marry his wife and have a son in his name (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). They are using this system while attempting to trap Jesus. They present a hypothetical scenario in which a woman marries seven brothers, one at a time, but remains childless as each one dies. Then, she dies. If the resurrection of the dead is true, to which brother is she married (Luke 20:27–33)?

Jesus patiently answers their question: none of them. Now, on earth in this age, sons—male offspring of a family head—marry. But if they are found worthy of resurrection, they don’t. There is no marriage in the age of the resurrection. They are like angels in that regard. It’s not that marriage is meaningless, or unimportant. Rather, it’s that “marriage” doesn’t apply to the post-resurrection experience (Luke 20:35–36).

The Sadducees had hoped to expose Jesus as a teacher with nonsensical beliefs, and therefore not worth following. Like many skeptics today, they failed to see errors in their own worldview. They also ignored the ramifications if Jesus is right. Because if Jesus is right, no matter our doubts, misunderstandings, or possible errors we find in Scripture, there is always an answer.

The ESV says, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.” Other translations say women are given in marriage. Good arguments could be made for either representation.

Verse 35. but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,

Jesus disarms an attack from the Sadducees with this statement. They are trying to show that a major post of Jesus’ theology, the resurrection of the dead, is inconsistent with the Mosaic law. Their proof scenario is a woman who follows the practice of levirate marriage, marrying seven brothers in turn with no child. If they all rise from the dead, whose wife will she be (Luke 20:27–33)? As those who rejected resurrection, the Sadducees considered this an absurdity and evidence that there could be no future life for the dead.

Jesus explains that the woman won’t be anyone’s wife after resurrection. Neither will the men be anyone’s husband. There is no marriage in the resurrection. The meaning and purpose of marriage are applied in earthly life, not in eternity. The Sadducees’ assumptions about life after death are inaccurate, and correcting that error nullifies their challenge (Luke 20:34).

And yet, Jesus will not stop there. The Sadducees might not accept His claims about marriage. But they are bound to accept what’s written in the Law of Moses: the first five books of Scripture. Jesus will use the Mosaic law to prove the Sadducees wrong about resurrection. God told Moses that He “is” the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This used the present tense, despite being stated hundreds of years after those patriarchs had died. God is the God of the living, not the dead. So, the patriarchs must be alive (Luke 20:37–38).

In Matthew, Jesus prefaces His answer by saying, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). The Sadducees’ failure is greater than they can admit. Jesus has used the law they claim to follow to prove they will be resurrected. And if they are resurrected, they will be judged. The Sadducees don’t believe God will judge and reward people after they die. Jesus has proved them wrong. And, still, they will conspire to kill Him.

Verse 36. for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Jesus is explaining some of the foundational changes God-followers will experience when they are resurrected. God-followers will receive glorified bodies (1 Corinthians 15:20–23, 42–49). Death and Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire, the second death (Revelation 20:14). Because they cannot die, they are like angels, and because they are like angels, they cannot marry (Luke 20:35). The progression of thought seems strange to a modern western reader. Yet extra-biblical Jewish writing states that angels don’t marry or eat.

The Bible frequently uses the father/son motif to describe someone who follows and emulates another. The Old Testament mentions the “sons of God”: angels or demons who share God’s nature of being spirit (Job 1:6). Jesus told the religious leaders they were not Abraham’s children because they wished to kill Him for speaking the truth. Instead, they were sons of the Devil who murders and lies (John 8:39–44).

Here, Jesus is saying the resurrected will prove to be sons of God because they will live for eternity and have a different relationship with others—one not based on marriage and marriageability. Marriage is all about earthly concerns; it has no application when everyone is immortal, glorified, and in the presence of God.

Jesus is talking about this because the Sadducees have given Him a challenge. They wish to prove Jesus an uneducated teacher, particularly regarding resurrection of the dead (Luke 20:27–35). Jesus is explaining that part of their problem is they don’t understand what it means to be resurrected. They think it’s exactly like life on earth.

His next argument comes from Moses, whom the Sadducees revere as the giver of their beloved law. Moses wrote that God called Himself the “God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (Luke 20:37, cf. Exodus 3:6). How could God be the God of people who had died hundreds of years before? God did not say He “was” or “had been” the God of those men. He is the God of the living, so at the time of Moses’ commissioning, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must have been alive: the Torah demonstrates that people do not cease to exist after death, making the concept of future resurrection supportable (Luke 20:38).

Verse 37. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

The Sadducees are trying to disprove Jesus’ teaching about the resurrection of the dead. They use a law in the Torah—which they deeply value—to show the Mosaic law is incompatible with resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead or any type of afterlife. If the resurrection is not true, then Jesus’ ministry, which is largely based on the call to repent and avoid God’s judgment, can be called into question. And the people who are crowding around Him on the Temple Mount, listening to His teaching, should go back to following the Sadducees, instead (Luke 20:27–33).

Jesus is referring to Exodus 3:6. Moses had been keeping the sheep of his father-in-law and saw a bush that was on fire but not consumed. The angel of the Lord inside the bush revealed Himself as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” This is not the clearest Old Testament text about the resurrection of the dead. That would be Daniel 12:2: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” But the Sadducees are defined by their love of the Torah—the first five books of the Scriptures—which Moses wrote and which includes the book of Exodus. They dismiss the importance of texts such as those of Daniel. As with the chief priests, scribes, and elders (Luke 20:1–8), Jesus uses what these religious leaders claim to believe to uncover their own hypocrisy.

The inclusion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob isn’t meant to just list off the significant patriarchs. These are the men to whom God gave His covenant (Genesis 12:1–3; 15:1–21; 26:1–5; 28:13–15), but they did not see its fulfillment (Hebrews 11:13–21). If they have not experienced the fulfillment of God’s promises, they cannot remain dead. “Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him” (Luke 20:38).

Verse 38. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.”

A sect of ancient Judaism, the Sadducees, are trying to prove that Jesus does not properly teach the Mosaic law. Their tactic attempts to prove that the practice of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5–6) makes resurrection of the dead absurd. Jesus corrects their misunderstanding: there is no marriage in heaven (Luke 20:27–36). But there is a bigger issue at hand.

Matthew starts Jesus’ answer with His introduction: “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). The Sadducees don’t believe God controls the world. They think things happen through humanity’s obedience or disobedience to God’s law. If the Jews obey the Law, things will go well for them. If they don’t, they could be sent into exile again.

Jesus’ ministry is based on the understanding that God will judge sin. John the Baptist, Jesus’ herald, made that concept the cornerstone of his own ministry (Luke 3:3). The people must repent of sin against God or face judgment. The Sadducees don’t believe in the resurrection of the dead, nor in any sort of afterlife.

They are wrong about their understanding of God. God is involved in His world and His people. He is powerful enough to resurrect the dead. He is holy enough to judge unrepentant sinners and gracious enough to forgive the repentant.

Furthermore, the Torah that the Sadducees claim to adore proves the resurrection. God introduced Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). But the patriarchs had been dead for over four hundred years. How could the Creator of the world be the God of the dead? He can’t. He is only the God of the living because He is life.

Therefore, the patriarchs were resurrected. And, someday, the Sadducees will be, too. All live “to him”: God is life itself so His people must be alive.

Verse 39. Then some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.”

It was common for teachers to pontificate, debate, and argue over theological issues on the Temple Mount. During Passover season, tens of thousands of pilgrims would have looked on. Here, the Jewish religious leaders are worried that Jesus will draw these crowds away as He has so many in Galilee. They have been attempting to discredit Him by presenting riddles and rhetorical traps.

The Sadducees are the last to enter the discussion. They want to prove that Jesus’ theology about the resurrection of the dead is wrong. They give Jesus a hypothetical situation about a woman who has been widowed seven times and has no children. If people rise from the dead, whose wife would she be (Luke 20:27–33)?

Jesus tells them they don’t understand what resurrection is really like. People will live forever; like the angels, they will not be married. In response to their greater disbelief of the resurrection, He points out that hundreds of years after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God told Moses He was still their God. How can the God of life be the God of the dead unless they were brought back to life (Luke 20:34–38)?

The Sadducees have no answer. In fact, the scribes—whether of the Pharisee sect that did believe in the resurrection or of the Sadducee sect—were impressed by Jesus’ response. Matthew 22:33 says the crowd was “astonished at his teaching.” Mark indicates a scribe who saw Jesus’ adept response asked Him about the greatest commandment (Mark 12:28–34); that scribe replied to Jesus’ response in a way that demonstrated He was “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). Matthew shows a lawyer of the Pharisees asking the same question as a test (Matthew 22:34–35). From this point on, the religious leaders stop trying to discredit Jesus in front of the crowd (Mark 12:34; Luke 20:40). Their silence allows Jesus to present a riddle of His own and then He warns the disciples—and the crowd surrounding them—to be careful of the religious leaders. If their lives don’t reflect a love of God and others, their teaching isn’t worth listening to (Luke 20:41–47; Matthew 22:34—23:39; Mark 12:35–40).

Verse 40. For they no longer dared to ask him any question.

Jesus and His followers receive a slight reprieve. Over the week before Passover, Jesus has been teaching on the Temple Mount. First, however, He had to clear it of the merchants and money changers who filled the Court of the Gentiles (Luke 19:45–46). Local religious leaders had been trying to get rid of Him for years (Mark 3:6) and saw their opportunity. The Temple Mount was the territory of the priests. The city elders probably hired the merchants. Along with the scribes—experts in the Mosaic law—they were powerful people in Jerusalem and their kind made up most the Sanhedrin: the local ruling council.

When they confronted Jesus about His authority to clear the courtyard, they likely assumed their own authority would exceed whatever He could produce. But His answer forced them to define their sense of “authority.” They wanted to discuss authority, so what was their view of John the Baptist? Did they agree with John? Jesus’ accusers were afraid to give an honest answer. If they admitted they didn’t agree with John, the crowd would turn against them. But agreeing with John would imply accepting John’s words that God the Father gave Jesus His authority. They withdrew their question (Luke 20:1–8).

Next, the scribes and chief priests sent in spies to try to catch Jesus in a potential capital offense. They asked Jesus if Jews should pay taxes to Caesar. If Jesus said yes, He might come across as tolerant of pagan worship and unsupportive of Jewish national freedom. If He said no, perhaps the Romans could arrest Him for sedition. Jesus asked them for a coin; someone quickly produced one with Caesar’s inscription on it. That proved their own hypocrisy. They use Roman money; they also use Roman roads and the Roman army for safety during travel. Many of them couldn’t have gotten to Jerusalem for Passover if not for the Pax Romana. They should pay to Caesar what is Caesar’s but also to God what is God’s (Luke 20:19–26).

Finally, the Sadducees give Jesus a riddle. This Jewish sect doesn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead; their hypothetical situation attempts to prove the resurrection is illogical. Jesus corrects their assumption about life after death and then turns to Moses’ account of meeting God. God claimed to be the God of the Patriarchs who had died hundreds of years before. How can God be the God of the dead (Luke 20:27–38)?

The religious leaders see they are defeated; there is no trapping Jesus with their questions. If they want to destroy Jesus, they’ll have to do their work away from the eyes of the crowd.

Verse 41. But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David ‘s son?

David’s own words become part of how Jesus counters the teachings of local religious leaders. The Pharisees (Matthew 22:41) fail to grasp the authority of the Christ over the line of Jewish kings. David was the greatest of the Jewish kings and wrote extensively about the coming Messiah—his descendant (2 Samuel 7:12–13). Given that, what does it mean that David called the Christ—the same one called his “son”— his “Lord” in Psalm 110:1? The ending point of Jesus’ statement is that David refers to the Messiah as “Lord.”

Matthew gives more context about the interaction: “Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?’ They said to him, ‘The son of David’” (Matthew 22:41–42).

Luke chapter 20 can be read as a “chiasm:” a mirrored series of themes. This short passage partners with the parable of the wicked tenants (Luke 20:9–16). Jesus teaches daily in the temple courtyard (Luke 19:47; 21:37–38). A group asked Him who gave Him the authority to clear the vendors and money changers from the Court of the Gentiles (Luke 20:1–8). Jesus told a parable to show that as the Son of God, He has authority over the religious leaders. In the parable, a landowner leased his vineyard to tenants. Rather than paying their dues, those tenants mistreated the owner’s messengers. Eventually, the owner sent his son, and the tenants killed him. For that, the landowner returned, killed the tenants, and replaced them with others.

Jesus finished that story by warning His audience that if they reject the person God gave authority, they will find themselves rejected by God (Luke 20:17–18). The religious leaders understood Him: Jesus claimed He is the Son of God and the religious leaders are false teachers (Luke 20:19). Here, Jesus again speaks about the divine authority which comes through His role as the Son of God.

Context Summary
Luke 20:41–44 describes how Jesus shut down religious leaders challenging His authority in front of a crowd at the temple. Jesus fills their silence with His own riddle: if David calls the Messiah—his descendant—”Lord,” who really has the authority? The parallel passage in the mirrored arrangement of this chapter is Jesus showing He has authority as the Son of God (Luke 20:9–18). Next, Jesus claims the scribes’ lifestyle proves they don’t deserve the authority to teach (Luke 20:45–47). Jesus’ question to the religious leaders is also in Matthew 22:41–46 and Mark 12:35–37.

Verse 42. For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, “‘The Lord said to my Lord,”Sit at my right hand,

Jesus is bringing His conversation with the religious leaders back around to authority. Here, the topic is specifically the authority of the Messiah: the “Christ” or Promised One. In the parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus claimed that God gave Him authority as His Son (Luke 20:9–18). Now, He reminds the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41) that David declared submission to the Christ even though the Christ is David’s own descendant (2 Samuel 7:12–13).

Psalm 110 is among the most-often quoted psalms in the New Testament. Jesus recites the first verse here:

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

Those words have inspired much discussion and debate. Who is speaking? Who is the addressee? What is the occasion? Who do the words “LORD” and “Lord” refer to? The first phrase is “The LORD says to my lord…” which uses the Hebrew terms, “YHWH [says to my] adōni.” YHWH is the proper name of God (Exodus 3:15). Adōni can just mean “lord,” a person of a higher rank than the speaker; a modern English equivalent might be “sir.”

David is the Jewish people’s greatest, most beloved king. Jesus raises the question of how David could acknowledge an authority between himself and YHWH. Scholars attempt two means of deflecting the idea that someone outranks David. The first is that the psalm is David’s coronation blessing for Solomon. By describing Solomon as his “lord,” he is transferring authority. This seems to fit all but the point where the object is called “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4). The second interpretation claims verse 1 is spoken by David’s servant or scribe about David. The prologue, “A psalm of David,” is waved off by saying it merely references the fact David wrote most of the psalms.

Jesus’ interpretation is not so subtle: “For David himself says.” Jesus says that David acknowledged an authority figure between himself and YHWH. Even if David wrote the psalm in honor of Solomon’s coronation, Jews of Jesus’ day would never consider Solomon greater than David. David considered the Messiah—his descendant (Luke 20:44)—greater than himself. So, if David submitted to the Christ, the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41)—who have no official standing, religiously or civilly—should, too.

Verse 43. until I make your enemies your footstool.”’

Jesus continues to quote Psalm 110:1. That Old Testament segment is difficult to untangle. The speaker is David, but he refers to someone in authority between himself and God. The word translated “LORD,” in small-caps, of Psalm 110:1 is YHWH—the personal name of God. The word translated “Lord” is adōni and means “sir” or “master.” Whom would David call “master”? But the “Lord” of Psalm 110:5 is a different word: Adōnai.

Many consider Psalm 110 to be a coronation hymn David wrote as he declared Solomon king. God certainly made Solomon’s enemies his footstool. He had the most peaceful reign of any king of Israel. As Psalm 110:2 says, Solomon ruled in the midst of his enemies.

By using one verse of the psalm to reference the Messiah, Jesus infers the other verses apply, as well. It won’t be until the writing of Hebrews, however, that the idea of the Messiah as “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” is fleshed out (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7). Psalm 110 describes David’s descendant as an idealized king and a priest. Solomon doesn’t fulfill that description, as no Jewish king was also a priest. A priest-king would certainly outrank David, even if the priest-king descended from David.

The Pharisees (Matthew 22:41) have no answer (Matthew 22:46). The people are delighted (Mark 12:37). Jesus isn’t finished, though. He immediately follows with a warning about the religious leaders. Luke’s version is short (Luke 20:45–47). Matthew’s goes on for an entire chapter (Matthew 23). The scribes’ attempts to discredit Jesus and their ungodly, prideful lifestyles reveal the fact that their ways lead to the death and utter destruction of their followers (Matthew 23:15). Their “righteousness” is shamed by the faith of a poor widow (Luke 21:1–4).

Verse 44. David thus calls him Lord, so how is he his son?”

While Jesus teaches on the Temple Mount, various groups of religious leaders attempt to discredit His authority and His teaching. Each attempt fails miserably. Once they all admit defeat, Jesus presents His own riddle regarding Psalm 110:1. Scripture says that the Christ will be a descendant of David: his “son” (2 Samuel 7:12–13). So why does David call this same figure “Lord” (Luke 20:41–43)? David is implying that the Christ must be greater than himself.

There’s an interesting application in Jesus’ discussion. At that time, the Jews understood the Messiah to be a military leader who would rescue the people from Roman rule and make Israel independent again. David fits this image as he spent most of his life protecting the Israelites from the Philistines and other peoples. David’s “son” could be expected to do likewise. But Jesus points out the Messiah is greater than this Davidic representation.

In the New Testament, speakers and writers often used part of an Old Testament passage to represent a larger part, much like how we might quote a line from a movie to infer the tone of the scene. Jesus’ emphasis is on Psalm 110:1, wherein David recognizes an authority besides YHWH. In Psalm 110:4, however, YHWH identifies this figure as “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” The Messiah is more than a warrior-king; he is a priest-king. The Jews had no priest-kings; priests were from the tribe of Levi and kings were from the tribe of Judah.

And yet, the Old Testament mentions one priest-king: Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–20). Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, thereby submitting all his descendants, including the Davidic line of kings and the Levitical priesthood, to this priest-king (Hebrews 7:4–10). Psalm 110:4 identifies David’s authority as above even Abraham and his priesthood above the descendants of Aaron.

Hebrews explains why the Messiah must be greater than the Levitical priests. The Levitical priests are fallen and even the most pious cannot offer sufficient sacrifices for the people’s sins. Only a “high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” can perform the sacrifices we need (Hebrews 7:26). Only David’s adōni (Psalm 110:1) and Adōnai (Psalm 110:5) can be king and priest; only He can save the people politically and spiritually (Hebrews 7).

Jesus isn’t just showing His theological prowess at the expense of the Pharisees. He’s foreshadowing the meaning of His death.

Verse 45. And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples,

It is the week before Passover and Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus goes daily to the Temple Mount to teach His disciples and anyone else who cares to listen (Luke 19:47; 21:37–38). Religious leaders listen, too, trying to trick Jesus into breaking either the Mosaic or Roman laws (Luke 19:47–48). No matter what they throw at Jesus, He easily rebuffs their attempts (Luke 20:1–38).

The confrontations have been so one-sided that the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and priests cease their attacks (Luke 20:26, 39–40). That doesn’t mean Jesus is done. First, He shows how king David admitted he was subject to the Christ (Luke 20:41–44). The religious leaders know Jesus is applying the concept of the Christ—the Messiah—to Himself. Now, He goes on the offense. Narrowly, Jesus is speaking to His greater group of disciples, but Jews from all over the Roman Empire and Persia are listening. His message is simple: don’t trust the scribes.

“Scribes” are the religious equivalent to lawyers: experts in the written Scriptures and discussions of Judaism. They can be Pharisees or Sadducees. Scribes of the Pharisees know all the Jewish Scriptures as well as the extra-biblical Oral Law which their predecessors developed to refine those concepts. Sadducees concentrate on the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Unlike the Pharisees, they don’t bother with the Oral Law.

The scribes have been at the forefront of the attacks against Jesus. When the scribes and chief priests felt too afraid of the people, they sent spies to try to trap Jesus (Luke 20:1, 19–20). They presented religious, civil, and legal riddles, and Jesus answered them all. Now, it’s His turn, and He’s not so subtle. His criticism here is not of religious experts of all types, but of the self-aggrandizing scribes of Jerusalem. In Matthew 23, both scribes and Pharisees are indicted.

Context Summary
Luke 20:45–47 records Jesus responding to religious leaders questioning His authority (Luke 20:1–8) with His own accusations. Despite their extensive knowledge of the Mosaic law, they love pomp and honor more than the justice the Law calls them to. Jesus follows with a foil for the scribes: a poor widow with such great faith she gives her last coins to the temple treasury (Luke 21:1–4). It is she, not the scribes who steal widows’ homes, whom God will honor. Matthew 23:1–7 and Mark 12:38–40 are parallel passages. Matthew 23:8–36 contains an extended warning as does Luke 11:39–52.

Verse 46. “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts,

In the mirrored arrangement of Luke 20, this is Jesus’ counter to Luke 20:1–2, There, religious leaders challenged Jesus’ authority to make decisions regarding the worship practices of the people (Luke 19:45–46). In this verse, Jesus challenges their authority. However, He offers no invitation for them to present their defense. Rather, He gives a warning to the people that they should not follow these faulty religious leaders. Jesus needs neither witnesses nor their confession to judge them.

Jesus is speaking to a crowd of His disciples in the courtyard of the Temple Mount. Religious leaders are there, as well as Jews who have traveled long distances to reach Jerusalem for the Passover. Jesus’ current targets are scribes: experts in religious texts and interpretations. Sadducee scribes would focus on the Torah; Pharisee scribes would also know the Hebrew Scriptures and Oral Law.

Jesus doesn’t discuss what the scribes teach, He points out what they do: specifically, what they do to draw attention to themselves and elicit honor from the people.

They “walk around in long robes;” this refers to both the volume of the scribes’ robes and the length of their tassels. In the ancient Middle East, cloth was not quite as easy to produce as it is in the modern world. Long robes require lots of fabric and were expensive.

In Numbers 15:37–41, God gave Moses instructions about tassels. The people were to “make tassels on the corners of their garments…[and]…put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner” (Numbers 15:38). The tassels serve as a reminder to the people to avoid idolatry and obey the Law. In Jesus’ era, some rabbis make them unnecessarily long and obvious (Matthew 23:5). Long robes and big tassels aren’t inherently sinful. But they can be a sign of pride, and if they’re used to impress other people, they’re not being worn according to their intended use.

In this case, wearing a long, flowing robe is a way to get attention in the marketplace. The extra-biblical teachings in the Talmud require people to greet rabbis. This assumption of public attention is consistent with the honor-shame culture of the ancient Middle East but inconsistent with Jesus’ teaching (Matthew 6:2–4, 16–18).

The “best seats in the synagogues,” probably near the front by the ark that holds the Torah, are another sign of honor. The “places of honor at feasts” are next to the host. Jesus told a parable about this in Luke 14:7–11. Seating arrangements at banquets are strictly determined by rank. As guests file in, they look each other over and try to determine who should sit where. The closer to the host, the more honored the guest. Jesus explained that it is safer to sit at the foot of the table. If a guest sits at the place of honor and someone of a higher rank walks in, the host will send the first man to a lower seat in front of everyone. But if a guest sits at the foot of the table, the host may escort him to a higher seat, perhaps even displacing someone else.

Jesus’ point is that when He cleared the temple court of merchants and money changers, He facilitated the right worship of God. The scribes do what they can to draw worship to themselves. They do not deserve authority over the people.

Verse 47. who devour widows ‘ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

Jesus is explaining to a large crowd why they shouldn’t revere their generation’s scribes. “Scribes” are lawyer-teachers. They hold people accountable to the Mosaic law and, if they’re Pharisees, the Oral Law. They’re greatly respected by the people for their expertise and their piety. Jesus says that Jerusalem’s scribes don’t deserve that respect. He has already mentioned what He thinks of the Oral Law: it puts an unbearable burden on the people that God did not intend (Luke 11:46).

In this passage, Jesus doesn’t talk about the scribes’ teaching as much as how they manipulate people into giving them honor. He’s mentioned how they love to get attention in the marketplace and covet the best seats in the synagogue and at feasts (Luke 20:46). Now, Jesus shows how they love neither other people nor God.

We don’t know exactly what is meant by “devour widows’ houses.” One possibility is that religious leaders manage the homes of widows and pay themselves generously from the widow’s estate. If a widow has no sons or other trustworthy male relatives, she is particularly vulnerable. Managing property as a woman was especially difficult in the ancient world, which is why God included the kinsman redeemer in the Law (Ruth 4). In some places today, it is still common for relatives or neighbors to steal widows’ homes and land. Pharisees are already known for using pledges for the temple to launder money away from their own parents (Mark 7:9–13); stealing homes from widows is consistent with that vice.

These scribes also show their disdain for God. Their long prayers make them look pious, but they’re for show, to garner attention from other people. Jesus spoke about this earlier in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee’s prayer was not only pretentious, but it also included a directed jab at a repentant man begging God for mercy (Luke 18:9–14).

The scribes will “receive the greater condemnation” because they should know better. They know the Law. In Matthew 22:34–40 and Mark 12:28–34, Jesus’ riddle about David and the Christ follows Jesus’ teaching that the greatest commandments are to love God and others; a scribe agrees. The scribes know the point of the Mosaic law is to love God and give Him honor and to love those made in His image. John explains, “many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God” (John 12:42–43).

Matthew includes these warnings in a much longer recorded criticism aimed directly at the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:1–36). Luke contains a similar extended criticism at a banquet Jesus was invited to (Luke 11:37–52). Mark 12:38–40 is closer to Luke 20:45–47. It’s possible Matthew condensed the two events. More likely is that Jesus taught the same thing more than once—a common practice in an era without recording devices or mass communication.

Both Mark 12:41–44 and Luke 21:1–4 present a foil for the scribes. A poor widow, the demographic of the scribes’ victims, gives her last two copper coins to the temple treasury. The scribes do whatever they can to win honor from the people. Two coins and a faithful heart win the woman honor from Christ.

End of Chapter 20.

Please Note:

The material use in this post, video is from BibleRef.com which is from Got Questions Ministries and is posted here to be read by Immersive reader in the Edge Browser. If you copy this material please follow these rules:

•Content from BibleRef.com may not be used for any commercial purposes, or as part of any commercial work, without explicit prior written consent from Got Questions ministries.

•Any use of our material should be properly credited; please make it clear the content is from BibleRef.com.

•BibleRef.com content may not be altered, modified, or otherwise changed unless such changes are specifically noted.