Christ’s Authority Challenged (Luke 20:1-8)⤒🔗

In Luke 20 we find Christ in the temple, continuing his teaching ministry. He first faces an important question about his authority. He illustrates the actions of his opponents in the parable of the tenants who reject their Lord and Master.

This chapter tells us about the various groups that come to test the teaching of Jesus. The first question is asked by delegates of the Sanhedrin, inquiring from where he gets his authority to do what he does. The second question is from the Pharisees, asking about paying the imperial Roman tax. The third question comes from the Sadducees and seeks to ridicule the truth of the resurrection. Each important party in Israel gets an opportunity to confront him, but he amazes everyone by his clear and sincere answers.  Finally Christ himself asks a question about the Messiah being son of David and son of God.

The Jewish leaders seek to spy on him and find evidence to incriminate him. They send their best people to him, hoping that he will say something that is wrong. Because they cannot entrap him publicly in his teaching, they must secretly conspire to kill him. It is clear that his authority is from above, but the Jewish leaders will not accept this.

¹One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him.  ²“Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

³He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, ⁴John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?”

⁵They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’  ⁶But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

⁷So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

⁸Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”Luke 20:1-8

Perhaps one of the best ways to undermine a person’s credibility is to ask him about his authority. What right does Jesus have to come into the temple and start teaching all kinds of things, many of which went against the (Talmudic) tradition of the Jews? Who called him to this task?

We read that “One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders came up to him. “Tell us, by what authority you are doing these things”, they said. “Who gave you this authority?” (20:1,2)

Not only is their own position and credibility at stake, but they are also losing money every day because Jesus had ended the business of sellers and money changers from which priests and teachers also profited. So they come to inquire about Jesus’ authority. Who do you think you are?

We realize that this is a set-up. Christ did not have authority from the priests and teachers of the law who were the recognized guardians and dispensers of the truth. Notice that the elders are also mentioned, for they had moral clout and official standing as authoritative leaders. The question on authority was probably festering from the moment that the Lord threw out the sellers and money-changers. Did Jesus have any other authority, perhaps from the Roman governor?

John writes that the Jews demanded of Jesus, also when he cleared out the temple earlier, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority”? (John 2:18)

If Christ cannot come up with a credible source, he could be removed from the temple and lose the support and respect of the disciples and the people. Once again they appear to have pushed Christ against the wall.

But the Lord turns the tables. He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, John’s baptism – was it from heaven, or from men?” (20:3,4) We read that they discussed the matter among themselves. If you cannot answer a simple question right away, there is a problem. The Jewish leaders need some time to discuss this among themselves. They go onto a huddle.

“They discussed it among themselves, and said, ‘If we say “From heaven,” he will ask, “Why didn’t you believe him?” But if we say, “From men,” all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” (20:5,6) They are not looking to give a sincere and honest answer, but a political one, that will fit best. The purpose of rulers is often to maintain the “status quo”, thus securing their privileges. And so, they cannot decide what the right answer is. They plead ignorance. “We don’t know where it was from.” (20:7)

Jesus does not plead ignorance. He knows exactly where John’s baptism came from. But if they will not answer, neither will he. Two can play that game! “Jesus said, ‘Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.’” The Jewish leaders know quite well, but they will not admit it. Then they will not hear Christ’s answer.

The Parable of the Tenants (Luke 20:9-19)←⤒🔗

⁹He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. ¹⁰At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. ¹¹He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. ¹²He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.

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

¹⁴“But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ ¹⁵So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
 

“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? ¹⁶He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”

¹⁷Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
 has become the capstone’?

¹⁸Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

¹⁹The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:9-19

We read that Jesus went on to tell the people a specific parable. “This” parable means that it is directly connected to the Jews asking him about his authority. It explains in advance why Jesus was being rejected by the Jewish leaders.

As we read the parable, we note a few points. The owner does not demand all of the harvest of the vineyard. He wants only some of the fruit. The owner is also very patient with the tenants.

Notice how the violence increases each time the owner sends a servant. The beatings become killings. Unchecked violence tends to increase. The owner finally sends his own son, thinking perhaps they will respect him. This is the heart of the parable. But the son is also killed. Only after this gruesome crime the owner comes himself with his soldiers to kill the tenants, and plans to give the vineyard to others. (20:9-16)

We read that when the people heard this, they said, “May this never be”. The question is why people said this. Do they mean that the whole affair should not have happened? Do they not want the tenants to be punished? Or do they mean that the vineyard should not be given to others? The parallel text is found in Matthew 21:33-46.

I think the first hearers were shocked at this parable. This parable is so extreme that they express the wish that it will never happen. It is a terrible story because it is unheard of that tenants with premeditation kill the heir of a vineyard. So they come with a heartfelt statement: “May this never be!” But it happened.

We read that the Lord Jesus looks at them directly. This means that he looked his hearers in the eyes. This parable is also meant for all the hearers, and not just for a few officials. The parable is meant also for us.

The Lord’s answer is to direct the people back to the Scriptures. “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone” (Psalm 118:22). They sang from this psalm at his “triumphal” entry into the city, but now he quotes from the very same psalm. We need the full light of Scripture, not just a part that perhaps suits us.

He asks what the meaning is of what is written: “’The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone’.  Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

The capstone is a carefully selected stone that will be a signature mark, the last stone to round off the masonry, either beneath the door as the threshold or over the door as the lintel. The capstone is important; it must fit exactly to keep everything snug and tight. This assures the builder that the work is well done. It is very important to choose the right kind of stone and have the proper size; otherwise the house may in due time fall apart.

Psalm 118:22 speaks about a stone that the builders rejected. It was not fit to be placed anywhere. But that stone became the one chosen as the capstone. Sometimes it is called “the cornerstone”. When applied to Christ it means: the Jewish leaders and the people rejected Jesus as king, but later it became clear that the entire structure is built around him.  Without him the structure could not stand.

A capstone is often one of the largest stones in the construction area. If you trip over it, and drop your jug on it, the jug will break into pieces. Should the capstone fall when it is being pulled up, the person on whom it falls will surely be crushed. It is of interest to note that the capstone is a word sometimes used as pun or metaphor for the king.

In the New Testament the title “capstone” is directly applied to Christ. In him the whole building is “built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:20)

The last verse of this section is very telling: “The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.” (20:19)

Paying Taxes to Caesar (Luke 20:20-26)←⤒🔗

²⁰Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. ²¹So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. ²²Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" 

²³He saw through their duplicity and said to them, ²⁴"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?" 

²⁵"Caesar's," they replied.

He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." 

²⁶They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.Luke 20:20-26

Luke tells us that the Jewish leaders decided to keep a close eye on Jesus and sent spies who might entrap him in something that would lead the Romans to arrest him. They set traps for him in the hope that he might somehow incriminate himself (20:20). The first test is therefore a political matter.

A very contentious issue in Samaria and Judea was the paying of the imperial tax to Rome. The Jews resented the tax because it was a constant reminder of their submission to Rome. Many rebellions against Rome had their origin in resistance to the imperial tax. There had been revolts that had been quenched in blood (Acts 5:36,37). If Jesus could be implicated in a political conspiracy against Rome, the governor would have to act.

So they come to ask him, “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (20:22)  Note that they first try to flatter him and lull him into a false sense of security, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” (20:21) This is an open lie, for they did not for a moment believe that he spoke only truth.

It says that Jesus saw through their duplicity. He knew their plans. “He said to them, ‘Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?’ ‘Caesars’, they replied. He said to them, ‘Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.’” (20:23-25) It is interesting to note how Christ involved his hearers by using a single denarius.

Homiletical Horizons←↰⤒🔗

Generally as reformed preachers, we do not use “props”. The preaching of the Word has to do it, and anything above that tends to lead away from the Word. I understand that and also agree with this thought. But sometimes a simple “prop” does help. In a sermon on this text, I showed the congregation a coin, and asked others also to look at a coin they have. Well, nobody was expecting this.

And I asked also: whose portrait and inscription are on it? This was Queen Elizabeth II. Well, of course, I asked: do you see how it applies also to us? We use the coin as currency, but it is made by the government and basically belongs to that government. Taxes belong in that category and must be paid.

But the Lord has put the ball in their side of the court. It was such a simple example. But everyone caught on (20:20-26). The first thrust was parried. The plan did not work because of Christ’s simple and profound action.

It says, “They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent” (20:26). It is wonderful to read that they had no reply and became silent. At least they were thinking about his answer. The message of the Gospel even when it is stated simply is always astonishing.

The Resurrection and the Sadducees (Luke 20:27-40)←⤒🔗

²⁷Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. ²⁸“Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. ²⁹Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. ³⁰The second ³¹and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. ³²Finally, the woman died too. ³³Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

³⁴Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. ³⁵But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, ³⁶and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. ³⁷But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ ³⁸He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

³⁹Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!”  ⁴⁰And no one dared to ask him any more questions. Luke 20:27-40

After the political spies and exegetical gymnasts have left, another delegation or committee arrives.

This time we read that “Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question” (20:27).  Before we deal with the question itself, let us note that this is a doctrinal matter. From politics we go to dogmatics. The two are usually related, also here. The Sadducees were the largest and most influential religious group of that time. They controlled the priesthood and were the ruling party that rubbed shoulders with the Herodians and Romans.

As far as their doctrine is concerned, they were liberal, not orthodox. They were quite willing to compromise when it suited them politically and practically.¹Luke tells us that the Sadducees especially did not believe in a resurrection. Like many Christians today, they believe that dead is dead, and there is no “afterlife” or whatever one may call it. The resurrection was a point of contention between Sadducees and Pharisees and now the Sadducees come to Jesus to discover what he will say about it.

Again they think they have set a good trap. Is there a resurrection? If Jesus says “yes”, the Sadducees will reject him. If he says “no” the Pharisees will reject him. It looks like another no-win situation.

The Sadducees put their question in a kind of a story. It may have been a real situation or perhaps it was something totally fabricated. The story is so unusual that I tend to think that the story is made up to ridicule the resurrection view point.

The story starts as follows: “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother.”  The Sadducees were referring to the so-called Levirate Law. We find this law stated in Deuteronomy 25:5,6, “If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”

We may not be comfortable with this kind of law in our time, but in old Israel it functioned to continue a man’s lineage in Israel, to preserve the inheritance for his brother’s family, and to avoid widows being treated harshly in another family. Widows recruited by outsiders were sometimes abused as slaves. This law, therefore, was a compassionate law which preserved justice among God’s people.

The story continues with the woman marrying each of seven brothers, who all die childless.  Then comes the question, “At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” (20:33) The Sadducees are having a jolly good time here, for their question is an attempt to ridicule the teaching about the resurrection. Indeed, at the resurrection, when families are perhaps reunited, will this not lead to a host of problems and massive confusion?

Can we rightly say that when someone dies, he/she will be reunited with loved ones waiting in heaven? Will the relationships then simply continue as before on earth? I suggest that this was an argument used more often by the Sadducees, because it is so slick, and Jesus is confronted here with their main line of thinking.

Jesus points out that there is a great difference in living here on earth and living there in heaven. He replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry or be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.” (20:34-36)

The fact that death is abolished and mankind is then fully renewed also means that death no longer occurs. We have all died and risen in Christ! The number of the elect is full. No child will yet be born. Since births are no longer needed, sexuality will have a different role than it has now.

We do not know how exactly how sexuality will play a role on the new earth. I do not think that we can in any way relate this to earthly relationships. Marriage is not “eternal” as Mormons love to tell us. But the difference in gender is not wiped out on the new earth. God will give it a proper place.

As far as the resurrection itself in concerned Jesus replies in a masterful Scriptural manner, “But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead shall rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” (20:38)

The Lord Jesus answers the question and refutes the heresy of the Sadducees. It is no wonder that some of the teachers of the law (probably Pharisees) say “Well said, teacher!” (20:39) But the final point is “and no one dared to ask him any more questions” (20:40); they are stumped. They realize that here is someone more than the average teacher. But they will still not receive him as the Messiah, the Holy One of God.

Whose Son is the Christ? (Luke 20:41-47)←⤒🔗

⁴¹Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? ⁴²David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:
"'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand 

⁴³until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."'

⁴⁴David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" 

⁴⁵While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, ⁴⁶"Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. ⁴⁷They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."Luke 20:41-47

Since there were no more questions coming from “the spies”, our Lord Jesus himself asks a question. The Jewish leaders already know that the Lord Jesus had an immense knowledge of the Scriptures and knew how to apply these without failing. Therefore Christ has a question; not a trick question, but one that requires them to think deeply and carefully.

The question of the Lord Jesus is: David calls the Messiah ‘Lord’. How then can he be his son? (20:44) This is the real question that needs an answer!  The Lord Jesus appeals to Scripture to show that the coming King or Messiah is not just a human offspring but also is true and eternal God. The Jewish leaders do not answer this question, because they would not accept it that the Messiah would also be divine.

The suffering of the Lord is also that his divine nature was rejected and his divine office was never understood.

It is at this point that the Lord again turns to the people who still intently listen. “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.” (20:46,47)

The “devouring of widows’ houses” means that they made widows transfer more money to the temple coffers than they could afford. In the end a widow’s last possession, her house, was taken over by the teachers of the law. They did this by (almost) undetectable schemes but the inevitable result was that the widows became needy. See the opposite of this in Acts 6.

The teachers of the law have all the outward symbols of their office. They wear the priestly gowns. They have the finest places. They say the most devout prayers. But do they have inward piety?

The Lord comes down heavily on Israel’s leaders. This is the last time that he will publicly do so. Please note this. Later at his trial in the high priest’s palace, he will clearly assert his divinity and be condemned for it. However, that is not in a public forum, but a trial in a closed company.

He concludes by saying, “Such men will be punished most severely.” (20:47) It is not a vindictive statement. It is a final warning.

Questions←⤒🔗

1. What did the leaders of Israel do when Jesus had positioned himself in the temple?
2. Jesus was approached in the Temple by various groups.  What did each group want?
   a) The Spies (Sanhedrin)? and 
   b) the Sadducees?    
3. What was the question Jesus asked the Jews in the temple?   
4. Why did Jesus explicitly warn his disciples about the “teachers of the Law” in the hearing of all the people? How is this warning in place today?