The Authority of Jesus Questioned (20:1–8)
In chapter 20 a series of controversies takes place between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem—controversies that will result in the plot to seize him.
The temple courts (20:1). For this term see comments on 2:27.
The chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders (20:1). This was probably an official delegation from the Sanhedrin (see comments on 19:47).
John’s baptism—was it from heaven (20:4). “From heaven” means “from God,” a Jewish expression to avoid using the divine name. Counter-questions were a common rabbinic method of argumentation.
Jesus turns the question to one of prophetic authority. In the period of the united monarchy there was a separation of powers between the Davidic king, who oversaw secular affairs, and the Aaronic priests, who oversaw religious affairs. Yet everyone recognized that God could raise up a prophet as his mouthpiece to indict both king and priest of corruption and sin. First Maccabees 14:41 says that the Maccabean ruler Simon “should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise.” If these leaders admit that John was a prophet—as the people believe (Luke 20:6)—they should submit to his indictment of their corrupt leadership.
The people will stone us (20:6). Stoning was the prescribed Old Testament punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 24:14), idolatry (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 13:10), and other sins of defiance against God. To knowingly reject God’s prophet was surely a capital offence.
The Parable of the Tenants (20:9–19)
Jesus now tells a parable that allegorically depicts his controversy with Israel’s leadership. The parable draws imagery from Isaiah’s song of the vineyard (Isa. 5:1–7), where the vineyard represents Israel and the owner God. When the vineyard fails to produce fruit, the owner takes away its protection and allows invaders—the Assyrians in Isaiah’s context—to overwhelm and destroy it. It is a parable of impending judgment. Here Jesus expands on Isaiah’s imagery with a new parable. God is again the owner and the vineyard Israel, but the main characters are now tenant farmers, representing Israel’s corrupt leadership. When the owner sends servants (=the prophets) to receive the produce of the vineyard, the tenants beat and abuse them, sending them away empty-handed. Finally, the owner sends his own son (=Jesus), whom the farmers murder, thinking they will now inherit the vineyard. Jesus concludes by asking, “What then will the owner … do to them?” The answer is obvious: “He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others” (Luke 20:16). Israel’s rejection of her Messiah will result in her destruction, and Israel’s salvation blessings will pass on to others.
The people, who certainly knew Isaiah’s parable, gasp in response, “May this never be!” Jesus replies by pointing to the Old Testament prophecy of Psalm 118:22. Though the rejected stone, Jesus will be vindicated as the cornerstone of God’s new building. The teachers of the law and the chief priests also understand the parable and look for a way to destroy Jesus. Again, however, his popularity prevents a public arrest.
Rented it to some farmers (20:9). Wealthy landowners often leased land to poor farmers, so the portrait here was familiar to Jesus’ hearers. There were many such estates with absentee landlords in Palestine, especially in Galilee.
Some of the fruit of the vineyard (20:10). Rent to the landlord was normally paid through a percentage of the grapes produced.
VINEYARD
A vineyard near the tel of Lachish.
He sent a servant … the tenants beat him (20:10). The Old Testament speaks of God’s repeated sending of prophets to call Israel to repentance and Israel’s frequent mistreatment and even murder of them (see comments on 3:19–20; 11:47).549
My son, whom I love (20:13). The Messiah was expected to have a unique father-son relationship with God (see comments on 1:32–33).550 Though it is debated whether “Son of God” was a common messianic title in the first century, Jesus’ hearers may have recognized a messianic allusion here.551 As in the divine voice at Jesus’ baptism (see comments on 3:22), there may also be an Isaac typology (“whom I love” = Gen. 22:2).
They threw him out of the vineyard and killed him (20:15). While Mark speaks of the tenants killing the master’s son and throwing the body out of the vineyard—a reference to the shame associated with an unburied corpse (see Mark 12:8)— Luke emphasizes first his rejection (“they threw him out”) and then his murder. The present rejection of the Messiah will result in his death.
The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone (20:17). The disciples shouted Psalm 118:25–26 as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Luke 19:38; cf. 13:35). Now Jesus cites Psalm 118:22 to refer to his rejection. The meaning of “capstone” (kephalē gōnias; lit., “head of the corner”) is debated, but probably refers to the “cornerstone” used at the corner of a building to support two adjoining walls. Such stones were essential to maintain the integrity of the structure.552 The stone metaphor was a common one among the early Christians, who used a catena of texts to explain Jesus’ rejection and vindication (see also next comment).553
CAPSTONE
A huge lintel stone at Nimrud.
Everyone who falls on that stone … but he on whom it falls (20:18). The second and third stone images are about judgment and allude respectively to Isaiah 8:14–15 and Daniel 2:34, 44–45. In the former text, the Lord Almighty identifies himself as a sanctuary for those who fear him, but a “stone that causes men to stumble” for unrepentant Israel. In the latter, God’s kingdom is apocalyptically portrayed as a stone “[not made with] human hands,” which crushes the other kingdoms of the world and endures forever. Jesus, the rejected stone, will triumph in judgment over those who have rejected him (see comments on 2:34).
Paying Taxes to Caesar (20:20–26)
Conflict and controversy continue as the religious leaders send spies to catch Jesus in a compromising statement. They ask him a clever “no-win” question: Should we pay taxes to Caesar? The beauty of Jesus’ response is its disarming ambiguity. On the surface it affirms Roman authority, encouraging obedience to the government while maintaining spiritual allegiance to God. Yet for those most opposed to Rome, it could be interpreted to mean “since everything belongs to God, nothing belongs to Caesar.” Jesus’ opponents are astonished and silenced by his answer.
Spies, who pretended to be honest (20:20). The term “spy” (enkathetos) means someone hired to lie in wait and so indicates the desire of Jesus’ enemies to trap him.554 “Honest” (dikaios, “righteous, innocent”) probably here means pious and sincere observers of the Mosaic law.
We know that you speak and teach what is right … the way of God (20:21). The spies seek to gain Jesus’ confidence through flattery. The Old Testament repeatedly warns against the danger of flattering lips (Ps. 5:9; 12:2–3).555 The spies affirm that Jesus teaches the “way of God,” an expression that means obedience to God’s law, living the righteous life he desires (Deut. 8:6; 10:12).556
Is it right … to pay taxes to Caesar … ? (20:22). This refers especially to the poll tax paid directly to Rome, not to local customs or property taxes. The Jews hated Roman rule with its heavy burden of taxation. Josephus describes how, under the governorship of Coponius (A.D. 6–10), the insurrectionist Judas of Galilee “incited his countrymen to revolt, upbraiding them as cowards for consenting to pay tribute to the Romans and tolerating mortal masters, after having God for their Lord.”557
Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it? (20:24). While there were many coins in circulation in the Roman empire, Jesus requests a Roman denarius (worth about a day’s wages). The coin bore the image of the emperor Tiberius (cf. 3:1), with the inscription “Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, son of the divine Augustus.” Both the image and the acclamation of deity were abhorrent to the Jews (see Ex. 20:3–5, 23). There is great irony in the fact that Jesus’ “pious” inquisitors themselves carry and trade Roman coins bearing idolatrous images and blasphemous inscriptions.
DENARIUS
A silver denarius with the image of the emperor Tiberius.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s (20:25). Ecclesiastes 8:2 enjoins obedience to the king, and the New Testament repeatedly commands submission to governmental authorities.558 God’s establishment of and sovereignty over all the kings of the earth is also an important Old Testament theme.559
The Resurrection and Marriage (20:27–39)
Another attempt to discredit Jesus now comes from some Sadducees, who pose a question about levirate marriage (see comments on 20:28).560
Sadducees (20:27). See “The Sadducees.”
Who say there is no resurrection (20:27). The clearest Old Testament reference to the resurrection is Daniel 12:2, but it is alluded to elsewhere.561 Since the Sadducees viewed only the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) as authoritative, they rejected any proof texts from the Writings and the Prophets.
Moses wrote … if a man’s brother dies (20:28). The Old Testament law of levirate marriage required the brother of a deceased man to bear children with the dead man’s wife in order to preserve the latter’s genealogical line (Deut. 25:5–10). Old Testament examples appear in Genesis 38:8 and Ruth 4:1–12. Extensive rules relating to the practice are discussed in the Mishnaic tract Yebamot (“sisters-in-law”).
Now there were seven brothers (20:29). An interesting parallel appears in the apocryphal book of Tobit (fourth or third century B.C.), where seven husbands of a young woman named Sarah die before giving her children (all killed by the evil demon Asmodeus). The grief-stricken woman eventually finds solace through her marriage to Tobit’s son Tobias, the closest relative in a levirate marriage.562
For they are like the angels (20:36). Jesus did not say that believers become angels (a popular misconception), but that their glorified state will be like that of angels. Angels and human beings are distinct creations of God (Heb. 1–2).563 The Jewish apocalyptic work 1 Enoch develops a midrash around the account of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. Though created not to marry, some of the angels sinned by taking wives for themselves from the daughters of man, producing giants as offspring.564
In the account of the bush, even Moses showed (20:37). Since the Sadducees viewed only the Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy) as authoritative, Jesus appeals to the account of the burning bush in Exodus 3 for proof of the resurrection. Jesus’ argument may seem odd to modern ears, but it was a common rabbinic method. In a second-century rabbinic text, Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says:
On the following basis I proved that the versions of Scripture of the Samaritans are forgeries, for they maintained that the dead do not live. I said to them, “Lo, Scripture says, ‘ … that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.’ ”
The Samaritans had their own version of the Pentateuch, and they, like the Sadducees, did not believe in the resurrection. The rabbi here uses the future sense of the phrase “shall be upon him” (Num. 15:31, RSV) to prove that this person will face a future judgment, so there must be a resurrection.565
He is not the God of the dead (20:38). This expression of God’s ongoing relationship with his people has an interesting parallel in 4 Maccabees, where it is said of the Maccabean martyrs that “those who die for the sake of God live to God, as do Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs” (4 Macc. 16:25; cf. 7:19).
Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!” (20:39). Most teachers of the law were Pharisees (see 5:17), who, contrary to the Sadducees, agreed with Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection.
No one dared to ask him any more questions (20:40). The ability to silence an opponent was viewed in Hellenistic culture as one of the marks of a wise man and a skilled orator (cf. Wisd. Sol. 8:12).
Whose Son Is the Christ? (20:41–44)
The controversies and debates in Jerusalem conclude with three episodes in which Jesus challenges or rebukes the religious leaders. These include the question about David’s son (20:41–44), a rebuke of the teachers of the law (20:45–47), and the account of the widow’s offering (21:1–4). In the first Jesus asks how the rabbis can call the Messiah the “Son of David,” when David himself calls him “Lord” in Psalm 110. The title “son” implies subordination, so how can he be David’s Lord? Jesus’ point is that his messianic identity exceeds traditional Jewish expectations of an earthly, conquering king.
The Christ is the Son of David (20:41). The title “Son of David,” which appears here and in 18:38–39, was a favorite title for the Messiah in rabbinic Judaism. It first appears in the first century B.C. Psalms of Solomon (17:21), where it carries strong political connotations (see “Messianic Expectation in Jesus’ Day”). Its roots are to be found in the promise to David that God would raise up his offspring after him who would reign forever on his throne (2 Sam. 7:11–16). For more on traditional messianic expectations see comments on Luke 1:32–33; 9:20. For the related title “shoot of David,” see comments on 1:78–79.
David himself declares … “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord …’ ” (20:42). Jesus identifies the speaker in Psalm 110 as David, who addresses the Messiah as “my Lord” and speaks of his enthronement at God’s right hand. Surprisingly, first-century Judaism does not seem to have interpreted Psalm 110 messianically, though some have argued that the messianic interpretation was suppressed by later rabbis opposing its use as a messianic proof text by Christians. It is among the most frequently cited Old Testament texts in the New Testament.566
THE “HOUSE OF DAVID” INSCRIPTION
A ninth-century B.C. Aramaic inscription found in Dan mentioning the battle of Ben Hadad, king of Aram, against “the house of David.”
Denouncing the Teachers of the Law (20:45–47)
In this episode, Jesus warns his disciples against the hypocrisy of the teachers of the law. Though making an outward show of religiosity in the public arena, they act with injustice and exploit the poor. God will judge such hypocrisy. The passage is similar to the woes pronounced against the teachers of the law and the Pharisees in 11:37–54.
Teachers of the law (20:46). See comments on 5:17 and “Scribes.”
Flowing robes (20:46). This probably refers to long robes with tassels used to distinguish the office of the teacher of the law.
Greeted in the marketplaces … important seats in the synagogues (20:46). See comments on 11:43.
Places of honor at banquets (20:46). Meals carried great social significance in the ancient world, with guests seated according to their social status. See comments on 5:30; 14:7.
They devour widows’ houses (20:47). This may refer to exploiting the estate of widows for whom they had been appointed guardians,567 or perhaps the abuse of a widow’s hospitality, a charge leveled at the Jerusalem aristocracy in the Testament of Moses 7:6.568 Widows are viewed throughout Scripture as the most vulnerable and helpless members of society. God will judge those who oppress them. See comments on 18:3 for Old Testament and Jewish references.