article56

§50 Disputes with Religious Authorities (Luke 20:1–47)

Luke 20 is a chapter in which we see Jesus teaching in the temple (19:47–48), having cleansed it so that he may reside in its precincts (19:45–46). The atmosphere is tense. The many questions put to Jesus are hostile and are designed to trap him into making an incriminating response (see esp. vv. 20–26). The chapter may be divided into the following six parts: (1) the question about Jesus’ authority (vv. 1–8); (2) the Parable of the Wicked Vineyard Tenants (vv. 9–19); (3) the question about paying taxes (vv. 20–26); (4) the question about the resurrection (vv. 27–40); (5) the question about the Son of David (vv. 41–44); and (6) Jesus’ warning about the teachers of the law (vv. 45–47). Virtually all of this material has been derived from Mark 11:27–12:40.

20:1–8 / In 19:47 we were told that the chief priests and the teachers of the law desired to do away with Jesus. Now these same persons approach Jesus, questioning his authority to do the things that he has done. The second question in v. 2 is more specific: Who gave you this authority? The question is a trap. Had Jesus answered that his authority to act the way in which he has acted (cleanse and teach within the temple) had been given him by God himself, the religious authorities could have accused Jesus of blasphemy and so could have strengthened their case against him. Although Jesus does not provide a direct answer to their questions, his reply is much more than a dodge.

By asking if John’s baptism was from heaven, or from men, Jesus has forced his opponents either to deny John’s heavenly authority altogether, which would fly in the face of popular opinion (even Pharisees had gone out to John), or to acknowledge John’s authority, which would undermine their challenge to Jesus, since he had himself been baptized by John, who had declared Jesus to be superior (3:16). Of course, had they acknowledged John’s heavenly authority, their indifference to John’s ministry would then be difficult to explain or excuse. Their dilemma is acute. To answer that John’s authority was “from men” might provoke the crowd to violence, while to answer that his authority was “from God” would leave themselves open to the criticism that they had failed to heed God’s summons to repentance and, worse yet, had opposed John’s mightier successor. Consequently, the religious authorities “feign ignorance” (Fitzmyer, p. 1273). Jesus, however, recognizes that in reality they have refused to answer, and so he too refuses to answer the question put to him.

20:9–19 / The Parable of the Wicked Vineyard Tenants follows the preceding exchange between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities (20:1–8) and makes exceedingly clear Jesus’ indictment of the religious establishment (see v. 19). This parable in effect summarizes the whole of the biblical history, including the gospel story. Servant after servant is sent, but the tenants refuse to hand over the fruit of the vineyard. Finally, the son of the owner of the vineyard is sent, but he is murdered. This outrage necessitates the punishment of the tenants and the transfer of the vineyard to others.

In the Marcan version of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (12:1–12) there are approximately one dozen words borrowed from Isa. 5:1–7, Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard. Although Luke has retained only a few of these words in an effort to streamline the Marcan parable, the parable’s essential indebtedness to Isaiah should not be overlooked. In his Song of the Vineyard the eighth-century prophet sings a parable describing God’s loving care for his “vineyard” (his people Israel). He has denied his vineyard nothing. But when it is harvest time the vineyard does not yield good grapes, only sour grapes. What will God do? He will abandon his vineyard, allowing it to be drought-stricken, choked with weeds, and trampled under foot.

Later Jewish interpretation came to understand Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard as a prophecy of the destruction of the temple, a prophecy fulfilled when in 586 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar conquered Jerusalem. When Jesus utilizes the language of this Isaianic parable in order to tell his own parable, his audience cannot help but sense the judgmental tone of the parable. Whereas in Isaiah’s version the vineyard itself (the people) is guilty, in Jesus’ parable it is not the vineyard, but the tenants (=the religious authorities). They are the reason that God does not receive the fruit that is due. The people’s leaders are selfish and disobedient. They will have to be replaced with new leaders who are obedient and responsive to God. This leadership consists, of course, of those whom Jesus has taught. His disciples will replace the old Jerusalem establishment and will serve God and his people more faithfully (see note below). In the context of Jesus’ ministry this has reference only to new leadership within Israel. Of course, by the time of Luke, this new leadership was undoubtedly identified with the church (see note below).

Before his shocked audience can recover, Jesus asks them what Ps. 118:22 means. Quite possibly, especially in Luke’s time, this OT passage was understood as implying the laying of a new foundation upon which a new faith would be built (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–11; Eph. 2:20). Jesus is the capstone (or “cornerstone”) that the builders rejected (as they had rejected the “son” in the parable in vv. 14–15), which will become the foundation. There is an additional touch of irony here when it is noted that the religious leaders called themselves the “Builders of Israel” (Fitzmyer, p. 1282). Israel’s religious leaders, the “Builders,” rejected the very one who would become the capstone for God’s work to come (see note below).

Luke adds a unique saying (v. 18) that adds further interpretation to the stone of v. 17. This stone will become a stumbling block, that is, belief in the rejected and crucified Jesus as Messiah will not be easy. The gospel proclamation will cause offense. The stone will also fall in judgment upon those who reject the gospel. This is the significance of the second part of the saying. In v. 19 Luke makes it clear that the teachers of the law and the chief priests, the persons who had questioned Jesus’ authority in vv. 1–2 above and who had begun planning to murder Jesus (see 19:47–48), realize that Jesus had spoken this parable against them. Although they desired to arrest him immediately, they had to wait for a more convenient time.

20:20–26 / The religious authorities try to trap Jesus by drawing from him a statement that could be construed as treasonous. Since the question about his authority had failed to trap Jesus, because the real motive underlying the question had been readily apparent, the religious authorities this time sent spies, who pretended to be honest (or sincere). Their question is prefaced in v. 21 in such a way as to coax a frank, but dangerous, response from Jesus. It is as though they have told Jesus: “We know that you always tell the truth, no matter whose toes get stepped on.” Having said this, they ask Jesus if it is lawful (according to the law of Moses) to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Popular Jewish sentiment was strongly opposed to Roman taxation. Revolts from time to time had broken out. No doubt Jesus’ opponents hoped that Jesus would answer their question by declaring that God’s people were not to pay taxes to the Roman Empire. (In 23:2 he would, in fact, be accused of taking this very position.) Since, according to 20:20, his opponents were trying to build a case against him for the governor, such a popular answer would have provided them the very grounds that they sought for accusing and arresting Jesus. However, Jesus saw through their duplicity and requested to be shown a denarius. Ironically, the very ones hoping to lure Jesus into making an answer that would have been popular among his fellow Jews, but seditious to the civil authorities, have in their possession money that symbolized the very presence of the Roman Empire that they so detested. They have and produce the coin; Jesus does not, for he has none. Whose portrait is on the coin? Caesar’s. Since the coin bears the image of the Roman Emperor, it belongs to him, but what bears God’s image (humankind itself, Gen. 1:26–27) is God’s (see note below). Once again, Jesus’ answer proves to be too much for his opponents.

20:27–40 / The third question put to Jesus concerns the teaching of the resurrection. The Sadducees (see note below), who do not believe in the resurrection, ask Jesus a rather ridiculous question, one designed to show the incompatability of the law of Moses and belief in the resurrection. The Sadducees allude to Deut. 25:5 and Gen. 38:8, where the laws of what would eventually be called “levirate marriage” are laid down. 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 question of the Sadducees supposes that seven brothers successively married one woman. In the event of the resurrection, whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her? What the Sadducees entertain is that the resurrection could leave many men and women who kept Moses’ laws of levirate marriage in what would amount to adulterous relationships. Undoubtedly to the Sadducees the whole question was amusing, and they no doubt often teased their Pharisaic rivals with it. Jesus answers by noting that the question was based upon the false premise that the institution of marriage would continue into the next life. Human existence in the age to come may be compared to that of the angels, who are immortal and who do not marry. Therefore, the idea of resurrection, which pertains to the next life, is not at all incompatible with the levirate laws of Moses, which pertain to this life.

In the next phase of his answer Jesus shows from the law of Moses itself (which the Sadducees respected) that the dead rise. When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush (Exod. 3:2–6) he identified himself as the God of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Such a statement implies that there is yet hope of life (resurrection life) for them, even though it had been centuries since their deaths. The last phrase of v. 38, for to him all are alive, is found only in Luke and may be the evangelist’s attempt to clarify the idea of life after death to his predominantly Gentile audience. The point of Jesus’ answer, at least as it should be understood in the context of the whole passage, is that at death the righteous are in some sense alive to God and yet await the resurrection. Fitzmyer (pp. 1301–2) has shown that there is evidence that first-century Palestinian Jews believed that the soul was immortal and so at death would enter the presence of God, and that at some future time there would be a resurrection which would bring about the reunion of soul and body. (Perhaps this is how Paul’s statements in 2 Cor. 5:8 and 1 Thess. 4:13–17 are to be harmonized.) The effect of his answer is seen in the approving response of some of the teachers of the law, who no doubt were pleased that the Sadducees had been answered so well.

20:41–44 / Having silenced his critics, Jesus takes the initiative and asks his own question, one that raises an interesting question about the Christ. Jesus’ first question, How is it?… does not imply that he thinks that the Christ is not supposed to be a descendant of David, but it asks how he can be in light of Ps. 110:1, a psalm attributed to David and therefore cited by Jesus as potentially having messianic significance: “The Lord [God] said to my Lord [the Christ] …” That is, Jesus asks, “How can the Messiah [or Christ] be both David’s Son [as held in popular opinion and suggested in certain prophetic passages] and lord [as David himself states in Ps. 110:1]?” (Marshall, p. 745). Jesus’ question in v. 44 is based on the assumption that to be a descendant of someone is to be lesser. For example, the descendants of Abraham are lesser than the great patriarch. Jesus’ question would be puzzling to his original hearers, but not to the believing community; they would understand it in the light of the Easter event. How can any descendant of David, even if he is the Messiah, be David’s Lord? He can be his Lord through the resurrection (see Acts 2:36).

20:45–47 / The section ends with Jesus’ warning to his disciples to beware the teachers of the law who love to parade their religion but have no compassion for the poor and the defenseless. His warning is not intended to protect the disciples from these teachers, it is intended to warn them to take heed lest they become like them. Because of their (the teachers of the law) position of authority, which they abuse, they will be punished most severely. This passage probably should be linked, at least thematically, with the one that follows (21:1–4). The poverty of the widow, who gave her last pennies to the temple, illustrates what Jesus meant when he said that the teachers devour widows’ houses. The poor are robbed, and the oppressive deeds are covered up with a show of prayer and religiosity.