Luke 20

Jesus Questioned by Religious Leaders; The Parable of The Vineyard

Jesus was nearing the end of His ministry, and the tension between Him and the Jewish religious leaders had continued to intensify.  Most commentators note that the debates in this chapter likely occurred on Tuesday or Wednesday of Passion week. 

This chapter describes what is usually called the Day of Questions. It was a day when the Jewish authorities, in all their different sections, came to Jesus with question after question designed to trap him, and when, in his wisdom, he answered them in such a way as routed them and left them speechless.       - William Barclay

Luke presented Jesus’ teachings in the temple as beginning with opposition from the religious leaders and leading on to Jesus’ condemnation of them. He evidently wanted to highlight the reasons for God’s passing over Israel and working with Gentiles equally in the present era. All of what follows in this section happened on Wednesday of "passion week."                 - Thomas Constable

A Question about Jesus’ Authority (Matthew 21:23-32; Mark 11:27-33)

By Whose Authority?

Vs. 1-3 - One day as he was teaching the people in the temple and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the scribes, with the elders, came and said to him, “Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things? Who is it who gave you this authority?”

When Jesus returned to the temple, the Jewish religious leaders came to trap him with a question. They hoped to find something in his answer that would enable them to bring a charge, civil or religious, against him. They asked him by what authority he acted the way he did, particularly in overthrowing the established practices of the Jewish temple.                 - Don Fleming

No wonder the asked him by what authority he did these things! To ride into Jerusalem as he did and then to take the law into his own hands and cleanse the Temple, required some explanation.

They hoped to put Jesus into a dilemma. If he said he was acting under his own authority they might well arrest him as a megalomaniac before he did any further damage. If he said that he was acting on the authority of God they might well arrest him on an obvious charge of blasphemy, on the grounds that God would never give any man authority to create a disturbance in the courts of his own house. Jesus saw quite clearly the dilemma in which they sought to involve him, and his reply put them into a dilemma which was still worse.       - William Barclay 

From Heaven or Earth?

Vs. 3-4 - He answered them, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or of human origin?”

Jesus was not trying to avoid telling the truth, but trying to make them see the truth. If they gave him a correct answer to his question, they would have the answer to their own question. Jesus’ question concerned the authority of John the Baptist. If they acknowledged that John was sent by God, they were acknowledging that Jesus also was sent by God, because John’s message was to announce the arrival of Jesus as God’s chosen Messiah. If they denied that John was sent by God, they could expect trouble from the crowds, because many people still held John in high esteem.         - Don Fleming

Luke recorded the leaders’ confession that they did not know from where John received his authority. This was, of course, a deliberate evasion of Jesus’ question. However their answer condemned them because as Israel’s leaders they were responsible to evaluate the claims of professing prophets. Jesus used their refusal to answer His question as a reason not to answer theirs, but the implication was clear to everyone. He claimed the same authority as John, namely, God.              - Thomas Constable

The Parable of The Vineyard Owner (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12)

Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded several stories Jesus offered the religious leaders at this time that illustrated their rejection of God’s Messiah and His subsequent judgment on them. He likened them to a son who decided not to obey his father, to builders who threw away the cornerstone, and to vineyard workers who refused to do the will of the owner.  Because of their resistance and refusal, the inheritance would be given to the obedient son, and the vineyard would be tended by a people who would produce fruit.

Planted And Went Away

Vs. 9-10 - Now he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went away for a long time. At harvest time he sent a servant to the farmers so that they might give him some fruit from the vineyard.

As with most of the content of this section, Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded this parable, and each of them recounted slightly different details that, taken together, give us the most full account of the teaching.  Most commentators find allegorical features in this parable, ascribing specific representation to the main characters.  The vineyard owner is said to represent God who has left the care of His people (vineyard) to tenant farmers (religious leaders) who refused to share of the harvest’s yield.  

Because Jesus spoke to a Jewish audience, they were aware that the vineyard was used in the Old Testament as a picture of Israel (Isaiah 5:1-7). Therefore, the vinedressers represented the rulers of Israel and the vineyard represented the people of God as a whole.       - David Guzik

Servants and A Son

Vs. 13 - “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my beloved son. Perhaps they will respect him.’

The vineyard parable lays down most unmistakably his claim to be the Son of God. Deliberately he removes himself from the succession of the prophets. They were servants; he is the Son. In this parable he made a claim that none could fail to see to be God's Chosen King.              - William Barclay

Give The Vineyard to Others

Vs. 15-16 - What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those farmers and give the vineyard to others.  But when they heard this they said, “That must never happen!”

Of major importance is the fact that all three Evangelists say that the leaders knew the parable was against them…The parable is a prophetic indictment of the leaders, especially the temple leaders.

While he (Jesus) refused to answer the question concerning by which authority he performed his actions in the temple, this parable shows not only that he had such authority but also that the religious leaders opposed God’s work, for which they were to be punished and their privileges transferred to others.     - Klyne R. Snodgrass

People’s attitude to Jesus determined their destiny, and those who rejected him guaranteed their own destruction. The leaders of the Jews knew he was talking about them and wanted to arrest him, but they were not sure how the crowd would react.          - Don Fleming

The Rejected Cornerstone

Vs. 17-18 - But he looked at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of this Scripture: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone?

Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will shatter him.”

To further illustrate the lesson of the vineyard parable, Jesus quoted a psalm and referenced the writings of Daniel and Isaiah.  First, He asked the religious leaders to consider the full meaning of Psalm 118 that described a stone that, though disregarded by builders at first, was eventually used as the most important component of the entire structure. 

The quotation about the stone that was rejected is from Psalms 118:22-23. The rejected stone had become the stone that bound the corners of the building together, the keystone of the arch, the most important stone of all. This passage fascinated the early Christian writers. It is quoted or referred to in Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:4; 1 Peter 2:7, Romans 9:32-33, Ephesians 2:20. Originally, in the Psalm, the reference was to the people of Israel. The great nations which had thought of themselves as architects of the structure of the world had regarded the people of Israel as unimportant and unhonoured. But, as the Psalmist saw it, the nation which had been regarded as of no importance would, some day, in God's economy, become the greatest nation in the world. The Christian writers saw in the Psalmist's dream something which was perfectly fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus.        - William Barclay

An apparently insignificant stone that builders discarded as being unfit would become the most important stone of all. Jesus would become the most important feature in what God was building. Luke’s original readers would have understood this as a reference to Jesus being the head of the church. The statement was a further indictment against the current builders, Israel’s leaders.        - Thomas Constable

Commentators note allusions to the writings of Daniel and Isaiah in Jesus’ second description of a stone over which many would either stumble or be crushed.  These stone metaphors, especially the one from Psalm 118, were used by Luke, Paul, and Peter. 

Jesus next referred to other Old Testament passages that also referred to a stone (Daniel 2:34; Daniel 2:44-45; cf. Isaiah 8:14-15). They taught that a capstone would be God’s agent of judgment. Those who opposed it would only destroy themselves, and it would crush those on whom it fell.       - Thomas Constable

A Question about Paying Taxes (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17)

Watched Him Closely

Vs. 20 - They watched closely and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, so that they could catch him in what he said, to hand him over to the governor’s rule and authority.

The religious leaders continued questioning Jesus, ramping up their efforts to ensnare and apprehend this teacher they found so offensive.  Their tactic was to get Jesus to say something controversial, something that would cause Him to lose favor with the people.  Together, Matthew, Mark, and Luke provide four examples of these attempts to entrap Jesus: questions about paying taxes, the resurrection, the law, and about the Messiah. 

Mark noted that Jesus questioned the religious leaders’ knowledge and understanding of scripture.

Mark 12:24 - Jesus spoke to them, “Isn’t this the reason why you’re mistaken: you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God?

Could Jesus have been any more insulting than this?  In His answer to each of these questions, Jesus demonstrated the failure of the religious leaders to understand the scripture they studied so diligently.  They knew the letters of the law but not its lessons.  They understood its mandates but missed the motives. 

Is It Lawful?

Vs. 22 - Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Vs. 25 - “Well then,” he told them, “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Paying taxes to Caesar was a volatile issue in first-century Palestine.  Some Jews thought that the payment of such a tax necessarily involved compromise of their religion.  Moreover, the image of the emperor on the coin was thought to be a violation of the second commandment. The questioners were probably hoping that Jesus would either disavow paying taxes and incur trouble with Pilate or that he would advocate complete submission to the Roman government and alienate Jewish patriots.     - Thomas Schreiner 

To give God the things that are God’s does not divide life into secular and sacred, which would imply that God is indifferent about some aspects of human existence.  Rather, Jesus’ statement demonstrates that all facets of life have reference to god, including the need to submit to governmental rule.           - A. Boyd Luter 

A Question about The Resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27)

The Sadducees

Vs. 27 - Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came up and questioned him:

The Sadducees were an aristocratic group who were the most powerful political faction in Palestine.  They rejected both the oral tradition of the law, to which the Pharisees adhered, and belief in the resurrection and angels (Acts 23:8).  They relied only on the old testament scriptures for their theology, focusing especially on the Torah.  In this episode, they try to show that the doctrine of the resurrection is ridiculous.             - Thomas Schreiner

The absurd scenario presented by the Sadducees referenced the levirate law of marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5). According to that law if a man died childless, his brother must marry the widow and beget children to carry on the line. It is far from likely that it was operative in the time of Jesus, but it was included in the Mosaic regulations and therefore the Sadducees regarded it as binding.            - William Barclay

The God of The Living

Vs. 34 - Jesus told them, “The children of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to take part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.”

Jesus told the Sadducees that their question was without meaning, because Israel’s laws applied only to life in the present physical world. Life in the age to come is not a continuation of present earthly life, but is a different kind of life altogether.                - Don Fleming

Vs. 37-38 - Moses even indicated in the passage about the burning bush that the dead are raised, where 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, because all are living to him.

Jesus knew His audience well, so he quoted Exodus 3:1-6, a passage from the Torah, to illustrate the reality of the resurrection.  He explained that Moses included a reference to resurrection when he recorded his conversation with God at the burning bush in Midian.  In that conversation, God spoke of the deceased patriarchs of Judaism as living, indicating that, from His perception, “all are living.” 

Jesus’ Question about The Son of David (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37)

Vs. 41-44 - For David himself says in the Book of Psalms: The Lord declared to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’

David calls him ‘Lord.’ How, then, can he be his son?”

Some of the questions that Jesus’ opponents put to him were unimportant, even senseless. He now put to them the really important question: what was their view of the Messiah? Jews understood the Messiah to be the son (descendant) of David, but thought of him almost solely as a political figure who would rule Israel in a golden age. Jesus wanted to show that this view was inadequate. The Messiah was far more than the son of David.            - Don Fleming

These religious leaders thought they knew just about everything there was to know about the Messiah. Jesus challenged this thought, and He asked them to consider that they may have something to learn.       - David Guzik

Jesus quoted Psalm 110, a song His audience would have considered Messianic prophecy, to reveal that King David understood the coming Messiah to be more than just his descendent; the Messiah would be his LORD.  

Jesus is not denying that the Messiah was to be David’s son.  Instead, he is implying that there is a mysterious way in which the Messiah is both David’s son and Lord.  A resolution of the paradox is not given here, although the reader of Luke’s Gospel knows that Jesus is both the son of David and the Son of God.       - Thomas Schreiner

People who used the title ’Son of David’ (Luke 18:38-39; Matthew 21:9) clearly envisaged the Messiah as someone who would defeat all Israel’s foes and bring in a new kingdom of David. They thought of David’s son as similar to David in being, outlook and achievement. There are not wanting Jewish writings of the period which speak of the Son of David in terms of a narrow nationalism that looked for Israel’s triumph over all its foes (e.g. the Psalms of Solomon). Jesus means us to see that the Messiah was not David’s son in that petty sense. He was Lord, Lord of men’s hearts and lives. To call Him Lord meaningfully is to see Him as greater by far than merely another David.                 - Morris

Really what Jesus was saying here was, "You think of the coming Messiah as Son of David; so he is; but he is far more. He is Lord." He was telling men that they must revise their ideas of what Son of David meant. They must abandon these fantastic dreams of world power and visualize the Messiah as Lord of the hearts and lives of men. He was implicitly blaming them for having too little an idea of God. It is always man's tendency to make God in his own image, and thereby to miss his full majesty.    - William Barclay

Jesus Warns against The Scribes (Matthew 23:1-39; Mark 12:38-40)

Vs. 45-46 - While all the people were listening, he said to his disciples, “Beware of the scribes…”

Mark and Luke included a small portion of Jesus’ scathing criticism of the Jewish religious leaders. Matthew provides the most detailed accusations raised against pride, hypocrisy, and disobedience demonstrated through long prayers, important seats, extra large tassels, and total disregard for human suffering.  

This day of teaching in the temple had begun with the religious leaders questioning Jesus’ authority. Jesus now concluded His public teaching in the temple courtyard with an authoritative evaluation of those who sought to evaluate Him. He was their judge, not the other way around.           - Thomas Constable