Luke 20

CHAPTER XX

Luke 20:1

1 And it came to pass on one of the days, he teaching the people in the Temple and proclaiming the gospel, there came upon him the high priests and the scribes with the elders and spoke, saying to him, Tell us, by what authority art thou doing these things, or who is he that gave thee this authority?

Luke is seldom specific as to the time and the place and even here writes only “on one of the days,” yet we infer from Matthew that this occurred on Tuesday morning soon after Jesus began teaching and “gospeling.” The verb that is used regarding the Sanhedrists means that they suddenly stood over Jesus. The matter had been arranged on the day before, hence this body of Sanhedrists is present, not, indeed, the entire seventy members of the court, but most of them, for the three terms that are used designate the official body. They did not crowd through the closely packed pilgrim hearers or interrupt Jesus in his teaching; from Mark we learn that they waited until Jesus walked to another place and then confronted him.

It was rather late to ask about the authority on which Jesus acted, for this was the third day of his last week. Nor do the Sanhedrists come prepared to arrest Jesus, should his authority be deficient. When Jesus refused even to name his authority, they did not even forbid him to teach further, they withdrew in defeat. This shows how the presence of the pilgrim hosts affected the murderous intention of the Sanhedrin.

Luke 20:2

2 Also the form of the challenge is mild, it is couched only in a question. Its two parts constitute but one question, for what the authority is appears when who its giver is gets to be known. The ἐξουσία is both the right and the power that goes with that right. “These things” must refer to more than the teaching, for any rabbi had the right to teach in the Temple or elsewhere. “These things” include the royal entry of Jesus, the cleansing of the Temple, his whole bearing, and also his miracles. Since it comes from the Sanhedrin, the body that had been entrusted with the care of the whole nation, this demand is in place. Jesus must show his authority, and this must be legitimate and adequate in every respect. And he would certainly be glad to show it, provided he actually had such authority; if he even hesitated, this would raise the suspicion that he had no authority at all, or that he was afraid to show such authority as he had since it was inadequate. It is on these considerations that the Sanhedrin acts and maneuvers under a show of right.

But the Sanhedrists had thought farther. They had always known that Jesus claimed authority from God, his Father. These men expected Jesus to assert once more that such is, indeed, his authority, and they intend then to demand of Jesus the fullest proof for his having God’s authority, being prepared on their part to deny the validity of any proof Jesus might venture to offer. They had everything planned as to just what Jesus would have to say and just how they would nullify his claim. But when we compare John 2:18, where three years before this time the same Sanhedrists made the same demand of Jesus, we see that they have not advanced a single step beyond their first challenge. Unbelief is negative and thus unprogressive in its very nature.

Luke 20:3

3 And answering, Jesus said to them: I will request you also myself for a statement, and do you tell me, The baptism of John—was it from heaven, or from men?

The Sanhedrists knew the authority by which Jesus acted; their one purpose was to deny him this authority and to do this so as to impress the people; for to admit this authority was to accept Jesus as the divine Messiah, against which acceptance everything in them rebelled most violently. By his counterquestion Jesus is not at all refusing to declare unto these Sanhedrists what he had already long ago both declared and proved to them. His counterquestion is the opposite of an evasion. Jesus merely returns the question to the questioners and substitutes John for himself and puts in the two alternatives that alone apply and thus makes the question almost self-answering, and so he asks them to state the answer themselves. Note that the Greek abuts ὑμᾶςκἀγώ, which makes the pronouns clash with emphasis.

Luke 20:4

4 “The baptism of John—was it from heaven, or from men?” The two ἐκ denote origin but plainly involve authority. For if John’s baptism was “out of heaven,” had its origin in God’s will and command, its authority was divine; but if “out of men,” out of some man’s ideas, then the authority was just nothing. Jesus centers the question on the baptism of John since this was the heart and core of John’s work which involved all that he was and did. He is therefore also called “the Baptist.” Jesus also states the two alternatives: “from heaven” or “from men”—tertium non datur. A third possibility could not be assumed even for the sake of argument. If not divine, then human; if no divine authority, then no authority at all.

The Sanhedrists face two horns of a dilemma, from which no escape is possible, and on one of which they must impale themselves. Jesus centers the question on John because his own authority is identical with John’s. Their work was one. The correct answer regarding John was the correct answer regarding Jesus. All that Jesus needed to do was to hand that answer back to the Sanhedrists. A subtile irony is involved: these men ask Jesus what they ought already to know from their acquaintance with John. Hence he uses the dignified verb ἐρωτᾶν—Jesus proceeds “to inquire.” Just one little “statement” is all that Jesus asks.

Luke 20:5

5 Now they reasoned with themselves, saying: If we say, From heaven! he will say, For what reason did you not believe him? But if we say, From men! all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John is a prophet. And they answered that they did not know whence.

It was the unbelief of the Sanhedrists that caught them in this deadly dilemma, unbelief and the type of immorality that goes with its defense. They were not in the least concerned about the truth regarding John; what persuaded them were the consequences of the two possible answers they could give. They thus found themselves impaled by giving either answer. They will not say, “From heaven,” for Jesus will then demand the reason (διατί) why they did not believe John, and there is no reason except their ungodly will.

Luke 20:6

6 They dare not say, “From men,” when this crowd of pilgrims is packed around them, all of whom are still persuaded (the periphrastic perfect with its strong present force) that John was a prophet, no matter how flagrantly the leaders had been untrue to him and to his baptism. To assert that John’s authority was not divine, to deny his being a prophet might precipitate a riot. These fanatical pilgrims might rush in to stone their own authorities with the stones that were close at hand by reason of the new structures which Herod was erecting at this time.

Luke 20:7

7 So there was only one course left to them: pitiful and disgraceful surrender. They dodge the issue which no decent Jew dared to dodge. They claim that they did not know whence John’s baptism was. As Sanhedrists it was their supreme duty to know, and they confess that they were derelict in this very duty. No; they had not expected to have their well-planned move against Jesus end so swiftly and so calamitously for themselves.

Luke 20:8

8 And Jesus said to them, Neither do I on my part (emphatic ἐγώ) tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

The reply of Jesus implies that these Sanhedrists have refused to answer his question, deliberately refused as arrant cowards. Since the correct answer to Jesus’ question is the correct answer also to the question of the Sanhedrists, by refusing to give the one they refuse to receive the other. So Jesus is compelled to refuse to offer it to them.

Luke 20:9

9 Jesus continued with the parable of the Two Unequal Sons (Matt. 21:28–32) and, when the Sanhedrists tried to leave, detained them to hear another parable, one that more plainly revealed their murderous temper. Moreover, he began to speak to the people this parable. “To the people,” to the mass of pilgrims who were packed solidly around the Sanhedrists. Jesus is through with these men; he is holding them so that they may hear what he has to tell all these pilgrims about them, their wicked leaders. We should not lose sight of the tense, dramatic nature of this scene (v. 19).

A man planted a vineyard and leased it to vine-growers and went abroad for considerable time.

A few, simple strokes of the brush and the entire picture is before us in vivid, plastic form. It matches the striking parable found in Isa. 5:1, etc., but the action is entirely different. Isaiah makes Israel as such guilty, Jesus the rulers of Israel. Luke abbreviates by stating only that the vineyard was planted; Matthew and Mark add the details that this great vineyard was fenced and equipped in every way. “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant,” Isa. 5:7. So the great owner of this wonderful vineyard leased it to vine-growers, “gave it out,” ἐξέδοτο (R. 308). The rental was to be a part of the harvest as the following shows, not cash as some suppose.

He did this because “he went abroad,” literally, “went far from home,” and did this for quite a stretch of time—a feature that is noted also in other parables, 19:12; Matt. 25:14, 15; Mark 13:34. This going abroad pictures the great trust that is imposed on the leaders of Israel: the precious vineyard of God’s people was completely in their care. Yes, God brought Israel from Egypt into Canaan, planted, fenced it, equipped it there, and placed it under these spiritual rulers whose office was continuous. The prophets appear elsewhere in the picture, they were sent at special times for a special purpose.

Luke 20:10

10 And in due season he sent to the vine-growers a slave in order that they should give to him part of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vine-growers, after hiding him, sent him out empty.

A vineyard is naturally planted for the sake of the fruit it will yield. But this parable does not center our attention on the productivity or unproductivity of the vineyard or of its vines as does the parable recorded in Isa. 5 but on the vicious actions of these vine-growers, to whom the vineyard had been leased, and who were now to meet the terms of the lease. The point to be noted is not the condition in which the vineyard was under their management. We are to see the outrageous vine-growers when the owner now sends for his share of the harvest (partitive ἀπό).

The slaves who were sent on this mission are the prophets, and Mark and Luke indicate the intervals at which God sent them to the leaders of Israel. When God sent them he expected fruit, contrition, faith, true obedience. It is unwarranted to think only of the law, of law works, of “the need of redemption” that is produced by the law. Vineyard is law and gospel, the full riches of divine grace, and fruits according, the chief being faith.

The first slave who is sent by the owner these wicked vine-growers “hide,” literally, “flay” or beat bloody, and then send away empty. This is plainly atrocious; there is not a single mitigating circumstance. We have a plain case of the future indicative after ἵνα, which is a construction found only in the Koine.

Luke 20:11

11 He added to send another slave; but him also, after hiding and insulting, they sent out empty. And he added to send a third; but this one, too, after wounding, they threw out.

The imagery is astounding. No man ever did what the owner of this vineyard did. After his first messenger had received such treatment and came back bloody and empty-handed, any other owner would forthwith have called in the police, ousted those vicious vine-growers, and brought them to justice. The hearers might well exclaim: “Why, we never heard of such an owner who would send slave after slave to have these atrocities repeated, and finally send his own son to be killed!” They had, of course, never heard of anything like this. But that is the very point Jesus wants to make. It takes unheard-of imagery to picture the unheard-of wickedness of these Jewish leaders, who murdered not only the prophets whom God sent them but were now about to murder also God’s own Son.

It is disappointing to observe that the commentators fail to note these features of the parable and other similar features in other parables. Read Matt. 23:34; Acts 7:52; Heb. 11:37, 38. According to tradition Jeremiah was stoned in exile in Egypt, and Isaiah was sawed asunder by King Manasseh.

Another feature should not be overlooked: as Jesus recites these points in the parable he is looking these very vine-growers squarely in the eye, and they know that Jesus has them in mind. The situation is dramatic in the extreme. The fact that no human lessor of a vineyard ever did a thing such as that which is depicted here brings out the full enormity of the reality of which these Sanhedrists were guilty. The patience of God toward Israel’s rulers is without parallel in all human history—an illustration must be invented to picture it, and that illustration must be unreal.

The second slave is treated worse than the first; insults are added to the blows.

Luke 20:12

12 The third is treated still worse. He is thrown out, covered with bleeding wounds. “He added to send” is a Hebraism (R. 1078) which uses the verb instead of an adverb: “he sent again.” Luke mentions only three slaves, Matthew and Mark speak of many and record stoning and actual killing. The way in which Jesus spoke the parable included all these features, the evangelists abbreviated, and each did so in his own way.

Luke 20:13

13 And the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my son, the beloved. Perhaps this one they will respect.

The unheard-of action reaches its climax: the owner actually resolves to send his own son to these vicious vine-growers. With a touch of pathos and with a second article which makes the verbal prominent Jesus adds, “the beloved” and recalls this very word that was used in 3:22 and in 9:35 and thus points to himself as being this “son.” The parable becomes prophetic by telling what the Sanhedrin would do with God’s beloved Son in three days. Where is the earthly father who would send his beloved son as God did actually send his? But the parable had to say this about the owner’s son. The son, too, is sent. God’s Son resembles the prophets in this respect, and yet they were only δοῦλοι, “slaves,” he is and remains “my Son, the beloved.” The prophets were God’s “slave-servants” as a result of being sent; Jesus is sent as a result of being the Son. In the one case the mission makes the man, in the other the man makes the mission.

The second future passive of ἐντρέπω, “to turn at” with the idea of turning with respect at the approach of someone, is used without the passive idea (R. 819), it is like the transitive aorist. “Perhaps” in the parable is no mere part of this humanly impossible imagery but is inserted to show how far God was willing to go with the leaders of the Jews, i. e., send his Son on a mere “perhaps.” The problem of the foreknowledge of God does not belong here. This imagery goes far deeper as regards God. On the one hand we have the incomprehensible love and patience of God that are exhibited in all these sendings; on the other hand we have the justice of God which lets the Jewish leaders fill the measure of their guilt to the very brim, yea, to overflowing, by the killing of even God’s son. To bring in the foreknowledge and to puzzle about that only breaks up the parable by trying to have it say what its imagery does not include.

Luke 20:14

14 But, on seeing him, the vine-growers began reasoning with each other, saying: This is the heir. Let us kill him in order that the inheritance may become ours! And having thrown him out outside the vineyard, they killed him.

The climax has been reached. Jesus tells his murderers exactly what they are on the point of doing. They are keeping it under cover. Jesus tells them openly to their faces before the assembled pilgrim crowds. The lessons in killing that were taught these Jewish leaders by all former persecutors of the prophets they are putting into final practice for the killing of God’s own Son.

The parable is exceedingly exact at this point. This reasoning with each other does not picture only the secret thoughts of the Sanhedrists; John 11:47–53 states that this is exactly how they did reason. They killed Jesus because they feared to lose their position and their power over the nation. Their blind unbelief hid the spiritual nature of the kingdom from them; and thus the fact that they could never retain the outward rule when its inwardness was foreign to them remained hidden from them. “Let us kill him” is the hortative subjunctive. The murder of Jesus was deliberately planned as Jesus tells the very men who planned it. After Jesus was out of the way, who was there to dispute the religious rule of the nation with the Sanhedrists? After he was dead, the inheritance was theirs.

Luke 20:15

15 Jesus does not say merely that the vine-growers killed the heir; no, they first threw him out outside the vineyard. This agrees too closely with the place where Jesus was put to death, John 19:17; Heb. 13:12, 13, “without the gate,” “without the camp,” to be a meaningless feature of the parable, compare 1 Kings 2:13; Acts 7:58. Jesus died on Calvary, outside of Jerusalem, “cut off in the intention of those who put him to death from the people of God and from all share in their blessings.” Trench.

What, therefore, will the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and will destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others.

It does not need to be said that these vine-growers will not be able to escape justice and retain the vineyard as their own. Justice must strike them at last. There is still the lord of the vineyard to deal with. He will come, but not as the slaves and as the son came. He will not seek fruit, he will come to do something with these vine-growers.

Luke 20:16

16 Jesus asked this question with the intent that the pilgrims are to answer it, he was letting them complete the parable (Matthew). Mark and Luke simply state the answer as being one that is self-evident. Just judgment shall descend upon these murderers and shall destroy them, and the lord of the vineyard will give his vineyard into other hands. The future tenses are volitive: the lord “will do” all this. But when they heard it they said, God forbid! literally, “May it not be!” an optative of wish, one of the few optatives that are still used in the Koine.

Some regard this statement as an exclamation on the part of the Sanhedrists. They, indeed, saw the meaning of the parable, but it only enraged them. The answer of the pilgrims, which completed the parable, came involuntarily from the lips of some one of their number. In the next instant, when it flashed into their minds what this answer really meant, the exclamation rose from others: “God forbid!” But this did not mean that God should not punish these wicked vine-growers, that he should leave the vineyard in their possession in spite of the murder of the heir. The cry meant that these pilgrims hoped to God that it would not come to such a terrible end as the killing of the heir and the judgment on the vine-growers. The fact that all who heard the parable understood its real drift should not be doubted.

Matt. 21:45 makes this plain as regards the Sanhedrists. The interpretation is, therefore, unwarranted that even these pilgrims were so steeped in self-righteousness that they thought that the control of the vineyard could never be taken from the Jewish leaders. Likewise the opinion that the pilgrims thought that Jesus had in mind the substitution of complete Roman and pagan control of the Jewish Temple and religion.

Luke 20:17

17 But he, having given them a look, said: What, then, is this that has been written:

A stone which those building rejected,

This became corner head?

Everyone fallen on that stone shall be crushed together; but on whom it falls, it shallpulverize him.

The parable is dropped, its possibilities have been exhausted since its imagery could not picture the resurrection of Jesus. The Sanhedrists have heard their verdict in the language of the parable. They are now to hear that this verdict has been recorded in their own Scriptures. Jesus quotes Ps. 118:22, 23, the very psalm from which the Hosanna shouts were taken on Palm Sunday; and after quoting it Jesus restates in his own words what this quotation means for his present hearers.

There is a pause. Jesus looks at all the people who are packed closely before him, all intent on every word that comes from his lips. The pause and the look add to the tension. “What, then, is this that has been written” in your own Scriptures and stands thus written to this day? The psalm, which was known to all, was, most likely, composed in order to express the joy of the people after the return from the Babylonian captivity, at the time of the laying of the cornerstone of their new Temple or at the time of the dedication of the completed structure. It contained the prophetic lines which Jesus quotes. More will happen than the rejection of the Sanhedrists and their replacement through better leaders.

An entirely new structure will be raised. The old covenant will yield to a new covenant, of which Jesus, who was rejected by the Jews, will be the mighty cornerstone.

The climax of the parable, the death of the son himself, is repeated in the first line of the psalm: “A stone which those building rejected,” the nominative λίθος being attracted into the accusative by its relative, R. 718. The killing = the rejection, the verb signifies to discard after testing. Those who are building are the Jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin, the vine-growers of the parable. But what happened? That very stone “became corner head” (the absence of the articles stresses the quality of each noun). Jesus is the “son” that was killed, the “stone” that was rejected as being unfit to be used anywhere in the building.

But his death and rejection did not eliminate him. On the contrary, this made him what the new structure needed: “corner head,” cornerstone (εἰς is predicative like the German zum Eckstein). The dead Jesus rose from the grave.

The idea in cornerstone is not that of “bearer and support” of the building. This would be the whole foundation. Jesus may, indeed, be called the foundation (θεμέλιος) as he is in 1 Cor. 3:11; but in Eph. 2:20 he is distinguished from the foundation, he is the cornerstone. As such he is set at the chief corner and thus governs every angle in the foundation and in the building itself. Jesus does this in the great spiritual temple of God, the new covenant. Luke abbreviates and omits the direct, literal statement that is found in Matt. 21:43.

Luke 20:18

18 This is contained in the general statement about this stone which the Jews rejected save that the figure of the stone is now used in an entirely new and independent way. Jesus presents two possibilities: one may fall on this stone by opposing Christ; or the stone may fall on such an opponent, Christ may strike him with his judgment. The singulars speak of the individual persons, for the guilt of unbelief and hostility is always personal. In Isa. 8:14 and in Luke 2:34 Christ is presented as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. The fall on this stone never hurts the stone in the least but only damages the one who falls (the aorist participle to designate the one act of falling); “he shall be crushed together” keeps the figure. This may not be fatal, recovery may be possible.

But when this stone itself falls on the unbeliever “it shall pulverize him” like winnowing the dust out of grain, the verb recalls Ps. 1:4 and Matt. 3:12. The chaff shall fly in all directions like dust. Judgment can be pictured with no greater severity.

Luke 20:19

19 And the scribes and the high priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour; and they feared the people, for they knew that he spoke the parable against them.

Two terms suffice to designate the Sanhedrin which had been indicated by three in v. 1. The aorist “they sought” and the phrase “in that very hour” convey the thought that the rage of the Sanhedrin was aroused to the pitch of arresting Jesus right then and there (Tuesday morning). They realized that the parable was directed against them but did not realize that by their rage they were justifying that parable in its severest part. Despite all their power and the entire body of Temple police at their command they lacked the courage to satisfy their rage at once.

Luke 20:20

20 And having watched their chance, they commissioned spies hypocritically representing themselves to be righteous in order to lay hold of him by a word, so as to deliver him to the jurisdiction and the authority of the governor.

In v. 1 and in v. 19 the Sanhedrin as such operates, a goodly number of the seventy appear together. They now act separately, first the Pharisees, then the Sadducees (v. 27) make their attempts against Jesus. The fact that the present move was made by the former Luke indicates only by saying that their spies pretended to be “righteous,” strict observers of the Pharisaic regulations. We translate the participle: “having watched their chance,” not: “having watched him.” That chance came soon, when a lull in the teaching occurred.

These spies were disciples of the Pharisees plus a few Herodians (Matthew and Mark), Spitzel as Zahn aptly calls them. They were new men whom Jesus had not met before and in regard to whom he might easily be deceived. The idea is not that the disciples of the Pharisees are to pretend that they were having a dispute with these Herodians about paying the tax, and that both parties now come to Jesus to settle the dispute. No; these disciples of the Pharisees are to pretend to conscientious scruples about the tax as though wondering whether they as righteous men ought to pay it; and the Herodians are sent along as witnesses whose word would go much farther with Pilate than would that of any disciples of the Pharisees.

We meet “Herodians” in the Gospels only incidentally. They were a minor political, nonreligious party among the Jews, supporters of the alien Herodian dynasty which ruled under Cæsar and was far preferable to the Jewish nation than Cæsar’s direct rule through Roman procurators would have been. The Herodians thus favored the Roman tax because of the dependence of the house of Herod on Rome. In all such matters the Pharisees opposed them and ever demanded complete independence from Rome and autonomy for the Jews. In their estimation any Roman tax was “unlawful” in the sight of God. Yet as the Pharisees joined hands with their opponents, the Sadducees, in their attack on Jesus, so they here ally themselves with their other opponents, the Herodians, in their attempt to destroy Jesus. After three days Herod and Pilate became friends in a similar fashion.

The purpose (ἵνα) for which these spies are sent is to lay hold of Jesus, of some statement of his. Verbs of taking hold are followed by the genitive, and we here have two: “of him” and “of a statement” (R. 508), and we should not combine “of his word or statement.” The scheme is to get Jesus to say something that can be construed as being treasonable. The intended result (ὥστε with the infinitive) is that, with the Herodians as witnesses, they may hand Jesus over “to the jurisdiction (ἀρχή) and the authority of the governor” (Pilate), and may so get rid of Jesus. It is a misconception to think of the death penalty which Pilate alone could decree. The cunning scheme was to make Jesus guilty of an infringement upon Roman law so that Pilate would arrest and try Jesus and relieve the Sanhedrin entirely. Whether the penalty would be death or less mattered little. It was a damnable trap, and the Pharisees confidently expected to catch their victim.

Luke 20:21

21 And they inquired of him, saying: Teacher, we know that thou speakest and teachest rightly and dost not accept a face but teachest the way of God in truth. Is it lawful that we pay tribute to Caesar or not?

The delegation comes with an astounding acknowledgment of the teaching and the character of Jesus, it is almost as if they themselves were about to become Jesus’ most ardent disciples. Their great captatio benevolentiae is to throw Jesus off his guard. Their masters have coached them well, for they have put into the mouth of these their disciples an acknowledgment of Jesus which every Jew should have made most sincerely. In their lying fashion they ape truth quite perfectly. Jesus did speak and teach “rightly,” correctly, in an orthodox way. He did not accept a face (Hebraistic expression), say to a friend what he would not say to an opponent.

He was never swayed by fear or by favor. He taught “the way” that had been marked out by God for every Israelite to follow “in truth,” literally, “on the basis of truth,” without a single deviation.

This elaborate preamble will certainly induce Jesus to live up to the estimate thus made of him: he will consider no man, not even Cæsar in Rome, when he gives his answer. He will speak without the least reserve to men who think of him so highly. And he is thus assured in advance that, whatever men like the Sanhedrists would do, the men who are now speaking to Jesus will prize his answer and will thank him for it with all their hearts. The scheme was certainly beautifully devilish.

Jesus lived up to this estimate of him, His answer was far beyond anything these fools thought possible. The way in which they tried to lure him into their snare was silly. Even a lesser mind than that of Jesus could have detected the false tone in their flattering words.

Luke 20:22

22 And now the question: “Is it lawful that we pay tribute to Cæsar or not?”—“we” who above all want to walk in “the way of God”? The answer is almost laid on the tongue of Jesus. He whom no man’s fear or favor could possibly sway would not even stop to think but would say outright, “It is certainly not lawful!” Luke uses φόρος, the wider word for “tribute” as it is paid by one nation to another; Matthew and Mark use the more specific κῆνσος or poll tax that is levied upon every individual for his own person and is thus especially galling as a mark of servitude to the Roman power. The poll tax was, of course, tribute in the fullest sense of the word.

23, 24) Now having perceived their craftiness, he said to them: Show me a denarius! Whose image and superscription has it? And they said, Caesar’s. And he said to them, Well then, duly give the things of Caesar to Caesar and the things of God to God!

John 2:24, 25 explains this instant perception on the part of Jesus. He always knows whatever he ought to know in his work, and no man ever deceived him for a moment. Luke calls it “craftiness” (literally, the ability to do anything but to be understood here in an evil sense), Matthew labels it wickedness, Mark, hypocrisy. Jesus charged them with tempting him (not, however, according to the text of Luke) and addressed them as “hypocrites.” These liars had no defense. Yes, Jesus told them the truth and told it without fear or favor!

Luke 20:25

25 And yet, unworthy of any answer as they are, Jesus gives them an answer and does it in a way that has gone ringing down the centuries. He demands to be shown a denarius, the coin with which the poll tax was always paid, which was in purchasing value equal to the price of a day’s labor, the wage of a Roman soldier, 17 cents today but irrespective of our money values in labor and in trade. The Roman senate had the right to mint only copper coins; the right to mint gold and silver coins was reserved for the emperor. The denarius was a small silver coin that was usually stamped with the emperor’s head (occasionally with that of a member of his household) and invariably with the name and the title of the reigning emperor.

The coin is produced promptly. “Jesus begins in a childish and foolish way as though he did not know the image and the inscription and could not read, so that they quickly thought, surely, here we have him, he is afraid and intends to dissimulate about the emperor and dares not speak against him. But he takes the word right out of their mouth and makes them surrender with their confession. They dare not be silent, for just as they bade him answer, so he now bids them answer. If they were silent, he would say, ‘If you will not give answer to my question, neither will I answer your question.’” (v. 8). Luther. Besides, the question seems so innocent and harmless that they see no reason to pause and thus reply, “Cæsar’s.” While digging a pit for Jesus, they have tumbled into it themselves. All that Jesus does is to point this out to them.

Trench, Synonyms, I, 78, points out the exact meaning of εἰκών, “image,” which always implies a prototype, which it does not merely resemble but from which it is drawn. It is the German Abbild which presupposes a Vorbild. The emperor’s face is depicted on the coin; so the sun shines in the water, the statue presents the man, the child is the image of its parent. But ὁμοίωμα or ὁμοίωσις, “likeness,” means only resemblance and does not itself include derivation: two men may look alike; one egg resembles another.

In ἀπόδοτε the preposition gives the verb the meaning “to give what is due,” what our obligation requires us to give (not “give back,” R., Tr.). The perfection of Jesus’ answer was recognized fully by his hostile questioners the moment they heard it, and few have ever found fault with it although some have failed to see all that these brief words convey. The perfection of the answer is its completeness. The Jews looked at the poll tax by itself; the only way in which to look at it was to place it among all “the things of Cæsar” and then to look at these in connection with (καί) all “the things of God.” Then all difficulties, those regarding the tax and a thousand others, disappear at once. The trouble with so many casual (case) questions is that we look only at the one question and fail to rise to the comprehensive view which takes in the whole domain of which the one question is only a trivial part. Jesus always saw the whole, and Paul rises to the same height, notably in solving the intricate problems in Corinth. The wisdom that does this is from above.

Jesus asked for an actual coin, one that was to be taken out of the wallet of one of his questioners. All of them carried such money. He makes them say that this is the emperor’s coinage. They have accepted it, are using it, and it is their money, the money that is accepted by their entire nation. This means that their nation belongs to the empire. This coinage was one of the advantages they enjoyed under the emperor’s rule, a sample of other like advantages. The emperor was their ruler; this coin with his image, which was taken from their pocket, was the incontestable evidence of that fact. In the providence of God the Jews were this emperor’s subjects. That suffices.

And that settled all their obligations toward the emperor, the matter of paying him the poll tax that was now in force and rendering all other duties toward him. Τοίνυν, “well then,” makes this plain. “Duly give to Cæsar the things of Cæsar” includes all their obligations to “the higher powers ordained of God,” Rom. 13:1–7. “The things of Cæsar” include, not only tribute, but also fear and honor. It makes no difference whether any government makes this easy or hard for us. Our part is plain—let the rulers look well to theirs as being answerable to God, who likewise rules over them.

But this is only part of the answer. The question: “Is it lawful or not?” referred to God: “Is the payment of this tax in harmony or in dissonance with our obligation to him?” Therefore Jesus adds: “and the things of God to God.” This “and” places the two obligations side by side. There is no clash between them, quite the contrary. Neither obligation interferes with the other. “The things of God” are all that our relation to him involves: contrition, faith, love, worship, obedience, submission to his providential guidance, even to his correction and chiding.

But we misunderstand Jesus when we understand him to say that the obligation to God has nothing to do with the obligation to our government. Even the Pharisees and their disciples were not so shallow as their question shows. The “and” of Jesus intends to cancel the “or” of his questioners (v. 22). These are not alternatives, they harmonize, yea, more: when we are giving to God what is God’s we will for his sake give to the ruler what is his. For our obligation to God includes everything in our life, its citizenship as well as our religion. This “and” connects a small field with the whole field. And only by seeing both in their true relation do we see either aright. From Cæsar Jesus rises to God—no man would suppose that he merely parallels them.

The emperor’s image was on the coins that were in the pockets of the Jews, and Jesus pointed to that image when he said, “Duly give to Cæsar,” etc. He connected the obligation with the image. When he now adds in identical words: “and the things of God,” etc., who can help but think of a corresponding connection of this obligation with an image, namely the image of God in which he created us and which his Son restores in us? To say the least, the thought is captivating. And in fact, only as we truly attain in us God’s image will we truly render to him what is his due from us.

Jesus acknowledges the state as a divine institution that is willed by God. His own conduct before Pilate exemplifies this fact, in particular his word recorded in John 19:11. His word about Cæsar regards the state and our relation to it as a separate domain, and the doctrine of the separation of church and state is thus the only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from what he says. Yet church and state are not mere parallels and equals. Our obligations to God are the whole life, those to the state one part of this whole. Whereas church and state are separate in the way indicated, there is no gulf between them.

They are not like two watertight compartments. The church will always put conscience, namely as it is governed by God, into our relations to the state (Rom. 13:5). The church constantly contributes this to the state. Rom. 13:3, 4 makes plain what the state normally contributes and always ought to contribute to the church. Thus each aids the other, but the church aids in the higher way. When either seeks to control the other, usurps the functions of the other, havoc results for both as history bears witness.

Luke 20:26

26 And they were not able to lay hold of the utterance before the people; and after marvelling at his answer they were silent.

The vicious intent was completely frustrated. “Before the people” means that all these were pilgrims standing about as witnesses, ready to testify to just what Jesus had said and to prevent any twisting of his words. On Friday the leaders tried to make out that Jesus had said the very opposite about Cæsar, but these pilgrims could then not expose the lie. So even these wicked fellows had to marvel; and when they bethought themselves that this was giving Jesus credit they became silent and left (Matthew).

Luke 20:27

27 Now some of the Sadducees, who claim there is no resurrection, having come forward, inquired of him saying: Teacher, Moses wrote for us, if one’s brother dies having a wife, and he be childless, that his brother shall take his wife and raise up seed for his brother.

Matthew tells us that this took place on the same day (Tuesday). This time a group of Sadducees (freethinkers, loose livers) confronts Jesus. We read of no prominent personages being among them and may thus think of ordinary Sadducees who, in keeping with the opposition of their entire party to Jesus, had conceived of a way to trip Jesus and at the same time to maintain their skeptic views against the orthodox Pharisees. “Who claim there is no resurrection” summarizes their position on the point at issue; εἶναι is the tense of the direct discourse (ἐστίν) just as we still use the present tense in general and doctrinal propositions. “They inquired” implies that they acted respectfully; and “teacher” is the Greek for “rabbi,” which Luke translates thus.

Luke 20:28

28 These Sadducees, however, use no flattery as did the disciples of the Pharisees (v. 21). Feeling their lofty superiority as Sadducees, they were naturally disinclined to exalt Jesus even by hypocrisy. Josephus comments on their coarse manners, a sample of which appears in John 11:49. Although they address Jesus formally as “teacher” they really intend to show what a wretched teacher he actually is. They briefly summarize the Mosaic law regarding levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5, etc.). The purpose of the law was not to let the dead, childless brother’s line die out; the first son of the new marriage (not any of the other children) would be regarded as the dead man’s child.

Luke 20:29

29 All this is a preamble. Now there comes the real question. There were, accordingly, seven brothers; and the first, having taken a wife, died childless; and the second and the third took her. Moreover, also the seven left behind no children and died. Finally also the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, of which of them will she be wife? For the seven had her as wife.

The logic presented in this case is intended to be a reductio ad absurdum for the defenders of the resurrection. This is done by means of a supposed dilemma, either horn of which offers an impossible, untenable, really ludicrous situation. The fallacy of the logic lies in the falsity of the assumption that in this Sadducaic dilemma tertium non datur. These men thought that they were wielding a two-edged sword, either edge of which would prove fatal to Jesus, and never dreamed that he would strike the flat side of their blade and snap it off at the very handle.

These deniers of the resurrection still have many followers. The theological view that Judaism acquired the doctrine of the resurrection at a late day (say at Solomon’s time), and that it was little known even after that period is not tenable. Abraham believed that God could raise his son from the dead (Heb. 11:19). Only the skeptic Sadducees disbelieved the resurrection, and their objection shows only how extensively and intensively the doctrine was held. The Scripture evidence is abundant between these terminals, and even Abraham speaks of the resurrection as something that was long and fully known. And always, as in the case of these Sadducees, this is the resurrection of the body. This must be said for the sake of the modernists who speak of a spirit-resurrection—as though the spirit is buried like the body.

The Sadducees cite the case of the seven brothers as being a real case, and Jesus does not contradict them regarding its reality. It is wrong to call even Sadducees liars without proper evidence. Whereas they use this case, which runs up to seven brothers, because they had it, two brothers would suffice for the sake of the argument, and such cases were certainly numerous among the Jews.

Luke 20:30

30 The second and the third brothers are mentioned briefly.

Luke 20:31

31 Then in summary all seven are referred to. None leaves issue of any kind, all die in succession. If even a girl had been born to one of the brothers, a claim might have been set up for him.

Luke 20:32

32 The death of the woman is necessary for the argument in order to transfer all the persons concerned into the other world and thus to show by actuality and not merely hypothetically how absurd the resurrection appears when it is considered in the light of Deut. 25:5, etc. The old trick of playing one word of Scripture (one that seems to suit our error) against some great doctrine of Scripture, which is buttressed by a number of Scripture statements, was practiced already in the days of the Sadducees.

Luke 20:33

33 So the conundrum is propounded to Jesus. Supposing for the sake of argument that there is a resurrection, and that these dead bodies of ours rise again from their graves—what about this woman? All seven brothers were equally her husband—in the resurrection will all seven together be her husband? The very idea is monstrous already in this life and how much more in the life to come! Or which one of the seven will be her husband, and why the one, and why not some other one of the seven, she having had a child by none? When seven hold equal rights, why set aside six?

Again an impossible situation. The Sadducees are thus certain that there is no resurrection, and that Moses himself proves it in Deuteronomy, and that no man can overthrow this solid proof. We may well suppose that they had tried this proof against many a Pharisee and had made a laughingstock of every opponent. Jesus was to be their next victim.

Luke 20:34

34 And Jesus said to them: The sons of this eon marry and are given in marriage; but those deemed worthy to attain that eon and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are married, for they are not able to die anymore, for they are angel-like and are sons of God as being sons of the resurrection.

The bubble that has been blown by the folly of the Sadducees is punctured. Luke omits the preliminary words that are preserved by Matthew and Mark and at once goes to the essentials. The Sadducees run in a false premise on this question of the resurrection, one that is absolutely foreign to Moses and the Scriptures, namely, that in the other world the same conditions prevail that are found in this world. Where does the Old Testament teach anything of the kind? Thus as to marriage and the entire marital relation, this is intended only for men as being “sons of this eon,” of this world age.

Luke 20:35

35 “Those deemed worthy (by God) to attain that eon (the heavenly and eternal one) and the resurrection from the dead” are past marrying (used with reference to men) and of being married (the simple passive used with reference to women). Jesus is speaking only of the blessed dead, for the question of the Sadducees relates only to these. The fact that these attain “the resurrection from the dead” must be added, for the question about marriage involves the body, not disembodied souls in heaven prior to the resurrection of the last day. On the phrase ἐκνεκρῶν see 9:7; it is made emphatic by means of the second article (R. 776); on αἰών see 16:8.

Luke 20:36

36 Jesus explains how this is to be understood by means of two γάρ clauses, the second resting on the first. The entire arrangement of sex, marriage, reproduction, childbirth, and any laws pertaining to these, is valid for this eon only, for the earthly life, and not for that heavenly eon and the life there, for men no longer die there. “Where there is no dying, there is also no succession of children,” Augustine. No replenishment is necessary in heaven. As the number of the angels was complete and fixed from the time of creation onward, so will that of the blessed in the resurrection and from that day onward be. In that respect the blessed will then be ἰσάγγελοι, “angel-like” (“as the angels,” Matthew and Mark), which is better than “equal to the angels” (our versions). Jesus does not say that the blessed shall be angels but angel-like as regards sex and marriage. The blessed shall have their bodies “in the resurrection of the dead” and differ therein from the angels.

The view that the angels, too, possess corporeity is wholly without Scripture support. This theosophical, speculative idea assumes an ethereal, firelike body for the angels; and when it is consistently held, a body of some indefinable form also for God. But the Scriptures know angels only as πνεύματα, “spirits,” and use this term in many connections as being the opposite of all that is bodily or corporeal. See the fuller discussion in Philippi, Glaubenslehre, II, 296, etc. When angels appear to men on earth they are given a form in order to be visible just as Jehovah assumed a form in the theophanies.

We may add, however, that in the resurrection our bodies will be lifted above the narrow limitations of earthly matter as we know it at present; they will be made perfect instruments of the spirit so as to accord in all things with the glorious conditions of the eon to come.

Luke has preserved the addition to “angel-like” which defines further what Jesus means: “and are sons of God as being sons of the resurrection.” Their resurrection is not used as evidence or as proof that they are God’s sons by faith; the evidence for this kind of sonship lies in the works of faith. Their resurrection is proof or evidence for their sonship in the new and glorified nature which even their bodies shall have by virtue of the resurrection. Faith brings ethical sonship, a new relation to God; the resurrection a metaphysical sonship in which the entire nature is filled with God’s glory. Why this sonship should not be angel-like according to the title “sons of God” which is applied to the angels in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 is hard to see in spite of strong assertions to that effect.

Luke 20:37

37 This pertinent instruction concerning the condition of the blessed in heaven eliminates the entire argument of the Sadducees which rests on the false assumption that our bodily conditions in heaven will be like the conditions that obtain here on earth. But the Sadducees had appealed to the Scriptures (like Satan in 4:10, 11) falsely; Jesus now crushes this appeal by himself appealing to the Scriptures (as he did in 4:12) truly. The Scriptures are the true court of appeal. Jesus unmasks one of the hidden batteries of Scripture and delivers a volley that is the more annihilating since it comes from an entirely unexpected quarter.

But that the dead do arise even Moses disclosed at the bush when he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of dead men but of living men, for all are living for him.

“But that the dead do arise” has the present tense which occurs in doctrinal declarations. The verb is emphatic since it is placed before the subject and is thus contrasted with the assertion that the dead do not arise. This opening clause states the point at issue, and “the dead” as well as “they do arise” make it plain that the bodily resurrection is referred to. The Sadducees referred to Moses, Jesus points to that same Moses.

The question is asked why he used Exod. 3:6 or its parallels and not obvious passages like Dan. 12:2. The answer that this was done because the Sadducees rejected all but the Pentateuch is hardly convincing. To set the right Moses against a falsified Moses seems entirely proper. Another point is probable. The Sadducees drew a deduction from a passage in Moses, drew it falsely; Jesus also uses a passage from which he draws a deduction, draws it truly—one that clearly lies in the Scripture words themselves and goes not an inch beyond these. He thus shows how deductions are to be drawn.

Jesus says, “Even Moses disclosed at the bush” and means what Moses wrote in Exodus regarding this theophany. It was, however, the Lord (Yahweh) himself who used this covenant name concerning himself there at the bush. Moses disclosed it when he wrote Exodus—another example of how Jesus makes Moses the author of the Pentateuch. Κύριον (the translation of Yahweh) is the object of λέγει, the present tense to indicate the fact that Moses speaks so to this day; and τὸνΘεόνκτλ is predicative to the object. This is the great covenant name of God in which all the Jews gloried. What an innocent thing to announce what every Jew knew: that Moses had recorded this name in Exodus! But now, like a blinding flash for these self-confident Sadducees, there comes the revealing word: “He is not a God of dead men but of living men!” And the terse explanation: “for all are alive to him.” Θεός is the predicate, and οὐκἔστι contains the subject: “he is not.” The emphasis is on the contrasted genitives: “of dead men”—“of living men,” which is re-enforced by the fact that they all live as far as God is concerned.

Luke 20:38

38 “Dead men” are men whose bodies are lifeless, who are lying in the graves as such. If there is no resurrection, then the bodies of the great patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom God made his great covenant, would lie dead forever, and that would make God “God of dead men”—an impossible thought. That would mean that death was not conquered; that death, which was holding its prey, was stronger than God; that redemption had failed and had left death still triumphant. But no; the resurrection proves that God is “God of living men.” Death has suffered its deathblow. Redemption has not failed. It has turned the death of God’s saints into a mere sleep.

The proof is the resurrection by which God wakes these dead bodies from their slumber. The dust of God’s saints may, indeed, look to our eyes as other dust, dead dust; in reality God, Christ, heavenly power are over and in that dust—it is living dust, we shall see it live in glory forever. “For they all live to him” whatever men may think or say. Thus the very name and title which God gave himself in the Old Testament as early as Exodus proves the resurrection. So closely is the resurrection connected with the covenant God.

The interpretation is offered by some that the souls of the patriarchs were in sheol, the “realm of the dead,” and that Christ intended to release their souls from sheol, and that this would be their resurrection and prove God to be the God of the living. But this interpretation turns Jesus’ refutation of the Sadducees into a farce. They denied the resurrection of the dead bodies, and to substitute no matter what statement regarding only the souls would be a piece of deception, which, if detected, would destroy not only the pretended proof but even the entire character of Jesus. The same is true when sheol is disregarded, when God is made the God of the living only because the souls continue to live after leaving their bodies. It is juggling words to say that the patriarchs were “not absolute dead men, non-existent men” but “living” because enjoying eternal life in heaven. Then the Sadducees (ancient and modernistic) would be right in asserting that no resurrection of the dead bodies will take place.

Jesus himself would be a Sadducee. He would only pretend to say “that the dead do arise” when he in fact says nothing like that at all.

Luke 20:39

39 And answering, some of the scribes said, Teacher, excellently didst thou speak! For no longer dared they inquire a thing of him.

Matthew tells us that the multitude was astonished, Luke that even the hostile scribes who stood by felt compelled to commend Jesus for his answer. This means much more than is ordinarily supposed. To win commendation from such hostile men was a great triumph. These scribes were, of course, Pharisees and as such were firm believers in the resurrection (Acts 23:6–9). But not because Jesus agreed with them regarding this doctrine did these scribes commend him; their praise was intended for the way in which Jesus proved the doctrine. In their contention with the Sadducees the scribes had never been able to wield such effective weapons. This was what inspired the praise.

Luke 20:40

40 The Sadducees were silenced for good and all. Mark 12:28 tells about one of the scribes who asked another question but not with evil intent. Luke’s statement is not in contradiction to Mark’s, for it refers to the Sadducees.

Luke 20:41

41 Jesus has been questioned repeatedly; he now in turn propounds a question. It is addressed to the Pharisees (Matthew), and Luke has only the briefest record of it. Now he said to them: How do they declare the Christ to be David’s son? For David himself says in the Psalms Book, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right till I place thine enemies as a footstool of thy feet! David, therefore, calls him Lord, and how is he his son? Luke omits the dialog and centers on the main point that the Jews, in particular the scribes, all declare the Messiah to be David’s son.

Luke 20:42

42 But now the main question: “How can David in Ps. 110 say that the Lord (Yahweh) said to his Lord (Adonai) to sit on his (Yahweh’s) right,” etc.? The Hebrew is very expressive: ne’um Yahweh, “communication of Jehovah,” Eingerauntes, something secretly whispered into the ear, the communication of a mystery. The right (plural in the Greek) is the power and the majesty of Yahweh. The Hebrew imperative sheb limini has itself become a title of the Messiah: “Sheblimini.” The Greek views the direction “from or out of” the right as it appears to the beholder. In this psalm David sees his Adon invited by Yahweh to exercise all the divine majesty and power.

Luke 20:43

43 And he is to do this until Yahweh puts all this Adon’s enemies as a footstool of his feet. He shall reign supreme in the universe. Jesus was facing some of these enemies at this very time. The psalm continues in the same strain and makes this Adon of David divine in every way.

Luke 20:44

44 Now the question which is so deadly for these Pharisees yet so illuminating for all believers—David calls this person Adon, divine Lord and Master, in the psalm: “how is he his (David’s) son?” In other words, how can the Messiah be at the same time David’s divine Lord and David’s son? The terrible error of the Pharisees and their scribes is exposed. They saw the Messiah only as David’s son, great and mighty, indeed, but only human. His deity, which is so plainly disclosed in the psalm, they never saw. They dared not say that he was not to be David’s son—they knew that he would be. On the other hand, they dared not deny David’s inspired word that the Messiah would be David’s Lord and thus very God.

When they were confronted with the psalm they had no answer whatever but simply refused to admit the Messiah’s deity. They were like our modernists who, however, go still farther and deny even his Davidic descent.

Luke 20:45

45 Luke reports only a few sentences from the discourse which fills Matt. 23, the warning against the Pharisees and scribes and the terrible woes pronounced upon them on this Tuesday. Now, with all the people hearing, he said to his disciples, etc. The people are the pilgrims who are present for the Passover celebration; the disciples, the large number that was attached to Jesus. From Matt. 23:13, etc., we see that the Pharisees and scribes are addressed in the second person. They, too, are still present. In their very presence, with all the pilgrims listening, Jesus warns his disciples against them and their ugly sins and then turns upon them with his devastating woes. This is dramatic in the extreme.

Luke 20:46

46 Beware of the scribes who desire to walk in festal robes and love salutations in the market places and the first seats in the synagogues and the first reclining places at the dinners—who devour the houses of the widows and in pretense go on praying long. These shall take more abundant judgment.

With προσέχετε we supply τὸννοῦν: “hold your mind to it to avoid the scribes,” etc., in all their ungodly and utterly selfish pride. They like nothing better than to parade about in the long, white, rich robes that are worn only by dignitaries on great occasions. They aim to be recognized and treated as such dignitaries by all who see them coming in their grandeur. They purposely visit the crowded market places, there to be effusively saluted right and left by all who witness their parading. And, of course, in the synagogues they must have the most prominent seats in front with the elders, for as scribes they expect to be requested to impart their wisdom to the audience. Likewise at any δεῖπνον, the main meal of the day that is eaten at evening, they expect the chief places on the couches.

Each couch accommodated several people, and the place toward the left end was the chief. These were concrete samples of their unholy pride, all rested on their claim to special sanctity after the Pharisaic type.

Luke 20:47

47 Now Jesus turns the page and in a flash shows the selfish greed of these scribes. Because of their holiness appointed to administer the property of widows, they used their position of trust “to devour” even the homes of these helpless widows. They boldly disregarded all that the Old Testament said about the widows and the fatherless, both in admonition and in warning, and little by little, with a show of right, worked this property into their own hand. And “in pretense,” in rank hypocrisy, to cover up their robbery, “they go on praying long,” making long prayers—the longer, the more impressively holy in the eyes of unthinking men.

Now Jesus turns another leaf, and on it is written: “These—and all like them—shall take (as their due portion) more abundant judgment” when the day of reckoning comes. The noun is neutral and does not itself intimate the verdict, which can, however, be only condemnation. “More abundant” refers to the rank hypocrisy which is added to the ugly greed. In the judgment their guilt shall be piled up, and the verdict shall be doubly, trebly heavy. Yes, Jesus was right in warning his disciples as he did, and the pilgrims who heard it might also well take this warning as being intended for themselves.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.