From: Busy Person’s Guide to Luke 13 to 24 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2019
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
credit is given and the text is not altered.
Busy Person’s Guide to the
New Testament:
Quickly Understanding Luke
(Volume 2: Chapters 19 to 20)
Chapter Nineteen
Jesus Offends Many by Eating at the Home of the Tax Collector
Zacchaeus, but Finds in Him A
Man Willing to Set His Lifestyle Right (Luke 19:1-10): 1 Jesus entered
4 So he ran on ahead and
climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, because Jesus was going to pass
that way. 5 And when Jesus came to
that place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus,
come down quickly, because I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down quickly and welcomed Jesus joyfully.
7 And when the people
saw it, they all complained, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a
sinner.” 8 But Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, half
of my possessions I now give to the poor, and if I have cheated anyone of
anything, I am paying back four times as much!” 9 Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this household,
because he too is a son of Abraham! 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
19:1 Then Jesus entered and passed through
19:2 Now behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector, and he was rich. There were surely tax collectors who were not wealthy simply due to the fact that where they worked had a low revenue base, avoidance was unusually effective, or they simply had not yet developed the talents to effectively maximize what they could get out of the system. By good means--but far more likely foul means--he was among those quite successful at his business.
He was also either the executive in charge in the town (to use modern terminology) or one of the most important collecting taxes for he is labeled “chief” in regard to them. (Translations vary between “a chief tax collector” and “the chief tax collector.) Even if only one of several that the term was applicable to, it still indicated him a “pride of place” within the broader group.
Sidebar: “The position
of
19:3 And he sought to see who Jesus was, but could not because of the crowd, for he was of short stature. He had heard enough about Jesus that he wished to see who this widely talked about Man might be. Perhaps he had even heard something specific that roused his curiosity; for example, the parable of the Pharisee and the publican praying in the temple would obviously have caught his interest. But he suffered from the problem of being too short to see over the shoulders of those in front of him.
19:4 So he ran ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him, for He was going to pass that way. Determined not to miss this opportunity, he ran ahead of the moving crowd and climbed a tree to assure himself a good look at what was happening. Embarrassing for a rich man to have to do this, of course, but he wasn’t going to let pride stand in the way.
Sidebar: A few translations render “sycamore-fig tree” (NIV) in order to better indicate the specific type of tree it would have been in that region. In addition to growing tall, the branches began relatively low and that made it that much easier to climb.
19:5 And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” When Jesus saw him in the tree, he addressed him by name. How did He know it? His supernatural insight would be the most obvious assumption since we are given no hint that they had met previously. What must have thoroughly startled Zacchaeus was both Jesus’ recognition of him but even more so it being accompanied by an unexpected strong desire to visit with him in his home. Indeed, remain overnight (note the “stay” and not simply “eat”).
This respected (though quite unorthodox teacher) was extending this courtesy to him--a tax collector! Respected “rabbis” simply didn’t do that kind of thing. On the other hand this Jesus had the reputation of doing unexpected and startling things!
Sidebar:
19:6 So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. Recognizing the great honor that had been given him, Zacchaeus quickly got out of the tree, enthusiastically welcomed Him, and took Him to his home.
19:7 But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.” The wording here is significant: “But when they [i.e., the crowd at large] saw it, they all complained:” Not just any priests who observed it; there was a general sense of annoyance and impropriety. Jesus had not only been willing to engage in the extremely questionable act of having dinner with a tax collector, He had even sought out the opportunity to do so--and to stay with him overnight as well! Everyone simply knew that a tax collector was automatically a “sinner.” The unspoken adjective was surely brazen for one did not usually go far astray in assuming that “tax collector” was equivalent to “sinner” in its most negative connotations.
19:8 Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” Zacchaeus was determined to leave his evil behavior behind. He pledged to give half of his possessions to the poor and, if there were evidence that taxes had been collected unjustly, he would even restore the money four-fold.
Some have argued that “I give” means “I have been giving” while others take it to mean “I will give half.” The first makes him already righteous; the other, one who intends to be in the future. If the first were the situation, it is hard to imagine the locals not knowing about it and quickly pointing out that this was one of the few of his breed who qualified for the label of honorable.
Jesus did
not demand that everything be sold as had been the case in a previous incident
(
Sidebar
on the lack of ethics among tax collectors:
“It was common for the publicans to put a
fictitious value on property or income, or to advance the tax to those unable
to pay, and then to charge usurious interest on the private debt. On the harsh exaction of such debts,
see Matthew 18:28; Luke 12:58.”
(Vincent’s Word Studies)
19:9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham. As the result of this change in behavior, “salvation” was now present in his home. As “a son of Abraham” he deserved the opportunity to change for the better--a warning across the bow, surely, to those who were convinced that such a man could never possibly change--and should never be given the opportunity to demonstrate it happening: What he was, in their minds, he would always be. But Zacchaeus realized he did not need to remain a slave to the past; he had grasped the need to begin fundamentally altering his lifestyle. In their own lives, were Zacchaeus’ critics as determined to do equally well?
A Parabolic Warning That the “Kingdom of God” Was Going to
Come On God’s Schedule and Not That of An Impatient Generation: At That Time Those Who Follow Jesus Will Be
Rewarded on the Basis of How They Used Their Opportunities--And Punished When
Not Doing So (Luke 19:11-27): 11 While the people were
listening to these things, Jesus proceeded to tell a parable, because he was
near to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God was going
to appear immediately.
12 Therefore he said, “A
nobleman went to a distant country to receive for himself a kingdom and then
return. 13 And he summoned ten of
his slaves, gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business with these
until I come back.’ 14 But his citizens hated
him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to be
king over us!’
15 ”When he returned after receiving the kingdom, he summoned these slaves
to whom he had given the money. He
wanted to know how much they had earned by trading. 16 So the first one came before him and said, ‘Sir, your mina has made ten
minas more.’ 17 And the king said to
him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been faithful in a very small
matter, you will have authority over ten cities.’
18 “Then the second one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has made five minas.’ 19 So the king said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’
20 “Then another slave came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina that I put
away for safekeeping in a piece of cloth. 21 For I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You withdraw what
you did not deposit and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 The king said to him,
‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! So you knew, did you,
that I was a severe man, withdrawing what I didn’t deposit and reaping what I
didn’t sow? 23 Why then didn’t you
put my money in the bank, so that when I returned I could have collected it
with interest?’
24 ”And he said to his attendants, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to
the one who has ten.’ 25 But they said to him,
‘Sir, he has ten minas already!’ 26 ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more, but from the one
who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.
27 ‘But as for these
enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and
slaughter them in front of me!’ “
To warn
them that the kingdom was not coming the way they thought, He gave the parable
of the minas (
Sidebar: Our text refers to “they heard these
things” rather than just to the apostles or “disciples”--as in the case of the
story of the pounds (Matthew 24:3, with the parable in 25:14-30). Hence this one is probably addressed to the
wider group of individuals traveling along with them to the Passover.
Sidebar--This
has been regarded by a goodly number as a case where an actual historical
incident is being adapted to spiritual purposes: “Two nobles,
Herod and Archelaus, in that age had literally gone
from Jericho, where the Speaker of the parable-story then was, to a far country
across the sea--to Rome, to receive a kingdom from Caesar (Josephus, Antiquities,
14:14; 17:9). And one of these two
nobles, Archelaus, had rebuilt the stately royal
The amount is actually rather small. It is an amount he can easily afford to lose if the worst happens. Paradoxically it is large enough to serve as a reasonable test of their skills and talents. Clearly he has in mind using their skills after he returns if they manifest the ability he hopes for.
Historical
sidebar: “Archelaus
did actually leave money in the charge of some of his servants, especially
entrusting Philippus to look after his pecuniary
interests in his absence” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).
Historical sidebar: In the parable there is absolutely no hint that the king has acted unjustly at all. Hence to the extent that Jesus may be constructing a scenario “parallel to” Archelaus, he is freely adapting it to make His point: Not all rulers are like Archelaus after all, and the audience would be well aware of it.
“ . . . We . . . know from Josephus that the Jews did send an embassy of 50 to Augustus—who were met on their arrival at
19:15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. As anticipated by him, he was given authority over the kingdom and eventually returned to exercise direct authority over it. (How quickly we aren’t told and is basically irrelevant to the point Jesus is driving at.) At this time he assembled the ten servants to see how successful each had been while away. The fact that all but one had done well certainly argues for skill and hard work on their part. The fact that some had quite impressive returns on the money may well argue that the nobleman had been away for an extended period of time as well, not a short one.
Sidebar: If one mina (verse 13) is “very little” then a major point of the parable is that in comparison with one’s minimal responsibilities and resources, one will still be abundantly rewarded if one has taken advantage of the opportunity that has been granted for service (verses 18-19). We may, indeed, have only “little” available in abilities and talent, but the effective use of them will still be amply rewarded. Since this is a parable about future rewards for our current earthly work, the point would seem to be that there will be opportunities for responsible leadership in the heavenly kingdom as well.
Historical
sidebar in connection with Archelaus (verses 12, 13, 14): “Another strange touch explained by the history of the
times. Archelaus
had actually assigned the government of cities to his adherents who had proved
faithful, and this was not an uncommon plan among the Herodian
princes. ‘We shall also reign with Him,’
2 Timothy
After all, it was clear that the King did not really require the man’s assistance, which could only be modest at best. He seemed to effortless collect money and crops without any effort. Furthermore the servant had done nothing overtly wrong--nothing evil at all.
Note how
he attempts to put responsibility for his own failure on his King: (1) He was too strict to risk offending
and (2) he didn’t need his help in the first place. Underlying these justifications is surely the
subtext of “I was doomed to at least comparative failure from the very
beginning because of your sternness and your lack of needing anything I could
do!” Have times really changed with
human rationalizations? “If He just made
me stronger . . . wiser . . . more self-controlled . . . etc.
. . . then I would not have failed.” It
won’t work in our context either.
One could easily imagine what was taken away being given to the lesser successful servant since the most successful had already been so generously rewarded, but that was not the king’s judgment and that immediately causes protests. . . .
Sidebar on the increasing and
stripping of privileges: “This again takes its place among the oft-repeated
axioms of our Lord’s teaching. It meets
us after the parable of the Sower (Luke
Jesus had
warned that He was going to die in
The Triumphal Entry into
32 So those who were sent
ahead found it exactly as he had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you
untying that colt?” 34 They replied, “The
Lord needs it.” 35 Then they brought it
to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt, and had Jesus get on it.
36 As he rode along, they
spread their cloaks on the road. 37 As he approached the road leading down from the Mount of Olives, the
whole crowd of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice
for all the mighty works they had seen: 3 8 ”Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and
glory in the highest!”
39 But some of the
Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” 40 He answered, “I tell you, if they keep silent, the very stones will cry
out!”
19:29 And it came to pass, when He drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mountain called Olivet, that He sent two of His disciples. Hence there were at least these two communities
located on the mountain. The mount was
also a place where pilgrims who did not have (or could not afford)
accommodations within
Acts
19:32-33 So those who were sent went their way and found it just as He had said to them. 33 But as they were loosing the colt, the owners of it said to them, “Why are you loosing the colt?” Not only were they challenged, as Jesus warned might happen, they were challenged by the persons with the most right to do so--the owners.
Sidebar: Here we have a major cultural difference
between the Roman world and the culture of the region where the story takes
place--“The ass in the East is not a despised
animal (Genesis 49:14; Genesis 22:3; Judges 5:10), and it is only
because it was despised by Gentiles that Josephus substitutes for it ‘horse’ or
‘beast of burden,’ and the Seventy (LXX) soften it down into ‘foal,’
&c. The Gentile world abounded in
sneers against this narrative, and had all sorts of absurd stories about the
Jews and the ass, or ass’s head, which they were supposed to worship
(Josephus. e. Ap. ii.
10; Tacitus Hist. v. 3. 4).
The Christians were also called ass-worshippers (Tertullian Apol. 16;
Minuc. Fel. Oct. 9). . .” (
If Jesus’
“unorthodoxy” in doctrine and practice did not sufficiently threaten the
religious status quo, this directly threatened the power of the Sanhedrin
itself. If He did establish an
earthly kingdom, would any of its membership doubt that one of His first acts
would be to thoroughly purge its membership? Something approaching panic must have filled them when they
heard reports of this celebratory reception (as John
For that matter, conscientious
scruple may also be present: However
much they might disagree with the Lord, most would have felt compelled to admit
that He did say much that was worthy of consideration and study. But to go so far as to condone calling Him
King--well that vastly upped what was at stake.
The political implications were nothing short of explosive.
Truth
will not be permanently repressed. Jesus
invokes an Old Testament image used of truth crying out in spite of its foes
(Habakkuk 2:9-10): “For the stone will
cry out from the wall and the beam from the timber will answer it” (verse
11).
Jesus Weeps in Sorrow For the City That Will Reject Him and
Face Destruction by the Romans (Luke 19:41-44):
41 Now when Jesus approached and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had
only known on this day, even you, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an
embankment against you and surround you and close in on you from every side. 44 They will demolish you—you and your children within your walls—and they
will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not
recognize the time of your visitation from God.”
Sidebar: “Not
merely edakrusen ‘shed
silent tears’ as at the grave of Lazarus (John 11:35) but eklaasen ‘wept aloud;’
and that although not all the agonies and insults of four days later could
wring from Him one tear or sigh.” (
It
reminds one of many on the famous Titantic: hearing the word they needed to abandon the
vessel, they knew that it was “unsinkable” and lifeboats literally pulled away
with few aboard. They had heard the
warning message, but knew that it simply couldn’t be true. Until it was too late to
escape their own doom.
Historical sidebar: “The
word ‘trench’ [KJV; ‘embankment’ or conceptual equivalent in virtually all
modern translations] now means commonly a ‘pit or ditch.’ When the Bible was translated, it meant also ‘earth
thrown up to defend a camp’ . . . . This
is the meaning of the original here. It
is not a pit or large ‘ditch,’ but a pile of earth, stones, or wood thrown up
to guard a camp, and to defend it from the approach of an enemy. This was done at the siege of
Sidebar
on Josephus’ description of the destruction of the city: “ ‘Thus was
Jerusalem taken, in the second year of Vespasian’s
reign, on the 8th day of September; and having been already five times
surprised, it was again finally destroyed.
Such was the end of the besieging of
Jesus Rebukes the Temple Being Turned into a Place of
Commerce; His Temple Leadership Foes Seek a Way to Kill Him Without Causing the
Crowds to Turn on Them (Luke 19:45-48): 45 Then Jesus entered the
temple courts and began to drive out those who were selling things there, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house will be a house of
prayer,’ but you have turned it into a den of robbers!”
47 Jesus was teaching
daily in the temple courts. The chief priests and the experts in the law and
the prominent leaders among the people were seeking to assassinate him, 48 but they could not find a way to do it, for all the people hung on his
words.
It would seem as reasonable as
opening the equivalent of a hotel (did not the city have multitudes of visitors
from far away?) or running a restaurant within it (did you not always have
hungry visitors?). The decision to
introduce commerce was made not all that many years before. Many of the middle aged who visited the
Historical sidebar: “In the outer court of the temple stalls had been erected in which money-changers were located, in order that pilgrims from foreign lands might be able to exchange their foreign coins for the purchase of sacrificial victims. [And with which to pay the temple tax with coins lacking any human image on them, RW.] These also seem to have been sold in the precincts. All this made the courts of the Lord’s house a scene of noise and tumult, and, from the Master’s stern words, a scene often of cheating and overreaching. The words of Jesus were taken from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11.” (Pulpit Commentary)
Chapter Twenty
Jesus Turns the Tables on His Critics: Answer Me a Simple Question (Luke
20:1-8): 1 Now one day, as Jesus
was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the gospel, the
chief priests and the experts in the law with the elders came up 2 and said to him, “Tell us: By what authority are you doing these things?
Or who is it who gave you this authority?”
3 He answered them, “I
will also ask you a question, and you tell me: 4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven or from people?”
5 So they discussed it
with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you
not believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From
people,’ all the people will stone us, because they are convinced that John was
a prophet.” 7 So they replied that
they did not know where it came from.
8 Then Jesus said to
them, “Neither will I tell you by whose authority I do these things.”
20:1 Now it happened on one of those
days, as He taught the people in the temple and preached the gospel, that the chief priests and the
scribes, together with the elders, confronted Him. If they could destroy
Him in argument that would as effectively dissipate His support as if they had
Him killed. And it would be far safer
than risking a riot or other civil disturbance by attempting to publicly arrest
Him. This time it was not simply
“Pharisees” or unidentified others who challenged Him, but the prestigious
“notables” of the
20:2 and spoke to Him, saying, “Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You
this authority?” Since
by being part of the
Our modern equivalent of this would roughly be: What college did you graduate from that is recognized as one of best? Surely you have a PhD and published books as well, don’t you? Truth and credibility becomes based on something other than the legitimacy and validity of what is being taught.
20:3 But He answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, and answer Me: He implicitly agrees to answer their question but only on the condition that they respond to one as well. In light of their own query, they were hardly in a position to deny Him the right but--as if to be sure they don’t even have time to conjure up an excuse--He immediately presents it to them. It has two great advantages over asking about anything else: (1) It is also a question about authority and (2) it is one about which the vast majority of the population had come to a conclusion. On most subjects the masses might well be hesitant to disagree with the “experts,” but on this one they would have no hesitancy at all.
20:4 The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men?” They wanted to talk about His authority but there recently had been another major religious figure who was manifestly different from the behavioral and doctrinal “norms” of the religious leadership and that was John the Baptist. How about his authority? Who had provided authority for it--“heaven” (an obvious euphemism for God) or men?
If his could be authorized in that manner, whether any human religious authority supported Jesus’ “teaching credentials” was also of little importance. If Jesus wanted to drive the point further: John had publicly spoken words of praise about Him at His baptism. If an earthly “authorizing party” had to be introduced at all, Jesus had the support of the one earthly figure who unquestionably was more important than them.
20:5 And they reasoned among themselves,
saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ This presented a major
public relations problem for them. The
religious leaders of the time were known for their non-receptive
attitude toward John (Matthew 3:7; Luke
20:6 But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” On this point the multitudes had a firm conviction and were not going to tolerate their “betters” telling them otherwise. Anything other than an admission that he was appointed by God and functioned as His “prophet” would cause the violence they wanted to come down upon Jesus to come down on their own heads instead.
20:7 So they answered that they did not
know where it was from. The
fascinating thing in their analysis is that truth did not enter the
picture. It was all a matter of practicality
and how the public would react. Like
hypocritical politicians, unable to answer a simple “yes” or “no” without
risking embarrassment or attack, they took the least plausible course open to
them and denied that they knew the answer.
That they had no firm opinion was absurd on the surface: They were the proclaimed “experts” on
religious truths and felt free in binding their judgments on the masses;
how could they possibly not have an opinion on such a well known person?
20:8 And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I
do these things.” Since
they did not want to answer this challenge concerning authority, Jesus
responded that He felt no obligation to answer their query on the same
subject. Furthermore “if they were incompetent to decide as to the
authority of the Prophet who had saluted Jesus as the Messiah, they were
obviously incompetent to decide as to His authority”
(Pulpit Commentary).
Note that even though Jesus has failed to give a direct reply as to the mandate behind His actions, the parable that comes next does so. And predicts what they will soon do to silence Him by violence when they could not do so by argument.
Jesus Uses a Parable to Warn the Religious Leaders of
Jerusalem of the Coming Divine Judgment for Rejecting and Abusing the Teachers
and Son That the Heavenly “Landlord” Sends (Luke 20:9-19): 9 Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant
farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. 10 When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they
would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent
him away empty-handed. 11 So he sent another
slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away
empty-handed. 12 So he sent still a
third. They even wounded this one, and
threw him out.
13 ”Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my
one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.’
14 But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the
heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours!’ 15 So they threw him out
of the vineyard and killed him. What
then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” 17 But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of
that which is written: ‘The stone
the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? 18 Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one
on whom it falls will be crushed.” 19 Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him
that very hour, because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.
20:9 Then He began to tell the people this parable: “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased
it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. From
Using the
image of a vineyard to present a rebuke of
In addition fake prophets would arise to provide vindication of the injustices that were perpetuated--as in Micah 3:1-11:
1 And I said: “Hear now, O
heads of Jacob, and you rulers of the house of
Although Stephen surely exaggerates,
it was such a common pattern that no one could, with a straight face,
challenge him on the point: “Which of the prophets did your fathers not
persecute? And they killed those who
foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers
and murderers” (Acts
In this
context the idea is that though you may reject Me I
will triumph and become the cornerstone of God’s spiritual temple. Interpreted literally or spiritually
it was clearly a challenge to the legitimacy of how they were using the
authority they exercised and Jesus’ own importance in the Divine scheme of
things since He is the one being rejected.
The “stone” image invokes the action of the powerful destructive stone described in Daniel 2. There it is pictured as destroying the empires that had ruled throughout previous history and replacing them with His own people: “And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (verse 35). It “fathered” its own empire--the empire of faith.
Also
compare the imagery used in Isaiah 8:14-15:
“He will be as
a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to
both the houses of
20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought
to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people —for they knew He had spoken
this parable against them. Immediately--at
“that very hour”--they frantically tried to think of a way to seize Jesus but
they saw no way of doing so without falling victim to the very violence that
they wished to inflict on Him. A kind of
“poetic justice” in that, isn’t there?
Although they would not have understood every detail of the parable and
the reference to the cornerstone--that would become clearer only in retrospect
years later--they fully understood that they had been the targets of what was
being said. They had not only been
warned, but they also knew they had been.
Questioners Who Hid Their Hostilities Attempt to Establish a
Grounds for Prosecution by Asking Whether It Was Proper to Pay Taxes to the
Roman Government (Luke
23 But Jesus perceived
their deceit and said to them, 24 ”Show me a denarius. Whose
image and inscription are on it?” They
said, “Caesar’s.” 25 So he said to them, “Then
give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are
God’s.”
26 Thus they were unable
in the presence of the people to trap him with his own words. And stunned by his answer, they fell silent.
20:20 So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to
be righteous, that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the
power and the authority of the governor.
Unable to meet Him head on, they decided to adopt a
kind of “covert action” approach: They
sent “spies who pretended to be” highly scrupulous and sincere in their
religious observance. People
with no obvious ties to the religious leadership. Jesus had once spoken of how even the “minor”
matters of the Torah would “by no means pass from the law till all is
fulfilled” (Matthew
Sidebar: “This
‘tribute’ was a capitation tax - a denarius a head
assessed on the whole population, the publicans who farmed it being answerable
for it to the Roman treasury. As a
direct personal tax it was most unpopular, and was looked on by scrupulous
legalists and the more zealous Jews as involving a greater humiliation than the
ordinary import or export customs dues.
It occasioned at times popular tumults, as in the case of Judas of
Galilee (Acts
Sidebar: No matter how great an annoyance having to use currency with an emperor’s image, the fact remained that the denarius was widely distributed among Jews--as demonstrated by its routine use to pay farm laborers (Matthew 20:2, 9).
The Sadducees Attempt to Discredit Jesus by Attacking His
Doctrine of a Physical Resurrection: If
a Woman Had Outlived Multiple Husbands, Whose Wife
Would She Be When the Resurrection Occurs?
(Luke 20:27-40): 27 Now some Sadducees (who
contend that there is no resurrection) came to him. 28 They asked him, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother
dies leaving a wife but no children, that man must marry the widow and father
children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died
without children. 30 The second 31 and then the third married her, and in this same way all seven died,
leaving no children. 32 Finally the woman died
too. 33 In the resurrection,
therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For all seven had married her.”
34 So Jesus said to them,
“The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and in the
resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given
in marriage. 3 6 In fact, they can no
longer die, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, since they
are sons of the resurrection.
37 ”But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about
the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and
the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of
the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” 39 Then some of the experts in the law answered, “Teacher, you have spoken
well!” 40 For they did not dare
any longer to ask him anything.
A person can deny the resurrection (wrongfully) and still believe that the soul will exist eternally without the need for a resurrection occurring. The Sadducees took what would seem to be a far more consistent position by denying both possibilities (as noted in Acts 23:8). Hence the issue raised was a surrogate for denying both: In challenging the resurrection they were simultaneously denying life after death as well. From a purely self-centered standpoint there was much to commend itself in this view for the powerful and over-bearing: You would never have to answer for your evils no matter what they were, how often they were, or how extreme they were.
Each son would want to assure that his own personal name be perpetuated so he would set out with that as a major goal of his marriage. Indeed, under most conditions, that would be no problem. But here is an extreme case of where it does not. Hence. . . .
Sidebar: Oddly the Law itself recognized this might happen: It gave a procedure to follow when the next would be husband refuses to become involved (Deuteronomy 25:7-10).
Since there was a more or less “standard” answer to their
question, one wonders why they raised the matter at all. Perhaps recognizing that Jesus could give
surprising but intriguing responses to questions--as in the immediately
preceding case of paying taxes (verses 20-26)--perhaps there was even a touch
of genuine curiousity. And if He did say something different
perhaps, with creativity, it could be turned against Him.
Due to
being “sons of the resurrection” they have become “equal to the angels” and no
longer need human type sexuality. “Equal with the angels in being immortal; no death;
no marriage. Jesus in this place asserts
that angels have a body, but are exempt from any difference of sex. The angels are here introduced because our
Lord was speaking with Sadducees, who (Acts 23:8) denied the existence of these
glorious beings. He wished to set the
seal of his teaching on the deeply interesting question of the existence of
angels” (Pulpit Commentary).
(There are much clearer passages on survival of death and the resurrection in later Old Testament books, but the Sadducees made the Torah pre-eminent and had grounded their argument in the Pentateuch. Hence it made full sense for Jesus to appeal to a text in the first five books of the Old Testament as well.)
Sidebar: “showed in the burning bush passage”--Literally
“in the Bush, i.e. in that section of Exodus
(Exodus 3) which they called by that name, just as they called 2 Samuel 1 ‘the
Bow’ and Ezekiel 1 ‘the Chariot.’ ” (
Jesus Challenges the Inadequate Christology of Their
Theology: How Could the Messiah Be Both
David's Descendant and His Lord?
(Luke 20:41-44): 41 But he said to them, “How
is it that they say that the Christ is David’s son? 42 For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my
lord, “Sit at my right hand,
43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ’ 44 If David then calls
him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?’ “
In
both Psalms and 1 Corinthians 15, He reigns while His enemies are still alive
and about but His ultimate triumph is still inevitable. And where He reigns from is not
subject to earthly attack because it is in heaven with the Father--at His
“right hand.” And how in the world could
He possibly reign from heaven if He were merely an earthly king?
Sidebar: This was not the only text that pointed in such a direction. Take Isaiah 9:6-7 for example:
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will
be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty
God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and
peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David
and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it
with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even
forever.
The zeal of the Lord of
hosts will perform this.
And then there is Micah 5:2, which
also mixes the images of coming rulership with deityship as well: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, / Though you are little among the thousands
of Judah, / Yet out of you shall come forth to Me / The One to be Ruler
in Israel, / Whose goings forth are from of old, / From
everlasting.”
However Prestigious the Religious Leaders of the Day Might
Appear, The Disciples Are to Refuse to Follow Them When They Are Bad Examples (Luke
20:45-47): 45 As all the people were
listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 46 ”Beware of the experts
in the law. They like walking around in
long robes, and they love elaborate greetings in the marketplaces and the best
seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ property, and as a show make long prayers. They will receive a more severe punishment.”
Sidebar: The Talmud was well aware that the virtues of Pharisee principles could be twisted into a caricature of their claimed purposes. It does so by describing a variety of types who fell into this trap, of which these are some:
“(a) The 'Shoulder' Pharisee. This type wears his good deeds on his shoulders, and is very punctilious in his observance of the Torah, traditions and all, from expediency, not principle. . . .
“(b) The 'wait-a-little' Pharisee. He always has an excuse for not doing the good deed just now. . . .
“(c) The 'bruised' or 'bleeding' Pharisee. This Pharisee is too pious to
look at a woman, and so shuts his eyes if he fears one is coming, and stumbles against a wall and makes the blood flow from his face. He is anxious that the blood shall be seen in order to gain credit for his piety. . . .
“(d) The 'pestle' or 'mortar' Pharisee. He walks with his head down in mock humility like a pestle in a mortar. He is also called the 'hump-backed' Pharisee, who walked as though his shoulders bore the whole weight of the law, or the 'tumbling' Pharisee, who was so humble that he would not lift his feet from the ground, or the 'painted' Pharisee, who advertised his holiness by various poses so that no one should touch and bring defilement to him.
“(e) The
'ever-reckoning' or 'compounding' Pharisee.
He is always on the look out
for something 'extra' to do to make up for something that he has neglected. He is the 'reckon-it-up' Pharisee, trying to
counterbalance his evil deeds with his
good ones. He is anxious to have his few
sins deducted from his many
virtues and leave a clean balance sheet. . . .”
A. T. Robertson. The Pharisees and Jesus: The Stone Lectures for 1915-1916.