A Study In The Gospel Of Luke - 24 - Chapter 20 - Notes to aid personal Bible Study

vv 1-8 A chapter of questions. Jesus was teaching and preaching the Gospel in the Temple. The Greek word here for 'preaching' is special to Luke and Paul and almost unknown in the other gospels. Jesus had very recently 'cleansed the Temple' and now the religious leaders wanted to know His authority for doing such a thing. He had poached on their preserves. Chief priests, scribes and elders were possibly a deputation from the Sanhedrin. The High Priest's position was more a political seat of power than a real religious leader. They were Sadducees and well in with the Romans. Scribes were 'writers' or interpreters of the Law. Elders were the leading men of town, forming a presbytery. The object of their question, like so many others at this time was in some way to catch Jesus and convict Him in the eyes of the Law, the Romans, and ordinary people. Jesus did not evade the issue by His counter question. If they had answered His question they would have had the answer to their own. Their question and answer were more about political correctness than discovery of truth. Jesus drew attention to several points, and one was that they had not received John's testimony about himself, so would they be likely to receive Jesus' testimony, to whom John had borne witness? Jesus' question was a genuine teaching method used by rabbis. The problem in the eyes of the Jews was that this uneducated carpenter was teaching them ‑ leading teachers among God's people. Were those who approached Jesus the 'religious aristocracy'? Did they want Jesus to openly say that He was from God and the Messiah?

vv 9-18 What prompted Jesus to tell the parable of the 'Wicked Tenants in the Vineyard' ? Was this a final appeal to Israel to accept God's authority and way, and truly to be His people? As in so many parables, this one could easily have been based on an actual event. Men invested in a piece of property, often in a foreign country of the large Roman Empire. Then they let it out to tenant farmers who attempted to make sufficient profit to pay the rent. They might have had to clear stones and weeds, to build walls, to buy seeds or young plants or stakes. When finally the son appeared they might have assumed that his father was dead and that the son had come to claim his inheritance. The listeners would be aware of Isa.5.1-7 and what would happen to those tenants. The word for 'wounded' in v.12 is almost a surgical word characteristic of Luke. The implication was clear. Their rejection of God's Messiah would mean God's rejection of them as leaders. Israel as they knew and dominated it, would come to an end, and in its place would be men who trusted God and whom He could trust. Did any of these leaders remember this parable in the years that followed the resurrection and Pentecost, and realise God was working through men and women to whom He had given the keys of the Kingdom? Morris writes, "Jesus is picturing a nation that is obdurate and a God who is compassionate in the face of obdurate truculence". But this was not a parable of doom, for someone was going to take Israel's place. Were they hard done to? 'God forbid' is the only strong expression found in the NT nowhere else outside Paul's letters. The postscript to the parable is based on a quotation from Psalm 118 used by Peter (Acts 4.10 & 1 Pet.2.7). The position of the corner stone is uncertain ‑ was it set in the corner of the foundation so fixing the angle of two walls, or was it the top of an arch? It is a stone that wherever set is of great importance. The stone changes its imagery ‑ a stone of judgment that causes loss or destruction. How do we face that stone ‑ in repentance or defiance?

Barclay suggests that this is one of the richest parables. It tells us of human sin and responsibility. It also tells of God's patience and judgment. It tells us that Jesus knew what was coming at Calvary and also of God's ultimate triumph. The parable shows Jesus' claim to be the Son of God. Campbell Morgan deals with these discussions in the Temple in this chapter through the eyes of Matthew (ch.21). In the cleansing of the Temple Jesus had assumed His priestly role requiring holiness in the presence of God. Then Jesus operates in a kingly or judicial role in telling two parables ‑ the first is about two sons who were asked to go and work in their father's vineyard. Campbell Morgan sees this parable as very similar to the 'Wicked Tenants' which in Matt.21 immediately follows. The astounding thing about this parable is the way the religious leaders pronounce judgment on themselves. Have they, in following the dramatic story, forgotten their hostility to Jesus until suddenly they realise that He has revealed to them their own evil motives for wanting to kill Him?

vv 19-26 Is it lawful to give tax to Caesar? Was the Christian right who said that Income Tax is legalised robbery? What did the Jews mean 'Is it lawful ‑ what law?' This is the high point of Bible comment on attitudes to Gentile (worldly) tax and authority. Israel and Christians were told that they were to accept 'lawful' authority in rule and tax. Jeremiah's letter (ch.29); Romans 13; Titus 3 and 1 Peter 2 all have things to say about citizen's duties; (they don't deal with democratic voting). The Scribes and Priests' question may have been sparked by the parable Jesus had just told. That they sent in 'spies', has almost the feel of laying an ambush. Those same Jews were pleased to handle the Emperor's coinage ‑ a silver denarius. Everyone between 14 and 65 had to pay tribute for the privilege of living in the Empire. Why did Jews object to paying? Surely they benefited from the fine roads and security of military control. In spite of the logic of Jesus' reply this question found an echo in his trial (23.2). The tension between church and state ‑ worldwide ‑ is an interesting one and worthy of study. Geldenhuys further points out that the coin bore the image of Tiberius (son of Augustus) and man bears the image of God ‑ so in the end all is given to God. Can we give to God what He is due if we don't give 'Caesar' what is due to him? Barclay writes, "The voice of conscience is louder than the voice of any manmade law….Just because he is the best of citizens he will refuse to do what a Christian citizen cannot do."

vv 27-40 The Sadducees' question about resurrection. This a rare reference to the priestly class. They were a sect that based their theology on the written law of Moses and did not give the prophets and the rabbinical commentaries the same weight of importance. The name was derived from the Zadokites who had descended from Zadok the priest. Morris says "they were the conservative, aristocratic, high-priestly party, world-minded and very ready to co-operate with the Romans." Their question was based on the levirate law (Deut.25.5) and their interpretation that there is no resurrection and no spirits or angels. Did they believe in life after death of any sort? Was Jesus saying, as Barclay says, that "we must not think of heaven in terms of this earth", or should His answer be taken in quite literal terms covering all resurrected people? Was Jesus deliberately contrasting "sons of this age" and sons of the next age? And does He infer that the patriarchs were actually alive in the 1^st Century and are so now? It was a fine answer in the eyes of the listeners and they were glad to see the unpopular Sadducees get the worst of the argument

vv 41-44 Jesus asks a difficult question. It is a theological question based on Psa.1.1. But why did he ask the Scribes this question? Had they any misconceptions about the Kingdom of God and His Messiah? It was a common idea that previous generations were greater and wiser than the present one. He was the Son of David but greater by far than His illustrious ancestor. Barclay suggests that he was blaming them for their ideas of personal power.

vv 45-47 Warnings of popular acclaim. Jesus repeatedly warned against, in various ways, proud, arrogant, boastful claims to be better than others and seek the place of honour and glory. The desire for reward for teaching, that could destroy other people's lives, was against the rabbinic principles and against the Word of God and in the next incident in the Temple Jesus draws the full lesson as to who really gets the reward. Unscrupulous powerful people have always been able to prey on impressionable women.

G.Campbell Morgan The Parables and Metaphors of our Lord (Marshall Morgan & Scott 1956)