Lucas 20
Charles Spurgeon · Citado em PreceptAustin
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - It is a long time since Jesus left us, and he has not yet returned. Many say that he is coming back very soon; others say, “The Lord delayeth his coming.” James Smith - Handfuls of Purpose - RENT DEFAULTERS LUKE 20:9–18 Before the Great War we frequently heard of “moonlight flitters”—families so deeply in debt, and so hopeless so far as payment of debts was concerned, that some night they removed their goods, quietly and secretively, to another town or entirely strange neighbourhood, beginning life afresh. So scarce have houses been since the war, that insolvent householders have had to resort to other stratagems. In Luke 20:9 to 18, we have rent defaulters, who resorted to murder as a way out of debt. The householder in the parable was more than owner of this vineyard, for he had planted it, and thus stood in a close and personal association to it. In the East there is no property so valuable, nor which yields returns so large, as vineyards. This man planted the vineyard, protected it by a wall, ornamented it by a tower, then let it out to husbandmen on the understanding that part of its proceeds would be handed over as rent. For three years the fruit was, according to ancient custom, ungathered; in the fourth year it was all holy unto the Lord; in the fifth year the tenants and owners could eat and begin to benefit by its growth (Lev. 19:23 to 25). During that long period the husbandmen contrived to forget that they were tenants and not owners. And when the owner sent his servants for his just due, ill-treated them, driving them empty away. The patience of the owner is wonderful—a representation of the wonderful and infinite patience and longsuffering of God. At last we have his dilemma, enshrined in those four simple words, “What shall I do?” But even his beloved son was rejected, and his murder decided upon. The history of Israel is summed up in this dark picture. The One who planted the vineyard was God; the vineyard, the land of Israel; the husbandmen, Israel, particularly the leaders of the nations; the servants, the prophets; the son, the Lord Jesus Christ. THOUGHT - But there is an application of this parable to you and me. What we have belongs to God—our very life, possessions, time, friends, all. There is no time when God does not demand of us His rightful dues. He sends us His servants—more, His Son, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Have we sent them empty away? Be warned, there is a limit to His patience, when judgment will fall. James Smith - PARABLE OF THE HUSBANDMEN Luke 20:9–19 “Dare I trust my heart and voice against the voice of the whole? Yet should the roar of the crowd ever drown the true voice of the soul?”—W. SMITH. It is not only Scotch-like, but it may at times be Christ-like, to answer one question by asking another. The chief priests and scribes asked, “Who gave Thee this authority?” Jesus answered by asking, “The baptism of John, was it from Heaven or of men?” They “could not tell,” or rather, they would not say, lest they should commit themselves. Neither would He tell them. It is so still. Those who refuse to accept the testimony of His servants shall not know the secret of Christ’s authority and power. There must be faith in His Word if we would have revelations of Himself. This parable, like that of the “pounds,” has a decided dispensational character. I. The Vineyard. “A certain man planted a vineyard” (v. 9). This nameless man is intended to represent Jehovah, the Eternal One; the vineyard is the whole house of Israel, whom He hath redeemed for Himself (Jer. 2:21); the planting refers to their settlement in the land of promise, where they were carefully nurtured and guarded by the presence of God. II. The Faithless Husbandmen. These were the proud rulers of the people, who “entreated shamefully” those sent by God to assert His claims upon them as His professing people. They persecuted and slew those servants of God who testified against them (Neh. 9:26). Did not the Spirit-filled Stephen fling the same charge in their teeth when he said, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?” These wicked husbandmen, like many in our own day, were willing to take all they could get from God that would enrich themselves, but refused to give Him anything in return. III. The Divine Dilemma. “What shall I do?” (v. 13). His thankless people have transgressed and rebelled; His warnings and entreaties, through His servants, have been neglected and despised. “What shall I do?” Something new must be done if the Lord of the vineyard is to maintain His rights to the fruits thereof. Shall it be vengeance or mercy? Shall it be instant judgment or a further manifestation of His infinite grace? Shall it be the sacrifice of man for his sins, or a sacrifice from God for the sins of man? “Deliver from going down to the pit, for I have found a ransom.” IV. The Gracious Purpose. “I will send My beloved Son” (v. 13). It may be that when they see Him they will turn away their faces from shame, and confess their sins (v. 13). Instead of opening the flood-gates of wrath against those offenders, He opens the treasures of His heart, and sends forth His only Son. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us” (1 John 4:10). V. The Fond Expectation. “It may be they will reverence Him when they see Him” (v. 13). What did they see when they saw HIM? They saw the invisible yet frequently insulted God, manifest in mortal flesh, as a loving, sin-forgiving Saviour, the wisdom and the power of God. Surely when they behold such an exhibition of His condescension and forbearance they will feel rebuked for their pride and arrogance. It would seem as if the Lord of the vineyard hoped to kill their enmity with His kindness. The mission of the Son of the Highest was to save us from our sins, and to reconcile us to God. “He that honoureth the Son honoureth the Father.” To refuse Him reverence is to dishonour the Father who sent Him. VI. The Deliberate Refusal. “They cast Him out of the vineyard and killed Him” (v. 14, 15). They would not have this Man to reign over them. Although they knew him to be “the Heir,” yet, in the pride of their hearts, they refused to submit to Him. What better are we than they, in acknowledging Christ to be the Son of God, if we have not yielded ourselves unto Him? Is our guilt not greater in that we are casting Him out of our hearts and homes; out of our businesses and pleasures daily. To cast Him out of our lives is to cast our lives into eternal bankruptcy and ruin (v. 18). VII. The Terrible Results. The husbandmen shall be destroyed, and the vineyard given to others (v. 16). Neglected opportunities will bring corresponding judgments. The Word of God was first spoken to the Jews as His people, but they put it far from them, and now the vineyard is given to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). The blessed privileges offered us now will soon have gone to others. Are we laying hold of them for our eternal profit, or shall they pass, leaving us in the deeper condemnation through our pride and unbelief? “When they heard it they said, “God forbid.” But all such “God forbids” from the lips of self-righteous rebels will never in any degree avert the just judgments of an insulted God. QUESTION - What is the meaning of the Parable of the Vineyard? ANSWER - The Parable of the Vineyard appears in three of the gospels (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19), with Matthew’s account being the most complete. However, there are additions in the others; hence, it is wise to study all three accounts so as to achieve the greatest understanding. To get the context of what is happening, we need to look at Matthew 21:18. Early in the morning, Jesus goes to the temple courts to teach (Mt 21:23). While He is teaching, the chief priest and elders confront Him, wanting to know by what authority He is teaching. Not allowing them to control the conversation, Jesus answers the question by first asking a question (Mt 21:24-26). They do not like His question nor His response to their answer; essentially, He has told them that they can’t save face from their obvious attempt to cajole Him and, therefore, He is not obligated to answer their question (Mt 21:27). What Jesus told them is that John the Baptist and He received their authority from the same source. This exchange causes the leaders to become angry and puts them in opposition to Jesus. Jesus then further frustrates the priests by telling two parables: the first one is the Parable of the Two Sons, and the second is the Parable of the Vineyard, sometimes called the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. The first parable Jesus teaches tells the priests that they have claimed to accept the message from God but they have failed to live up to it by being obedient. Outwardly, they are pious and appear to be people of God, but God knows the heart, and there they have failed miserably. The next parable (the Parable of the Vineyard) is like pouring salt on a wound. Just in case they didn’t fully understand (which they did), Jesus gives a much clearer picture of what He means. Obviously, this further infuriates the priests, but it also gives the others who were present an opportunity to hear Jesus fully explain the implications of the disobedience of the Jewish people throughout the ages. Background: There are 6 main characters in this parable: 1) the landowner—God, 2) the vineyard—Israel, 3) the tenants/farmers—the Jewish religious leadership, 4) the landowner’s servants—the prophets who remained obedient and preached God’s word to the people of Israel, 5) the son—Jesus, and 6) the other tenants—the Gentiles. The imagery used is similar to Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard (it would be prudent to study this also) found in Isaiah chapter 5. The watchtower and the wall mentioned in verse 33 are means of protecting the vineyard and the ripened grapes. The winepress is obviously for stamping out the juice of the grapes to make the wine. The farmer was apparently away at the time of harvest and had rented the vineyard to the tenants. This was customary of the times, and he could expect as much as half of the grapes as payment by the tenants for use of his land. Explanation: Verses 34-36 tell us the landowner sent his servants to collect his portion of the harvest and how they were cruelly rejected by the tenants; some were beaten, stoned, and even killed. Then he sent even more the second time and they received the same treatment. The servants sent represent the prophets that God had sent to His people/Israel and then were rejected and killed by the very people who were claiming to be of God and obedient to Him. Jeremiah was beaten (Jeremiah 26:7-11; 38:1-28), John the Baptist was killed (Matthew 14:1-12), and others were stoned (2 Chronicles 24:21). In this parable Jesus is not only reminding the religious establishment what they were like, but He was putting in their minds a question: how could they claim obedience as God’s people and still reject His messengers? We don’t know how many servants the owner sent, but that is not what is important; the theme is God’s repeated appeal through His prophets to an unrepentant people. In the next verses (37-39), the situation becomes even more critical. The landowner sends his own son, believing that they will surely respect him. But the tenants see an opportunity here; they believe that if they kill the son they will then receive his inheritance. The law at the time provided that if there were no heirs then the property would pass to those in possession (possession is nine tenths of the law). This amounts to conspiracy to commit murder by the Jewish leadership, and it is prophetic in the sense that Jesus is now telling them what they are going to do to Him (see Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16). After Jesus’ death, Peter would make the same charges against the religious establishment (Acts 4:8-12). The tenants probably thought that the fight for the property was over, but it wasn’t; the owner would now appear on the scene. Jesus now (vs.40-41) asks the question, what will the owner do to the evil tenants? What He is doing is forcing the religious leaders/priests to declare their own miserable fate: condemnation for their blatant disobedience. This is similar to the question that Nathan put to David (2 Samuel 12:1-7). Up to this point, Jesus has been dealing with the immediate situation of Israel and its past disobedience; now Jesus leaves open the question of what Israel’s leadership is going to do with the Messiah, the Son of God, whom He refers to as the “chief cornerstone” (vs 42). Cornerstones and capstones are used symbolically in Scripture and picture Christ as the main piece of the foundation of the church and the head of the church, respectively. Jesus is the beginning of and is foundational to the church, and He now stands over the church in His rightful position of honor, guiding the church to fulfill its divine destiny. This verse makes clear prophetically how Jesus will be rejected by the religious establishment and ultimately be crucified (see Psalm 118:22-23). The key to understanding this parable and what it says about the religious leaders is found in Mt 21:43, where Jesus makes their lack of obedience personal. Jesus tells the leaders that because of their disobedience they will be left out of the kingdom of heaven (individually and as a people); that they have let their opportunity for the time being slip away to be given to the Gentiles (see Mt 21:41, “other tenants”). This will be more than they can tolerate, as we will see in Mt 21:45, 46. He is saying that there will be a new people of God made up of all peoples who will temporarily replace the Jews so that Jesus can establish His church. This will change the way God deals with man, from the old dispensation of the law to a new dispensation of God’s grace. It will usher in a period of time where man will no longer understand forgiveness of sins as man’s work through what he does or doesn’t do or by the sacrifices of animals on the altar, but by the work of Christ on the cross. It will be a time where each individual can have a personal and saving relationship with the One and only God of the universe. The exciting part of the verse is the phrase “who will produce fruit”; this gives authority to the church to share the gospel of Christ to the lost of the world. Up to this time, the Jews felt that they had automatic membership in God’s kingdom because of their relationship to Abraham; this is why they put so much emphasis on genealogies. But the new people of God would truly have what God wanted for Israel all along: a personal and holy relationship that would be honored through the spreading of God’s word to all peoples (see Exodus 19:5-6). Jesus continues the stone metaphor in verse 44 to show how a stone can be used to build something beautiful, such as His church, or it can be used to crush and destroy, depending on the situation. This could be likened to God’s word: to some it is salvation, peace and comfort. To others it is foolish and disconcerting because of its ability to convict man of his sins (2 Timothy 3:16). Verses 45 and 46 give us three insights into the psyche of the chief priest of the religious establishment. 1) They are jealous and envious of Jesus’ popularity with the common people. This encroaches on their authority and power to govern. 2) They have come to the realization that Jesus is talking about them. This hurts their pride and embarrasses them in front of the people. 3) They understood the analogy of the son and that Jesus was referring to Himself. This would be blasphemous to them, and they would now seek to kill Jesus. From here the leaders would meet in secrecy to plot how they would get rid of Jesus. Why all the secrecy? The people thought of Jesus as a prophet from God; arresting Him could cause an uprising. An uprising would jeopardize the leaders’ relationship with the Roman authorities, something that the Jews did not want at any cost. Application: We apply this parable to our lives by asking two questions; first, have you come to know Christ as your Lord and Savior, or have you rejected Him like the Jewish leadership did? The process is simple, as long as you are sincere in seeking a relationship with Christ. You need to recognize your sins, and then accept Christ as the only One who can save you from the penalty of your sins. Second, if you are a believer, what have you done with Jesus? Are you like the bad tenants, rejecting His Word and living a life of disobedience? If you are, you need to study God’s Word and pray for guidance, seeking His will for your life and living out that will as best as you can, moment by moment, day by day.GotQuestions.org Related Resource: Discussion of Vineyards in the Holy Land with several nice black and white pictures Luke 20:10 "At the harvest time he sent a slave to the vine-growers, so that they would give him some of the produce of the vineyard; but the vine-growers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Luke 20:10KJV And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. At the harvest time Ps 1:3; Jer 5:24; Mt 21:34-36; Mark 12:2-5 he sent a slave to the vine-growers Judges 6:8-10; 2 Kings 17:13; 2 Chronicles 36:15,16; Nehemiah 9:30; Jer 25:3-7; 26:2-6; Jer 35:15; 44:4,5; Hosea 6:4-6; Zechariah 1:3-6; 7:9-13; John 15:16; Ro 7:4 the vine-growers beat him and sent him away empty-handed Lk 11:47-50; 13:34; 1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chronicles 16:10; 24:19-21; Nehemiah 9:26; Jer 2:30; Jer 20:2; 26:20-24; 29:26,27; 37:15,16; 38:4-6 Parallel parable passages - Mt. 21:33-46; Mk 12:1-12 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:9-19 Who Owns the Vineyard? - Steven Cole Luke 20:9-18 The Murder of God's Son - A Prophetic Parable-Part 1 - John MacArthur Luke 20:9-18 The Murder of God's Son - A Prophetic Parable-Part 2 - John MacArthur At the harvest time (kairos - at the prescribed time, at the appropriate time, at the opportune time) - "Harvest" is added in the translation for clarity. ESV has "When the time came." Time is the great Greek word kairos meaning season or opportunity. When the opportunity passes, it is too late. So if harvest was not done at the opportune time, the crop would be ruined and lost. 🙏 THOUGHT - Kairos is the same word Paul uses in Ephesians 5:16 calling on all of us "vine-growers" to Redeem the Time (see youtube video). James A Brooks notes that "Absentee landlords of huge estates and landless tenant farmers were quite common in Galilee in Jesus’ day. The tenants usually were required to turn over between one-fourth and one-half of the produce to the owner’s agents. As a result they were barely able to survive—a situation that produced much discontent." (New American Commentary – Volume 23: Mark) Time (2540) (kairos) means a point of time or period of time, time, period, frequently with the implication of being especially fit for something and without emphasis on precise chronology. It means a moment or period as especially appropriate the right, proper, favorable time (at the right time). A season. Kairos describes something that lasts only for a season, for a specific period of time. Kairos in Luke and Acts - Lk. 1:20; Lk. 4:13; Lk. 8:13; Lk. 12:42; Lk. 12:56; Lk. 13:1; Lk. 18:30; Lk. 19:44; Lk. 20:10; Lk. 21:8; Lk. 21:24; Lk. 21:36; Acts 1:7; Acts 3:19; Acts 7:20; Acts 12:1; Acts 13:11; Acts 14:17; Acts 17:26; Acts 19:23; Acts 24:25 He sent a slave (doulos) to the vine-growers so that they would give him some of the produce of the vineyard - The slave was the land owner's representative who came with the owner's full authority and in his place. He comes to receive the owner's share of the crop. Matthew adds the phrase "to receive his produce (karpos)." (Mt 21:34) It belonged to the landowner not the vine-growers! This recalls the words of the two productive slaves in the Parable of the Minas who used the mina to gain "fruit" but still emphasized that they were but stewards describing it as "your (the master's) mina" (Lk 19:16, 18-note) Who do the slaves (doulos) represent? These slaves are the true Old Testament prophets who were often referred to as God’s servants in the Old Testament (Jer 7:25; Ezek 38:17; Da 9:6, 10; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6). God sent these men in His great lovingkindness to the nation of Israel to warn the Jews people to return to God’s Law, to obedience and to true righteousness. The prophet Micah gives us a memorable summary of the objective sought by God in sending the prophets Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams, In ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:7-8-note) The prophets came to call the nation to repent from their sin, to turn to the true and living God and to produce spiritual fruit in keeping with repentance, supernatural fruit that would bring honor and glory to God in Heaven. 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. Sadly, their rejection, abuse, and even murder was so common as to be proverbial. (cf Mt 23:29-32). "Every generation can always see the spiritual blindness of its forebears, but never its own." (Cole) Slave (1401)(doulos from deo = to bind) was an individual bound to another in servitude conveying the idea of the slave's close ties with his master, belonging to him, obligated to and desiring to do his will and in a permanent relation of servitude. In sum, the will of the doulos is consumed in the will of the master. Doulos in Luke - Lk. 1:38; Lk. 1:48; Lk. 2:29; Lk. 7:2; Lk. 7:3; Lk. 7:8; Lk. 7:10; Lk. 12:37; Lk. 12:43; Lk. 12:45; Lk. 12:46; Lk. 12:47; Lk. 14:17; Lk. 14:21; Lk. 14:22; Lk. 14:23; Lk. 15:22; Lk. 17:7; Lk. 17:9; Lk. 17:10; Lk. 19:13; Lk. 19:15; Lk. 19:17; Lk. 19:22; Lk. 20:10; Lk. 20:11; Lk. 22:50 Produce (2590)(karpos) is used literally here of the fruit of the vineyard, but is used many times in the NT as a metaphor describing spiritual fruit. In Matthew 7:20+ Jesus used karpos figuratively stating "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" How apropos is that to these tenants of the landowner's vines! Karpos - 56v - benefit(2), crop(5), crops(2), descendants*(1), fruit(43), fruitful(1), fruits(4), grain(1), harvest(1), proceeds(1), produce(4), profit(1). Matt. 3:8; Matt. 3:10; Matt. 7:16; Matt. 7:17; Matt. 7:18; Matt. 7:19; Matt. 7:20; Matt. 12:33; Matt. 13:8; Matt. 13:26; Matt. 21:19; Matt. 21:34; Matt. 21:41; Matt. 21:43; Mk. 4:7; Mk. 4:8; Mk. 4:29; Mk. 11:14; Mk. 12:2; Lk. 1:42; Lk. 3:8; Lk. 3:9; Lk. 6:43; Lk. 6:44; Lk. 8:8; Lk. 12:17; Lk. 13:6; Lk. 13:7; Lk. 13:9; Lk. 20:10; Jn. 4:36; Jn. 12:24; Jn. 15:2; Jn. 15:4; Jn. 15:5; Jn. 15:8; Jn. 15:16; Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:13; Rom. 6:21; Rom. 6:22; Rom. 15:28; 1 Co. 9:7; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 5:9; Phil. 1:11; Phil. 1:22; Phil. 4:17; 2 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 12:11; Heb. 13:15; Jas. 3:17; Jas. 3:18; Jas. 5:7; Jas. 5:18; Rev. 22:2 Bruce - The husbandmen treat the messengers in the most barbarous and truculent manner: beating, killing, stoning to death; highly improbable in the natural sphere, but another instance in which parables have to violate the natural probability in order to describe truly men’s conduct in the spiritual sphere. The vine-growers (georgos) beat (dero) him and sent him away empty-handed (kenos) - The verb Jesus uses means they flay him or "beat him bloody." This is not just a kick in the pants but descriptive of a vicious lashing or flogging, reflecting the depth of the depravity of the hearts of the vine-growers. This would have been shocking to the ears of all those in the crowd. Such treatment would be viewed as outrageous, shameful, even criminal. They added insult (not paying) to injury (beating)! Alfred Plummer - The uniform hostility” of kings, priests, and people to the Prophets is one of the most remarkable features in history of the Jews. The amount of hostility varied, and it expressed itself in different ways, on the whole increasing in intensity; but it was always there. Deeply as the Jews lamented the cessation of Prophets after the death of Malachi, they generally opposed them, as long as they were granted to them. Till the gift was withdrawn, they seemed to have had little pride in this exceptional grace shown to the nation, and little appreciation of it or thankfulness for it. (Scroll down to page 297 - An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St Matthew) Here is a representative sample of warnings to Judah from the prophet Jeremiah But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’....25 “Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them. ....25:4 “And the LORD has sent to you all His servants (Lxx = doulos = SAME WORD JESUS USES IN THIS PARABLE) the prophets again and again, but you have not listened (Hebrew = shama as in Dt 6:4; Lxx = eisakouo = literally listen to = listen attentively to - also used in Lxx of Dt 1:43, Dt 9:23) nor inclined your ear to hear,. 5 saying, ‘Turn now everyone from his evil way and from the evil of your deeds, and dwell on the land which the LORD has given to you and your forefathers forever and ever; 6 and do not go after other gods to serve them and to worship them, and do not provoke Me to anger with the work of your hands, and I will do you no harm.’ 7 “Yet you have not listened (Hebrew = shama as in Dt 6:4; Lxx = akouo - not just "listened" but with a view to obeying!) to Me,” declares the LORD, “in order that you might provoke Me to anger with the work of your hands to your own harm. 8 “Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Because you have not obeyed My words, 9 behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I will send to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them and make them a horror and a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. 10 ‘Moreover, I will take from them the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 ‘This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (Jer 7:23, 25, Jer 25:4-11) Beat (flogged, gave lashes) (1194)(dero) literally meant to remove the skin (flay = strip off skin) and in the NT is used to depict the action of whipping, beating, thrashing or scourging in a manner calculated to take off the skin (Mt. 21:35; Mk 12:3, 5; Lk 20:10, 11; Ac 16:37; 22:19). Dero is used with its literal meaning once in the Septuagint (2 Chr 29:34).
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - They grow bolder, and more wicked, you see; first beating, and then adding shameful treatment to their former cruelty. Men do not come to ridicule religion, and persecute its advocates, all at once; this is an art which Satan teaches by degrees.
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - They are more violent this time; it comes to actual wounding, and to casting out the servant.
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - A strange thing happens when the Lord himself comes to pass, and says, “What shall I do?” Here is infinite wisdom, as it were, at a non-plus; and in that extremity this is the Lord’s last expedient Luke 20:14 "But when the vine-growers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, 'This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance will be ours.' Luke 20:14KJV But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. they reasoned with one another Lk 20:5; Mt 16:7; 21:25 This is the heir Ps 2:1-6,8; 89:27; Mt 2:2-16; Ro 8:17; Hebrews 1:2 let us kill him so that the inheritance will be ours Lk 20:19; 19:47; 22:2; Genesis 37:18-20; Mt 27:21-25; John 11:47-50; Acts 2:23; Acts 3:15 Parallel parable passages - Mt. 21:33-46; Mk 12:1-12 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:9-19 Who Owns the Vineyard? - Steven Cole Luke 20:9-18 The Murder of God's Son - A Prophetic Parable-Part 1 - John MacArthur Luke 20:9-18 The Murder of God's Son - A Prophetic Parable-Part 2 - John MacArthur THE PARABLE COMES TO A SHOCKING CLIMAX! But when the vine-growers (georgos) saw him, they reasoned (dialogizomai) with one another - Notice that they reacted just at sight of him. There is no record of him even speaking a word. The implication is that they recognized him as the owner's son! Here Jesus is prophesying to His murderers, the religious leaders, exactly what they are about to do! They may be keeping their evil plan under cover (Mt 26:4, Mk 14:1, Jn 5:18, Jn 7:1, 25, Jn 11:53), but Jesus exposes them openly before the assembled Jewish crowd. John
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - What a warning is this to our own country! We, too, are seeing the sacrifice and deity of our Lord questioned, and his Sacred Word assailed by those who should have been its advocates. Unless there is speedy amendment, the Lord may take away the candlestick out of its place and find another race which will prove more faithful to him and his Gospel than our own has been. Kenneth
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - They caught him in the garden of Gethsemane; they cast him out in their Council in the hall of Caiaphas, and when he was led without the gate of Jerusalem; they slew him at Calvary. Steven
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - The Son was the final messenger. There would be no other. Either they would accept the message of the Son or face certain judgment. “If you do not hear the wellbeloved Son of God, you have refused your last hope. He is God’s ultimatum. Nothing remains when Christ is refused. No one else can be sent; heaven itself contains no further messenger. If Christ be rejected, hope is rejected.” Killed (put to death)(615) apokteino from apó = intensifies meaning + kteíno = slay) means to kill outright or to put to death in any manner. To kill someone results in a state of separation. To kill physically (Mt. 10:28; Mt. 14:5, Jn 18:31; often of Christ's death; in Rev. 2:13, Rev. 9:15, Rev. 11:13). Luke 20:16 "He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others." When they heard it, they said, "May it never be!" Luke 20:16KJV He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. He will come and destroy these vine-growers Lk 19:27; Ps 2:8,9; 21:8-10; Mt 21:41; 22:7; Acts 13:46 will give the vineyard to others Nehemiah 9:36,37 Parallel parable passages - Mt. 21:33-46; Mk 12:1-12 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:9-19 Who Owns the Vineyard? - Steven Cole Luke 20:9-18 The Murder of God's Son - A Prophetic Parable-Part 1 - John MacArthur Luke 20:9-18 The Murder of God's Son - A Prophetic Parable-Part 2 - John MacArthur PROPHETIC PRONOUNCEMENT! At this point the reader needs to be aware that there is a slight difference in Luke's version and Matthew's version of Jesus' story. In Luke's version Jesus ends the parable with a question "What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them?" (Lk 20:15) But then Jesus Himself answers His own question - "He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others.” When they heard it, they said, “May it never be!”" (Lk 20:16). In Matthew's version Jesus asks the question "Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?” (Mt 21:40+) But in contrast to Luke's version, Matthew records that it is not Jesus Who answers the question but either the religious leaders or the Jewish crowd who respond (I favor the religious leaders because that is who had challenged Jesus' authority) - "They said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end (apollumi), and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.” (Mt 21:41+) Comment: Note that it is uncertain who the "they" is ("They said to Him...") who gives this response to Jesus' question in Mt 21:40. Some (like John MacArthur and John Heading below) favor that this is the response of the self-righteous religious leaders. Others favor that this is the response of the Jewish crowd who heard the parable. We know that every Bible translation is also in a sense an "interpretation" of the original Hebrew or Greek text and so it should not surprise us that some versions "interpret" the "they" for us (saving us work, but sometimes not accurate). And so the NET renders the Greek "When the PEOPLE heard this" reasoning that this is the "referent" because it is the "people" who are addressed in Lk 20:9." However the overall context would seem to favor that Jesus is addressing the religious leaders primarily. And in Mt 21:45 it is clear that Jesus' primary "target" was the religious leaders.
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - Hold thou me up: as a nurse holds up a little child. "And I shall be safe," and not else, for unless Thou hold me up I shall be falling about like an infant that is weak upon its knees. We are saved by past grace, but we are not safe unless we receive present grace. The Psalmist had vowed to keep the Lord's commands, but here he pleads with the Lord to keep him: a very sensible course of procedure. Our version reads the word "uphold," and then "hold up;" and truly we need this blessing in every shape in which it can come, for in all manner of ways our adversaries seek to cast us down. To be safe is a happy condition; there is only one door to it, and that is to be held up by God Himself; thank God, that door is open to the least among us. Spies (1455)(egkathetos from from en = in + kathíēmi = to let down, set in ambush) means literally one sitting in ambush, lying in wait (Sept.: Job 31:9 and Job 19:12). An agent, someone hired to trap one by crafty words, one who is hired to lie in wait Used metaphorically of an insidious person, spy (Only NT use = Luke 20:20 - Hapax Legomenon). Matthew calls them "disciples" of the Pharisees but Luke minces no words in labeling them outright as spies ("secret watchers")! Who pretended (hupokrinomai) to be righteous (dikaios)(ESV = sincere) - This is one of the sadder phrases in the New Testament. They were not even subtle about their hypocrisy. These unrighteous men put on a pretense of personal righteousness. THOUGHT- Now before we are too hard on these "righteous" men, the question comes to mind, do I ever pretend to be righteous before others, especially if I have known, unconfessed sin? Woe! I'll let you answer that one for yourself. Pretended (used only here)(5271)(hupokrinomai from hupo = under in sense of secrecy + krino = to judge) means to make believe, to make believe with the intent to deceive (as in the present passage the only NT use). To give a false appearance of being, possessing, or performing. To dissemble meaning to hide under a false appearance. To dissimulate means to deceive by concealing the truth or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth, like inconvenient or secret information. Not found in the non-apocryphal Septuagint. Clearly this verb is related to the word from which we get "hypocrite," regarding which these men have to go down as one of the consummate examples in all of world history! Vine says hupokrinomai "denotes to give an answer; then, to answer on the stage, play a part and so ... to feign, pretend." Gilbrant on hupokrinomai - Hupokrinomai appears in classical literature as early as Homer (Eighth Century B.C.). Its early uses included “to explain, interpret.” As well, it could mean “to answer” (“hupokrinomai,” Kittel, 8:559). In Attic Greek hupokrinomai also means “to play a part” on the stage (here it is connected with the hupokritēs, the actor introduced into Athenian tragedy by Thespis in 536 B.C.). Occasionally it could mean “to deliver a speech, to represent dramatically,” or “to exaggerate” (Liddell-Scott). In the Septuagint hupokrinomai assumes a negative sense absent in classical literature. In Sirach 1:29 the RSV translates this word as “hypocrite”: “Be not a hypocrite” in men’s sight. In 2 Maccabees 5:25 it describes a man who pretended to be favorable toward the Jews (cf. 2 Maccabees 6:21). In 4 Maccabees 6:15 certain followers of the king exhorted Eleazer to “pretend” to eat pork. (Complete Biblical Library) In order that - This phrase usually identifies a term of purpose or result and so begs the question "for what purpose or result?" The answer is straightforward in this passage! To catch Jesus like one would trap an animal! They might catch (epilambano) Him in some statement (logos) - They were like "malicious" hunters trying to trap Jesus like one would ensnare a bird or hook a fish. They will "bait the trap" in the following verses. It is interesting that the NT uses three different verbs to describe the nefarious attempts of the religious leaders to ensnare or entrap Jesus. And so in Matthew and Mark we read the following... Matthew 22:15 adds "Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap (pagideuo used only in Mt 22:15 - means to lay snares for Jesus - see discussion of root word pagis = a trap used by bird catchers. Satan sets a snare or pagis for men and holds them captive in 2 Ti 2:26-note and undoubtedly he is behind the scenes urging on these evil men to trap) Him in what He said." Mark 12:13 adds another detail about the identity of the evil plotters - "Then they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap (agreuo used only in Mk 12:13 = used in hunting and fishing to catch the animal; here trying to catch Jesus in making a wrong statement. Their purpose was to hunt and catch Him like some wild animal.) Him in a statement (ONE THAT WOULD TURN JEWISH SENTIMENT AGAINST HIM OR CAUSE ROMANS TO ARREST HIM). In Mark 3 after healing on the Sabbath we see a similar collusion between those who were otherwise enemies, the Pharisees and the Herodians, Mark recording "The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him." (Mark 3:6) So even early in His ministry these men wanted to kill Jesus! Herodians - At the time of Jesus, there were certain groups—the Pharisees, the Herodians, and the Sadducees—that held positions of authority and power over the people. Other groups were the Sanhedrin, the scribes, and the lawyers. Each of these groups held power in either religious or political matters. The Herodians held political power, and most scholars believe that they were a political party that supported King Herod Antipas, the Roman Empire's ruler over much of the land of the Jews from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. The Herodians favored submitting to the Herods, and therefore to Rome, for political expediency. This support of Herod compromised Jewish independence in the minds of the Pharisees, making it difficult for the Herodians and Pharisees to unite and agree on anything. But one thing did unite them—opposing Jesus. (see enemy of my enemy is my friend) Herod himself wanted Jesus dead (Luke 13:31), and the Pharisees had already hatched plots against Him (John 11:53), so they joined efforts to achieve their common goal. (See full article - Who were the Herodians?)
Lucas 20
Spurgeon writes on the image of Christ in us "I have heard it said that the good sculptor, whenever he sees a suitable block of marble, firmly believes that there is a statue concealed within it, and that his business is but to take away the superfluous material, and so unveil the “thing of beauty,” which shall be “a joy for ever.” Believer, you are that block of marble; you have been quarried by divine grace, and set apart for the Master’s service, but we cannot see the image of Christ in you yet as we could wish; true, there are some traces of it, some dim outlines of what is to be; it is for you, with the chisel and the mallet, with constant endeavour and holy dependence upon God, to work out that image of Christ in yourself, till you shall be discovered to be by all men like unto your Lord and Master., “The life of Jesus will be manifested in your bodies that Christ would be formed in you.” (cf 2Cor 4:10+) R M Edgar on rendering to Caesar and to God - Caesar has his domain, as the currency shows. He regulates the outward relations of men, their barter and their citizenship, and by his laws he makes them keep the peace. But beyond this civil sphere, there is the moral and the religious, where God alone is King. Let God get his rights as well as Caesar, and all shall be well. These words of Christ sounded the death-knell of the Jewish theocracy. They point out two mutually independent spheres. They call upon men to be at once loyal citizens and real saints. We may do our duty by the state, while at the same time we are conscious citizens of heaven, and serve our unseen Master in all things. Charles Ryrie - Christ recognized the distinction between political and spiritual responsibilities. Caesar should be given taxes and all rightful political obedience; God should be given worship, obedience, service, and the dedication of one's whole life. (Borrow Ryrie Study Bible Expanded Edition) Bock adds - Government has the right to exist and function, but its presence does not cancel out one's allegiance to God (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-17). To what had been posed as an either-or question Jesus gives a both-and answer, avoiding the trap. What are the things that are God's?
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - Probably, this was one of the stock stories they were in the habit of telling in order to cast ridicule upon the resurrection. In this case the Sadducees are quoting from the book of Deuteronomy “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. (Deuteronomy 25:5-6+) This passage is referring to what is known as the law of levirate marriage which says if a man died without an heir, any unmarried brother was obliged to marry the man's widow. The purpose of the law is (1) to provide for the widow in a society where a childless widow would be reduced to begging and (2) to preserved the name of the deceased brother, who would be regarded as the legal father of the first son produced from that marriage, and would allow for the deceased brother's property to be kept in his line. Note the entire section in Dt 25:5-10 deals with this law. Levirate is from the Latin "levir" which means a "husband’s brother" (or "brother in law") and thus "levirate marriage" refers to the Jewish custom which dictated that when a husband died without leaving a surviving son, the dead man's brother (or nearest male relative) was allowed to receive (or purchase [cf Ru 4:5-note]) his deceased brother’s (or relative's) property and manage it for the widow, thereby keeping the family property and possessions intact (cp Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29). If the deceased brother left no male children, then the surviving brother was expected to take the deceased’s widow in order to provide a male heir (something Judah refused until Tamar tricked him - see Ge 38:1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8 , 9, 10). The firstborn male would be considered the heir of the dead brother's estate and was expected to continue the dead brother's name (Dt 25:5, 25:6-notes, Ru 4:10-note). If the brother (or the nearest relative) choose not to marry the widow, she subjected him to gross insult (Dt 25:7, 8, 9, 10). The purpose was the perpetuation of the dead brother's name, because ff an Israelite died and left his widow without a son, there was the danger that his name might perish and his property pass out of the family. See also Josephus (bottom half of the page) - Josephus, Ant. 4.8.23 Daniel Akin has an interesting (understatement) introduction on the parallel passage in Mark 12:18-27 writing "There is a playful saying that teachers of the Bible will often cite: “If you want to build a big crowd then teach on “sex” or “the end times.” And, if you want to build a really big crowd then teach on “sex in the end times!”” 2) Interestingly, that very issue was raised by a group of religious leaders who did not even believe in the end times, who rejected outright any doctrine of life after death. They are known in the Bible as the Sadducees. 3) The question of life after death has always fascinated humans, especially the religious. Every religion has some perspective on the issue though they vary widely in what they believe. Recent surveys point out the 80% of Americans believe in some form of life after death, with another 9% saying it may be true but that they were not sure. 4) Christianity has always had a strong doctrine concerning life after death, even if we had to admit to a good bit of mystery on the precise details. There is nothing surprising about this, after all we build our understanding of the future, end times and eternity from the teachings of Jesus, an empty tomb, and a resurrected and living Savior. The Bible tells us a lot but it does not tell us everything. 5) In this passage we will see how Jesus countered the troubling riddle of the Sadducees and demolished their theology and doctrine of annihilation. In the process, we will allow additional scriptures and theological reflection to help us craft a healthy perspective on what we can expect for the future. For those who know and trust Christ for salvation one thing is certain: it is all good! Luke 20:29 "Now there were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless; Luke 20:29KJV There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. the first took a wife and died childless Leviticus 20:20; Jer 22:30 Parallel passages - Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:27-40 Why You Should Care About Doctrine - Steven Cole Luke 20:27-40 The Savior Silences the Sadducees - John MacArthur Related Passages: Mark 12:20+ “There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. Now there were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless - This was apparently the "trump card" for the Sadducees against the Pharisees who believed in resurrection and it was one no Pharisee had ever been able to adequately answer. So they knew that now they could throw this curve ball at Jesus and He would be stumped. You can just imagine their sense of "Gotcha Now Jesus" mentality that stirred their prideful hearts as they began this question which takes up six verses (including the Scripture they quoted above) of the inspired Word of God! We know Jesus was filled with the Spirit for He was very patient to let them finish their lengthy question. Hiebert on having no children - All seven brothers successively fulfilled their duty to marry their brother’s wife, but the seven left no seed. This childlessness left none of them with a superior claim to be her husband in the resurrection. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Stevenson - The question presupposes a situation in which there are seven brothers. The oldest is married, but before his marriage can produce any children, he dies. According to Jewish Law, it is now the responsibility of the second brother to have a child by that wife and to raise the child as the heir of the first brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). And so, he marries her, but dies before there are any children. And so it goes with the third and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth and the seventh. By this time, I think that I would be a bit suspicious of the woman. But she eventually dies, too. Luke 20:30 and the second Parallel passages - Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:27-40 Why You Should Care About Doctrine - Steven Cole Luke 20:27-40 The Savior Silences the Sadducees - John MacArthur and the second - Matthew lumps all the husbands into one verse "so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh." (Mt 22:26) Luke 20:31 and the third married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children. Parallel passages - Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:27-40 Why You Should Care About Doctrine - Steven Cole Luke 20:27-40 The Savior Silences the Sadducees - John MacArthur THE CONSUMMATE WIDOWMAKER And the third married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children - One would have thought that after the third had died, all would have viewed her as a consummate widowmaker and avoided her like the plague! But this is just an absurd story! Luke 20:32 "Finally the woman died also. Luke 20:32KJV Last of all the woman died also. the woman died Judges 2:10; Ecclesiastes 1:4; 9:5; Hebrews 9:27 Parallel passages - Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:27-40 Why You Should Care About Doctrine - Steven Cole Luke 20:27-40 The Savior Silences the Sadducees - John MacArthur WIDOWMAKER'S DEATH...FINALLY! Finally the woman died also - And everyone took a deep breath, thanking God that the "widow maker" has passed! Luke 20:33 "In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her." Luke 20:33KJV Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. Mt 22:24-28; Mark 12:19-23 Parallel passages - Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:27-40 Why You Should Care About Doctrine - Steven Cole Luke 20:27-40 The Savior Silences the Sadducees - John MacArthur WHO'S WIFE WILL SHE BE? D A Carson makes a good point that the Sadducees question was based on their presupposition "that resurrection life is an exact counterpart to earthly life; and if so, the resurrected woman must be guilty of incestuous marriages or arbitrarily designated the wife of one of the brothers. And if so, which one? Or—and this is the answer the Sadducees pressed for—the whole notion of resurrection is absurd." (Expositor's Bible Commentary) Stevenson - Do you see what the Sadducees are doing? They are not asking this question because they are actually worried about this situation. They are asking it because they think that the question shows a flaw in the whole teaching about the resurrection. They expect Jesus to stutter and stammer and get red in the face so that they can laugh at Him. But he does nothing of the sort. Of course, Jesus immediately proceeds (Lk 20:34-35) to correct their erroneous presupposition by pointing out that there is a marked distinction between life in this age and life in that age which is to come (resurrection life). In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her - The argument that the Sadducees are employing is what is commonly known as Reductio ad absurdum, which is "Latin for "reduction to absurdity" "a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible." In the present context the goal of the Sadducees is the former, that is, to disprove the resurrection by showing that this belief inevitably would lead one to come to an absurd, even impossible conclusion. In other words they are attempting to show that the resurrection cannot be true because the implications of that belief are absurd or ridiculous in the case of the woman with seven former husbands! Imagine the scene in heaven! Whose wife is she going to be? And remember also that since none of them would die (it's heaven), the scene would be utter chaos (a state of extreme confusion and disorder in a place that was supposed to be just the opposite! Just imagine all these people wandering around heaven trying to discover who their wife is or who their husband is!). This would be absolutely absurd! It simply could not occur they reason. And then the logical conclusion is that there is not such a thing as the resurrection because there was no way the Law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 could be fulfilled! And so the Sadducees thought they had Jesus this time, for this argument had never failed when they had used it to stump their rivals the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection. As an aside, although the story of the Sadducees seems a bit ridiculous, their question is not merely theoretical for there will be many in heaven who have had more than one spouse, for any number of reasons. But as Jesus will go on to explain, multiple spouses, bitter divorces, jealousies, etc will (thank God), not be relevant in the life to come! That's good news! Daniel Akin has a note on the background of the Sadducee's question - It was grounded in the issue of “levirate (Latin for “brother-in-law”) marriage” mentioned in Genesis 38:8-10 and Ruth, and explained in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 which says, “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’” The gist of the issue is therefore this: God made a provision for a family to be raised up in name and property rights for a husband who dies with no male heir. You have to love the way the Bible describes this! The Sadducees took this teaching and created what we call a reductio ad absurdum argument, an argument that reduces things to the absurd or the ridiculous. A man marries a woman and he dies. Fortunately (or “unfortunately”) he has 7 brothers who can step in and fulfill the levirate obligation. Tragically, she married each one and each one, all 7, died without bearing a child. Now, since the Pharisees and most rabbis believe the world to come is basically an improved and better one like this world, which therefore would include things like marriage, to whom then will she be married? Assuming monogamy which is a given, which one will have her in marriage with its privileges “in the resurrection” (v. 23), in the world to come? Such a scenario is clearly unthinkable and it shows the foolishness of believing in a future resurrection. Look at all the problems it could potentially cause. No, God is too smart for that and the books of Moses which are the undisputed Word of God make no mention of a future resurrection. Interestingly Jesus has already spoken of his own resurrection 3 times (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). The Sadducees think they have him, but they are headed toward a big disappointment. Luke 20:34 And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, Luke 20:34KJV And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: sons of this age, Lk 16:8 marry and are given in marriage, Lk 17:27; 1 Cor 7:2-16; Ephesians 5:31; Hebrews 13:4 Parallel passages - Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:27-40 Why You Should Care About Doctrine - Steven Cole Luke 20:27-40 The Savior Silences the Sadducees - John MacArthur JESUS EXPOSES THE SERIOUS ERRORS OF THE SADDUCEES And so Jesus first points out that the Sadducees have made a major mistake in assuming that (future) that age (Lk 20:35) is simply a continuation of this age. He proceeds to describe how they differ, especially regarding marriage. In Luke 20, Jesus deals with their not understanding God’s power in verses Lu 20:34-36 and with their not understanding the Scriptures in verses Lu 20:37-38. And Jesus said to them - Jesus begins by pointing out that life in the resurrection is substantially different from life in this age (life on earth as we know it). Life in the age of the resurrection is not just a continuation of life in this world but is a completely different "order of magnitude". However before He describes this obvious difference in this age and that age, He prefaces His explanation with a pithy barb found in the parallel account in Mark 12:24+.... Jesus said to them (SADDUCEES), “Is this not the reason you are (present tense = continually) mistaken (planao - led astray, misled, deluded, deceived), that (1) you do not understand the Scriptures or (2) the power (dunamis = inherent ability to accomplish) of God?
Lucas 20
Spurgeon - Sons of God - "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us." Consider who we were, and what we feel ourselves to be even now when corruption is powerful in us, and you will wonder at our adoption. Yet we are called "the sons of God." What a high relationship is that of a son, and what privileges it brings! What care and tenderness the son expects from his father, and what love the father feels towards the son! But all that, and more than that, we now have through Christ. As for the temporary drawback of suffering with the elder brother, this we accept as an honour: "Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." We are content to be unknown with him in his humiliation, for we are to be exalted with him. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God." That is easy to read, but it is not so easy to feel. How is it with your heart this morning? Are you in the lowest depths of sorrow? Does corruption rise within your spirit, and grace seem like a poor spark trampled under foot? Does your faith almost fail you? Fear not, it is neither your graces nor feelings on which you are to live: you must live simply by faith on Christ. With all these things against us, now-in the very depths of our sorrow, wherever we may be-now, as much in the valley as on the mountain, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God." "Ah, but," you say, "see how I am arrayed! my graces are not bright; my righteousness does not shine with apparent glory. " But read the next: "It doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him. " The Holy Spirit shall purify our minds, and divine power shall refine our bodies, then shall we see him as he is. Luke 20:37 "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB. Luke 20:37KJV Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed Exodus 3:2-6; Deuteronomy 33:16; Acts 7:30-32 where he calls the Lord Genesis 17:7; 28:13,21; 32:9; Mt 22:3-33; Mark 12:26,27 Parallel passages - Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27 Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 20:27-40 Why You Should Care About Doctrine - Steven Cole Luke 20:27-40 The Savior Silences the Sadducees - John MacArthur THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE There is a remarkable passage in Josephus, which proves that the best informed among the Jews believed in the immateriality and immortality of the soul, and that the souls of righteous men were in the presence of God in a state of happiness. "They who lose their lives for the sake of God, live unto God, as do Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the rest of the patriarchs." Not less remarkable is a passage in Shemoth Rabba, "Why doth Moses say, Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? (Ex 32:13) Here is another "rabbinical writing" documenting that the Jews believed in resurrection based on writings in the Torah - R. Abin saith, The Lord said unto Moses, I look for ten men from thee, as I looked for that number in Sodom. Find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I will not destroy thy people. Then saith Moses, Behold, here am I, and Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar, Phinehas, and Caleb, and Joshua; but, saith God, there are but seven: where are the other three? When Moses knew not what to do, he saith, O Eternal God, [hayim hem ha-metim] do those live who are dead? Yes, saith God. Then saith Moses, If those that are dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Bock explains that "The argument advances further. Jesus has dealt with the Sadducees’ question, but there is still one issue that needs to be addressed. Jesus wants to make sure that the Sadducees understand that resurrection is a scriptural teaching. Though he could have appealed to a prophetic passage like Dan. 12:2, Jesus opts for a text from the Pentateuch because the Sadducees held the Torah in highest regard. A text from that portion of Scripture would be most persuasive for them. Working with their presuppositions he makes his argument. Jesus begins his elaboration with the direct statement that the dead are raised, which he says Moses revealed." (Ibid) But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed - Matthew 22:31 begins "but regarding the resurrection of the dead." Again in line with this chapter which begins with a question of Jesus' authority, Jesus appeals to the AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE. The Sadducees had based their rejection of the doctrine of the resurrection on their belief that this truth was not found in the Torah (Gen-Deut). The Sadducees had quoted Moses from the Torah, and now Jesus also quotes Moses from the same Torah. They cannot accuse Him of using an invalid source! He is drawing the net tighter and this is the most powerful argument. Related Resource: Authority of the Scripture - Richard Mayhue - 10 page article - excellent review In the passage about the burning bush - Why didn't He say "Now turn to Exodus 3:6 (Ex 3:2-6) which is on page 100 of your pew Bibles?" The answer of course is that the Scriptures were not assigned chapter/verse designations until the mid-1500's (See versification). Jesus choose a Scripture that surely both the Sadducees and the Jews in the crowd were very familiar with, many most likely having committed these great passages to memory. So not only does Jesus quote from Moses, He even uses Moses as a direct example of His point! And in referencing this passage Jesus affirms the inspiration of what Moses wrote when He recorded He (Jehovah) said also, “I am (Lxx = "ego eimi" = present tense = continually) the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. (Exodus 3:6+). While Luke simply says "Moses showed" Matthew and Mark both emphasize the fact that it is God Himself Who is speaking in this passage, not Moses... Matthew 22:31 “But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God." Mark 12:26 “But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB’? Comment - Jesus issues a pithy "rhetorical rebuke" with the phrase "have you not read" which is simply a way of saying, "Do you not even understand what you read in the Scripture?" Answer? No they had not understood! Where he calls the Lord THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB - How does this passage support the doctrine of the resurrection? Note that God identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the passage IN Exodus 3:6 God says "I am the God of...Abraham..." where "I am" is the famous "ego eimi" in the Septuagint. The verb eimi is present tense active voice indicative mood which signifies God is continually the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He does not say "I was" (past tense) their God. Here is the point -- If God IS (continually) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then it stands to reason that they must still be alive. And if they are alive, then there is life after death and the doctrine of the resurrection is true based on THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE. (See also excellent note by Hiebert on Mark's parallel). Steven