Luke 20:20-40 “Attempts to Discredit ”

Introduction: The previous passage concluded with reference to the fact that the Jewish leadership (both religious and civil) wanted desperately to apprehend Jesus, but they could not because the crowds that were fascinated by Jesus’ teaching would have turned on them. They had attempted a direct challenge of Jesus’ authority, and Jesus had made them look foolish, by exposing their hypocrisy and disinterest in the truth. Therefore, this passage includes two stories that record the ongoing efforts of the Jewish leadership to arrest Jesus, but now they would use various factions of their membership, who would attempt to discredit Jesus, through the various approaches that played to the strength of each individual sect.

I. By the & : (vs.20-26) Luke opens this passage by noting; “So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous” (vs.20a). In the original Greek text there is no pronoun “they”, nor any other clear subject in this sentence; instead there is simply a participle that expresses a subordinate thought. Therefore, the grammar indicates that this verse continues the thought of the previous verse (vs.19). The thought of that verse was that the chief priests and the scribes knew that Jesus had spoken the previous parable about them. This then means that this verse tells us what these religious leaders did in response to what Jesus was saying about them. They watched Jesus, and they sent spies to mix in with the crowds that were listening to Him. In the of Mark, we are told that these spies were made up of two different parties, the Pharisees and the Herodians (12:13). This was extraordinary. The Herodian party were those who were supportive of the reign of the Herod family over the Jewish people, and those of this party were absolutely hated by the Pharisees, because they saw the family of Herod (who were not Jews) as political opportunists who had bargained with the Romans to gain control and thus steal the nation from its people. The fact that these two hostile groups would work together, demonstrates how passionately they wanted to see Jesus arrested (whom both parties saw as a common enemy). In saying that the Jewish leaders “watched” Jesus, Luke used a Greek word that means to observe someone or something carefully, with attention to detail. The implication is that since this was the action they take in light of having been shamed by Jesus in their confrontation of Him, they were now looking for anything He might say or do that they could use against Him. The Greek word translated as “spies”, refers to lying in wait with the intent of ambushing someone. Therefore, this clarifies that the agents that the Jewish leadership sends into the crowd, were given the task of setting a trap for Jesus. Luke adds that these spies “pretended to be righteous”. The Greek word translated as “pretended” means to act hypocritically, to present oneself to others in a way that is contrary to who or what one really is. The entire expression indicates that these spies were to masquerade as those who were sincerely pursuing godliness, and thus that they were truly interested in what Jesus would have to say about how a person was to live their life in order to please God. Then Luke writes what the spies’ purpose was in their charade; “that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor” (vs.20b). They were trying to maneuver Jesus into saying something that would enable the to arrest Him, and turn Him over to the Roman governor, . Next, Luke records how the spies addressed Jesus in order to get His attention; “Then they asked Him, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that You say and teach rightly, and You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth’” (vs.21). These words are dripping with irony, because every word of what is said is true, and yet not only do the Pharisees and Herodians not believe these things; it is Jesus’ lack of personal favoritism that is the reason the Pharisees hate Him as much as they do (it was why He associated with tax gatherers). They say to Jesus that they know that what He teaches is right, that His teaching is not influenced by any effort to please important members of His audience, and that He genuinely promotes the lifestyle that God has ordained for His people. All of this is pure flattery. They hope to convince Jesus He is among supporters in the hope that He will be unguarded in what He says publicly. The inclusion of praise for His lack of personal favoritism is specifically encourage Him to be bold in speaking against wickedness even in high places (and they have a specific sphere in mind). Then Luke records the question these spies ask of Jesus; “‘Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’” (vs.22). First, it is important to understand the question itself, and then second, one must understand the implications of this question. When the spies ask whether or not paying taxes is “lawful”, they of course mean, was it lawful according to the Mosaic Law (because clearly, these taxes were legal under Roman law). The pronoun “us”, should be understood as a reference to the Jewish people. Finally, the question refers to a specific sort of taxation. In , since it was a Roman province, the citizens were required every year to pay a personal tax on their property and possessions directly to the Romans (in , this same tax was collected indirectly through ). This was a tax that was directly related to how the Jews had been subjugated to the Roman Empire, and how as residents of that Empire they were taxed to support it. This tax was a volatile issue for the Jewish people. First of all, they deeply resented the heavy taxes that they had to pay not only to Rome, but also to their own leaders to support their civil and religious bureaucracy. Secondly, this taxation was a financial consequence of their subjugation and so it insulted the Jews’ national pride. Finally, many saw it as a violation of their covenant with Yahweh that they should recognize in any way, the sovereignty of any king but God. Feelings ran so high on this issue, that in A.D. 6 (just 27 years earlier) a Galilean had led a revolt against the Romans that was focused on the immorality of paying this tax to support a paganistic regime. Therefore, this was an extremely thorny issue, and as is usually true, there were a variety of opinions about this matter. Those, like the zealots, who had revolution on their mind, believed it was absolutely wrong to pay the tax. The Pharisees saw this as a necessary evil that the Jewish people had to live with as long as the Romans remained in power. The and the Herodians were in the minority, but they favored the status quo, because they benefited from the present governmental situation. These spies knew this. They also knew that Jesus was being hailed as possibly being the Messiah, and thus the crowds would expect that He would speak against Rome’s dominion over the Jews. If He did, they could have Him arrested for stirring up rebellion. If He were to advocate paying the tax to the Romans, He would most likely lose the support of the crowds, and the Sanhedrin would be able to move against Him on their own. These spies most likely thought that they had Jesus on the horns of a dilemma very similar to the one He had the Sanhedrin on earlier in the day. Next Luke tells us that Jesus was not fooled for a second by these spies; “But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them” (vs.23). Before going further it should be noted that the words “why do you test Me?” as found in the KJV & NKJV have very poor support in the Greek manuscripts, and this is why these words are absent from the majority of modern English translations (see-ESV, NASB, HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV), few are convinced Luke ever wrote those words. We are told that Jesus saw through the duplicity of His opponents immediately, recognizing that they were attempting to entrap Him. The grammar indicates that what Jesus said next was predicated on His recognition of their “craftiness”. The Greek word translated as “craftiness” refers to evil cunning, and the use of trickery. The word always carries the sense of being unscrupulous, one who is ready and willing to do anything (including something evil) in pursuit of a goal. Then Luke records how Jesus responded to the question itself; “Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?’ They answered and said, ‘Caesar’s’” (vs.24). Clearly, by the way the question was phrased, the spies had expected Jesus to answer in one of two ways; no, it is not lawful, or yes it is. But instead, Jesus asks His inquisitors to give show Him a denarius. The denarius was the silver Roman coin that was required to be given to the Romans as payment for the tax that was at the heart of their question. That they could produce one, meant that Jesus had turned the table on His opponents. For it demonstrated that these men engaged in trade and business using Roman currency. In the ancient world, the use of a king’s currency was tantamount to acknowledging His reign. Therefore, by producing the coin, they were in essence answering that in practice they did acknowledge that people should pay taxes to the Romans, because they were the legitimate government. Jesus then goes on to ask whose image was stamped on the coin, and what inscription was written on it. The questioners answered that both were those of Caesar. At that time the image would have been of the current Caesar, ; and the inscription on the coin read; “Tiberius Caesar, son of the Divine Augustus”. Luke then notes that after the questioners answered that Caesar’s image was on the coin, Jesus said; “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God’s” (vs.25). The Greek word translated as “render” means to give back, return, or pay what is owed. The implication is that one is giving to someone else something they are entitled to. But what does Jesus’ saying mean in practical terms? There have been a lot of opinions over the centuries. One that was popular in the Patristic period and into the Middle ages, was that Jesus was saying that there are two spheres of life, one secular and the other spiritual. This meant that God had authority over spiritual things, while government had authority over secular things. However, this is not what Jesus meant. The problem with this view is that it suggests that in a sense government (in this case Caesar) had equal authority to God, just in a different sphere. It also implies that those who speak for God are limited to spiritual things, and that they have no authority to speak in regard to secular matters. What Jesus was saying was that obedience to government is not necessarily disobedience to God. God ordains all who exercise authority, and therefore, part of a believer’s responsibility to God is to obey the political authorities that God has established over him or her. Jesus uses the idea of the image that is stamped on the coin, and correlates it to the fact that human beings bear the image of God. In essence, Jesus was saying that the image imprinted, signified ownership. The money belonged to Caesar, while people belong to God. The idea then is that government has certain appropriate responsibilities to administrate the practical affairs of human life; however, human beings belong to God, and therefore, their ultimate devotion and obedience belong to God, not government (not even Caesar). In answering this way, Jesus had changed the dynamics of the question, and thus asserted both the primacy of God, and the necessity of obedience to the state, so that there was nothing that the spies could use against Him Luke closes this first story by writing; “But they could not catch Him in His words in the presence of the people. And they marveled at His answer and kept silent” (vs.26). The Pharisees and Herodians recognized that there was nothing that Jesus said that they could specifically use against Him. He was not advocating rebellion, so they could not successfully bring in the Romans against Him, and His answer was making the people think, rather than react emotionally to what He had said. We are told that in response to Jesus’ answer, even these enemies of His were amazed. The tragic thing is that their amazement simply caused them to give up their attempt to trap Him; it did not lead them to repentance.

II. By the Sadducees: (vs.27-40) Now Luke provide the setting for the second story in this passage; “Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him” (vs.27a). This is the only time in this Gospel that Luke makes mention of the Sadducees. The title “Sadducees” came from the proper name “Zadok”, who was a priest in the time of . The descendants of Zadok were granted the privilege of officiating as priests in the Temple after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. These Zadokite priests traced their lineage back to Eleazar the son of Aaron. The Sadducees were a political party made up from the leading families of the nation- the priests, merchants, and aristocrats. The high priests and the most powerful members of the priesthood were mainly Sadducees (:17). Many of the wealthy lay people were among the Sadducees. This is the reason why the Sadducees were motivated to preserve things as they were. They enjoyed privileged positions in society and managed to get along well under Roman rule. Any movement that might upset the current order and authority was bound to appear dangerous in their eyes. Although they were few in number, the Sadducees wielded immense influence, because their membership represented the wealthy and powerful. Because of this, they held the majority of the seats in the Sanhedrin (Israel’s ruling body at the time). It was the Sadducees who ran the lucrative business operations located in the temple courtyard, and therefore they were very antagonistic to Jesus because He had twice cleared these businesses out of the courtyard. Even though the Sadducees included the priestly class, they demonstrated more interest in politics than in religion. In terms of belief, they accepted the entire OT, but saw the Pentateuch as having special authority that was greater than the rest. They did not believe in the resurrection, or in . The Pharisees and Herodians had failed, and now the Sadducees had come to attempt to discredit Jesus. Therefore, they were the latest agents of the Sanhedrin sent to find a way to separate Jesus from the crowd that provided Him with protection. Luke then records what the Sadducees say when they confront Jesus; “and asked Him, saying: ‘Teacher, wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also’” (vs.28b-32). Before asking their question, the Sadducees recite the unusual story of seven brothers who in succession all married the same woman. This is a story rooted in the Mosaic teaching regarding Levirate marriage (Deut.25:5-6). The idea behind this law and custom, was to protect a man’s family line from dying out because he had no heirs. This story is almost identical to one that is in the Apocryphal book Tobit. It is possible, but not certain that this is where the Sadducees got this story. There is no evidence that levirate marriage was still practiced in Judaism in the first century, but the principles about it in the Law were still a matter of some debate. Then Luke records the question that the Sadducees asked based on this story; “‘Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife’” (vs.33). This question was not asked because the Sadducees were seeking real answers from Jesus; it was asked because this was a common line of reasoning that the Sadducees employed to mock the teaching of the resurrection. They use this story to suggest that the resurrection cannot be true, for if this scenario actually happened, then in the next life these men would live in an adulterous relationship with one another and the woman, and that sinful situation would have been created because they followed this part of God’s Law. However, since the Law of God is perfect, they were arguing that the resurrection could not be true, because it would lead to absurd scenarios like this one. As to the question itself, it would be assumed that there was no right answer, because the story is crafted to allow no distinction between the relationships that these seven brothers had to the one wife. Since this sort of argument had embarrassed others who taught resurrection, they were sure it would embarrass Jesus in front of the crowds as well. As usual, Jesus’ answer catches His opponents off guard. Luke records that in response to the question, Jesus said; “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (vs.34-36). The “sons of this age” are those who are born into the present reality in which we live; the time between the Fall and the return of Christ. Jesus said that it has been, and will be customary throughout this age for men to marry, and for women to be given in marriage. However, though the logic of the Sadducees was sound, their premise was faulty. They, like the Pharisees (who believed in the resurrection) thought that resurrection life would pretty much be a continuation of the same sort of life people live now, except that the Jewish people would be living in a paradise. Jesus therefore goes on to point out that this assumption is wrong. He also qualifies the resurrection as an event that one must be worthy to attain. This means that Jesus was specifically referring to the resurrection of the righteous, which was the resurrection that the Jews who believed in resurrection were certain they would have a part in. However, the fact that one must be found “worthy” of this resurrection conveys two things. First, not all are worthy, and thus second, one needs to find out what makes one worthy. Jesus was graciously providing a warning to the Sadducees not to assume that they would not face judgment. Jesus then explains that there will be no marriage for those who enter the age to come that follows the resurrection of the righteous. The nature of the existence of a resurrected person is different than that which we experience now. Jesus goes on and adds “nor can they die”. The wording is stronger than one doesn’t die; the wording means it will be impossible for the resurrected person to die. Then Jesus explains that they will be “equal to the angels”. Here Jesus coins a word that is not found anywhere else in the Greek language to say that resurrected human life will be similar to that which the angels experience. The resurrected are then called “sons of God” and it is because they are “sons of the resurrection”. The idea is that it is the resurrection that brings a person into the fullness of the experience of their redemption, and thus fully into their new status as children of God. This answer exposes the flaw in the thinking of the Sadducees. Their supposedly unanswerable question no longer makes sense in light of the fact that resurrected saints don’t marry. So rather than embarrass Jesus, they themselves are embarrassed because Jesus made nonsense out of their carefully laid trap. However, though Jesus demonstrated that the question was meaningless, He still had not proven that the doctrine of the resurrection itself was Biblical. Therefore, Luke records that Jesus went on to say; “But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him” (vs.37-38). Since the Sadducees cited the OT Law, Jesus turns to another portion of the Pentateuch (the portion that was most authoritative to them) to demonstrate that Moses believed in and taught the resurrection. Jesus’ argument in these verses breaks down in the following way: 1. In the time of Moses, Yahweh still spoke of Himself as the God of the long- dead patriarchs 2. Jesus infers that it would be absurd for God to declare that He was in a covenant relationship with those who no longer exist 3. He concludes therefore, that the patriarchs must still be alive 4. Finally, Jesus deduces that in re-telling this story, that Moses himself attested to life after death The part of the OT that is referenced in this passage is Exodus 3:6. Jesus, in saying that “Moses showed”, was affirming Moses’ authorship of the Book of Exodus. Jesus uses the expression “in the burning bush passage” to indicate to His listeners what part of the OT He was referring to. This sort of description was necessary because at this time, chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the . It may not seem like the above argument proves the resurrection of the body. However, what must be understood is that the Sadducees in denying the resurrection of the body, were also denying life after death. The idea of the soul going on and living after the body was an idea popular among the Greeks, but not one that was embraced by many Jews in the first century. Therefore, to a first century Jew, an afterlife assumed a physical resurrection. Luke concludes this second story by noting; “Then some of the scribes answered and said, ‘Teacher, You have spoken well’. But after that they dared not question Him anymore” (vs.39-40). A scribe was a profession not a political party, and thus there were Pharisees and Sadducees who were scribes. However, in light of this comment, it is likely that these scribes were Pharisees and they were impressed with Jesus’ wonderful defense of the doctrine of the resurrection. The tragic thing is that these men only saw this as a well-reasoned argument, and they did not consider who Jesus might be in light of what He taught. After these engagements, Jesus opponents gave up on the attempt to discredit Him. No matter how they approached Him, no matter what subject they debated Him about, He made them look ridiculous. They would have to find another way to apprehend Jesus.

Conclusion: The tragedy here is that the most educated religious experts of the time were being stymied by Jesus, a man with no formal education; and very few of these religious leaders ever stopped for a moment to ask themselves how this man had gained so much insight, and what that might reveal about Him. Jesus opponents were so caught up in their antagonism to Jesus, that though they might marvel at Him, they would never consider the possibility that He was precisely who He claimed to be. In this passage Jesus teaches that marriage will not exist for the saints in the afterlife. For many who have a deep connection to their spouse, this is a discouraging revelation. Some wonder if this means we will be estranged from those we now love the most. Though our knowledge of the afterlife is very limited, we can surmise a few things. First, we will find ultimate satisfaction in our unhindered fellowship with God Himself (Ps.16:11). Beyond that, with sin having been completely removed from the saints, we will be able to relate to one another in perfect love and harmony. Therefore, the implication is that our relationships with our loved ones won’t be diminished; instead our relationships with everyone will be so wonderfully enhanced that there won’t be the need for pairing off to enjoy real intimacy with another. In the end, we do not have a frame of reference so that we can emotionally appreciate the afterlife now as we will then. We must trust in faith that the reward that God has waiting for us, will be as wonderful as He says it will be.

“And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.’” Revelation 21:3-4