Luke 20, Part Two

"Render therefore to Caesar" (vs. 20-26)--From my thoughts on Matthew 22:15-22: "The Pharisees sent some Herodians to Christ “that they might entangle Him in His talk” (v. 16). The “Herodians” were a political party following the Herods, who were Roman lackeys governing parts of Judea. The question they ask, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (v. 17), was a trap—the Jews didn’t believe they should pay taxes to a foreign power. They got this from Deuteronomy 17:14-15, which says, "When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” Some of the Jews deduced from the last sentence that they should never pay tribute to another nation, which, of course, they had been required to do, frequently, in their history, and were under the same compulsion in Jesus’ time because of the Romans. Still, the question was ingenious. If Jesus took the common Jewish view that “no, you shouldn’t pay taxes to Caesar,” then He would be in trouble with the Romans. If He said, “yes, do pay,” then He could lose influence with the masses who hated the Romans. So, frankly, the Pharisees/Herodians didn’t care how He answered. Except they got the one answer they didn’t expect: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (v. 21). How could anybody argue with that answer? Incidentally, Jesus knew it was a trap and exposed it as so: “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?” (v. 18). He wanted others who were listening to understand what was going on.

One last thought here on this section: Jesus did not come as a political agitator or a “community organizer.” He came "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10), and “to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Politicians and political empires come and go, rise and fall, wax and wane, and Jesus knew it. But there is only one chance at eternal salvation, and that’s what Jesus died for. If Christ were in America today, He would not be stirring up support for Obamacare or marching in “tea parties”; He would be doing the same thing He did in the first century—preaching the gospel, trying to save the lost. Because 100 years from now, there aren’t very many of us alive today who are going to care if Obama’s health care plan gets passed or not. But we will care about the location of our eternal spirit."

Luke tells us (v. 20) that the Pharisees did not directly come to Jesus with this question, but "sent spies who pretended to be righteous."  The "spies" were the "Herodians" Matthew mentions.  Christ, of course, recognized the hypocrisy whethere the masses did or not.

The Sadducees and the resurrection (vs. 27-40)--Matthew 22:23-33: "Next, it was the Sadducees turn to try Jesus: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother” (v. 24). This is true. In fact, it was culturally true even before the Law of Moses. God killed a man named Onan in Genesis 38:10 because he wouldn’t do it. But then the Sadducees came up with an absurd example. A man marries a woman, but dies with no children. His brother marries her, but then he dies with no children. There are seven brothers. They all marry her, in turn, but none of them have any children. So, “in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her” (v. 28). Interesting question.

To understand their question, we must know that the Sadducees were the “modernists” of their time. They did not believe in angels, a spirit world, or in a resurrection after death. Hence, the conundrum they propose to Jesus. If there is a resurrection, since all seven brothers were married to this woman, who’s she going to be married to in the next life?

Jesus responded, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (v. 29). There were two things wrong with the Sadducees’ position. Number one, “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (v. 30), so there will be no problem about whose wife that woman would be. But the real point Jesus wanted to make was in opposition to the Sadducees’ doctrine of “no resurrection,” and it’s a very remarkable argument Christ makes: “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (vs. 31-32). Who did Jehovah say that to? He said it to Moses in Exodus 3:6, at least 300 years after Jacob was dead. And yet, “I am the God of Abraham,” etc., not “I was.” In other words, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive in Moses’ day—though they were, of course, dead to this earth. Jesus’ argument is based on the tense of a verb. No wonder, “when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching” (v. 33)."

The Pharisees (scribes) liked Jesus' response here (v. 39) because they agreed with Him. The doctrine of a resurrection had long been a matter of dispute between the two Jewish sects. So when Jesus agreed with Pharisaic doctrine, they commended Him. That didn't happen very often, but it also indicates that they weren't going to budge from their ideas because they accepted very little of the rest of Jesus' teaching.

David's Lord and son (vs. 41-44)--Matthew 22:41-45: "Christ had answered all of their queries, now He throws one at them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" (v. 42). “The Son of David" (v. 43). Jesus then poses a perplexing problem: "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying: The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool? "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" (vs. 43-45). Nobody knew the answer, which is found in the dual nature of the Messiah. In His human nature, He was descended from David, which the Jews well knew. But in His divine nature, He is obviously David’s Lord. What this whole chapter demonstrates, as Jesus takes on all comers and puts them to flight, is Christ’s superior understanding and wisdom. None of His opponents could match Him. The multitudes saw it. The Pharisees couldn’t handle it. They had two options: join Him or kill Him. And we know which choice they made. Especially after chapter 23... "

A warning about the scribes (vs. 45-47)--Luke doesn't go into the detail of condemning the scribes and Pharisees that Matthew does in chapter 23 of his gospel; hence, the reference at the end of the previous section. What Luke gives us is a very brief summation of Jesus' scathing rebuke of the hypocritical religious leaders of His time. This leads into Luke 21, which is parallel to Matthew 24. Luke's Greek audience wouldn't have the background in some of these matters that Matthew's Jewish readers had, thus Luke doesn't spend as much time with them. A major theme of the first gospel is the conflict between the Jews and Christ leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. That wasn't as important to Luke's Gentile readers.