Luke Chapter 20

Question and Answer with Jesus

“These answers of His were not the sharp retorts of smartness, but the final utterances of a wisdom which revealed the ignorance of the questions.” (Morgan)

A. The Religious Leaders Question the Authority of Jesus

1. (Luke 20:1–2) The religious and political leaders question Jesus

Now it happened on one of those days, as He taught the people in the temple and preached the gospel, that the chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders, confronted Him and spoke to Him, saying, “Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?”

a. The chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders, confronted Him

This was not an accidental encounter. These three groups—the chief priests (representing the Sadducees), the scribes (largely Pharisees), and the elders (leaders of the community)—together formed the Sanhedrin, the ruling religious body of Israel. Their combined presence signals the seriousness of this confrontation.

Jesus had not sought public debates; His focus was on teaching the people and preaching the good news of the kingdom of God. Yet the leaders repeatedly intruded, driven by hostility and fear. Their motive was not to learn but to trap Him. By uniting, these rival groups demonstrated their common enmity toward Christ.

b. Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things?

Their question was aimed directly at His recent actions: cleansing the temple (Luke 19:45–46), teaching daily in the courts (Luke 19:47), and receiving public praise as Messiah during the triumphal entry (Luke 19:35–38). These things directly challenged their authority.

Jesus had no formal rabbinical training, no human ordination, and no authorization from the Sanhedrin. Yet He acted with divine authority that overturned their traditions and exposed their hypocrisy.

This was not their first suspicion of Him. From the beginning of His ministry, His authority was a source of offense (Luke 4:32: “And they were astonished at His teaching, for His word was with authority”). But now, after He had disrupted their corrupt commerce and taught with growing influence, their opposition intensified.

As Pate observed, “Jesus’ teaching, preaching, and surely His cleansing of the temple (Luke 19:45–46), were viewed by the officials as highly controversial if not adversarial.” They wanted Him discredited, silenced, or destroyed, for His authority threatened their power, their traditions, and their profits.

2. (Luke 20:3–8) Jesus answers their question with another question

But He answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, and answer Me: The baptism of John; was it from heaven or from men?” And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” So they answered that they did not know where it was from. And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

a. The baptism of John; was it from heaven or from men?

Jesus’ counter-question was not evasion but revelation. He pressed the leaders to confront the source of John the Baptist’s ministry. If John’s baptism was from heaven, then his testimony about Jesus as the Messiah was true (John 1:29, 34). To admit John’s authority was to admit Jesus’ own divine authority. If they denied it, they risked the wrath of the people who revered John as a prophet.

Pate observes: “Since John, like Jesus, was not a rabbi, the authorities’ response to the one would affect their response to the other.” The religious leaders had rejected John just as they were rejecting Jesus, though the people recognized both as God-sent.

b. They answered that they did not know where it was from

Their refusal to answer revealed their lack of sincerity. They were not seekers of truth but strategists of power. They valued self-preservation above honesty. Their reasoning was purely political: if they admitted heaven’s authority, they condemned themselves; if they denied it, they faced popular revolt. So they feigned ignorance, saying, “We do not know.”

Geldenhuys insightfully remarks: “If you do not recognize authority when you see it, no amount of arguing will convince you of it.” Their failure to respond truthfully exposed their hypocrisy and unwillingness to submit to God’s revealed will.

c. Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things

Jesus refused to dignify their insincere question with an answer. He was not obligated to explain Himself to men who had already rejected God’s testimony. Jesus always showed compassion toward sincere seekers, but He gave no ground to hardened critics.

This illustrates an important principle: when men refuse to act on the truth they already know, God does not grant them more light. These leaders knew John had testified of Jesus, but since they would not accept that revelation, no further explanation would persuade them.

d. Theological reflection

This exchange highlights two spiritual truths:

• Authority and accountability: To recognize John’s ministry as from heaven required recognizing Jesus’ authority. Rejecting the forerunner meant rejecting the Messiah.

• Light accepted or rejected: Spiritual light must be acted upon. As Jesus said earlier in Luke 8:18: “Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”

By exposing their hypocrisy and refusing to answer, Jesus simultaneously protected Himself from their trap, unmasked their dishonesty, and revealed that His authority was divine, whether they admitted it or not.

B. The Parable of the Tenant Farmers

1. (Luke 20:9–16a) A parable about a landowner and his tenants

Then He began to tell the people this parable: “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.’ But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’ So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.”

a. A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers

Tenant farming was a well-known practice in Galilee. Landowners often leased vineyards to tenants who would cultivate the land in exchange for a share of the harvest. Archaeological evidence has revealed contracts and disputes between landowners and tenant farmers from this very era, making the parable immediately understandable to Jesus’ listeners.

b. Planted a vineyard

This image had deep Old Testament roots. Isaiah 5:1–7 presents Israel as God’s vineyard, lovingly planted, fenced, and cared for by Him, yet yielding only wild grapes. The vineyard in Jesus’ parable would have been instantly recognized by His hearers as representing Israel. The vinedressers, then, stood for the religious leaders of the nation who had been entrusted with its spiritual care.

c. Leased it to vinedressers

The vinedressers did not own the vineyard; it was entrusted to them. They had no right to act as though it belonged to them. Yet they turned against the generous owner who had allowed them to labor in his vineyard. This vividly depicts Israel’s leaders, who had been entrusted with God’s covenant, His temple, His Word, and His people, yet treated it all as if it were theirs to exploit.

This reminds us of two great truths:

• God, the true owner, is far more patient with rebels than we would ever be. He sent servant after servant, allowing time for repentance.

• Yet His patience has a limit. A final day of reckoning will come, and rebellion will be punished.

d. What shall I do? I will send my beloved son

The escalation of the parable is striking. The owner sent servant after servant, each rejected and mistreated. At last, he sent his beloved son, expecting that the tenants would respect him. This clearly points to Jesus’ unique identity as the Son of God. The prophets (the servants) had been rejected and abused by Israel’s leaders, but now the Son Himself had come.

This not only revealed Jesus’ consciousness of His divine sonship, but also His awareness that He would be rejected and killed. He spoke of Himself plainly, foretelling His death at the hands of those who should have recognized Him.

e. This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours

The tenants’ reasoning was both wicked and foolish. They thought that by killing the heir, they could seize control of the vineyard.

• Joachim Jeremias suggested that the tenants may have assumed the owner had died, and thus believed that killing the son, the heir, would leave them as rightful claimants to the land.

• Morris notes that in that day, property rights were often established by possession: “In a day when title was sometimes uncertain, anyone who had had the use of land for three years was presumed to own it in the absence of an alternative claim.”

This reflects the murderous intention of Israel’s leaders. They knew Jesus claimed to be the Son, the rightful heir of God’s kingdom. Their plot to kill Him was not ignorance but rebellion. This parable reveals that Jesus fully understood their intentions and openly declared both His sonship and His impending death.

2. (Luke 20:16b–19) Jesus applies the parable

And when they heard it they said, “Certainly not!” Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone’? Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people; for they knew He had spoken this parable against them.

a. Certainly not!

The reaction of the religious leaders was immediate and indignant. They understood that the parable identified them as the wicked tenants who killed the servants and would murder the son. In their blindness they protested, “This could never be us!”—but in fact, it was precisely them.

They had already rejected John the Baptist, and now they were conspiring to reject and kill Jesus. Their outrage did not spring from repentance but from wounded pride and hardened hearts. Luke rightly notes, “for they knew He had spoken this parable against them.”

b. The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone

Jesus turned from the vineyard image to the imagery of a stone, quoting Psalm 118:22. This was no random citation; Psalm 118 was part of the Hallel (Psalms 113–118), sung by the pilgrims during Passover. The very crowds who shouted “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!” (Psalm 118:26, fulfilled in Luke 19:38) were singing words from this same psalm.

Now Jesus applied another verse from that psalm to Himself: though rejected by the religious “builders,” He would nevertheless become the indispensable cornerstone of God’s kingdom. The irony was sharp—He had been presented to Israel as Messiah at the Triumphal Entry, yet the nation’s leaders were already rejecting Him.

Pate notes: “Jesus’ connection of the rejected son and the rejected stone seems to suggest that He is explaining the people’s query about the treatment of the son.” The murdered son of the parable and the rejected stone of Psalm 118 are one and the same—Jesus Himself.

c. Stone… chief cornerstone

Scripture frequently likens Christ to a stone or rock:

• He was the rock of provision that followed Israel in the wilderness, supplying living water (1 Corinthians 10:4: “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.”).

• He is the stone of stumbling to the disobedient, rejected by men but chosen by God (1 Peter 2:7–8).

• He is the stone cut without hands in Daniel’s vision (Daniel 2:34–35, 45), which shatters the kingdoms of this world and grows into a mountain filling the whole earth—an image of His ultimate kingdom reign.

In ancient architecture, the cornerstone was the most crucial stone of the entire structure, anchoring the foundation and aligning the walls. Fitzmyer explains: “The cornerstone designated in antiquity the stone used at the building’s corner to bear the weight or the stress of the two walls. It would have functioned somewhat like a ‘keystone’ or ‘capstone’ in an arch or other architectural form. It was the stone which was essential or crucial to the whole structure.” (cited in Pate).

So too, Christ is the indispensable foundation of God’s redemptive plan. To reject Him is to reject the entire structure of salvation.

d. Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder

Jesus extended the imagery with a sobering warning. To fall upon the stone is to be broken. This pictures those who come to Christ in humility, broken of pride and self-sufficiency, ready to be remade. But to have the stone fall upon you is to be utterly crushed. Those who persist in rejecting Christ will face His judgment when He comes in glory.

The imagery evokes Isaiah 8:14–15: “He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken, be snared and taken.”

The choice is stark: either be broken in repentance now, or be crushed in judgment later.

e. The chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him

Their rage boiled over into action. They knew the parable was spoken against them, and their response confirmed its truth. Yet, though determined to arrest Him, they were restrained by fear of the people, who still listened eagerly to His teaching.

Thus, even as they plotted His death, the leaders unwillingly fulfilled prophecy—rejecting the stone that God had chosen, which would nevertheless become the chief cornerstone of His kingdom.

C. God and Caesar

1. (Luke 20:20–22) The Pharisees try to entrap Jesus

So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor. 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: Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

a. That they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor

The religious leaders were unable to arrest Jesus openly because of the support He had among the people (Luke 19:47–48). Therefore, they adopted a new tactic: they sent spies who “pretended to be righteous” in order to catch Him in His words. Their aim was to have Him condemned by Rome. If He declared taxes unlawful, He could be accused of rebellion and delivered to the governor for treason.

The word for spies has the idea of those who crouch in ambush. Clarke explains: “One who crouches in some secret place to spy, listen, catch, or hurt… No doubt the persons mentioned in the text were men of the basest principles, and were hired by the malicious Pharisees to do what they attempted in vain to perform.”

This was not an honest question but a trap. The leaders sought political grounds for His arrest, since religious grounds had thus far failed.

b. Teacher, we know that You say and teach rightly, and You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth

Their question began with an elaborate attempt at flattery. They tried to manipulate Jesus with insincere praise: “You are impartial, You are truthful, You always teach the way of God.” In reality, they neither believed nor respected Him, but hoped He would be disarmed by their words.

John Trapp described their hypocrisy: “Here is a fair glove, drawn upon a foul hand.” Their lips honored Him, but their hearts were far from Him.

c. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?

This was the heart of the trap. The issue of taxation was extremely sensitive among the Jews. Since A.D. 6, when Judea became a Roman province, Jews had been required to pay the tributum capitis (poll tax) directly to Caesar’s treasury. Many paid it reluctantly, but the Zealots flatly refused, regarding it as blasphemous to acknowledge Rome’s authority over God’s chosen nation.

Jesus’ opponents thought they had cornered Him.

• If He answered yes, He would be accused of denying God’s sovereignty over Israel and lose credibility with the people.

• If He answered no, He would be reported to Rome as an insurrectionist, guilty of treason against Caesar.

It appeared to be an impossible dilemma—yet Jesus would answer with divine wisdom, affirming both the rightful claims of God and the limited authority of human government.

2. (Luke 20:23–26) Jesus answers their question

But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Why do you test Me? Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?” They answered and said, “Caesar’s.” And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” But they could not catch Him in His words in the presence of the people. And they marveled at His answer and kept silent.

a. Why do you test Me?

Jesus immediately exposed their malicious intent. He saw through their hypocrisy, recognizing the trap they had laid. His question carried an implied rebuke: “Why do you keep testing Me when you always lose? How long will you try to overcome the truth?” The exasperation was not only for Himself but for their continual resistance to the light of God.

b. Whose image and inscription does it have?

By asking for a denarius, Jesus forced them to admit their own dependence on Caesar’s system. The Roman coin bore the image of Tiberius Caesar with the inscription, “TI. CAESAR DIVI AVG. F. AVGVSTVS” (“Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, Augustus”). Coins in the ancient world were not only currency but symbols of political authority and ownership. The image functioned as a seal of property. Thus, by using Caesar’s coinage, they tacitly acknowledged his authority in civil matters.

Pate observes: “The image and inscriptions of ancient coins would have been understood as a property seal; the coins belonged to Caesar.”

This same principle can be reflected upon in our own context. U.S. currency bears the phrases “In God We Trust,” “Liberty,” and “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of Many, One). Each of these reminds Christians of spiritual truths—trust in God above all, liberty in Christ, and the unity of the body of Christ drawn from many nations into one.

c. Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s

The word render is significant. It means “to give back” rather than simply “to give.” Jesus was saying, “Pay what you owe. Settle your due.” Taxes, as part of civil life, rightfully belonged to Caesar, whose government provided order, infrastructure, and protection.

Peter later expressed this balance: “Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” (1 Peter 2:17). Christians are citizens of both heaven and earth, and while our ultimate allegiance is to God, we are to submit to earthly governments in legitimate civil matters.

Barclay summarized well: “Every Christian has a double citizenship. He is a citizen of the country in which he happens to live. To it he owes many things. He owes the safety against lawless men which only a settled government can give; he owes all public services.”

d. And to God the things that are God’s

Here Jesus elevated the discussion. Caesar’s coin bore his image, so it rightfully belonged to him. But humanity bears God’s image (Genesis 1:27), therefore we belong to God. The implication is profound: while taxes are due to earthly rulers, our whole selves—soul, mind, strength, and will—are due to the Lord.

Clarke explains: “It establishes the limits, regulates the rights, and distinguishes the jurisdiction of the two empires of heaven and earth. The image of princes stamped on their coin denotes that temporal things belong all to their government. The image of God stamped on the soul denotes that all its faculties and powers belong to the Most High, and should be employed in His service.”

Had Israel been faithful to render to God His due—faith, worship, and obedience—they would not have been forced into submission under Caesar. Their oppression was the fruit of covenant disobedience.

e. They could not catch Him in His words

Once again, Jesus turned a trap into a moment of truth. His wisdom silenced His critics and astonished the crowd. Even so, later in Luke 23:2, His enemies twisted this very answer into an accusation, claiming falsely that He had forbidden paying taxes to Caesar.

This episode reveals both the brilliance of Christ’s teaching and the hardness of His enemies’ hearts. Though His answer was perfect, they remained determined to destroy Him.

D. A Question about the Resurrection

1. (Luke 20:27–33) The Sadducees ask Jesus a ridiculous question

Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, saying: “Teacher, Moses 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. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife.”

a. The Sadducees, who deny there is a resurrection

The Sadducees were one of the major sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus, but unlike the Pharisees, they were strict rationalists. They denied the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels, and the immortality of the soul (Acts 23:8: “For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.”). Their theology was anti-supernatural, resembling modern liberal theology that accepts only what can be grasped by human reason.

Although they professed to honor the Torah (the first five books of Moses), they often disregarded its teaching when convenient. Ironically, it was within those very books that Jesus would find a powerful argument for the resurrection (Luke 20:37–38).

The name Sadducee is thought to derive from Zadok, the priestly family mentioned in Ezekiel 44:15, so the group could be understood as the “Zadokites.” As Pate notes, this was essentially the priestly faction.

Morris describes them as “the conservative, aristocratic, high-priestly party, worldly minded and very ready to cooperate with the Romans, which, of course, enabled them to maintain their privileged position.” They were politically powerful, socially elite, but spiritually bankrupt.

b. Now there were seven brothers

The Sadducees presented Jesus with a hypothetical case designed not to seek truth but to ridicule belief in the resurrection. Their scenario was based on the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5–10, where a man was commanded to marry his deceased brother’s widow if the brother died childless, ensuring that the family line continued.

They constructed a bizarre situation in which seven brothers in succession married the same woman, each dying childless, until finally the woman also died. Their punchline question was, “Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife.”

The whole argument was built to make the doctrine of resurrection appear absurd.

• This practice was called levirate marriage (from the Latin levir, meaning “brother-in-law”). It had the practical goal of preserving the family inheritance and line within Israel.

• As Spurgeon noted, “Probably, this was one of the stock stories they were in the habit of telling in order to cast ridicule upon the resurrection.”

Their question did not arise from genuine interest in eternal truth but from mockery. They believed they could trap Jesus with an unsolvable dilemma. In reality, their question revealed their ignorance both of the power of God and of the Scriptures—a point Jesus would expose in His reply.

2. (Luke 20:34–36) Jesus corrects their misunderstanding of resurrection life by showing it is life of an entirely different order

And 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.”

a. Neither marry nor are given in marriage

Jesus’ first point corrected the Sadducees’ faulty assumption that the life to come is simply a continuation of present earthly arrangements. Resurrection life is not merely earthly life extended; it is a new order of existence altogether.

This raises the common question: Will earthly marriage relationships continue in heaven? Scripture does not give exhaustive details, but certain principles can be discerned:

• Family identity will not be erased. In Luke 16:27–28, Jesus described the rich man in Hades as still conscious of his family on earth, demonstrating that personal identity and awareness of relationships persist beyond the grave.

• Heaven’s supreme joy will surpass earthly relationships. Revelation 21:22–23 declares that God’s presence will be the center of all joy and fulfillment: “But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.” This surpasses every earthly joy, even the intimacy of marriage.

• The pleasures of heaven will far exceed earthly satisfactions. Revelation 22:1–5 portrays unbroken fellowship with God in glory. If heavenly life seems to lack some earthly blessings, it is only because greater joys await that will render earthly comparisons inadequate. No one in heaven will regret God’s arrangements.

This truth also addresses a practical issue: many believers have had more than one spouse in their lifetime—through death, abandonment, or other circumstances. Jesus’ teaching assures us that in heaven, jealousy and exclusion will not exist. Relationships will be perfected in ways that transcend earthly categories.

Jesus’ statement also stands in sharp contrast to sensualized visions of paradise, such as those found in Islamic and Mormon theology, where heaven is portrayed as an extension of carnal pleasure. John Trapp observed: “Mahomet, as he professed that himself had a special license given him by God to know what woman he would, and to put them away when he would; so he promised to all his votaries and adherents the like carnal pleasures at the resurrection.” Christ’s teaching rejects such earthly projections, presenting a far more glorious and holy reality.

b. Nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection

Jesus’ second point emphasized the eternal and indestructible nature of resurrection life. Death will be no more. If there is no death, then there is no need for procreation, and thus no need for marriage as we know it.

In this eternal state, the redeemed will be equal to the angels—not in essence, for humans and angels remain distinct orders of creation—but in the sense that they will share immortality and freedom from death. Yet believers will be greater in privilege than angels, for they are called sons of God and sons of the resurrection, titles never applied to angels in the New Testament.

This declaration also carried a pointed thrust against the Sadducees. They denied both the resurrection and the existence of angels (Acts 23:8). Jesus affirmed both, striking directly at their unbelief. As Carson notes: “In fact, Jesus’ use of angels contains a double thrust since the Sadducees denied their existence.”

3. (Luke 20:37–40) Jesus proves the resurrection from the Scriptures

“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.” Then some of the scribes answered and said, “Teacher, You have spoken well.” But after that they dared not question Him anymore.

a. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob

Jesus demonstrated the reality of the resurrection by appealing to the Torah—the only portion of Scripture the Sadducees accepted as fully authoritative. He cited Exodus 3:6, the account of the burning bush: “Moreover He said, ‘I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’”

If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had ceased to exist, God would not declare, “I am the God of Abraham.” He would have said, “I was the God of Abraham.” The present-tense declaration implies that they still live before Him.

This statement teaches profound truths about the life to come:

• They live personally. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still individuals in the presence of God.

• They live by name. They are not absorbed into anonymity; they are known as themselves, retaining identity.

• They live joyfully. They are free from sorrow, never to die again, as sons of God and sons of the resurrection.

• They live securely. They are not “lost.” We know where they are, and they know themselves as God’s covenant people.

Spurgeon urged believers to adopt this same view: “Children of God, it is in the highest degree proper that you should think of things as your Father thinks of them; and he saith that ‘all live unto God.’ Let us correct our phraseology by that of Scripture, and speak of departed saints as inspiration speaks of them… In our family we shall number brothers, and sisters, and friends, whose bodies lie in the churchyard and shall speak of those who have crossed the border, and passed within the veil, as still our own.”

b. He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him

This was Jesus’ conclusion: God is not associated with the dead but with the living. To be in covenant with the living God is to live forever. The Sadducees’ denial of resurrection was a denial of God’s very nature.

Spurgeon put it succinctly: “A living God is the God of living men; and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive.”

This exchange silenced Jesus’ critics. His argument, drawn from the very Scriptures they claimed to uphold, was unanswerable. The scribes—even some who were hostile to Him—responded with admiration: “Teacher, You have spoken well.” After this, they dared not ask Him any more questions.

In this moment, Jesus not only defended the doctrine of resurrection but also gave assurance that life beyond death is real and personal for all who belong to the covenant-keeping God.

E. Using a Question, Jesus Warns the Religious Leaders

1. (Luke 20:41–44) Jesus asks a question: how can the Messiah be both the Son of David and the Lord of David?

And He said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’ Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

a. How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David?

Jesus turned the tables by asking His own question. When the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees questioned Him, they tried to trap Him. But Jesus’ question cut to the heart of the matter: “Do you really know who I am?”

The title “Son of David” was a widely accepted Messianic designation (2 Samuel 7:12–16; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5–6). The crowds used it at His triumphal entry (Matthew 21:9: “Hosanna to the Son of David!”). Yet, the leaders’ concept of the Messiah was too limited—they thought of a political deliverer only, a man from David’s line who would restore national glory.

By quoting Psalm 110:1, Jesus challenged them to see that the Messiah was more than a human descendant of David. He was David’s Lord. Their view of the Messiah needed correction, because they believed they already knew all about Him. Jesus forced them to face their ignorance and to acknowledge that the Scriptures spoke of a Messiah who was both man and God.

b. Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?

Psalm 110:1 reads: “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’” David, under the inspiration of the Spirit (Matthew 22:43), called the Messiah “my Lord.” This means the Messiah could not be merely David’s descendant; He was greater than David, preexistent and divine.

This is fulfilled in Jesus Christ:

• He is the Son of David in His humanity (Matthew 1:1: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.”).

• He is the Lord of David in His divinity (John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”).

• As Revelation 22:16 says: “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.” He is both David’s root (source) and offspring (descendant).

This question left the religious leaders speechless. They could not deny that the Scriptures declared the Messiah to be both David’s Son and David’s Lord, yet they were unwilling to confess Jesus as such.

2. (Luke 20:45–47) Jesus warns about the hypocrisy of the scribes

Then, in the hearing of all the people, He said to His disciples, “Beware of the scribes, who desire to go around in long robes, love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts, who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”

a. Who desire to go around in long robes

The scribes enjoyed public display. They wore distinctive long robes to signal their status as learned men, avoiding manual labor while expecting honor from others. They relished being greeted with deference in the marketplaces and sought the best seats in the synagogues and at feasts, where their position would be most visible. Their religion was more about recognition than about righteousness.

b. Devour widows’ houses

This was perhaps the most damning accusation. Widows were among the most vulnerable in Jewish society, and God’s law commanded special care for them (Exodus 22:22–24; Deuteronomy 10:18). Yet some scribes exploited them—pretending to manage their estates, soliciting offerings under false pretenses, or manipulating their trust to gain wealth.

• Jewish teachers were not permitted to charge for teaching, but they could receive gifts. Many scribes abused this allowance, extracting large sums from those least able to give.

• They even taught that supporting a teacher was the greatest act of devotion, effectively sanctifying their greed.

This hypocrisy was especially heinous because it clothed exploitation in religious garb.

c. For a pretense make long prayers

They thought their long and eloquent prayers made them appear spiritual, but Jesus exposed it as pretense. Their prayers were not born out of devotion but out of performance.

G. Campbell Morgan insightfully compared this to letters between a husband and wife: when close in relationship, the letters are short and affectionate; but when far apart, they become longer and more formal. “Some people must be a long way from God because their prayers are so long!”

d. These will receive greater condemnation

Jesus concluded with a stern warning. The scribes were experts at projecting a religious image, but God does not judge by appearances. Their hypocrisy would bring upon them not merely condemnation but greater condemnation—a stricter judgment for those who exploit others in the name of religion.

This stands in stark contrast to what disciples are called to be: humble servants, childlike in faith, and cross-bearers for Christ. God is not impressed by religious image but by spiritual reality.