Study 47. Luke 20:20-40. 16/2/24.

 

The parable of the tenants sparked off opposition to Jesus, but in view of the people’s attitude violence was risky. It might provoke a riot and no-one could tell where a riot would end. The Romans would intervene and the privileged might lose their privileges. So Jesus’ enemies chose another method: they tried to discredit him. (Morris)

 

"so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor." (v.20) would relieve the Jewish leaders of the responsibility of getting rid of Jesus.

 7. What was Jesus saying about our obligations to God and the secular government in 20:23-25?

'lawful' (v.22), i.e. in accord with the law of God. It was obviously in accordance with the law of Caesar.

All three Synoptists make it clear that the reply confounded the critics. It left no room for an accusation of disloyalty to Caesar, but also stressed loyalty to God. Jesus is saying that we are citizens of heaven and earth at the same time. This does not mean dividing life into compartments, as though God was not supreme in all of life or the duties of either aspect of our citizenship could be discharged without reference to those of the other. It means that we can neglect neither loyalty. (Morris)

God institutes the state and gives it the authority to collect taxes. To 'render' is to pay what is due to Caesar. Caesar's dues do not override God's dues. We may (and must) not submit to the authority of the state when we are compelled to disobey the law of God. But otherwise we should be obeying civil authority (Rom 13:1-7)

 

The concept of separation of church and state means that the church should not attempt to govern via civil laws, and the state should not interfere with church affairs. The state is inherently secular, since citizens are not all believers The legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," Religion must not be a criterion to hold public office.

a. Jesus implied the denarius was Caesar's because his image was on it and he'd had it made. By analogy, how can we tell what belongs to God?

God made us in His image. We must give ourselves to Him.

 

b. What would it have meant in practice for the Jews to give to Caesar what was Caesar's and to God what was God's 

Pay taxes. Submit to authority except when authority demands worship. The Jews were granted a special exemption from Emperor worship.

 

c. What does it mean for us to do this in practice? Think of some specific examples.

Obey the law of the land. Remember that what is immoral is not necessarily illegal. What is illegal is also not necessarily immoral. Don't cheat on taxes. Obey traffic rules.

How did Jesus expose the motives and priorities of the politiially radical Zealots or the politically entrenched Sadducees by his teaching on God and Caesar? What implications do these facts have for us?

 The Zealots sought to overthrow civil authority. The Sadducees were willing to collaborate and use civil authority. Both did not truly submit to the Romans. God wants whole-hearted obedience to the state.

 

8. The Sadducees quoted Scripture to Jesus (Moses wrote...v.28) and Jesus replied with Scripture (v.37). What fault did Jesus find with the Sadducee's use of Scripture that revealed their whole religion to be misguided (20:37-38)?

 

The Sadducees are mentioned here only in Luke's gospel. The name appears to be derived from Zadok (cf. 1 Kgs 1:8; 2:35), so that they were ‘Zadokites’. They were 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. Sadducees rejected the oral tradition that meant so much to the Pharisees; they accepted only written Scripture (Josephus, Antiquities xiii.297). They denied the whole doctrine of the afterlife and of rewards and punishments beyond the grave. (Morris)

 

They try to ridicule the idea of resurrection by referring to levirate marriage. This was a device to prevent a man’s name and family dying out. When a man died childless, his brother was to take the widow and raise up children to the deceased (Deut. 25:5ff.). Not many examples of the practice are recorded and interestingly those few always seem to regard the child as the child of its natural father and not of the deceased (cf. Ruth 4:5, 21). By New Testament times this custom seems to have fallen into disuse, so that the question was an academic one. But the Sadducees could argue that provision was made for it in the Law, and that the Law accordingly, at least by implication, rejects the doctrine of resurrection (Morris)

Jesus’ questioners had failed to realize that the life to come will be essentially different from this life. The life to come is more than an indefinite prolongation of present life with the same pleasures and relationships, without sin and suffering. Human relationships will also be transformed.

"those who are considered worthy" (v.35) speaks only of the saved, not of all who die.

• marriage does not apply to them.  they cannot die any more. 'for' implies that marriage has a role to preserve the human race, but where there is no death this is not necessary. 
• they cannot die. Jesus does not say that they will not die, but that they cannot die. The quality of life in the coming age will be such that death cannot touch it. 
• they are equal to angels and are sons of God. We will share some of the properties of angels, and marriage is specially in view. The fullest sense of sonship will be consummated.

"Sons of the resurrection"  is evidence that they possess that quality of sonship that enables them to be compared to the angels. 

 

 Jesus proceeds to show that the resurrection is implied in the Old Testament. Moreover he does not appeal to some obscure verse, hitherto overlooked, but to the passage of central importance in which God revealed his Name, with all that that means, the passage about the bush (the Bible had not yet been divided into chapters and verses and this was their way of referring to Exod. 3:1–6). God cannot be the God of non-existent beings, 

 

Luke adds some words not in the other accounts: for all live to him, or as neb, ‘for him all are alive’. To us they are dead, but not to God. Death cannot break their relationship to him.

Matthew states (22:29) that the Sadducees knew neither 1) the Scriptures nor 2) the power of God. They used parts of Scripture to justify their agenda, without a firm grasp of the whole of God's revelation, both because they did not acknowledge the whole OT as well as understand the depths of the Pentateuch. They also did not know God well enough to grasp that His power to transform existence into an entirely new plane was unlimited.

We had a full attendance today!