Luke 20:1-8

CRITICAL NOTES

Luke 20:1. One of those days.—Rather, “one of the days” (R.V.). Preached the gospel.—Lit. “evangelised.” This beautiful word is almost confined to St. Luke, who uses it twenty-four times, and St. Paul, who uses it twenty times. Chief priests, etc.—Thus all classes of the Sanhedrim were represented. This was a formal and official message sent to make Jesus declare Himself as a Divinely commissioned prophet, in which case the Sanhedrim had power to take cognisance of His proceedings as a professed teacher. Came upon Him.—The phrase perhaps has reference to the suddenness and hostility of the action taken. The motives of Christ’s enemies are disclosed in chap. Luke 19:47.

Luke 20:2. By what authority?—I.e., by what kind of authority; it was not that of a rabbi, or priest, or magistrate, for Christ held none of these offices. These things.—Probably special reference is made to the cleansing of the Temple, as well as to the acceptance of the popular homage, and the triumphal entrance into Jerusalem.

Luke 20:4. The baptism of John.—I.e., the whole mission and teaching of John, of which the baptism was the central point. If they acknowledged that John’s mission was from heaven, they had an answer to their own question, for John had borne witness to Jesus as the Messiah, and as having received the Holy Spirit.

Luke 20:5. They reasoned, etc.—We would understand that they went apart and discussed the matter among themselves. Believed.—Gave credit to his testimony concerning Me.

Luke 20:6. Stone.—The word is an emphatic one, and is used only here; it means “to stone to death.”

Luke 20:7. They could not tell.—Rather, “they knew not” (R.V.). Their reply was, virtually, not “We do not know,” but “We do not wish to say”; and to this inward thought Christ replies, “Neither tell I you.” Their incompetence to decide in the case of John disqualified them for judging in the case of Jesus.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Luke 20:1

The Question of Authority.—The question put by the chief priests and scribes as to the authority which Jesus exercised was not altogether an unreasonable one. They were the guardians of the religion of Israel, and of the institutions which had been founded by Divine sanction for the preservation of that religion. Had they been single-minded and upright men, with minds open to truth, their question might have been met by Jesus in a very different way. As it was, they were under the influence of a twofold prejudice, which incapacitated them for acting as judges of Christ’s claims.

I. They refused to recognise any authority as genuine which did not emanate from themselves.—They regarded the office of the priesthood, of which they were ministers, as of supreme authority; and since Christ did not belong to the tribe of Levi, they failed to see that He had any right to assume exceptional power, or to set aside that which they exercised. They committed the mistake of over-looking the fact that the authority of the priestly office is secondary and derived, and therefore subordinate to the Living Word of God. Even under the Old Testament dispensation it had been evident, time after time, that authoritative declarations of the Divine will were not given exclusively through members of the priestly caste. Most of the prophets belonged to other tribes than that of Levi, and their authority was accepted by both priests and people. Yet the fact that Jesus had no official position—that He neither belonged to a priestly family nor was accredited as a teacher by any one of the rabbinical schools—was virtually taken by the priests and scribes as a proof that He was usurping functions to which He had no right, in teaching men and in laying down rules for their guidance in spiritual things. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we find an indication of the extent to which this question troubled the minds of Jews who had accepted Christ. There the writer asserts that Jesus is a priest of an order far older than that of Levi, and superior to it—a priest in the same sense as Melchizedek, whom even Abraham recognised as of higher rank than himself.

II. They were blind to the ample proofs Jesus had already given of His Divine authority.—This fact it is that causes us instinctively to regard the question as uncalled-for and impertinent. Christ had now been for more than two years a prominent figure in Jewish society, and we are astonished that His greatness had not impressed all beholders. The people who heard Him speak declared that He spoke with authority, and not as the scribes; but their rulers were too much under the influence of prejudice to form the same opinion. In the life and work of Christ abundant proof had been given, to those who had eyes to see, of His heavenly commission.

1. In the nature of His teaching. His intimate acquaintance with human nature, His exalted conceptions of the requirements of God’s law, His unerring statements of the relations which man should sustain towards God and towards his brethren, and His stern condemnation of all falsehood and hypocrisy, should have convinced His hearers of His right to the authority He claimed. The truth of His teaching was so apparent that no rank with which man might have invested Him would have added weight to His words.
2. In the holiness of His life. His conduct and actions were open to the scrutiny of all, and He could ask, without fear of a reply, “Which of you convinceth Me of sin?” A Divine holiness and a Divine compassion were manifested by Him. He thought of those whom the world forgot; He had pity on those who were ignorant and out of the way; the poor and outcast were the objects of His care: every hour of His life was devoted to ministrations on behalf of others. By these marks, as well as by His zeal for the honour of God, might the priests and scribes have perceived His consecration to the office of Redeemer of men.
3. In His miracles. Day after day He had displayed a mysterious power in overcoming ills that affect humanity. He had healed the sick, cleansed lepers, given sight to the blind, and raised the dead. A few days before, in the presence of a great assembly, He had performed the most wonderful of all His mighty works in recalling Lazarus from the grave. None contested the authenticity of these miracles; even the chief priests and scribes did not refuse to believe that He had performed them. Yet they failed to see that the works of Christ supplied the answer to the question they put to Him—that no one could have wrought these works unless God had been with Him. In all ages ecclesiastical prejudices have blinded men to the worth and significance of the teaching and of the holy lives and works of men who have not drawn their authority from the Church. Instead of frank acknowledgment of good work done, there are often curious and impertinent inquiries as to the validity of “the orders” such men have possessed. Such miserable prejudices find a sufficient reproof in the refusal of Christ to give any formal justification of His right to teach the ignorant, and show compassion to the miserable.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luke 20:1

I. A rebellious question (Luke 20:1).

II. A malicious question (Luke 20:21).

III. A scoffer’s question (Luke 20:27).

IV. Our Lord’s question (Luke 20:39).—W. Taylor.

Luke 20:1. “Came upon Him.”—This deputation marks a deliberate and formal inquiry on the part of the Sanhedrim.

I. It consisted of men who were entitled, from their office and rank, to institute careful investigation into the authority of all teachers of religion.

II. But of men who were prejudiced against Jesus.

III. It came at far too late a period.—Jesus had now been at least two years before the public—had performed many indubitable miracles, and had been accepted as a teacher by multitudes in all parts of the land.

Luke 20:2. “By what authority?”—A twofold question.

I. Does Thy power proceed from God?
II. What messenger of God consecrated Thee to this activity?—The reply of Jesus, requiring them to make up their mind as to the claims of John the Baptist, is, therefore, most pertinent to the second of these questions.

Luke 20:3. “I also will ask you.”—The Divine method of judgment.

I. Sinners are made to pass judgment on themselves.

II. Are reduced to silence in the presence of their Lord.

Luke 20:4. “The baptism of John,” etc.—The question

(1) revealed that it was in no truth-loving temper of mind that the rulers had interrogated Jesus as to His authority, and
(2) it contained an answer to their question. If they accepted the mission of His forerunner as Divine, they were bound to accept His as of the same character; if they repudiated the Baptist, they virtually declared their own incompetency to judge spiritual things.

Luke 20:5. “They reasoned with themselves.”—The bad faith of the rulers of the people was manifested clearly by their present conduct.

1. They were more anxious to escape the dilemma in which the question of Christ placed them than to return a truthful answer.
2. They professed doubt as to John’s Divine mission, though they had virtually pronounced against it by refusing to believe in him.
3. They were not ashamed to admit to themselves that they were animated by fear of the people rather than by fear of God—that they followed the dictates of carnal policy, while professing to be zealous for the interests of true religion.

Luke 20:7. “They could not tell.”—They confessed their incompetency to decide on the authority of a prophet: Christ, therefore, declined to accept them as judges of His claims.

Luke 20:8. “Neither tell I you.”—Now both are silent; but He, because, on good grounds, He will not speak; they because they, through their own fault, cannot speak. And among the people present as witnesses there is no one who could seriously doubt which of the two parties leaves the field victorious.—Van Oosterzee.

The Indignation of Jesus.—The words of Jesus are animated both by indignation and contempt. “If you declare yourselves incompetent to judge of the claims of John, much more are you incompetent to judge of my claims.” They had admitted failure as leaders of the people: Christ proceeds to brand them, in the parable that follows, as faithless and rebellious.