King James Version
Luke 20
47 verses with commentary
The Authority of Jesus Questioned
And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,
View commentary
And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders—Luke sets the confrontation during Jesus' teaching ministry in the temple courts. The phrase "preached the gospel" (εὐαγγελιζομένου, euangelizomenou) shows Jesus actively proclaiming good news, not merely teaching ethics. The opposition coalition—chief priests (ἀρχιερεῖς, archiereis), scribes (γραμματεῖς, grammateis), and elders (πρεσβύτεροι, presbyteroi)—represents the Sanhedrin's power structure.
The verb "came upon" (ἐπέστησαν, epestēsan) suggests sudden, aggressive confrontation, not polite inquiry. This occurs after Jesus cleansed the temple (19:45-46), directly challenging their authority and revenue stream. Their question about authority (v. 2) attempts to trap Jesus: claiming divine authority invites blasphemy charges, while claiming human authority undermines His prophetic stance.
The verb "came upon" (ἐπέστησαν, epestēsan) suggests sudden, aggressive confrontation, not polite inquiry. This occurs after Jesus cleansed the temple (19:45-46), directly challenging their authority and revenue stream. Their question about authority (v. 2) attempts to trap Jesus: claiming divine authority invites blasphemy charges, while claiming human authority undermines His prophetic stance.
And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?
View commentary
Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? The question ἐξουσίᾳ (exousia, authority) appears twice, emphasizing the central issue. Exousia means legitimate power, jurisdiction, or right to act—not mere ability but authorized permission. "These things" (ταῦτα, tauta) refers to teaching in the temple, proclaiming the gospel, and especially cleansing the temple (19:45-46).
The double question creates a false dilemma: identify the source of authority. If Jesus claims divine authority, they'll charge Him with blasphemy. If He claims human authority (like the prophets commissioned by God), they'll demand credentials. Jesus' response (vv. 3-8) masterfully exposes their bad faith—they're not genuinely seeking truth but setting a trap. This question reveals the fundamental conflict between human religious authority and divine authority breaking into the establishment.
The double question creates a false dilemma: identify the source of authority. If Jesus claims divine authority, they'll charge Him with blasphemy. If He claims human authority (like the prophets commissioned by God), they'll demand credentials. Jesus' response (vv. 3-8) masterfully exposes their bad faith—they're not genuinely seeking truth but setting a trap. This question reveals the fundamental conflict between human religious authority and divine authority breaking into the establishment.
And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:
View commentary
I will also ask you one thing; and answer me—Jesus' counter-question demonstrates rabbinic teaching method but also exposes His interrogators' hypocrisy. The phrase "I will ask" (ἐρωτήσω, erōtēsō) and "answer me" (εἴπατέ, eipate) mirrors their demand in verse 2, turning the tables. Jesus doesn't evade the authority question but reframes it in terms that will reveal their bad faith.
This response shows divine wisdom confounding human schemes. By linking His authority to John's baptism, Jesus forces them to confront truth they've already rejected. The authority question isn't merely academic—it requires moral courage to accept the answer. Jesus demonstrates that those unwilling to acknowledge obvious truth (John's prophetic ministry) are not genuinely seeking truth about His authority either.
This response shows divine wisdom confounding human schemes. By linking His authority to John's baptism, Jesus forces them to confront truth they've already rejected. The authority question isn't merely academic—it requires moral courage to accept the answer. Jesus demonstrates that those unwilling to acknowledge obvious truth (John's prophetic ministry) are not genuinely seeking truth about His authority either.
The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?
View commentary
The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? Jesus identifies the crux: is divine authority recognized when it appears, or only human credentials? "From heaven" (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ex ouranou) means God-authorized, divinely commissioned. "From men" (ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ex anthrōpōn) means merely human initiative without divine sanction.
John's baptism represented his entire prophetic ministry—his call to repentance, his proclamation of the coming Messiah, his testimony to Jesus as "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29). By asking about John's authority, Jesus links His own authority to the prophetic witness God sent to prepare His way. If they acknowledge John was from God, they must accept John's testimony about Jesus. If they deny John, they admit ignoring obvious prophetic credentials—which would discredit their judgment about Jesus' authority. The question is perfectly designed to expose their hypocrisy.
John's baptism represented his entire prophetic ministry—his call to repentance, his proclamation of the coming Messiah, his testimony to Jesus as "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29). By asking about John's authority, Jesus links His own authority to the prophetic witness God sent to prepare His way. If they acknowledge John was from God, they must accept John's testimony about Jesus. If they deny John, they admit ignoring obvious prophetic credentials—which would discredit their judgment about Jesus' authority. The question is perfectly designed to expose their hypocrisy.
And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?
View commentary
If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? The leaders' private deliberation (συνελογίσαντο, synelogisanto, "they reasoned together") reveals political calculation, not pursuit of truth. They recognize the logical trap: acknowledging John's divine commission requires explaining why they rejected his ministry and refused his baptism of repentance.
The phrase "believed ye him not" (οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε, ouk episteusate) exposes the heart issue. Belief (πιστεύω, pisteuō) means trust, commitment, acceptance—not mere intellectual acknowledgment. They didn't believe John because accepting his message would require repentance, and repentance would mean admitting their religious system needed fundamental reform. Their rejection of John wasn't theological but moral—they loved their position more than truth. This same resistance now blinds them to Jesus, whom John testified about.
The phrase "believed ye him not" (οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε, ouk episteusate) exposes the heart issue. Belief (πιστεύω, pisteuō) means trust, commitment, acceptance—not mere intellectual acknowledgment. They didn't believe John because accepting his message would require repentance, and repentance would mean admitting their religious system needed fundamental reform. Their rejection of John wasn't theological but moral—they loved their position more than truth. This same resistance now blinds them to Jesus, whom John testified about.
But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.
View commentary
But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet—The leaders fear popular opinion (ὁ λαὸς ἅπας, ho laos hapas, "all the people") more than God's truth. The threat of stoning (καταλιθάσει, katalithasei) wasn't hyperbole—crowds could become violent mobs. The people were "persuaded" (πεπεισμένος, pepeismenos, convinced, confident) of John's prophetic status based on his ministry's evident marks: powerful preaching, ascetic lifestyle, fulfillment of prophecy, and martyrdom.
This verse exposes tragic irony: religious leaders who should discern God's voice are paralyzed by fear of crowds, while common people recognize the prophet the experts reject. Their concern isn't "What is true?" but "What is safe?" They're trapped between truth and convenience, unable to acknowledge either option. This reveals how institutional religion can become self-preserving rather than truth-seeking. When leaders value position over truth, they forfeit the authority they claim to protect.
This verse exposes tragic irony: religious leaders who should discern God's voice are paralyzed by fear of crowds, while common people recognize the prophet the experts reject. Their concern isn't "What is true?" but "What is safe?" They're trapped between truth and convenience, unable to acknowledge either option. This reveals how institutional religion can become self-preserving rather than truth-seeking. When leaders value position over truth, they forfeit the authority they claim to protect.
And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.
View commentary
And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was—The Greek οὐκ εἰδέναι (ouk eidenai, "not to know") reveals their cowardly evasion. This wasn't honest uncertainty but deliberate refusal to state the obvious. They claim ignorance about what they actually knew, choosing the safety of agnosticism over the risk of truth. Their "we cannot tell" is intellectual dishonesty masquerading as judicious caution.
This response reveals the moral dimension of truth-seeking. They possessed sufficient evidence to judge John's ministry—crowds, prophecies fulfilled, powerful preaching, holy lifestyle. Their profession of uncertainty wasn't lack of evidence but lack of courage. By refusing to commit, they thought to escape Jesus' trap, but instead they disqualified themselves as judges of His authority. If they couldn't discern John's obvious prophetic credentials, they had no standing to evaluate Jesus. Their evasion exposed their incompetence or dishonesty—either way, they lost authority to question Him.
This response reveals the moral dimension of truth-seeking. They possessed sufficient evidence to judge John's ministry—crowds, prophecies fulfilled, powerful preaching, holy lifestyle. Their profession of uncertainty wasn't lack of evidence but lack of courage. By refusing to commit, they thought to escape Jesus' trap, but instead they disqualified themselves as judges of His authority. If they couldn't discern John's obvious prophetic credentials, they had no standing to evaluate Jesus. Their evasion exposed their incompetence or dishonesty—either way, they lost authority to question Him.
And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
View commentary
Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things—Jesus' refusal (οὐδὲ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν, oude egō legō hymin) isn't evasion but justified silence before bad-faith interrogators. Since they won't acknowledge obvious truth about John, they've proven themselves unqualified and unwilling to recognize divine authority when confronted with it. Jesus' silence judges them more severely than explanation would.
This response demonstrates wisdom in spiritual warfare. Jesus doesn't cast pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). They didn't lack evidence for His authority—miracles, fulfilled prophecies, authoritative teaching, transformation of lives. Their question wasn't genuine inquiry but attempted entrapment. By refusing to answer those unwilling to face truth they already possessed, Jesus protects the sacred from profanation and exposes their hardened hearts. His silence also fulfills Isaiah 53:7—the Suffering Servant who "opened not his mouth" before unjust accusers.
This response demonstrates wisdom in spiritual warfare. Jesus doesn't cast pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). They didn't lack evidence for His authority—miracles, fulfilled prophecies, authoritative teaching, transformation of lives. Their question wasn't genuine inquiry but attempted entrapment. By refusing to answer those unwilling to face truth they already possessed, Jesus protects the sacred from profanation and exposes their hardened hearts. His silence also fulfills Isaiah 53:7—the Suffering Servant who "opened not his mouth" before unjust accusers.
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants
Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.
View commentary
Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time—Jesus shifts from the hostile leaders to the people, speaking a parable (παραβολήν, parabolēn) that will indict the Sanhedrin. The vineyard imagery evokes Isaiah 5:1-7, where God's vineyard is Israel. The "certain man" (ἄνθρωπός τις, anthrōpos tis) represents God; the "husbandmen" (γεωργοῖς, geōrgois, tenant farmers) represent Israel's religious leaders entrusted with God's people.
The phrase "went into a far country for a long time" (ἀπεδήμησεν χρόνους ἱκανούς, apedemēsen chronous hikanous) indicates God's patient forbearance—the owner trusts the tenants and gives them time and freedom to manage the vineyard. This extended absence tests their faithfulness. Will they honor the owner's rights, or will they act as if the vineyard belongs to them? The parable prophetically describes Israel's history: God entrusted His covenant people to leaders who increasingly acted as if they owned rather than stewarded God's inheritance.
The phrase "went into a far country for a long time" (ἀπεδήμησεν χρόνους ἱκανούς, apedemēsen chronous hikanous) indicates God's patient forbearance—the owner trusts the tenants and gives them time and freedom to manage the vineyard. This extended absence tests their faithfulness. Will they honor the owner's rights, or will they act as if the vineyard belongs to them? The parable prophetically describes Israel's history: God entrusted His covenant people to leaders who increasingly acted as if they owned rather than stewarded God's inheritance.
And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.
View commentary
And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty—"At the season" (καιρῷ, kairō) indicates the appointed time for harvest and payment. The owner's request through his "servant" (δοῦλον, doulon) was entirely legitimate—he sought the fruit (καρποῦ, karpou) that was rightfully his. The servants represent the prophets God sent to Israel calling for righteousness, justice, and covenant faithfulness.
The tenants' response—they "beat" (δείραντες, deirantes, flogged, struck) the servant and sent him away "empty" (κενόν, kenon, with nothing)—reveals rebellion masquerading as management. This wasn't mere failure to produce fruit but violent rejection of the owner's rights. The beating symbolizes Israel's persecution of the prophets (1 Kings 19:10, Nehemiah 9:26, Jeremiah 37:15, 2 Chronicles 36:15-16). Rejection of God's messengers reveals rejection of God Himself. The empty-handed servant testifies against the tenants—they produced fruit but refused to share it with its rightful owner.
The tenants' response—they "beat" (δείραντες, deirantes, flogged, struck) the servant and sent him away "empty" (κενόν, kenon, with nothing)—reveals rebellion masquerading as management. This wasn't mere failure to produce fruit but violent rejection of the owner's rights. The beating symbolizes Israel's persecution of the prophets (1 Kings 19:10, Nehemiah 9:26, Jeremiah 37:15, 2 Chronicles 36:15-16). Rejection of God's messengers reveals rejection of God Himself. The empty-handed servant testifies against the tenants—they produced fruit but refused to share it with its rightful owner.
And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.
View commentary
And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty—The owner sends a second servant, demonstrating persistence and mercy. "Again" (προσέθετο, prosetheto, "he added") shows continued forbearance despite the first servant's treatment. The escalation is subtle but significant: this servant is not only beaten but "entreated shamefully" (ἀτιμάσαντες, atimasantes, dishonored, insulted, humiliated), indicating intensifying hostility.
The pattern reveals the progressive hardening of rebellious hearts. Each rejection makes the next easier. Each prophet's message becomes more unwelcome because it exposes guilt from previous rejections. The tenants don't merely fail in duty—they actively oppose the owner's representatives. Yet the owner persists, giving opportunity after opportunity for repentance. This reflects God's character: "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy" (Numbers 14:18). His patience extends through multiple messengers, even as rebellion intensifies.
The pattern reveals the progressive hardening of rebellious hearts. Each rejection makes the next easier. Each prophet's message becomes more unwelcome because it exposes guilt from previous rejections. The tenants don't merely fail in duty—they actively oppose the owner's representatives. Yet the owner persists, giving opportunity after opportunity for repentance. This reflects God's character: "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy" (Numbers 14:18). His patience extends through multiple messengers, even as rebellion intensifies.
And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.
View commentary
And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out—The third servant suffers even worse treatment: "wounded" (τραυματίσαντες, traumatisantes, injured, inflicting wounds) and "cast out" (ἐξέβαλον, exebalon, violently expelled). The escalation continues—from beating, to shameful treatment, to actual wounding. The casting out suggests expulsion from the vineyard itself, adding territorial claim to the rebellion. The tenants now act as if they own the property and can expel the owner's representatives.
The threefold sending of servants emphasizes God's extraordinary patience and the tenants' complete incorrigibility. In Jewish thought, threefold repetition established a matter firmly (Deuteronomy 19:15). Three servants, three rejections—the pattern is confirmed. The tenants are without excuse. Yet despite this escalating violence, the owner continues to reach out (v. 13), demonstrating mercy that exceeds all human reason. This parable exposes how religious leaders can become so invested in their positions that they violently reject anyone challenging their authority, even God's own messengers.
The threefold sending of servants emphasizes God's extraordinary patience and the tenants' complete incorrigibility. In Jewish thought, threefold repetition established a matter firmly (Deuteronomy 19:15). Three servants, three rejections—the pattern is confirmed. The tenants are without excuse. Yet despite this escalating violence, the owner continues to reach out (v. 13), demonstrating mercy that exceeds all human reason. This parable exposes how religious leaders can become so invested in their positions that they violently reject anyone challenging their authority, even God's own messengers.
Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
View commentary
Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him—The owner's deliberation (τί ποιήσω, ti poiēsō, "What shall I do?") expresses pathos, not uncertainty. After three servants beaten and expelled, he sends his "beloved son" (τὸν υἱόν μου τὸν ἀγαπητόν, ton huion mou ton agapēton). This phrase echoes the Father's declaration at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration (Luke 3:22, 9:35), making the christological reference unmistakable.
"It may be they will reverence him" (ἴσως ἐντραπήσονται, isōs entrapēsontai) expresses hope despite evidence to the contrary. The verb ἐντρέπω (entrepō) means to respect, show deference, feel shame before. The son's status should command respect the servants didn't receive. This reveals the incarnation's logic: God sent His Son as the ultimate revelation and appeal. The phrase also reveals the father's incredible vulnerability—sending his beloved son to violent rebels risks the ultimate loss. This is the gospel: God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son (John 3:16), knowing the world might kill Him.
"It may be they will reverence him" (ἴσως ἐντραπήσονται, isōs entrapēsontai) expresses hope despite evidence to the contrary. The verb ἐντρέπω (entrepō) means to respect, show deference, feel shame before. The son's status should command respect the servants didn't receive. This reveals the incarnation's logic: God sent His Son as the ultimate revelation and appeal. The phrase also reveals the father's incredible vulnerability—sending his beloved son to violent rebels risks the ultimate loss. This is the gospel: God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son (John 3:16), knowing the world might kill Him.
But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
View commentary
But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be our's—The tenants recognize the son's identity (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κληρονόμος, houtos estin ho klēronomos, "this is the heir") but respond with murderous conspiracy. Their reasoning (διελογίζοντο, dielogizonto) reveals calculated evil, not impulsive violence. They understand the inheritance law: kill the heir and they might claim the property by occupancy.
The phrase "let us kill" (ἀποκτείνωμεν, apokteinōmen) exposes the depth of their rebellion—they will murder to maintain control. "That the inheritance may be ours" (ἡμῶν γένηται ἡ κληρονομία, hēmōn genētai hē klēronomia) reveals their delusion: they think eliminating the heir will transfer ownership to them. This perfectly describes the Sanhedrin's reasoning about Jesus: recognize His claims, fear losing their position (John 11:48), and plot His murder (John 11:53). By killing God's Son, they believed they could preserve their religious monopoly. Their recognition of Jesus' identity makes their guilt absolute—this is knowing, willful rejection.
The phrase "let us kill" (ἀποκτείνωμεν, apokteinōmen) exposes the depth of their rebellion—they will murder to maintain control. "That the inheritance may be ours" (ἡμῶν γένηται ἡ κληρονομία, hēmōn genētai hē klēronomia) reveals their delusion: they think eliminating the heir will transfer ownership to them. This perfectly describes the Sanhedrin's reasoning about Jesus: recognize His claims, fear losing their position (John 11:48), and plot His murder (John 11:53). By killing God's Son, they believed they could preserve their religious monopoly. Their recognition of Jesus' identity makes their guilt absolute—this is knowing, willful rejection.
So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
View commentary
So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? The murder is stated simply: "cast him out" (ἐκβαλόντες, ekbalontes) and "killed" (ἀπέκτειναν, apekteinan). Casting him "out of the vineyard" prophetically corresponds to Jesus' crucifixion "outside the gate" (Hebrews 13:12)—executed beyond Jerusalem's walls as a criminal. The tenants' crime is complete: they've murdered the beloved son to steal the inheritance.
Jesus then poses the rhetorical question: "What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?" (τί οὖν ποιήσει αὐτοῖς ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος, ti oun poiēsei autois ho kyrios tou ampelōnos). The question forces the audience to pronounce judgment on the tenants—and unknowingly on themselves. The "therefore" (οὖν, oun) indicates necessary consequence. Justice demands response to such heinous crime. By making the audience answer, Jesus ensures they cannot later claim the judgment was unfair—they themselves acknowledge its justice.
Jesus then poses the rhetorical question: "What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?" (τί οὖν ποιήσει αὐτοῖς ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος, ti oun poiēsei autois ho kyrios tou ampelōnos). The question forces the audience to pronounce judgment on the tenants—and unknowingly on themselves. The "therefore" (οὖν, oun) indicates necessary consequence. Justice demands response to such heinous crime. By making the audience answer, Jesus ensures they cannot later claim the judgment was unfair—they themselves acknowledge its justice.
He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid .
View commentary
He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid—Jesus pronounces the judgment: the owner will "come" (ἐλεύσεται, eleusetai, indicating future certainty) and "destroy" (ἀπολέσει, apolesei, utterly ruin) the wicked tenants, giving the vineyard to "others" (ἄλλοις, allois). The destruction is complete and just—they forfeited stewardship by murdering the heir. The "others" prophetically indicates the gospel's extension to Gentiles (Acts 13:46, Romans 11:11-24).
The crowd's response—"God forbid" (μὴ γένοιτο, mē genoito, literally "may it not be!")—reveals horror at the implication. Either they recognize that Israel's rejection of Messiah will bring judgment, or they reject the notion that God would transfer His covenant promises to outsiders. Their reaction shows they've grasped the parable's meaning: Jesus is the Son, the leaders are the wicked tenants, and judgment is coming. Yet mere recognition without repentance changes nothing.
The crowd's response—"God forbid" (μὴ γένοιτο, mē genoito, literally "may it not be!")—reveals horror at the implication. Either they recognize that Israel's rejection of Messiah will bring judgment, or they reject the notion that God would transfer His covenant promises to outsiders. Their reaction shows they've grasped the parable's meaning: Jesus is the Son, the leaders are the wicked tenants, and judgment is coming. Yet mere recognition without repentance changes nothing.
And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
View commentary
And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Jesus looks directly at them (ἐμβλέψας, emblepsas, gazing intently) and quotes Psalm 118:22. The phrase "What is this then that is written" (Τί οὖν ἐστιν τὸ γεγραμμένον τοῦτο, ti oun estin to gegrammenon touto) appeals to Scripture's authority—they cannot dismiss the written word. The "stone" (λίθος, lithos) represents the Messiah; the "builders" (οἰκοδομοῦντες, oikodomountes) are Israel's leaders who should have recognized and honored Him.
The irony is devastating: the stone the expert builders "rejected" (ἀπεδοκίμασαν, apedokimasan, tested and deemed unworthy) becomes "the head of the corner" (κεφαλὴν γωνίας, kephalēn gōnias, the cornerstone). The cornerstone was the most critical stone in ancient construction, bearing weight and aligning the whole structure. Jesus prophesies His resurrection and exaltation: though rejected and killed, He will be vindicated as the foundation of God's true temple (Ephesians 2:20-22). The builders' expertise becomes their condemnation—they should have recognized the cornerstone but rejected it.
The irony is devastating: the stone the expert builders "rejected" (ἀπεδοκίμασαν, apedokimasan, tested and deemed unworthy) becomes "the head of the corner" (κεφαλὴν γωνίας, kephalēn gōnias, the cornerstone). The cornerstone was the most critical stone in ancient construction, bearing weight and aligning the whole structure. Jesus prophesies His resurrection and exaltation: though rejected and killed, He will be vindicated as the foundation of God's true temple (Ephesians 2:20-22). The builders' expertise becomes their condemnation—they should have recognized the cornerstone but rejected it.
Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
View commentary
Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder—Jesus extends the stone imagery to describe two forms of encounter with Him, both resulting in destruction, but with different implications. "Fall upon" (πεσὼν, pesōn) suggests stumbling over the stone in the path—those who encounter Jesus and reject Him will be "broken" (συνθλασθήσεται, synthlasthēsetai, shattered). This describes Israel's current stumbling over Messiah (Romans 9:32-33, 1 Peter 2:8).
The second image is more severe: "on whomsoever it shall fall" (ἐφ' ὃν δ' ἂν πέσῃ, eph' hon d' an pesē) describes active judgment—the stone falling on someone. This person will be ground to powder (λικμήσει, likmēsei, pulverized like wheat at threshing, crushed completely). This prophesies eschatological judgment at Christ's return (Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45, where the stone crushes the kingdoms). The stone is either stumbling block or crushing judge—there is no neutral encounter with Christ. To reject Him means destruction now (broken) and ultimate destruction later (pulverized).
The second image is more severe: "on whomsoever it shall fall" (ἐφ' ὃν δ' ἂν πέσῃ, eph' hon d' an pesē) describes active judgment—the stone falling on someone. This person will be ground to powder (λικμήσει, likmēsei, pulverized like wheat at threshing, crushed completely). This prophesies eschatological judgment at Christ's return (Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45, where the stone crushes the kingdoms). The stone is either stumbling block or crushing judge—there is no neutral encounter with Christ. To reject Him means destruction now (broken) and ultimate destruction later (pulverized).
And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.
View commentary
They perceived that he had spoken this parable against them—The religious leaders' immediate recognition (ἔγνωσαν, egnōsan, 'they knew') that Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants condemned them demonstrates their guilt-laden consciences. Luke emphasizes the temporal urgency: the same hour (ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ, en autē tē hōra) they sought to arrest him.
Yet they feared the people (ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν, ephobēthēsan ton laon)—a theme throughout Luke's passion narrative. The religious elite recognized Jesus's prophetic indictment but were constrained by political expediency rather than convicted unto repentance. Their desire to lay hands on him foreshadows the arrest in Gethsemane.
Yet they feared the people (ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν, ephobēthēsan ton laon)—a theme throughout Luke's passion narrative. The religious elite recognized Jesus's prophetic indictment but were constrained by political expediency rather than convicted unto repentance. Their desire to lay hands on him foreshadows the arrest in Gethsemane.
Paying Taxes to Caesar
And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
View commentary
They watched him (παρατηρέω, paratēreō)—not pastoral care but hostile surveillance, seeking grounds for accusation. The verb suggests lying in wait like hunters. Sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men (ἐνκαθέτους ὑποκρινομένους, enkathetous hypokrinomenous)—paid informants pretending to be righteous inquirers, the very definition of hypocrisy.
Their goal: deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor (τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, tē archē kai tē exousia tou hēgemonos)—Pontius Pilate. The Sanhedrin lacked authority to execute, so they needed Jesus to incriminate himself politically. This conspiracy demonstrates the depth of their rejection—not honest debate but entrapment.
Their goal: deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor (τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, tē archē kai tē exousia tou hēgemonos)—Pontius Pilate. The Sanhedrin lacked authority to execute, so they needed Jesus to incriminate himself politically. This conspiracy demonstrates the depth of their rejection—not honest debate but entrapment.
And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly : truly: or, of a truth
View commentary
The spies' flattery begins with Master (Διδάσκαλε, Didaskale, 'Teacher'), feigning respect. We know that thou sayest and teachest rightly—ironically, they speak truth while intending deceit. Neither acceptest thou the person of any (οὐ λαμβάνεις πρόσωπον, ou lambaneis prosōpon)—literally 'you do not receive the face,' meaning you show no partiality.
But teachest the way of God truly (τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπ' ἀληθείας, tēn hodon tou theou ep' alētheias)—'the way of God in truth.' Their accurate theological assessment becomes the setup for their trap. They acknowledge Jesus's fearless truthfulness, then pose a question designed to make that truthfulness politically fatal. Satan often quotes truth to serve lies.
But teachest the way of God truly (τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπ' ἀληθείας, tēn hodon tou theou ep' alētheias)—'the way of God in truth.' Their accurate theological assessment becomes the setup for their trap. They acknowledge Jesus's fearless truthfulness, then pose a question designed to make that truthfulness politically fatal. Satan often quotes truth to serve lies.
Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
View commentary
Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? (ἔξεστιν ἡμᾶς Καίσαρι φόρον δοῦναι ἢ οὔ, exestin hēmas Kaisari phoron dounai ē ou)—a masterfully crafted trap. The word φόρος (phoros) refers specifically to the Roman poll tax, paid annually by every Judean to Rome, a hated symbol of subjugation.
Answer 'yes' and Jesus alienates the Jewish masses who resented Roman occupation. Answer 'no' and he commits sedition against Caesar, grounds for immediate arrest. The question is theological (is it lawful, i.e., according to God's law?) but politically loaded. This is the same tax that sparked Judas the Galilean's revolt (Acts 5:37), crushed by Rome with mass crucifixions.
Answer 'yes' and Jesus alienates the Jewish masses who resented Roman occupation. Answer 'no' and he commits sedition against Caesar, grounds for immediate arrest. The question is theological (is it lawful, i.e., according to God's law?) but politically loaded. This is the same tax that sparked Judas the Galilean's revolt (Acts 5:37), crushed by Rome with mass crucifixions.
But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
View commentary
But he perceived their craftiness (κατανοήσας δὲ αὐτῶν τὴν πανουργίαν, katanoēsas de autōn tēn panοurgian)—the verb κατανοέω (katanoeō) means to discern thoroughly, perceive completely. Jesus sees through their πανουργία (panourgia), a term meaning cunning, trickery, unscrupulous cleverness—the same word Paul uses in 2 Corinthians 4:2 for shameful hidden ways.
Why tempt ye me? (τί με πειράζετε, ti me peirazete)—the verb πειράζω (peirazō) can mean 'test' or 'tempt.' They're not seeking wisdom but attempting to ensnare him, echoing Satan's temptations in the wilderness. Jesus's question exposes their motive before answering their substance—he refuses to play the rigged game.
Why tempt ye me? (τί με πειράζετε, ti me peirazete)—the verb πειράζω (peirazō) can mean 'test' or 'tempt.' They're not seeking wisdom but attempting to ensnare him, echoing Satan's temptations in the wilderness. Jesus's question exposes their motive before answering their substance—he refuses to play the rigged game.
Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
View commentary
Shew me a penny (ἐπιδείξατέ μοι δηνάριον, epideixate moi dēnarion)—Jesus asks for the tribute coin itself, forcing his accusers to produce it. The δηνάριον (dēnarion, denarius) was a Roman silver coin, a day's wage. By having them produce it, Jesus subtly reveals they carry Caesar's currency while questioning him about its use.
Whose image and superscription hath it? (τίνος ἔχει εἰκόνα καὶ ἐπιγραφήν, tinos echei eikona kai epigraphēn)—The εἰκών (eikōn, 'image') recalls Genesis 1:27, where humanity bears God's image. Caesar's coin bears Caesar's image; humans bear God's image. The ἐπιγραφή (epigraphē, 'inscription') proclaimed Tiberius as 'son of the divine Augustus,' an idolatrous claim that made the coin doubly offensive to Jews.
Whose image and superscription hath it? (τίνος ἔχει εἰκόνα καὶ ἐπιγραφήν, tinos echei eikona kai epigraphēn)—The εἰκών (eikōn, 'image') recalls Genesis 1:27, where humanity bears God's image. Caesar's coin bears Caesar's image; humans bear God's image. The ἐπιγραφή (epigraphē, 'inscription') proclaimed Tiberius as 'son of the divine Augustus,' an idolatrous claim that made the coin doubly offensive to Jews.
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
View commentary
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's (ἀπόδοτε τοίνυν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ, apodote toinyn ta Kaisaros Kaisari kai ta tou theou tō theō)—one of Scripture's most quoted verses, establishing dual obligation without conflating the two spheres. The verb ἀπόδοτε (apodote) means 'give back' or 'render'—pay what is owed.
Jesus refuses the false dilemma. Caesar's image on the coin indicates his claim; humans bear God's image (Gen 1:27), indicating His ultimate claim. The answer transcends the trap: honor civic duty while maintaining that God's claim is absolute and final. This is neither theocracy nor secularism but eschatological tension—living in Caesar's realm while belonging to God's kingdom.
Jesus refuses the false dilemma. Caesar's image on the coin indicates his claim; humans bear God's image (Gen 1:27), indicating His ultimate claim. The answer transcends the trap: honor civic duty while maintaining that God's claim is absolute and final. This is neither theocracy nor secularism but eschatological tension—living in Caesar's realm while belonging to God's kingdom.
And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
View commentary
They could not take hold of his words before the people (οὐκ ἴσχυσαν ἐπιλαβέσθαι αὐτοῦ ῥήματος, ouk ischysan epilabesthai autou rhēmatos)—the verb ἐπιλαμβάνομαι (epilambanomai) means to seize, catch, or arrest. They couldn't catch his words to use as evidence. Their entrapment failed completely.
They marvelled at his answer (ἐθαύμασαν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀποκρίσει, ethaumasan epi tē apokrisei)—θαυμάζω (thaumazō) expresses amazement or wonder. Even his enemies recognized the wisdom that escaped their trap. And held their peace (ἐσίγησαν, esigēsan)—they were silenced, their mouths stopped. Wisdom vindicated itself, leaving craftiness speechless.
They marvelled at his answer (ἐθαύμασαν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀποκρίσει, ethaumasan epi tē apokrisei)—θαυμάζω (thaumazō) expresses amazement or wonder. Even his enemies recognized the wisdom that escaped their trap. And held their peace (ἐσίγησαν, esigēsan)—they were silenced, their mouths stopped. Wisdom vindicated itself, leaving craftiness speechless.
The Sadducees and the Resurrection
Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
View commentary
Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection (Σαδδουκαῖοι λέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι, Saddoukaioi legontes anastasin mē einai)—Luke introduces the Sadducees by their defining denial. The ἀνάστασις (anastasis, 'resurrection') refers to bodily resurrection at the end of the age, which Sadducees rejected, accepting only the Torah (not Prophets or Writings) as authoritative.
After Pharisees and Herodians failed with the tax question, the Sadducees—aristocratic priests who controlled the temple—try a different angle. Their question will attempt to make resurrection doctrine appear absurd through reductio ad absurdum. The theological coalition against Jesus is comprehensive: every major Jewish faction seeks to discredit him.
After Pharisees and Herodians failed with the tax question, the Sadducees—aristocratic priests who controlled the temple—try a different angle. Their question will attempt to make resurrection doctrine appear absurd through reductio ad absurdum. The theological coalition against Jesus is comprehensive: every major Jewish faction seeks to discredit him.
Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
View commentary
Master, Moses wrote unto us—The Sadducees cite Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), their only accepted Scripture. If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother—the law of levirate marriage (from Latin levir, 'brother-in-law'). The Greek describes ἀναστήσῃ σπέρμα (anastēsē sperma), literally 'raise up seed.'
This law protected childless widows and preserved family inheritance within tribes. The brother's duty ensured the deceased man's name and property line continued. The Sadducees will use this honored Mosaic institution to construct a scenario they believe makes resurrection impossible or absurd.
This law protected childless widows and preserved family inheritance within tribes. The brother's duty ensured the deceased man's name and property line continued. The Sadducees will use this honored Mosaic institution to construct a scenario they believe makes resurrection impossible or absurd.
There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
View commentary
There were therefore seven brethren—The Sadducees construct a hypothetical scenario, though seven is likely hyperbolic for effect. The first took a wife, and died without children (ἀπέθανεν ἄτεκνος, apethanen ateknos)—literally 'died childless.' The adjective ἄτεκνος (ateknos) compounds ἀ- (without) and τέκνον (child).
This sets up their reductio ad absurdum argument: if levirate marriage continues through multiple brothers, resurrection creates an impossible marital situation. Their unstated premise: resurrection bodies must replicate earthly social structures exactly. They assume resurrection simply extends temporal existence rather than transforming it—a failure of theological imagination.
This sets up their reductio ad absurdum argument: if levirate marriage continues through multiple brothers, resurrection creates an impossible marital situation. Their unstated premise: resurrection bodies must replicate earthly social structures exactly. They assume resurrection simply extends temporal existence rather than transforming it—a failure of theological imagination.
And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
View commentary
And the second took her to wife, and he died childless (ἄτεκνος, ateknos)—The second brother fulfilled his levirate duty but also died without producing offspring. The Sadducees' scenario continues the pattern, building toward their rhetorical climax. Each brother's death childless triggers the next brother's obligation.
The repetition emphasizes the supposed absurdity they're constructing: with each successive brother, the resurrection 'problem' compounds. This verse advances their argument methodically, like a legal brief building its case. The Sadducees were known for their rhetorical skill—this question showcases their sophistication, even as it reveals their theological bankruptcy.
The repetition emphasizes the supposed absurdity they're constructing: with each successive brother, the resurrection 'problem' compounds. This verse advances their argument methodically, like a legal brief building its case. The Sadducees were known for their rhetorical skill—this question showcases their sophistication, even as it reveals their theological bankruptcy.
And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
View commentary
And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also (ὡσαύτως καὶ οἱ ἑπτά, hōsautōs kai hoi hepta, 'likewise also the seven')—The tragic pattern completes: all seven brothers married the woman in succession, each fulfilling his duty, each dying without producing children. They left no children, and died (οὐκ ἀφῆκαν τέκνα, ouk aphēkan tekna)—the verb ἀφίημι (aphiēmi) means to leave behind or bequeath.
The repetition heightens the supposed dilemma: in resurrection, does she belong to all seven simultaneously? To none? To the first? The Sadducees assume this creates logical impossibility, therefore resurrection cannot exist. They mistake earthly institutions for eternal necessities, a category error Jesus will brilliantly expose.
The repetition heightens the supposed dilemma: in resurrection, does she belong to all seven simultaneously? To none? To the first? The Sadducees assume this creates logical impossibility, therefore resurrection cannot exist. They mistake earthly institutions for eternal necessities, a category error Jesus will brilliantly expose.
Last of all the woman died also.
View commentary
Last of all the woman died also (ὕστερον πάντων ἀπέθανεν ἡ γυνή, hysteron pantōn apethanen hē gynē)—The adverb ὕστερον (hysteron) means 'afterward' or 'finally.' After outliving all seven brothers, the widow herself dies. The stage is now set for the Sadducees' question about resurrection.
This detail is crucial to their argument: if she died after all seven, none can claim priority based on ongoing marriage. The woman's death completes the scenario, removing any earthly resolution. The Sadducees will argue that resurrection creates irresolvable contradictions with Mosaic law—forcing Jesus to either deny Moses or deny resurrection.
This detail is crucial to their argument: if she died after all seven, none can claim priority based on ongoing marriage. The woman's death completes the scenario, removing any earthly resolution. The Sadducees will argue that resurrection creates irresolvable contradictions with Mosaic law—forcing Jesus to either deny Moses or deny resurrection.
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
View commentary
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? (ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τίνος αὐτῶν γίνεται γυνή, en tē anastasei tinos autōn ginetai gynē)—The Sadducees' rhetorical trap springs. They assume resurrection means resuming earthly relationships exactly as they were. For seven had her to wife (οἱ γὰρ ἑπτὰ ἔσχον αὐτὴν γυναῖκα, hoi gar hepta eschon autēn gynaika)—all seven were legitimately married to her according to Moses.
Their unstated conclusion: resurrection creates legal and moral impossibilities, contradicting Torah, therefore resurrection is false. But they've committed a category error—assuming resurrection merely extends mortality rather than transforming it. Jesus will answer not by resolving their legal puzzle within their framework but by exploding the framework itself.
Their unstated conclusion: resurrection creates legal and moral impossibilities, contradicting Torah, therefore resurrection is false. But they've committed a category error—assuming resurrection merely extends mortality rather than transforming it. Jesus will answer not by resolving their legal puzzle within their framework but by exploding the framework itself.
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
View commentary
The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται, hoi hyioi tou aiōnos toutou gamousin kai gamiskontai)—Jesus begins by distinguishing this age (αἰών, aiōn) from the age to come. The phrase 'children of this world/age' doesn't mean 'worldly people' but humans living in the present temporal order.
Marriage belongs to this age—it's a good, God-ordained institution for the present creation, serving procreation, companionship, and family structure. But Jesus will reveal it's not an eternal necessity. The verbs γαμέω (marry) and γαμίσκω (give in marriage) describe both male initiative and parental arrangement, the full pattern of matrimonial practice.
Marriage belongs to this age—it's a good, God-ordained institution for the present creation, serving procreation, companionship, and family structure. But Jesus will reveal it's not an eternal necessity. The verbs γαμέω (marry) and γαμίσκω (give in marriage) describe both male initiative and parental arrangement, the full pattern of matrimonial practice.
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
View commentary
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead (οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν, hoi de kataxiōthentes tou aiōnos ekeinou tychein kai tēs anastaseōs tēs ek nekrōn)—The verb καταξιόω (kataxioō) means 'to consider worthy,' not earned merit but God's gracious verdict. The age to come (αἰών ἐκεῖνος) operates by different principles than this age.
Neither marry, nor are given in marriage (οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται)—In resurrection life, marriage has fulfilled its purpose. Procreation is unnecessary (there's no death to replace); companionship finds fuller expression in the communion of saints; and the marriage metaphor finds ultimate reality in Christ and the Church (Eph 5:31-32). Earthly marriage points beyond itself to union with God.
Neither marry, nor are given in marriage (οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται)—In resurrection life, marriage has fulfilled its purpose. Procreation is unnecessary (there's no death to replace); companionship finds fuller expression in the communion of saints; and the marriage metaphor finds ultimate reality in Christ and the Church (Eph 5:31-32). Earthly marriage points beyond itself to union with God.
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
View commentary
Neither can they die any more (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται, oude gar apothanein eti dynantai)—Death's abolition removes marriage's procreative necessity. For they are equal unto the angels (ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσιν, isangeloi gar eisin)—the adjective ἰσάγγελος (isangelos, 'equal to angels') appears only here in the NT. Not that humans become angels (we remain image-bearers), but resurrection bodies share angels' immortality and direct communion with God.
They are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection (θεοῦ υἱοί εἰσιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες, theou hyioi eisin tēs anastaseōs hyioi ontes)—double sonship: children of God and children of resurrection. The resurrection itself has offspring—those who participate in it enter eternal family relationship with God that transcends all earthly kinship.
They are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection (θεοῦ υἱοί εἰσιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες, theou hyioi eisin tēs anastaseōs hyioi ontes)—double sonship: children of God and children of resurrection. The resurrection itself has offspring—those who participate in it enter eternal family relationship with God that transcends all earthly kinship.
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
View commentary
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush (ὅτι δὲ ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί, καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἐμήνυσεν ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου, hoti de egeirontai hoi nekroi, kai Mōysēs emēnysen epi tēs batou)—Jesus proves resurrection from the Torah itself, the only Scripture Sadducees accepted. The verb μηνύω (mēnyō) means 'to disclose' or 'reveal.' At the burning bush (Exodus 3:6), Moses encountered God's self-revelation.
When he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—Present tense: 'I AM the God of Abraham,' not 'I WAS.' God identifies Himself by relationship to men long dead, implying those men still exist. God is the God of the living, not the dead—therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must be alive to God. Brilliant exegesis that defeats the Sadducees on their own textual ground.
When he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—Present tense: 'I AM the God of Abraham,' not 'I WAS.' God identifies Himself by relationship to men long dead, implying those men still exist. God is the God of the living, not the dead—therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must be alive to God. Brilliant exegesis that defeats the Sadducees on their own textual ground.
For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
View commentary
Jesus declares: 'For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.' This statement follows Jesus' argument for resurrection from Exodus 3:6—God calling Himself 'God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' (v. 37) centuries after they died proves they still live. The phrase 'not a God of the dead' (Greek 'ouk estin theos nekrōn,' οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς νεκρῶν) indicates God doesn't form covenants with those who cease to exist. 'All live unto him' (Greek 'pantes autō zōsin,' πάντες αὐτῷ ζῶσιν) means all are alive to God—from His perspective, the patriarchs live. This establishes both resurrection and immortality of the soul.
Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.
View commentary
Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said (Ἀποκριθέντες δέ τινες τῶν γραμματέων εἶπαν, Διδάσκαλε, καλῶς εἶπας, Apokrithentes de tines tōn grammateōn eipan, Didaskale, kalōs eipas)—After Jesus silenced the Sadducees' resurrection question (20:27-38), some grammateis (scribes), likely Pharisees who believed in resurrection, commend His answer. Kalōs (well, rightly, nobly) acknowledges theological correctness. This is rare approval from religious experts who mostly opposed Him.
Jesus had just demonstrated from Exodus 3:6 ('I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob') that patriarchs still live, since God is 'not a God of the dead, but of the living' (20:38). This validated Pharisaic theology against Sadducean denial. The scribes' response shows theological honesty—they acknowledge truth even from an opponent. Yet this approval is limited and self-serving: they're pleased Jesus refuted their rivals, not that they've embraced Him as Messiah.
Jesus had just demonstrated from Exodus 3:6 ('I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob') that patriarchs still live, since God is 'not a God of the dead, but of the living' (20:38). This validated Pharisaic theology against Sadducean denial. The scribes' response shows theological honesty—they acknowledge truth even from an opponent. Yet this approval is limited and self-serving: they're pleased Jesus refuted their rivals, not that they've embraced Him as Messiah.
And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.
View commentary
And after that they durst not ask him any question at all (οὐκέτι γὰρ ἐτόλμων ἐπερωτᾶν αὐτὸν οὐδέν, ouketi gar etolmōn eperōtan auton ouden)—Tolmaō (to dare, have courage) in the imperfect tense shows they no longer possessed courage to challenge Jesus. Eperōtaō (to question, interrogate) suggests hostile examination, not sincere inquiry. Ouden (nothing, not anything) is emphatic: absolutely no more questions.
This marks the end of three challenge questions: (1) by what authority Jesus acted (20:1-8), (2) whether to pay Roman taxes (20:20-26), (3) the resurrection riddle (20:27-38). Jesus masterfully answered all three, turning traps into teaching moments. His opponents are now intellectually defeated, leaving only violent options. Silencing opponents through superior wisdom fulfills Messianic expectation: 'The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him... the spirit of wisdom and understanding' (Isaiah 11:2).
This marks the end of three challenge questions: (1) by what authority Jesus acted (20:1-8), (2) whether to pay Roman taxes (20:20-26), (3) the resurrection riddle (20:27-38). Jesus masterfully answered all three, turning traps into teaching moments. His opponents are now intellectually defeated, leaving only violent options. Silencing opponents through superior wisdom fulfills Messianic expectation: 'The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him... the spirit of wisdom and understanding' (Isaiah 11:2).
Whose Son Is the Christ?
And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?
View commentary
And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? (Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Πῶς λέγουσιν τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι Δαυὶδ υἱόν; Eipen de pros autous, Pōs legousin ton Christon einai Dauid huion?)—After silencing opponents, Jesus takes offensive with His own question. Pōs (how?) challenges conventional Messianic understanding. Christ (Χριστόν, Christon), Greek for 'Anointed One' (Hebrew Mashiach/Messiah), was universally understood as David's son (Δαυὶδ υἱόν) based on 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5.
Jesus isn't denying Messianic Davidic descent—Matthew and Luke trace His genealogy through David. Rather, He's exposing incomplete Christology. If Messiah is merely David's son (i.e., descendant), how can David call Him 'Lord'? This riddle points to Messiah's dual nature: fully human (David's son) and fully divine (David's Lord). The religious leaders understood Messiah's humanity but missed His deity—a blindness that led them to crucify the Lord of glory.
Jesus isn't denying Messianic Davidic descent—Matthew and Luke trace His genealogy through David. Rather, He's exposing incomplete Christology. If Messiah is merely David's son (i.e., descendant), how can David call Him 'Lord'? This riddle points to Messiah's dual nature: fully human (David's son) and fully divine (David's Lord). The religious leaders understood Messiah's humanity but missed His deity—a blindness that led them to crucify the Lord of glory.
And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
View commentary
And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand (Καὶ αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ λέγει ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν, Εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου, Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, Kai autos Dauid legei en biblō psalmōn, Eipen kyrios tō kyriō mou, Kathou ek dexiōn mou)—Jesus cites Psalm 110:1, the Old Testament's most quoted verse in the New Testament. The Hebrew distinguishes YHWH (LORD, Yahweh) from Adonai (my Lord): 'YHWH said to my Adon.' David, through the Spirit, reports God the Father addressing someone David calls 'my Lord.'
Sit thou on my right hand (Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου)—the right hand is the position of highest honor and authority. Kathou (sit, be seated) in the present imperative suggests both rest from completed work and reigning authority. This prophesies Messiah's exaltation after accomplishing redemption—precisely what happened at Jesus's ascension (Acts 2:33-35, Hebrews 1:3, 13). Peter quoted this Psalm at Pentecost to prove Jesus's lordship.
Sit thou on my right hand (Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου)—the right hand is the position of highest honor and authority. Kathou (sit, be seated) in the present imperative suggests both rest from completed work and reigning authority. This prophesies Messiah's exaltation after accomplishing redemption—precisely what happened at Jesus's ascension (Acts 2:33-35, Hebrews 1:3, 13). Peter quoted this Psalm at Pentecost to prove Jesus's lordship.
Till I make thine enemies thy footstool .
View commentary
Till I make thine enemies thy footstool (ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου, heōs an thō tous echthrous sou hypopodion tōn podōn sou)—This continues quoting Psalm 110:1. Heōs an (until) introduces temporal clause: Christ sits enthroned while enemies remain unconquered, but their subjugation is certain. Hypopodion (footstool) references ancient victory customs where conquering kings placed feet on defeated enemies' necks (Joshua 10:24), symbolizing total domination.
The Father (kyrios, LORD) will make (thō, aorist subjunctive of tithēmi) Christ's enemies His footstool—not Christ earning victory through struggle, but the Father granting it as coronation gift. Paul applies this to Christ's ultimate triumph: 'For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death' (1 Corinthians 15:25-26). Currently, Christ reigns; ultimately, all opposition will be publicly, permanently crushed.
The Father (kyrios, LORD) will make (thō, aorist subjunctive of tithēmi) Christ's enemies His footstool—not Christ earning victory through struggle, but the Father granting it as coronation gift. Paul applies this to Christ's ultimate triumph: 'For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death' (1 Corinthians 15:25-26). Currently, Christ reigns; ultimately, all opposition will be publicly, permanently crushed.
David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?
View commentary
David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? (Δαυὶδ οὖν κύριον αὐτὸν καλεῖ, καὶ πῶς αὐτοῦ υἱός ἐστιν; Dauid oun kyrion auton kalei, kai pōs autou huios estin?)—Oun (therefore) draws the logical conclusion. Kalei (calls, names) in present tense emphasizes ongoing testimony: David continually addresses Messiah as kyrion (Lord). Pōs (how?) presents the paradox: fathers don't call sons 'Lord'—sons honor fathers (Exodus 20:12), not vice versa.
The only solution: Messiah transcends normal human categories. He is David's son by human descent (Romans 1:3), David's Lord by divine nature (Romans 1:4). The incarnation resolves the riddle: eternal Son of God assumes human nature through Davidic line. This question exposed inadequate Jewish Christology and anticipated early church's confession: 'Jesus Christ... was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power' (Romans 1:3-4). The scribes couldn't answer because their framework excluded divine Messiah.
The only solution: Messiah transcends normal human categories. He is David's son by human descent (Romans 1:3), David's Lord by divine nature (Romans 1:4). The incarnation resolves the riddle: eternal Son of God assumes human nature through Davidic line. This question exposed inadequate Jewish Christology and anticipated early church's confession: 'Jesus Christ... was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power' (Romans 1:3-4). The scribes couldn't answer because their framework excluded divine Messiah.
Beware of the Scribes
Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,
View commentary
Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples (Ἀκούοντος δὲ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, Akouontos de pantos tou laou eipen tois mathētais autou)—The genitive absolute akouontos pantos tou laou (with all the people listening) sets the scene: this isn't private instruction but public denunciation. Jesus addresses disciples but intends the crowd—and the scribes themselves—to hear. Pas (all) emphasizes widespread audience; the warning is communal, not merely individual.
After demonstrating superior wisdom (vv. 20-44), Jesus shifts from theological debate to moral warning. Having exposed scribes' theological inadequacy (they couldn't answer His Christological question), He now exposes their ethical hypocrisy. This public rebuke continues prophetic tradition—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi denounced corrupt religious leaders. Teaching disciples 'in the audience of all' serves dual purpose: warning learners against false models while shaming those who should exemplify godliness.
After demonstrating superior wisdom (vv. 20-44), Jesus shifts from theological debate to moral warning. Having exposed scribes' theological inadequacy (they couldn't answer His Christological question), He now exposes their ethical hypocrisy. This public rebuke continues prophetic tradition—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi denounced corrupt religious leaders. Teaching disciples 'in the audience of all' serves dual purpose: warning learners against false models while shaming those who should exemplify godliness.
Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
View commentary
Beware of the scribes (Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων, Prosechete apo tōn grammateōn)—Prosechō (to watch out, pay attention, guard against) in present imperative commands continuous vigilance. The preposition apo (from, away from) suggests keeping distance. Scribes were Scripture experts, Torah copyists, legal interpreters—the most educated, respected religious professionals. Yet Jesus warns against them, demonstrating that theological education without heart transformation produces dangerous religion.
Which desire to walk in long robes (τῶν θελόντων περιπατεῖν ἐν στολαῖς, tōn thelontōn peripatein en stolais)—Thelō (to desire, wish) reveals motivation: they want recognition. Stolai (long robes) were distinctive garments signaling religious status. Their peripateo (walking, conduct) is literally about robes but metaphorically about conspicuous piety. And love greetings in the markets (καὶ φιλούντων ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς, kai philountōn aspasmous en tais agorais)—Phileō (to love) shows affection for public aspasmous (salutations) that acknowledged status. Religion becomes performance for human applause rather than service to God.
Which desire to walk in long robes (τῶν θελόντων περιπατεῖν ἐν στολαῖς, tōn thelontōn peripatein en stolais)—Thelō (to desire, wish) reveals motivation: they want recognition. Stolai (long robes) were distinctive garments signaling religious status. Their peripateo (walking, conduct) is literally about robes but metaphorically about conspicuous piety. And love greetings in the markets (καὶ φιλούντων ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς, kai philountōn aspasmous en tais agorais)—Phileō (to love) shows affection for public aspasmous (salutations) that acknowledged status. Religion becomes performance for human applause rather than service to God.
Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.
View commentary
Which devour widows' houses (οἳ κατεσθίουσιν τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν, hoi katesthiousin tas oikias tōn chērōn)—Katesthiō (to eat up, devour, consume) is violent, predatory language. These religious leaders devour (present tense: habitual action) the oikias (houses, households, estates) of chērōn (widows)—society's most vulnerable (Exodus 22:22-24, Deuteronomy 24:17, Isaiah 1:17). Methods likely included accepting donations from poor widows (Mark 12:41-44's context), exploiting legal authority as estate executors, or manipulating piety for financial gain.
And for a shew make long prayers (καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ προσεύχονται, kai prophasei makra proseuchontai)—Prophasis (pretext, pretense, outward show) reveals their prayers are performance, not communion. Makra (long, lengthy) describes duration used to impress. Proseuchomai (to pray) in present tense shows habitual practice. Jesus denounced long prayers elsewhere (Matthew 6:5-7), contrasting genuine heart-petition with verbose religious display. The same shall receive greater damnation (οὗτοι λήμψονται περισσότερον κρῖμα, houtoi lēmpsontai perissoteron krima)—future middle lēmpsontai (they will receive) guarantees coming judgment. Perissoteron (greater, more abundant) indicates intensified krima (judgment, condemnation). Greater privilege brings greater accountability (James 3:1).
And for a shew make long prayers (καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ προσεύχονται, kai prophasei makra proseuchontai)—Prophasis (pretext, pretense, outward show) reveals their prayers are performance, not communion. Makra (long, lengthy) describes duration used to impress. Proseuchomai (to pray) in present tense shows habitual practice. Jesus denounced long prayers elsewhere (Matthew 6:5-7), contrasting genuine heart-petition with verbose religious display. The same shall receive greater damnation (οὗτοι λήμψονται περισσότερον κρῖμα, houtoi lēmpsontai perissoteron krima)—future middle lēmpsontai (they will receive) guarantees coming judgment. Perissoteron (greater, more abundant) indicates intensified krima (judgment, condemnation). Greater privilege brings greater accountability (James 3:1).