The Authority of Jesus Questioned According to the Gospel of Luke

LUKE 20 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Authority of Jesus Questioned
1 One day as Jesus was teaching the people in
the temple courts and proclaiming the good
news, the chief priests and the teachers of the
law, together with the elders, came up to him.
GILL, "And it came to pass, that on one of those days,.... According to the
account of the Evangelist Mark, it must be the second day, or two days after his
public entrance into Jerusalem; for on the evening of the day he made his entry,
he went out to Bethany with his disciples; the next morning, as he returned from
thence, he cursed the barren fig tree; and when he came to the temple cast out
the buyers and sellers; at evening he went out again, either to Bethany, or the
Mount of Olives; and the next morning, as he and his disciples returned, the fig
tree was observed to be dried up; and when they were come to Jerusalem, as he
was walking in the temple, he was attacked by the sanhedrim, and had the
following discourse with them:
as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the Gospel; for he taught
them by preaching that, and which he did most clearly, faithfully, and publicly,
being abundantly anointed and qualified for it, and sent to do it.
The chief priests, and the Scribes, came upon him, with the elders. The whole
sanhedrim being purposely convened together, came upon him in a body; and it
may be suddenly, and at an unawares, and came open mouthed against him, and
attacked him with great warmth and vehemency.
HENRY, "Introduction
In this chapter we have, I. Christ's answer to the chief priests' question
concerning his authority, Luke 20:1-8. II. The parable of the vineyard let out to
the unjust and rebellious husbandmen, Luke 20:9-19. III. Christ's answer to the
question proposed to him concerning the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæ sar,
Luke 20:20-26. IV. His vindication of that great fundamental doctrine of the
Jewish and Christian institutes--the resurrection of the dead and the future state,
from the foolish cavils of the Sadducees, Luke 20:27-38. V. His puzzling the
scribes with a question concerning the Messiah's being the Son of David, Luke
20:39-44. VI. The caution he gave his disciples to take heed of the scribes, Luke
20:45-47. All which passages we had before in Matthew and Mark, and therefore
need not enlarge upon them here, unless on those particulars which we had not
1

there.
Verses 1-8
Christ's Enemies Nonplussed.
1 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, 2And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest
thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? 3And he answered
and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing and answer me: 4The baptism
of John, was it from heaven, or of men? 5 And they reasoned with themselves,
saying, If we shall say, From heaven he will say, Why then believed ye him not? 6
But and if we say, Of men all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that
John was a prophet. 7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.
8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these
things.
In this passage of story nothing is added here to what we had in the other
evangelists but only in the Luke 20:1, where we are told,
I. That he was now teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel.
Note, Christ was a preacher of his own gospel. He not only purchased the
salvation for us, but published it to us, which is a great confirmation of the truth
of the gospel, and gives abundant encouragement to us to receive it, for it is a
sign that the heart of Christ was much upon it, to have it received. This likewise
puts an honour upon the preachers of the gospel, and upon their office and
work, how much soever they are despised by a vain world. It puts an honour
upon the popular preachers of the gospel Christ condescended to the capacities
of the people in preaching the gospel, and taught them. And observe, when he
was preaching the gospel to the people he had this interruption given him. Note,
Satan and his agents do all they can to hinder the preaching of the gospel to the
people, for nothing weakens the interest of Satan's kingdom more.
II. That his enemies are here said to come upon him--epestesan. The word is used
only here, and it intimates,
1. That they thought to surprise him with this question they came upon him
suddenly, hoping to catch him unprovided with an answer, as if this were not a
thing he had himself thought of.
2. That they thought to frighten him with this question. They came upon him in a
body, with violence. But how could he be terrified with the wrath of men, when it
was in his own power to restrain it, and make it turn to his praise? From this
story itself we may learn, (1.) That it is not to be thought strange, if even that
which is evident to a demonstration be disputed, and called in question, as a
doubtful thing, by those that shut their eyes against the light. Christ's miracles
plainly showed by what authority he did these things, and sealed his commission
and yet this is that which is here arraigned. (2.) Those that question Christ's
authority, if they be but catechized themselves in the plainest and most evident
principles of religion, will have their folly made manifest unto all men. Christ
2

answered these priests and scribes with a question concerning the baptism of
John, a plain question, which the meanest of the common people could answer:
Was it from heaven or of men? They all knew it was from heaven there was
nothing in it that had an earthly relish or tendency, but it was all heavenly and
divine. And this question gravelled them, and ran them aground, and served to
shame them before the people. (3.) It is not strange if those that are governed by
reputation and secular interest imprison the plainest truths, and smother and
stifle the strongest convictions, as these priests and scribes did, who, to save their
credit, would not own that John's baptism was from heaven, and had no other
reason why they did not say it was of men but because they feared the people.
What good can be expected from men of such a spirit? (4.) Those that bury the
knowledge they have are justly denied further knowledge. It was just with Christ
to refuse to give an account of his authority to them that knew the baptism of
John to be from heaven and would not believe in him, nor own their knowledge,
Luke 20:7,8.
LIGHTFOOT, "[The chief priests and the scribes with the elders.] So it is in
Mark 11:27: but in Matthew 21:23, it is the chief priests and elders of the people.
Now the question is, who these elders should be, as they are distinguished from
the chief priests and the scribes. The Sanhedrim consisted chiefly of priests,
Levites, and Israelites, although the original precept was for the priests and
Levites only. "The command is, that the priests and Levites should be of the
great council; as it is said, Thou shalt go unto the priests and Levites: but if such
be not to be found, although they were all Israelites, behold, it is allowed."
None will imagine that there ever was a Sanhedrim wherein there were Israelites
only, and no priests or Levites; nor, on the other hand, that there ever was a
Sanhedrim wherein there were only priests and Levites, and no Israelites. The
scribes, therefore, seem in this place to denote either the Levites, or else, together
with the Levites, those inferior ranks of priests who were not the chief priests:
and then the elders, may be the Israelites, or those elders of the laity that were
not of the Levitical tribe. Such a one was Gamaliel the present president of the
Sanhedrim, and Simeon his son, of the tribe of Judah.
BARCLAY, "BY WHAT AUTHORITY? (Luke 20:1-8)
20:1-8 One day, while Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple and telling
them the good news, the chief priests and scribes with the elders came up and
said to him, "Tell us, by what authority do you do these things? Or, who is it
who gives you this authority?" He said to them, "I, too, will ask you for a
statement. Tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?" They
discussed it with each other. "If," they said to each other, "we say, 'From
heaven,' he will say, 'Why did you not believe in him?' But, if we say, 'From
men,' all the people will stone us, for they are convinced that John was a
prophet." So they answered that they did not know where it was from. Jesus said
to them, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."
This chapter describes what is usually called the Day of Questions. It was a day
when the Jewish authorities, in all their different sections, came to Jesus with
question after question designed to trap him, and when, in his wisdom, he
3

answered them in such a way as routed them and left them speechless.
The first question was put by the chief priests, the scribes and the elders. The
chief priests were a body of men composed of ex-High Priests and of members of
the families from which the High Priests were drawn. The phrase describes the
religious aristocracy of the Temple. The three sets of men--chief priests, scribes
and elders--were the component parts of the Sanhedrin, the supreme council and
governing body of the Jews; and we may well take it that this was a question
concocted by the Sanhedrin with a view to formulating a charge against Jesus.
No wonder they asked him by what authority he did these things! To ride into
Jerusalem as he did and then to take the law into his own hands and cleanse the
Temple, required some explanation. To the orthodox Jews of the day, Jesus'
calm assumption of authority was an amazing thing. No Rabbi ever delivered a
judgment or made a statement without giving his authorities. He would say,
"There is a teaching that . . ." Or he would say, "This was confirmed by Rabbi
So and So when he said . . ." But none would have claimed the utterly
independent authority with which Jesus moved among men. What they wanted
was that Jesus should say bluntly and directly that he was the Messiah and the
Son of God. Then they would have a ready-made charge of blasphemy and could
arrest him on the spot. But he would not give that answer, for his hour was not
yet come.
The reply of Jesus is sometimes described as a clever debating answer, used
simply to score a point. But it is far more than that. He asked them to answer the
question, "Was the authority of John the Baptist human or divine?" The point is
that their answer to Jesus' question would answer their own question. Every one
knew how John had regarded Jesus and how he had considered himself only the
fore-runner of the one who was the Messiah. If they agreed that John's authority
was divine then they had also to agree that Jesus was the Messiah, because John
had said so. If they denied it, the people would rise,, against them. Jesus' answer
in fact asks the question, "Tell me--where do you yourself think I got my
authority?" He did not need to answer their question if they answered his.
To face the truth may confront a man with a sore and difficult situation; but to
refuse to face it confronts him with a tangle out of which there is no escape. The
emissaries of the Pharisees refused to face the truth, and they had to withdraw
frustrated and discredited with the crowd.
PETT, "So one day while He was teaching in the Temple, and preaching the
Good News of the Kingly Rule of God, the members of the Sanhedrin
approached Him. The chief priests were the leading authorities in the Temple
including the High Priest himself, the temple Treasurer, the leaders of the
priestly courses, ex-High Priests, and their blood relations. The Scribes mainly
represented Pharisaic opinion, although there were some Scribes of the
Sadducees. The elders were the wealthy laymen from aristocratic families.
COFFMAN, "In this chapter, which details Jesus' teachings on Monday of the
final week, there are the following units; the Pharisees questioned Jesus'
4

authority (Luke 20:1-8); he gave the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke
20:9-18); he answered the question of tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:19-26); he
exposed the question of the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (Luke
20:27-40); he confounded them with a question of his own (Luke 20:41-44); and
he uttered a sharp condemnation and warning against the scribes (Luke
20:45-47).
All of this chapter is contained in the parallel accounts of both Matthew and
Mark; and twice already in this series, a line-by-line exegesis of these teachings
has been presented. To avoid needless repetition, the several units of this chapter
are discussed in a more general manner.
I. The Pharisees questioned the authority of Jesus, their purpose no doubt being
to embarrass the Lord. That Jesus had no authority from THEM was certain;
and, supposing that they alone could grant authority to religious teachers, they
must have felt rather smug in propounding their question.
And it came to pass on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the
temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief priests and the
scribes and the elders; and they spake unto him, saying unto him, Tell us: By
what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this
authority? And he answered and said unto them, I also will ask you a question;
and tell me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? And they
reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why
did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone
us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that
they knew not whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by
what authority I do these things. (Luke 20:1-8)
Parallels: Matthew 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33.
Their question was snide, as was evident in the malice and dishonesty of them
that asked it; and yet, despite this, the question itself is the most important that
any man may ask concerning the authority of Jesus. Whence is it? That question
must be answered by every person hoping to enter into eternal life.
There is a dramatic contrast in the manner of Jesus' feeding the same words of
those hypocrites back to them. They demanded that Jesus "Tell us"; but Jesus
threw their hand grenade back into their own faces, saying "TELL ME!" By
such a shocking refusal of their rights to pass on the credentials of the Christ, the
Lord exposed them before all the people.
John the Baptist's authority was indeed from God (John 1:5); and the chief
priests, scribes and elders of Israel well knew this; for the mighty herald had
unequivocally identified Jesus thus:
The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
He that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33)
5

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom (John 3:29)
He ... cometh from above, is above all (John 3:31)
He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God (John 3:33)
God hath given to the Son all things (John 3:35)
He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life (John 3:36)
He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on
him (John 3:36)SIZE>
With a corpus of testimony like that, well known to all the people, and coming
from a man even the priests recognized as universally hailed a true prophet of
God - the name "John the Baptist" must have struck fear and embarrassment
into the hearts of Jesus' challengers. So great was the impact of Jesus' question
that it appears they withdrew somewhat, and held a council among themselves
on the answer they would give. It quickly appeared that not Jesus, but they, were
trapped. The best thing they could come up with was an open profession of
ignorance, and that before the multitudes!
BURKITT, "The Pharisees having often quarrelled at our Saviour's doctrine
before, they call in question his mission and authority now: although they might
easily have understood his divine mission by his divine miracles; for Almighty
God never impowered any to work miracles that were not sent by him. Our
blessed Saviour, understanding their design, gives them no direct answer, but
replies to their question by asking them another: The baptism of John, was it
from Heaven, or of men? That is, was it of divine institution, or of human
invention? Plainly implying, that the calling of them who call themselves the
ministers of God, ought to be from God: No man ought to take that honor upon
him, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron, Hebrews 5:8
The Pharisees reply, that they could not tell where John had his mission and
authority; which was a manifest untruth: they knew it, but did not own it. By
refusing to tell the truth, they fall into a lie against the truth; thus one sin
ensnares and draws men on to the commission of more: such as will not speak
exact truth according to their knowledge, they fall into the sin of lying against
their knowledge and their conscience. Our Saviour answers them, Neither tell I
you by what authority I do these things: he did not say, I cannot, or I will not tell
you, but I do not, I need not tell you; because the miracles which I work before
you are a sufficient demonstration of my divine commission, that I am sent of
God among you: because God never set the seal of his omnipotency to a lie, nor
impowered any impostor to work real miracles.
PULPIT, "Question of the priests and scribes as to the nature of the authority
under which Jesus was acting.
Luke 20:1, Luke 20:2
6

And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the
temple, and preached the gospel. We are now in the midst of the so-called
Passion week. Probably the events related in this chapter took place on the
Tuesday. The first day of the week, Palm Sunday, was the day of the public entry
into the city. The purification of the temple took place on the Monday, on which
day also the barren fig tree was cursed. We are now considering the events of the
Tuesday. The Greek word εὐαγγελιζομένου is especially a Pauline word; we find
it rarely used save in his writings, and of course in those of St. Luke. St. Paul
uses it twenty times, and St. Luke twenty-five. The chief priests and the scribes
came upon him with the elders, and spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what
authority doest thou these things? This appears to have been a formal deputation
from the supreme council of the Sanhedrim The three classes here specified
represented probably the three great sections of the Sanhedrin—
These came upon him evidently with hostile intent, and surrounded him as he
was walking in the temple. The jealous anger of the rulers of the Jews had been
lately specially excited by the triumphant entry on Palm Sunday, and by the stir
and commotion which the presence of Jesus had occasioned in the holy city. And
in the last two or three days Jesus had evidently claimed especial power in the
temple. He had publicly driven out the money-changers and vendors of
sacrificial victims who plied their calling in the sacred courts. He had, in
addition, forbade the carrying vessels across the temple (Mark 11:16), and had
allowed the children in the temple, probably those attached to its choir, to shout
"Hosanna!" to him as the Messiah. From the point of view of the Sanhedrin,
such a question might well have been looked for. His interlocutors made quite
sure that Jesus, in reply, would claim having received a Divine commission. Had
he made openly such a formal claim in reply to their question, then he would
have been cited before the supreme court to give an account of himself and his
commission. Then, as they thought, would have been their opportunity to convict
him out of his own mouth of blasphemy.
PULPIT, "Luke 20:1-8
The great Teacher's silence.
The refusal of Jesus Christ to answer the question proposed to him demands
explanation and suggests remark.
I. THE DIFFICULTY WE FIND IN HIS SILENCE. Had not the Sanhedrin a
right to ask this of him? It was a legally constituted body, and one of its functions
was to guide the people of the land by determining who was to be received as a
true Teacher from God. John had recognized their right to formally interrogate
him (John 1:19-27). As Jesus was claiming and exercising authority (Luke
19:45), it seems natural and right that this council of the nation should send a
deputation to ask the question in the text; and, if that be so, it seems only right
that our Lord should give them a formal and explicit answer. Why did he not?
II. ITS EXPLANATION. There was:
7

1. A formal justification. The Sanhedrin had not yet declared its mind on the
great Prophet who had been before the public, and in regard to whom an official
decision might well be demanded. Jesus Christ, as a Jew, had a right to ask this
question concerning one whose ministry commenced before his own, and had
already been concluded. If they were unwilling or unable to pronounce a
judgment, they ruled themselves unfit or incompetent to do what they undertook
to do. As the event proved, they declined to say, and their refusal justified Jesus
in withdrawing his own case from a tribunal which confessed its own
incompetence. But there was also:
2. A moral ground on which our Lord might base his action. The Sanhedrin was
not solicitous to guide the people in the ways of truth and righteousness; they
wanted to entrap their enemy (see Luke 19:47). Their aim was not holy, but
unholy; not patriotic, but malevolent. They were not seeking the public good, but
their own personal advantage; they desired to crush a rival, and so to maintain
their own position of authority. Such an object as this deserved no regard; it was
one not to be respected, but to be defeated; and our Lord, with Divine wisdom,
adopted a course which cut the ground completely from beneath their feet.
III. ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO OURSELVES. Jesus Christ will not always answer
our questions. Whether or not he will do so depends on the spirit in which he is
approached by us.
1. Mere curiosity has nothing to expect of him (see Luke 13:23, Luke 13:24; Acts
1:6, Acts 1:7).
2. Unmeaning and unspiritual utterance makes no way with him (see Luke
14:15). The formalities and proprieties of religious language fall on his ear, but
they do not touch his heart or move his hand.
3. Malevolent activity can look for nothing but defeat from his wisdom and his
power (see text and following verses of this chapter).
4. Presumption will be turned away unrewarded. To see the Father as he is in
himself is an impossible and impracticable desire; our wisdom is to understand
him as he is revealed in his Son (John 14:8, John 14:9). We may not ask of Christ
those things which are beyond the range of our powers.
5. Impatience must be postponed, and must wait the fitter time (John 16:12).
Christ will sometimes, perhaps often, be silent when we would that he should
speak to us. But there is—
IV. ONE CONDITION UNDER WHICH HE WILL SPEAK TO US. Practical,
spiritual earnestness will draw down his blessing, will command his gracious and
life-giving word. If we earnestly and perseveringly seek our own spiritual well-
being or that of others, we shall not fail to hear him say, "According to your
faith be it unto you."—C.
8

2 “Tell us by what authority you are doing
these things,” they said. “Who gave you this
authority?”
GILL, "And spoke unto him, saying, tell us by what authority doest thou these
things?.... The Arabic and Ethiopic versions read, "this thing"; as if the
sanhedrim only referred to his preaching the Gospel, which is mentioned in the
preceding verse, and was what he was about when they came to him: but the
Persic version reads, "all these things"; not only preaching, but working
miracles; and particularly driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, which
especially affected them, they losing their rents thereby:
or who is he that gave thee this authority? God or man? See Gill on Matthew
21:23.
PETT, "Their question, as an official deputation from the leadership, was
twofold. Firstly on what did He base His authority for His actions, and secondly,
who had given Him that authority? Did He, for example, claim Rabbinic
authority, or Prophetic authority, or what? And if any of these, who had so
authorised Him? To them ‘authorisation’ by the right people was all. Unless a
man was authorised he had no right to speak. What authorisation then had
Jesus?
The approach was high handed and officious. ‘By what authority -- who gave
you this authority?’ Their first hope was that He would have no answer and be
caught unprepared. Then the people would see that He was a charlatan.
Alternately they were hoping to make Him declare Himself, and say something
‘foolish’, such as making a claim to Messiahship, and whatever He said they
would use against Him. They could accuse Him of self-exaltation, or even worse,
of being a Messianic claimant and an insurrectionist. So the question was, was
He claiming to be a prophet? Was He claiming to be the Messiah? Was He
claiming to be the coming Elijah? And if He was not claiming to be anyone so
important, how could He then claim to have God’s personal authority? Compare
Luke 9:7-8; Mark 6:15; John 1:19-25.
3 He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell
me:
9

GILL, "And he answered and said unto them,.... That is, Jesus replied to them,
as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions express it:
I will also ask you one thing, and answer me; when he also promised, that if they
would give him an answer to his question, he would satisfy them in the point they
interrogated him about: and as this was a prudent decline to avoid the snare they
laid for him, so it was not an impertinent reply to them; since it led on to a
proper answer to their question, as appears by the case proposed; See Gill on
Matthew 21:24.
PETT, "Their question, as an official deputation from the leadership, was
twofold. Firstly on what did He base His authority for His actions, and secondly,
who had given Him that authority? Did He, for example, claim Rabbinic
authority, or Prophetic authority, or what? And if any of these, who had so
authorised Him? To them ‘authorisation’ by the right people was all. Unless a
man was authorised he had no right to speak. What authorisation then had
Jesus?
The approach was high handed and officious. ‘By what authority -- who gave
you this authority?’ Their first hope was that He would have no answer and be
caught unprepared. Then the people would see that He was a charlatan.
Alternately they were hoping to make Him declare Himself, and say something
‘foolish’, such as making a claim to Messiahship, and whatever He said they
would use against Him. They could accuse Him of self-exaltation, or even worse,
of being a Messianic claimant and an insurrectionist. So the question was, was
He claiming to be a prophet? Was He claiming to be the Messiah? Was He
claiming to be the coming Elijah? And if He was not claiming to be anyone so
important, how could He then claim to have God’s personal authority? Compare
Luke 9:7-8; Mark 6:15; John 1:19
COKE, "Luke 20:3-8. And he answered, &c.— The great sanhedrim seems to
have been established after the failure of prophesy; and concerning the members
of this body the rabbies tell us there was a tradition, that they were bound to be
skilled in the sciences. So far is certain, that they extended their jurisdiction to
the judging of doctrines and opinions. (see on Matthew 21:23.) as appears by
their deputation to Jesus, to know by what authority he did his works. We are
not to suppose the answer of Christ to this deputation, to be a captious evasion of
the question made by those whose authority he did not acknowledge; on the
contrary, it was a direct reply to an acknowledged institution, (as Jesus was
obedient to all the institutions of his country,) convincing them, that the question
needed not any precise answer, even on the principles of that jurisdiction. They
sent to him to know his authority: he asked them, whether they had yet
determined of John's? They acknowledged that they had not. "Then, (replies
Jesus) I need not tell you of my authority, since the sanhedrim's not having
determined of John's, shews such a determination unnecessary: or, at least, since
both by John's account and mine he is represented as the forerunner of my
mission, it is fit to begin with his pretensions first." The address and reason of
this reply are truly divine.
10

And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer
me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men! And they reasoned with
themselves saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed
ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be
persuaded that John was a prophet. The reply of Jesus was one of strange
wisdom. He—Jesus—as was well known, had been introduced to the people by
this very John. If the Sanhedrin acknowledged John the Baptist as a divinely
accredited messenger, then surely they could not question the claims of one
borne special witness to by him, brought forward and introduced to public
notice by him! If, on the other hand, the Sanhedrin refused to acknowledge the
authority of John as a Heaven-sent messenger, which would have been the course
they would have preferred, then the popularity and influence of the Sanhedrin
would have been sorely imperilled, for the people generally held firmly that John
the Baptist was really a prophet of the Lord. They even feared—as we read, "All
the people will stone us"—personal violence on the part of the people whose
favour they so zealously courted.
4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of
human origin?”
GILL, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? This was a new
ordinance, and John must have his authority for administering it either from
God, or from men; and Christ is desirous to know from which he derived it in
their opinion; suggesting, that by the same authority John, his forerunner, came
baptizing, he himself came preaching and working miracles; See Gill on
Matthew 21:25.
PETT "Verse 5-6
‘And they reasoned with themselves, saying, “If we shall say, From heaven, he
will say, Why did you not believe him? But if we shall say, From men, all the
people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”
His opponents in their discussions together revealed how clearly they themselves
recognised their predicament. They knew that if they said that John’s baptism
was ‘from Heaven’ Jesus would ask why in that case they had not supported
John more, and why they had not listened to him, and promulgated his baptism,
and He would then also point out what John had said of Him, describing Him as
greater than himself. But if they said ‘from men’ they knew very well that the
crowds, who still remembered John vividly, and the method of his death, would
stone them for the equivalent of blasphemy. For all the crowds knew that John
11

was a prophet, and at this time feelings were running high. The principle behind
the crowd’s thinking would be that while it was true that a false prophet had to
be stoned, it was also true that any who falsely accused a true prophet of being a
false prophet was also liable to stoning, the false accuser bearing the penalty that
would have been that of the accused if the charge had been proved. This was an
ancient principle of the Law (see Deuteronomy 13:1-11; Deuteronomy 19:15-21).
And the members of the Sanhedrin were well enough aware of the mood of the
crowd to realise that feelings were such that such a stoning would be a very likely
consequence of any denial.
5 They discussed it among themselves and said,
“If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why
didn’t you believe him?’
GILL, "And they reasoned with themselves,.... Or "they thought with
themselves", as the Syriac version; or "within themselves", as the Vulgate Latin,
though they did not express it; or "one with another", as the Arabic version;
they took counsel together, and debated the matter among themselves, and
reasoned after this manner:
saying, if we shall say from heaven; which was what, in their own consciences,
they believed to be true,
he will say, why then believed ye him not? in what he said concerning the
Messiah; which if they had, as they should, there would have been no reason for
such a question they had put; See Gill on Matthew 21:25.
6 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people
will stone us, because they are persuaded that
John was a prophet.”
GILL, "But and if we say of men,..... Which they had a good will to, against the
dictates of their own consciences:
all the people will stone us; meaning the common people, that were then in the
temple about Christ, hearing him preach; who would be so enraged at such an
answer, that without any regard to their character and office, they would rise
12

and stone them. The Ethiopic version adds, "whom we fear"; see Matthew 21:26
for it seems that they had not so behaved as to have the good will and esteem of
the people, at least they did not pin their faith on their sleeve:
for they be persuaded that John was a prophet; they were fully assured of it; and
the sentiments and authority of the chief priests could have no weight and
influence upon them to weaken their faith in this point; the evidence was so
strong, and their faith so firm and sure.
7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it
was from.”
GILL, "Whether from heaven, or of men; in this, no doubt, they told an untruth:
but they chose rather to sacrifice their consciences than their interest, and
pretend ignorance rather than profess the truth, when they saw they should be
put to confusion, or be exposed to the resentments of the people.
JAMISON, "could not tell — crooked, cringing hypocrites! No wonder Jesus
gave you no answer (Matthew 7:6). But what dignity and composure does our
Lord display as He turns their question upon themselves!
PETT, "So they replied lamely that they did not know the answer to His
question. Lame though their reply was they were really left with no option. But
we can imagine their sense of extreme humiliation at having to do it. For by
answering like this they would know that they were admitting that they in fact
were in no position to decide on genuine bases of authority when it came to
someone like John. And if they admitted that they could not judge John’s
authority, how could they then be credibly seen as being able to judge any
prophet’s authority?
Furthermore at the same time the crowds, who were not stupid, would know
from their reply exactly what the situation was. To the crowds they would simply
be revealing themselves as treacherous. So their whole position was being
undermined by their inability to answer, and instead of showing up Jesus they
had shown themselves up.
And, of course, the consequence of this was that as they could not decide on what
John’s authority was, it was quite clear that there was no point in Jesus
appealing to that authority. His appeal must await their deciding on John’s
authority. But it had answered the question. For the crowds, who would know of
Jesus’ connection with John would again draw their own conclusions. They
would accept His authority, both because they accepted John’s authority, and
13

because of His own works and teaching.
PULPIT, "And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. The reply
of Jesus, which so perplexed the Sanhedrin, really inflicted a grave blow to their
prestige, thus compelling the grave doctors of the Law, who claimed the right of
deciding all momentous questions, to decline to pronounce a judgment on so
grave a question as "the position of the Baptist," that mighty preacher who had
so stirred and roused Israel and who had with his life paid the forfeit of his
boldness in rebuking crime in high places, thereby no doubt enormously
enlarging his already vast popularity with the people.
8 Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what
authority I am doing these things.”
GILL, "neither tell I you by what authority I do these things; nor was there any
need of it; they might easily perceive by what he had said, from whence he
professed to have received his authority, from God, and not men; See Gill on
Matthew 21:27.
PETT, "So when Jesus then declared that He was not willing to submit His case
to the very people who had admitted that they did not know how to judge a
prophet’s authority, the people would recognise that He had really answered
their question. His claim was that the source of His authority was the same as
that of John, which was what they thought anyway. The Sanhedrin were
stymied, and the belief of the people was thus confirmed.
NISBET, "THE SUFFICIENCY OF REVELATION
‘Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.’
Luke 20:8
What is the truth that is involved in our Lord’s answer—‘Neither tell I you by
what authority I do these things’?
I. The principle of reservation.—God reserves to Himself the right to restrain,
when He sees fit, that full manifestation of Himself which some men nevertheless
demand of Him. There are some men, some women, in whose heart there has
frequently risen up something of this resentment: ‘Why must I live in a state of
imperfect knowledge, which is the result of a limited revelation?’ It was not only
unto the scribes and the Pharisees, and the idle, gaping crowd that our Lord
acted upon this principle of reservation when He was here on earth, it was so
with His own disciples. How is the great central mystery of the Incarnation, for
example, ever present in His teaching, and yet who shall deny that it is ever
shrouded? How guardedly He speaks of the new birth by water and the Word;
14

how mysteriously in the blessed sacrament of His own Blood and Body!
II. The revelation sufficient.—And yet shall we dare to say that the teaching
which God in His mercy has vouchsafed to us, and the revelation that He has
given to us, is insufficient? How much evidence of authority had He already
given to those very scribes and Pharisees! Those who asked Him this very
question as to His authority had never denied the facts—they had never dared to
deny them. Yet you know what they had done—they had hardened their hearts
and shut their eyes against them. It was possible for them to know long ere this
by Whose authority He did these things. So for us it is possible to know, and to
know with great certainty too, of Christ and His authority. What we need is
sufficient knowledge to guide us unto the knowledge of God’s will. And such
knowledge comes to men and women rather through the heart than through the
intellect. ‘If any man will do His will, he shall know the doctrine whether it be of
God.’ Will to do His will, and He tells you that you shall know.
III. Conditions on which knowledge is attainable.—There are conditions on
which this knowledge is attainable.
(a) Purity of heart. It is purity of heart that enables men to see God, it is men
who love God, and men who love each other as the children of God, who have the
most perfect intelligence of God.
(b) Obedience. It has been well said that there is boundless danger in all inquiry
which is merely curious! It is to such our Lord answers, and will ever answer,
‘Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.’ When men ask questions
of Almighty God, by the answer to which they never mean to rule their lives, let
them not think that to them any sign will be given. The will must be set to do the
will of God before the intellect can act with discernment on spiritual truth.
(c) Earnestness. A life of trifling here is not the life of those who are enlightened
by their God. God must be really sought if God is to be truly found.
A life of earnest seeking is a life of finding, but God’s truth is too sacred a thing
to be expounded to superficial worldliness. There are others tried by intellectual
difficulties, yet athirst for the living God, and for a fuller revelation to their
souls. The time of granting this revelation rests with Him, and to them that
revelation will be given. The answer to their cry will come; they shall know the
doctrine whether it be of God; He will tell tell them by what authority He does
these things.
Rev. Prebendary Villiers.
The Parable of the Tenants
15

9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A
man planted a vineyard, rented it to some
farmers and went away for a long time.
GILL, "Then began he to speak to the people this parable,.... According to the
other evangelists it seems to be spoken to the chief priests, Scribes, and elders;
and certain it is, that they looked upon themselves as struck at in it; it might be
spoken to both. Christ having silenced the sanhedrim, turned himself to the
people, and delivered the parable of the vineyard to them, though his principal
view was to the priests:
a certain man planted a vineyard; the people of the Jews are designed by the
vineyard, and the "certain man", or "householder", as Matthew calls him,
Matthew 21:28 is the Lord of hosts; and the planting of it is to be understood of
his bringing and settling the people Israel in the land of Canaan. Luke omits
certain things which the other evangelists relate, as setting an hedge about it,
digging a winepress, and building a tower in it; and the Persic version here adds,
"and planted trees, and set a wall about it"; all which express the care that was
taken to cultivate and protect it; and signify the various blessings and privileges
the Jew's enjoyed under the former dispensation; see Gill on Matthew 21:33 and
See Gill on Mark 12:1.
and let it forth to husbandmen; put the people of the Jews under the care not
only of civil magistrates, but of ecclesiastical governors, who were to dress this
vine, or instruct these people in matters of religion, that they might be fruitful in
good works:
and went into a far country for a long time; for a long time it was, from the times
of Moses and Joshua, when the first settlement, both of the civil and ecclesiastical
state of the Jews, was made, to the time of Christ; it was fourteen or fifteen
hundred years; see the notes, as above.
HENRY, "9 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. 10 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. 11And again he sent another servant: and they beat
him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 12And again
he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13Then 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. 14But 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. 15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and
killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 16 He
16

shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.
And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. 17 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? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall
be broken but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 19 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.
Christ spoke this parable against those who were resolved not to own his
authority, though the evidence of it was ever so full and convincing and it comes
very seasonably to show that by questioning his authority they forfeited their
own. Their disowning the lord of their vineyard was a defeasance of their lease of
the vineyard, and giving up of all their title.
I. The parable has nothing added here to what we had before in Matthew and
Mark. The scope of it is to show that the Jewish nation, by persecuting the
prophets, and at length Christ himself, had provoked God to take away from
them all their church privileges, and to abandon them to ruin. It teaches us, 1.
That those who enjoy the privileges of the visible church are as tenants and
farmers that have a vineyard to look after, and rent to pay for it. God, by setting
up revealed religion and instituted orders in the world, hath planted a vineyard,
which he lets out to those people among whom his tabernacle is, Luke 20:9. And
they have vineyard-work to do, needful and constant work, but pleasant and
profitable. Whereas man was, for sin, condemned to till the ground, they that
have a place in the church are restored to that which was Adam's work in
innocency, to dress the garden, and to keep it for the church is a paradise, and
Christ the tree of life in it. They have also vineyard-fruits to present to the Lord
of the vineyard. There are rents to be paid and services to be done, which,
though bearing no proportion to the value of the premises, yet must be done and
must be paid. 2. That the work of God's ministers is to call upon those who enjoy
the privileges of the church to bring forth fruit accordingly. They are God's rent-
gatherers, to put the husbandmen in mind of their arrears, or rather to put them
in mind that they have a landlord who expects to hear from them, and to receive
some acknowledgment of their dependence on him, and obligations to him, Luke
20:10. The Old-Testament prophets were sent on this errand to the Jewish
church, to demand from them the duty and obedience they owed to God. 3. That
it has often been the lot of God's faithful servants to be wretchedly abused by his
own tenants they have been beaten and treated shamefully by those that resolved
to send them empty away. They that are resolved not to do their duty to God
cannot bear to be called upon to do it. Some of the best men in the world have
had the hardest usage from it, for their best services. 4. That God sent his Son
into the world to carry on the same work that the prophets were employed in, to
gather the fruits of the vineyard for God and one would have thought that he
would have been reverenced and received. The prophets spoke as servants, Thus
saith the Lord but Christ as a Son, among his own, Verily, I say unto you.
Putting such an honour as this upon them, to send him, one would have thought,
should have won upon them. 5. That those who reject Christ's ministers would
reject Christ himself if he should come to them for it has been tried, and found
17

that the persecutors and murderers of his servants the prophets were the
persecutors and murderers of himself. They said, This is the heir, come let us kill
him. When they slew the servants, there were other servants sent. "But, if we can
but be the death of the son, there is never another son to be sent, and then we
shall be no longer molested with these demands we may have a quiet possession
of the vineyard for ourselves." The scribes and Pharisees promised themselves
that, if they could but get Christ out of the way, they should for ever ride masters
in the Jewish church and therefore they took the bold step, they cast him out of
the vineyard, and killed him. 6. That the putting of Christ to death filled up the
measure of the Jewish iniquity, and brought upon them ruin without remedy. No
other could be expected than that God should destroy those wicked husbandmen.
They began in not paying their rent, but then proceeded to beat and kill the
servants, and at length their young Master himself. Note, Those that live in the
neglect of their duty to God know not what degrees of sin and destruction they
are running themselves into.
II. To the application of the parable is added here, which we had not before,
their deprecation of the doom included in it (Luke 20:16): When they heart it,
they said, God forbid, Me genoito--Let not this be done, so it should be read.
Though they could not but own that for such a sin such a punishment was just,
and what might be expected, yet they could not bear to hear of it. Note, It is an
instance of the folly and stupidity of sinners that they proceed and persevere in
their sinful ways though at the same time they have a foresight and dread of the
destruction that is at the end of those ways. And see what a cheat they put
themselves, to think to avoid it by a cold God forbid, when they do nothing
towards the preventing of it but will this make the threatening of no effect? No,
they shall know whose word shall stand, God's or theirs. Now observe what
Christ said, in answer to this childish deprecation of their ruin. 1. He beheld
them. This is taken notice of only by this evangelist, Luke 20:17. He looked upon
them with pity and compassion, grieved to see them cheat themselves thus to
their own ruin. He beheld them, to see if they would blush at their own folly, or if
he could discern in their countenances any indication of relenting. 2. He referred
them to the scripture: "What is this then that is written? How can you escape the
judgment of God, when you cannot prevent the exaltation of him whom you
despise and reject? The word of God hath said it, that the stone which the
builders rejected is become the head of the corner." The Lord Jesus will be
exalted to the Father's right hand. He has all judgment and all power committed
to him he is the corner-stone and top-stone of the church, and, if so, his enemies
can expect no other than to be destroyed. Even those that slight him, that
stumble at him, and are offended in him, shall be broken--it will be their ruin but
as to those that not only reject him, but hate and persecute him, as the Jews did,
he will fall upon them and crush them to pieces--will grind them to powder. The
condemnation of spiteful persecutors will be much sorer than that of careless
unbelievers.
Lastly, We are told how the chief priests and scribes were exasperated by this
parable (Luke 20:19): They perceived that he had spoken this parable against
them and so he had. A guilty conscience needs no accuser but they, instead of
yielding to the convictions of conscience, fell into a rage at him who awakened
18

that sleeping lion in their bosoms, and sought to lay hands on him. Their
corruptions rebelled against their convictions, and got the victory. And it was not
because they had any fear of God or of his wrath before their eyes, but only
because they feared the people, that they did not now fly in his face, and take
him by the throat. They were just ready to make his words good: This is the heir,
come let us kill him. Note, When the hearts of the sons of men are fully set in
them to do evil, the fairest warnings both of the sin they are about to commit and
of the consequences of it make no impression upon them. Christ tells them that
instead of kissing the Son of God they would kill him, upon which they should
have said, What, is thy servant a dog? But they do, in effect, say this: "And so we
will have at him now." And, though they deprecate the punishment of the sin, in
the next breath they are projecting the commission of it.
JAMISON, "Verses 9-13
vineyard — (See on Luke 13:6). In Matthew 21:33 additional points are given,
taken literally from Isaiah 5:2, to fix down the application and sustain it by Old
Testament authority.
husbandmen — the ordinary spiritual guides of the people, under whose care
and culture the fruits of righteousness might be yielded.
went, etc. — leaving it to the laws of the spiritual husbandry during the whole
length of the Jewish economy. (See on Mark 4:26.)
BARCLAY, "A PARABLE WHICH WAS A CONDEMNATION (Luke 20:9-18)
20:9-18 Jesus began to speak this parable to the people. "A man planted a
vineyard and let it out to tenants, and went away for a long time. At the proper
time he despatched a servant to the tenants so that they might give him his share
of the fruit of the vineyard. The tenants beat him and sent him away empty-
handed. He went on to send another servant. They beat him, too, and maltreated
him, and sent him away empty-handed. He went on to send a third. This one they
wounded and threw out. The owner of the vineyard said, 'What am I to do? I
will send my beloved son. It may be they will respect him.' When the tenants saw
him they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Let us kill him so that the
inheritance will be ours.' And they flung him out of the vineyard and killed him.
What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and he will
destroy these tenants, and will give the vineyard to others." When they heard
this, they said, "God forbid!" He looked at them and said, "What, then, is this
which stands written--'The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the
head of the corner? Everyone who falls against that stone will be shattered; but
if it falls on anyone it will wipe him out as the wind blows the chaff away.'"
This is a parable whose meaning is crystal clear. The vineyard stands for the
nation of Israel (compare Isaiah 5:1-7). The tenants are the rulers of Israel into
whose hands the nation was entrusted. The messengers are the prophets who
were disregarded, persecuted and killed. The son is Jesus himself. And the doom
is that the place which Israel should have occupied is to be given to others.
The story itself is the kind of thing which could and did happen. Judaea in the
19

time of Jesus was in the throes of economic trouble and labour unrest. There was
many an absentee landlord who let out his lands in just such a way. The rent was
seldom paid in money. It was either a fixed amount of produce, irrespective of
the success or failure of the harvest, or it was a percentage of the crop, whatever
it might be.
In its teaching this is one of the richest of the parables. It tells us certain things
about man.
(i) It tells us of human privilege. The tenants did not make the vineyard. They
entered into possession of it. The owner did not stand over them with a whip. He
went away and left them to work in their own way.
(ii) It tells us of human sin. The sin of the tenants was that they refused to give
the owner his due and wished to control what it was his sole right to control. Sin
consists in the failure to give God his proper place and in usurping the power
which should be his.
(iii) It tells of human responsibility. For long enough the tenants were left to their
own devices; but the day of reckoning came. Soon or late a man is called upon to
give account for that which was committed to his charge.
The parable tells us certain things about God.
(i) It tells us of the patience of God. The owner did not strike at the first sign of
rebellion on the part of the tenants. He gave them chance after chance to do the
right thing. There is nothing so wonderful as the patience of God. If any man
had created the world he would have taken his hand, and, in exasperated
despair, he would have wiped it out long ago.
(ii) It tells us of the judgment of God. The tenants thought they could presume on
the patience of the master and get away with it. But God has not abdicated.
However much a man may seem to get away with it, the day of reckoning comes.
As the Romans put it, "Justice holds the scales with an even and a scrupulous
balance and in the end she will prevail."
The parable tells us something about Jesus.
(i) It tells us that he knew what was coming. He did not come to Jerusalem
hugging a dream that even yet he might escape the cross. Open eyed and
unafraid, he went on. When Achilles, the great Greek hero, was warned by the
prophetess Cassandra that, if he went out to battle, he would surely die, he
answered, "Nevertheless I am for going on." For Jesus there was to be no
turning back.
(ii) It tells us that he never doubted Gods ultimate triumph. Beyond the power of
wicked men stood the undefeatable majesty of God. Wickedness may seem for a
time to prevail, but it cannot in the end escape its punishment.
20

Careless seems the great Avenger, history's pages but record
One death grapple in the darkness, 'twixt old systems and
the Word;
Truth for ever on the scaffold, Wrong for ever on the throne,
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
(iii) It lays down most unmistakably his claim to be the Son of God. Deliberately
he removes himself from the succession of the prophets. They were servants; he
is the Son. In this parable he made a claim that none could fail to see to be God's
Chosen King.
The quotation about the stone which the builders rejected comes from Psalms
118:22-23. It was a favourite quotation in the early church as a description of the
death and resurrection of Jesus. (compare Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7.)
PULPIT, "A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen.
Under a very thin parabolic veil, Jesus foretells the awful tragedy of the next few
days. He adopts a well-known imagery, and seems to say, "Listen to Isaiah's
well-known story of the vineyard, the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, which is the
house of Israel. I will expand it a little, that I may show you how it stands with
you as regards this matter of 'authority,' that we may see whether you have as
much respect for the ascertained will of God as ye pretend, so that ye should be
sure to submit to me if only ye were satisfied that I was an accredited Messenger
of God" (Professor Bruce). For a long time. Representing the nearly two
thousand years of Jewish history.
PETT, "Jesus’ words are spoken to the people, but as ever among these were a
number of antagonists, including chief priests and Scribes. The idea of Israel as a
vineyard is found regularly in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 5:1-7 we have a
similar opening to this, ‘My wellbeloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill’
(Isaiah 5:1). And there the choicest vine was planted and it produced wild
grapes, so that it was ripe for judgment. And that vineyard and vine were Israel
and Judah Compare also Psalms 80:8-16; Jeremiah 2:21-22; Hosea 9:10, where
again the vineyard is Israel/Judah.
Here the vineyard is planted (Luke omits the further details) and put under the
control of others who are made responsible for ensuring that a fair rental in
terms of produce is paid to the owner. The owner, Who is clearly the God of
Israel, then leaves it in their hands ‘for a long time’. It would take four years for
the vineyard to become fruitful in such a way that rents (paid in produce) could
be expected (see Leviticus 19:23-25). Even the Jewish leaders recognised that
here He was speaking about them (Luke 20:19). It was they who saw themselves
as having the responsibility for God’s vineyard.
21

PETT, "Verses 9-19
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants of a Vineyard (20:9-19).
But Jesus did not leave it there, He riposted with a parable that connected His
accusers with the slayers of the prophets, by this confirming their connection
with others in the past who had been unable to recognise those who came from
God, and at the same time remarkably laying down His claim to being the
unique and only Son of God, thus answering their question about the source of
His authority indirectly, which is one reason why in both in Mark and Luke the
parable immediately follows the question about authority.
The importance that Luke places on this parable comes out in that he places it
centrally in the chiasmus of the whole Section (see above). It is the message
around which the whole chiasmus is based.
In this parable He spoke of Israel as a vineyard, of God as its owner, and of the
Jewish leaders as the tenants responsible for it. All this would be recognisable
from the Old Testament. Those then sent by the Owner in order to collect the
proceeds from the vineyard could only be the prophets, and Who then must be
the last to come, the only beloved Son? In view of all His earlier claims we can be
in no doubt that it is Jesus. (And yet there are still those who close their eyes and
refuse to see this. Spiritual blindness is still among us).
The parable is based on real life. In Palestine at that time there were many farms
and vineyards tenanted by tenant farmers, with absent landlords who expected
to receive their rents. And we can with regard to some of those farms and
vineyards that there was much skulduggery.
With regard to Luke’s sources for the parable, we need have no doubt that he
had Mark’s Gospel in front of him, and yet he clearly did not just copy from
Mark. It would seem that he also had other sources. This should not surprise us
as he would have spoken with a number of people who were probably
eyewitnesses, including especially some of the Apostles. His concern was not to
ape Mark but to present the truth succintly without altering it, while
emphasising what he saw as important.
Analysis of the passage.
a He began to speak to the people this parable. “A man planted a vineyard, and
let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time” (Luke
20:9).
b “And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that they should give
him of the fruit of the vineyard, but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him
away empty, and he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and
handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty, and he sent yet a third, and
him also they wounded, and cast him out” (Luke 20:10-12).
c “And the lord of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved
son. It may be that they will reverence him” (Luke 20:13).
22

d “But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying,
‘This is the heir. Let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours” (Luke 20:14
a).
e “And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.” (Luke 20:14 b).
d “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and
destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.” And when they
heard it, they said, ‘God forbid’ ” (Luke 20:15-16)
c ‘But He looked on them, and said, “What then is this that is written, The stone
which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? Every
one who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it will
fall, it will scatter him as dust” (Luke 20:17-18).
b And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on Him in that very
hour (Luke 20:19 a).
a And they feared the people, for they perceived that He spoke this parable
against them (Luke 20:19 b).
Note that in ‘a’ he speaks the parable concerning the husbandmen, and in the
parallel the Scribes and Pharisees noted that He spoke it against them. In ‘b’
their ancestors had laid hands on the prophets, and in the parallel they were
seeking to lay hands on Jesus. In ‘c’ the Lord determines to send His only Son,
trusting that they will at least reverence Him as the One Who represents the
owner most closely, and in the parallel they rejected Him with the obvious
consequences. In ‘d’ they make their decision to act against the heir and
prospective owner by killing Him so as to gain possession of the vineyard, and in
the parallel the owner kills them and takes over the vineyard. And centrally in ‘e’
are their acts of deliberate rejection and brutal murder.
COFFMAN, "THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED FARMERS
II. This great parable is the central member of a trilogy of magnificent parables,
all three of which were spoken by Jesus to set forth the rebellious behavior of
official Israel. The full trilogy is found only in Matthew (Matthew 21:28-22:14).
The independence of the synoptic Gospels (and all of them, for that matter) is
nowhere more evident than here. This trilogy of parables is arranged in
ascending order of power and dramatic effect (see full discussion of this in my
Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 22:14). They are the Parable of Two Sons,
the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, and the Parable of the Marriage of the
King's Son. If either Mark or Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel, or if either
one of them had ever seen it, there can be no logical explanation of why they
would have selected the central member of the trilogy and left out the other two.
On the other hand, there is no logical device by which it may be supposed that
Matthew took Mark's (and Luke's) single parable and formed it into a trilogy,
because the trilogy carries within itself the most positive and overwhelming
proof of originality, an originality that plants it undeniably in the authentic
words of Jesus our Lord. The ancient convictions that all of the sacred authors
wrote independently of each other is justified by many such things in the
Gospels.
Analogies in the parable are easily seen. God, the householder, let out his
vineyard, which is the chosen people with their privileges and protection from
23

the Father, to the husbandmen who are the leaders of Israel. Such things as the
planting of the vineyard, the hedge, the winepress, etc., represent the
establishment of Israel as the chosen people and such religious devices as the law,
the temple, etc. The servants whom God sent to Israel to receive the fruits of his
vineyard were the prophets of the Old Testament, leading up to and including
John the Baptist. Maltreatment of the servants represents Israel's rejection,
abuse, and even murder of the prophets. The householder's (God's) desire for
fruits in season was God's desire for true spiritual fruits from Israel, including
especially a recognition on their part of the need of salvation. The beloved Son in
the parable is Jesus Christ. Their casting him forth and killing him prophesied
the hierarchy's crucifixion of Jesus without the camp of Israel. The fact of the
Son's coming last of all shows the finality of God's revelation in Christ who is
God's last word to man. God's taking the vineyard away from the wicked
husbandmen and giving it to others is the replacement of Israel with Gentiles in
the main possession of the gospel. The householder's going into another country
for a long time stands for the absence of God, in a sense, during the long ages
when Israel was left unpunished for countless rebellions against God, in the
period required for the bringing of Christ into the world.
This is the heir; let us kill him ... This parable shows very clearly that the leaders
of Israel recognized Christ as the true heir of the throne of David, the head of the
Theocracy, and as the promised Messiah. The only flaw in their identification of
Christ was in this, that they failed to see that he was GOD come in the flesh.
He will destroy these husbandmen ... is a reference to the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In the third member of the trilogy, this prophecy took the
form of a king sending his armies, killing those murderers, and burning their
city (Matthew 22:7).
The stone which the builders rejected ... By this, Christ referred to himself. He is
the chief cornerstone; the builders (those wicked leaders) rejected him, but they
are not through with him; he will be the head cornerstone of the New Covenant.
For article on "Christ the Living Stone," see my Commentary on Romans,
Romans 9:33.
Every one that falleth on that stone ... This means "all who stumble at the
teachings of Christ."
On whomsoever it shall fall ... The imagery here appears to be from Daniel
2:34,44, in which the little stone "cut without hands" smote the kingdoms of the
world and ground them to powder. The Jews were still dreaming of the secular
kingdom; and by such a word as this Jesus called their attention to what God
would do with their worldly kingdoms. Jesus himself is the little stone; and in the
figure he warned the leaders that, although they were planning to kill him, there
would come the time when he would fall upon them.
Scatter as dust ... The scattering of Israel is in this. Frequently that word appears
in the New Testament, and not a few times it refers to God's judgment and
scattering of the chosen people because of their rejection of Christ. Too little is
24

made of this prophecy, the fulfillment of which is before the eyes of all
generations.
III. The theme of events being narrated in this chapter is that of the leaders of
Israel seeking to "destroy" Christ. In the question regarding authority, they had
been completely frustrated; and likewise in the parable of the wicked
husbandmen, it was quite obvious at last, even to the wicked leaders, that Christ
was speaking about them. They rallied and came back with a series of trick
questions, hoping to procure some word from Jesus that they could use as a
pretext for formal charges against him. The most likely area for them to explore
was the political issues of the day. This they did at once.
BURKITT, "In the parable before us, the Jewish church is compared to a
vineyard, God the father to an householder, his planting, pruning, and fencing
his vineyard, denotes his care to furnish his church with all needful helps and
means to make it fruitful; his letting it out to husbandmen, signifies the
committing the care of his church to the priests and Levites, the public pastors
and governors of the church; his servants are the prophets and apostles whom he
sent from time to time, to admonish them to bring forth answerable fruits to the
cost which God had expended on them; his son is Jesus Christ, whom the rulers
of the Jewish church slew and murdered. So that the design and scope of the
parable is, to discover to the Jews, particularly to the Pharisees, their obstinate
impenitency under all the means of grace, their bloody cruelty towards the
prophets of God, their tremendous guilt in crucifying the Son of God; for all
which God would unchurch them finally, ruin their nation, and set up a church
among the Gentiles, that should bring forth much better fruit than the Jewish
church ever did.
From the whole, note,
1. That the church is God's vineyard; a vineyard is a place inclosed, a place well
planted, well fruited, and exceeding dear and precious to the planter, and the
owner of it.
2. That as dear as God's vineyard is unto him, in case of barrenness and
unfruitfulness, it is in great danger of being destroyed and laid waste by him.
3. That the only way and course to engage God's care over his vineyard, and to
prevent its being given to other husbandmen, is to give him the fruits of it; it is
but a vineyard that God lets out, it is no inheritance: no people ever had so many
promises of God's favor as the Jews; nor ever enjoyed so many privileges while
they continued in his favor, as they did; but for rejecting Christ and his holy
doctrine they are a despised, scattered people throughout the world. See the note
on Matthew 21:39-40
BENSON, "Luke 20:9-19. A certain man planted a vineyard, &c. — See this
paragraph explained on Matthew 21:33-46, and Mark 12:1-12. And went into a
far country for a long time — It was a long time from the entrance of the
Israelites into Canaan to the birth of Christ. He shall destroy those
25

husbandmen — Probably he pointed to the scribes, chief priests, and elders; who
allowed, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, Matthew 21:41, but could
not bear that this should be applied to themselves. They might also mean, God
forbid that we should be guilty of such a crime as your parable seems to charge
us with, namely, rejecting and killing the heir. Our Saviour means, But yet ye
will do it, as is prophesied of you. He looked on them — To sharpen their
attention.
BI 9-19, "A certain man planted a vineyard
Lessons
1. Let us be thankful that God has planted His vineyard among us. We are
situated, not in any of the deserts, or wastes, or commons, of the world, but in the
vineyard, in “a garden inclosed,” in the very garden of the Lord.
2. Let us inquire whether we be rendering to the Lord of the vineyard the fruit
which He expects in its season.
3. Beware of resembling these wicked husbandmen in their conduct, lest you also
resemble them in their doom. What reception, then, are you giving to God’s
ministers, and especially to God’s beloved Son?
4. In the last place, see that you give to the Lord Jesus that place in your spiritual
building which is His due. Let Him be both at its foundation and at its top. Let
Him be both “the author and the finisher of your faith.” (J. Foote, M. A.)
God’s manifold mercy
Like the drops of a lustre, which reflect a rainbow of colours when the sun is
glittering upon them, and each one, when turned in different ways, from its prismatic
form shows all the varieties of colour, so the mercy of God is one and yet many, the
same yet ever changing, a combination of all the beauties of love blended
harmoniously together. You have only to look at mercy in that light, and that light,
and that light, to see how rich, how manifold it is. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
Fruitfulness the test of value
Years ago in Mentone they estimated the value of land by the number of olive-trees
upon it. How many bearers of the precious oil were yielding their produce? That was
the question which settled the value of the plot. Is not this the true way of estimating
the importance of a Christian Church? Mere size is no criterion; wealth is even a
more deceiving measure, and rank and education are no better. How many are
bearing fruit unto the Lord in holy living, in devout intercession, in earnest efforts for
soul winning, and in other methods by which fruit is brought forth unto the Lord?
(Sword and Trowel.)
Abused mercy
Nothing so cold as lead, yet nothing more scalding if molten; nothing more blunt
than iron, and yet nothing so keen if sharpened; the air is soft and tender, yet out of it
are engendered thunderings and lightnings; the sea is calm and smooth, but if tossed
26

with tempests it is rough beyond measure. Thus it is that mercy abused turns to fury;
God, as He is a God of mercies, so He is a God of judgment; and it is a fearful thing to
fall into His punishing hands. He is loath to strike, but when He strikes, He strikes
home. If His wrath be kindled, yea, but a little, woe be to all those on whom it lights;
how much more when He is sore displeased with a people or person! (John Trapp.)
The Son rejected
Turning to the parable, notice—
I. THE OWNER’S CLAIM. His right and authority are complete. God presses His
right to our love and service. Blessings are privileges, and privileges are obligations.
II. THE OWNER’S LOVING PATIENCE. There never was an earthly employer who
showed such persistent kindness towards such persistent rebellion. The account of
servants sent again and again, in spite of insults and death, is a faint picture of His
forbearance towards Israel. Mercies, deliverances, revelations, pleadings, gather, a
shining host, around all their history, as the angelic camp was close to Jacob on his
journey. But all along the history stand the dark and bloodstained images of mercies
despised and prophets slain. The tenderness of God in the old dispensation is
wonderful; but in Christ it appears in a pathos of yearning.
III. THE REJECTION.
IV. THE JUDGMENT. It was just, necessary, complete, remediless.
V. THE FINAL EXALTATION OF THE SON. (Charles M. Southgate.)
The rejected Son
I. GOD’S INTEREST IN HIS VINEYARD. The great truths of the Old Testament are
from the prophets rather than from the priests. The grand progress of truth has
depended upon these fearless men. The age without its prophet has been stagnated.
The priesthood is conservative; prophecy, progressive. The true prophet is always
great; truth makes men great. Only by a clear understanding of the accumulating
prophecies of the Old Testament can we appreciate the Divine care. In this lesson as
to the care of God for His vineyard, Christ has marked the distinction between the
functions of the prophets and Himself. They had spoken as servants; He as the Son.
In such a comparison is seen the transcendent revelation of God in Christ. He was
the heir. The interests of the Father were identical with His own. It was in such a
comparison that Christ declared the infinite grace of God in the incarnation and its
purpose.
II. THE IRREVERENCE OF MEN. The whole attitude of God toward His Church is
that of an infinite condescension and pity.
1. The attitude of these men toward the truth. The greatest conflicts have been
between the truth of God and the personal desires of men.
2. This antagonism is manifested in the treatment of those who are righteous. In
one sense he who accepts a truth becomes its personation, and as a consequence
must bear all the malignity of those who hate that same truth. Witness the
treatment of the prophets in evidence. Because Micaiah uttered that which was
displeasing to the government of Israel he was scourged and imprisoned. Because
the prophet Jeremiah gave an unwelcome prophecy to his king, although it was
the word of the Lord, he was thrown into a dungeon for his courage. No better
27

fate awaited the prophet Isaiah than to be sawn asunder by order of the ruler of
God’s chosen people. It was the high priest who obtained a decree for the
expulsion of Amos from Jerusalem.
3. This antagonism to the prophets of the truth is only a lesser expression of a
burning hatred toward God. The spirit of hatred to the prophets would result in
the killing of the Son of God. Whether the truth or man or God stands in the way
of this lust for power, the result is the same.
III. THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE. Repeatedly this truth is brought out in the life
of Christ. “They sought to lay hold on Him, but feared the people.” In these few
words we recognize the corrective of the terrible accusation against human nature. If
such a history is the expression of what is universal, then we must discern the fact
that the truth is more safe in the hands of the many than of the few.
IV. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE OWNER OF THE VINEYARD. In the parallel
account of this parable in Matthew, we read the question of Christ: “When the lord,
therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” In all
history this same truth has been often witnessed. The rejecters of God are self-
rejected from Him. The power that is not used for God is taken from us and given to
those who will use it. There are two practical suggestions very intimately connected
with this theme that we briefly notice. First: The greatest hindrance to Christ’s
kingdom may come from those who are the highest in the administration of its
affairs. Second: The stupidity of wickedness. These very men who robbed God were
robbing themselves. By planning to possess the vineyard they lost it. By attempting
to keep the owner away they cast themselves out. God controls His own kingdom and
Church. “The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner:
this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.” (D. O. Mears.)
Parable of the vineyard let to husbandmen
I. THE MATERIALS OF WHICH THE PARABLE IS COMPOSED are objects which
were familiar in Palestine, or common in warm countries; a vineyard, a proprietor,
and tenants.
II. Let us next attend to THE OBJECTS WHICH OUR SAVIOUR HAD IN VIEW IN
DELIVERING THIS PARABLE; or, what is the same thing, inquire what are the
important truths contained in it. The objects of our Saviour in this parable seem to be
1. To point out the singular advantages bestowed on the Jews as a nation.
2. Their conduct.
3. Their punishment.
4. The transference of their advantages to others
Inferences:
1. From this passage we may learn that we, as Christians, possess a portion of
that kingdom which the Lord Jesus came to establish. For the Christians came in
the place of the Jews. This kingdom consists in privileges, in blessings, in
superior knowledge, and superior means of improvement. Of those privileges we
have much cause to be grateful, but none whatever to be proud. For they were not
given because we were better than other nations: but they were bestowed solely
that we might cultivate and improve them, and become the blessed instruments
of conveying them to others.
28

2. That if we cease to bring forth the fruit of holiness, the kingdom of God will
also be taken from us. God has given us much, and therefore of us much will be
required. (J. Thomson, D. D.)
The Herodians and Pharisees combined against Jesus
1. The combination of men of opposite sentiments, in a particular case, affords no
proof that truth and justice are connected with their temporary union.
2. In the conduct of the scribes and Pharisees on this occasion we see the
disgraceful artifices which malice leads men to employ.
3. From this passage we may observe the perfect knowledge which Jesus had of
the characters, principles, and intentions of His enemies.
4. The wisdom of Jesus was also conspicuous on this occasion. Had He been a
mere man, we should have said He was distinguished by presence of mind. Now
His wisdom is strongly displayed here. He might have refused to answer the
question of the Pharisees and Herodians, as the Pharisees had done to Him. Or
He might have given some dark enigmatical reply which they could not have
perverted. But, instead of doing so, He gave a plain decided answer, without fear
or evasion.
5. The fearless regard to truth which the Lord Jesus displayed on this occasion
deserves to be carefully noticed. He did not mean to decline answering the
question, Whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. On the contrary, He
instantly declared that it was lawful; and not only lawful, but obligatory, as they
themselves had unwillingly confessed. For the allusion to the denarius struck
them forcibly; and they went away admiring the person whom they had come to
expose and overwhelm.
6. Lastly, we may observe the disposition which our Saviour always showed to
direct the attention of His hearers to the duty which they owed to God. If, then,
we are to render to God the things that are God’s, we must render everything to
God; for everything we have belongs to Him—our capacities, our opportunities,
our advantages, our blessings. (J. Thomson, D. D.)
It will grind him to powder
The madness of opposing Christ
“It is said that a hundred thousand birds fly against the lights of the lighthouses
along the Atlantic coast of the United States, and are killed annually.” So says a slip
cut from this morning’s newspaper. We need not be afraid in these excited times that
captious cavillers will put out our hope. The dark wild birds of the ocean keep coming
forth from the mysterious caverns; they seem to hate the glitter of the lenses. They
continue to dash themselves upon the thick panes of glass in the windows. But they
usually end by beating their wings to pieces on the unyielding crystal till they fall
dead in the surf rolling below. (C. S.Robinson, D. D.)
The wreck of infidelity
Some years ago, a man and his wife were found living in a wretched broken-down
house in a low part of London; and although the husband was down with illness, his
29

only bed was a little straw, with a coarse dirty wrapper for a covering, and a brick for
a pillow. An old chair and a saucepan appeared to be the only other furniture on the
premises, while the wife in attendance was subject to fits, which made her for the
time more like a wild animal than a woman. Though reduced to so wretched a
condition, this man was really gifted and educated; and in days of health and
strength he had worked with his pen for an infidel publisher. What, then, was the
cause of his downfall? It so happened that the sufferer answered this question
himself; for, casting his dull, leaden-looking eyes around the room after a visitor had
entered, he remarked, “This is the wreck of infidelity!”
10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the
tenants so they would give him some of the fruit
of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and
sent him away empty-handed.
GILL, "And at the season,.... Or "when it the time of fruit", as the Ethiopic version
renders it, agreeably to See Gill on Matthew 21:34,
he sent a servant to the husbandmen; or servants, as in Matthew 21:34; the prophets of
the Lord, his messengers, whom he sent to them, to exhort them to bring forth the
fruits of righteousness, as follows:
that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard; that is, that they, bringing forth
good fruit in their lives and conversations, whereby it might appear that they were
trees of righteousness, and the planting of the Lord; he, or they observing them, might
give an account of them to the Lord, to the glory of his name:
but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty; the Jews not only mocked
these messengers of the Lord, and despised their words, but misused them, 2
Chronicles 36:15 they beat them with their fists, smote them on the cheek, and
scourged them with scourges; so that they had no account to give of their fruitfulness
in good works, but the contrary; See Gill on Matthew 21:35 and See Gill on Mark
12:3.
JAMISON, "beat, etc. — (Matthew 21:35); that is, the prophets, extraordinary
messengers raised up from time to time. (See on Matthew 23:37.)
PETT, "Verses 10-12
“And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that they should give
him of the fruit of the vineyard, but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him
away empty. And he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and
handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And he sent yet a third, and
30

him also they wounded, and cast him out.”
When the appropriate time came, and no fruit was forthcoming, the owner then
sent a number of servants, one by one, in order to collect His portion of the fruit
of the vineyard. But in each case the servants were handled shamefully in order
to discourage them from persisting or returning. As so often ‘three’ indicates
completeness. These three cover all the prophets and men of God down to John.
None would have any difficulty here in recognising that this indicated all godly
men who had sought to speak to Israel, and none more so than the true prophets
whose treatment by Israel/Judah was a byword.
‘Sent -- a servant.’ See Jeremiah 7:25-26 - ‘I have sent unto you all my servants
the prophets, day by day rising up early and sending them -- but they made their
neck stiff and did worse than their fathers’, and 2 Chronicles 24:19 - ‘yet He sent
prophets to them to bring them again to the Lord’. (See also Matthew 23:30-36).
Compare also 2 Chronicles 36:15-19, ‘the Lord, the God of their fathers, sent
persistently to them by His messengers, because He had compassion on His
people, and on His dwellingplace, but they kept mocking the messengers of God,
despising His words and scoffing at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord
arose against His people, until there was no remedy --- therefore He slew their
young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary ---and they burned
down the house of God and broke down the walls of Jerusalem’. None knew
better than Jesus that history repeats itself. For the maltreatment of successive
men of God see also 1 Kings 18:13; 1 Kings 22:27; 2 Chronicles 24:20-21;
Nehemiah 9:26; and for the sending of prophets, Jeremiah 25:4; Amos 3:7
Zechariah 1:6. The consequences that followed are also clearly described.
Note that Luke deliberately leaves out the mention of the death of some of the
servants. He wants to emphasise the contrast between the servant and the son. It
is only the Son Whose death is really significant.
He sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the
vineyard. After the pains and care bestowed upon the vineyard, that is, after the
many mighty works done in Israel's behalf, the Lord of hosts looked for fruits of
gratitude and fidelity in some proportion to the mighty favours which it had
received from him. The people were intended to be the example to, and the
educators of, the world, and, instead of carrying out these high functions, they
lived the poor selfish life so sadly depicted in the long story contained in the
historical and prophetical books. "He looked that it [his vineyard] should bring
forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes" (Isaiah 5:2). But the husbandmen
beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they
beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And
again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. These
represent the prophets, those faithful servants of the Lord, whose toils and trials
and fate are painted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11.) in such glowing and
eloquent language. And again he sent. In Luke 20:11 and Luke 20:12, προσέθεο
31

πέμψαι, literally, "he added to send another"—a Hebraism. This shows St. Luke
here based his account on a Hebrew (Aramaic) original. Professor Bruce well
puts the thoughts which possessed the wicked husbandmen thus: "When the
servants came for fruit, they were simply surprised. 'Fruit! did you say? We have
occupied the position of vine-dressers, and have duly drawn our wages: what
more do you want?' Such was the actual fact in regard to the spiritual heads of
Israel. They were men who never thought of fruit, but only of the honour and
privilege of being entrusted with the keeping of the vineyard. They were triflers,
men utterly devoid of earnestness, and the practical purpose of the property
committed to their charge they habitually forgot. Generally speaking, they had
utterly lost sight of the end of Israel's calling." Their anger flamed forth when
accredited messengers of the Lord visited them and reminded them of their
forgotten duties; they vented their furious wrath by persecuting some and killing
others of these faithful men.
11 He sent another servant, but that one also
they beat and treated shamefully and sent away
empty-handed.
GILL, "And at the season,.... Or "when it the time of fruit", as the Ethiopic
version renders it, agreeably to See Gill on Matthew 21:34,
he sent a servant to the husbandmen; or servants, as in Matthew 21:34; the
prophets of the Lord, his messengers, whom he sent to them, to exhort them to
bring forth the fruits of righteousness, as follows:
that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard; that is, that they, bringing
forth good fruit in their lives and conversations, whereby it might appear that
they were trees of righteousness, and the planting of the Lord; he, or they
observing them, might give an account of them to the Lord, to the glory of his
name:
but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty; the Jews not only
mocked these messengers of the Lord, and despised their words, but misused
them, 2 Chronicles 36:15 they beat them with their fists, smote them on the
cheek, and scourged them with scourges; so that they had no account to give of
their fruitfulness in good works, but the contrary; See Gill on Matthew 21:35
and See Gill on Mark 12:3.
32

12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him
and threw him out.
GILL, "And again he sent the third,.... Perhaps after the return of the Jews from
captivity, and between that time and the coming of Christ, in which interval
many good men were used in a very inhuman manner, Hebrews 11:37
and they wounded him also; by casting stones at him; see Mark 12:4
and cast him out; of the vineyard.
13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What
shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love;
perhaps they will respect him.’
GILL, "Then said the Lord of the vineyard,.... Who planted it, and let it out to
husbandmen, and expected fruit from it, and sent his servants from time to time
for it:
what shall I do? or what can be done more than has been done? Isaiah 5:4 who
else can be sent that is likely to do any good with such an ungrateful and
unfruitful people?
I will send my beloved Son; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who lay in his
bosom, was the darling of his soul, and the delight of his heart; him he
determined to send, and him he did send to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:
it may be they will reverence him, when they see him: it might be thought after
the manner of men, that considering the greatness of his person, as the Son of
God, the nature of his office, as the Redeemer and Saviour of men, the doctrines
which he preached, the miracles which he wrought, and the holiness and
harmlessness of his conversation, and the great good he did both to the bodies
and souls of men, that he would have been had in great esteem and veneration
with the men, to whom he was sent, and among whom he conversed: but, alas!
when they saw him, they saw no beauty, comeliness, and excellency in him, and
nothing on account of which he should be desired by them.
JAMISON, "my beloved son — Mark (Mark 12:6) still more affectingly,
33

“Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved”; our Lord thus severing Himself
from all merely human messengers, and claiming Sonship in its loftiest sense.
(Compare Hebrews 3:3-6.) it may be — “surely”; implying the almost
unimaginable guilt of not doing so.
PETT, "Finally the owner of the vineyard decided that He would give them one
last chance. He would send to them his beloved son. This was with the twofold
hope, firstly that they would acknowledge the potential owner as having the right
to collect payment, and secondly in the hope that their consciences might be
moved at the thought of the special and precious beloved son, with the result that
that they would repent and respond to Him. They would recognise that while
they might get away with illtreating servants, it would be a very different matter
with the only son. In Isaiah 5:1-7 the Beloved was God Himself. Here the Beloved
is His Son. Compare also Luke 3:22, ‘You are My beloved Son’. The implication
was clear for all who had eyes to see. It is as clear a declaration of Jesus’
uniqueness, and of His Sonship as it is possible to have. Only the spiritually and
obstinately blind could fail to see it.
And yet, as was necessary at this time of such bitterness, His claim was couched
in such a way that it could not be used as an instrument against Him. All knew,
however, that if they questioned Him about it He would come back with one of
His devastating questions, such as, ‘Why do you think that this applies to Me?’
All would know that it did, and they would simply be left looking foolish. But it
would equally appear foolish to charge Him with blasphemy on account of it
unless they were willing to admit His claim.
The sending of the Son is seen as God’s final act towards men. If they will not
respond to Him, and to those who go out in His Name, they will not respond to
anyone. Hebrews 1:1-3 may well have partly resulted as a consequence of this
parable.
Some may argue that no father in his right senses would do such a thing, and
they would, of course, be right. But this is not speaking of any father. It is
speaking of God. And this is precisely what God amazingly did do. It is meant to
sound remarkable. It was remarkable (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9-10; Romans 5:8;
Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 1:1-3).
PULPIT, "Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do! I will send my
beloved son. The guilt of the husbandmen who acted as vine-dressers here
reached its highest measure. The words represented here by Jesus as spoken by
God, possess the deepest doctrinal value. They, under the thin veil of the
parable-story, answer the question of the Sanhedrim (Luke 20:2), "By what
authority doest thou these things?" The deliberative words, "What shall I do?"
recall the Divine dialogue alluded to in Gem. Luke 1:26. St. Luke here represents
the Father as calling the Son, "my Beloved." St. Mark adds that he was an only
Son. Such sayings as this, and the remarkable prayer of Matthew 11:25-27, are a
clear indication of the Christology of the synoptists. Their estimate of the Person
of the blessed Son in no wise differed from that given us by St. John at much
greater length and with fuller details.
34

14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked
the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said.
‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’
GILL, "But when the husbandmen saw him,.... In human nature, heard him
preach, and observed the miracles done by him:
they reasoned among themselves; as the Scribes and Pharisees, and elders of the
people often did:
saying, this is the heir; the heir of God, being his Son; and so the Ethiopic
version; "this Son is his heir", or the heir of the vineyard; being, by
appointment, heir of all things, and by his descent from David heir to the
kingdom of Israel;
come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. The Arabic and Persic
versions render it, "and his inheritance shall be ours": the nation, city, temple,
and all the emoluments and benefits thereof. The word "come" is left out in the
Alexandrian copy, and in the Gothic and Vulgate Latin versions.
JAMISON, "reasoned among themselves — (Compare Genesis 37:18-20; John
11:47-53).
the heir — sublime expression of the great truth, that God‘s inheritance was
destined for, and in due time to come into the possession of, His Son in our
nature (Hebrews 1:2).
inheritance … ours — and so from mere servants we may become lords; the deep
aim of the depraved heart, and literally “the root of all evil.”
PETT, "The reaction of the husbandmen is then given. Reasoning with each
other (which has been seen to be a trait of the Jewish leaders - Luke 20:5) they
determined what they would do. They would kill the heir so that they might
retain control of the inheritance. For the Law allowed for the fact that if those in
physical possession of land were able to farm it untroubled by anyone for a
number of years they could claim legal possession of it also.
Certainly as the Jewish leaders saw the great crowds hanging on to Jesus’ every
word they must have felt that ‘their inheritance’ was slipping away from them.
Thus the picture is graphic, and in view of their plans to kill Jesus, telling. And
once He was out of the way they would be able to regain control over the
inheritance.
35

The Authority of Jesus Questioned According to the Gospel of Luke

The Authority of Jesus Questioned According to the Gospel of Luke

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (15)

Ähnlich wie The Authority of Jesus Questioned According to the Gospel of Luke

Ähnlich wie The Authority of Jesus Questioned According to the Gospel of Luke (20)

Mehr von GLENN PEASE

Mehr von GLENN PEASE (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

The Authority of Jesus Questioned According to the Gospel of Luke