LUKE 20: 1-8 [JESUS’ LAST WEEK SERIES]
THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
In this last week of Jesus’ earthly life section Luke uses a series of dialogues to convey the controversy between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. The outcome of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple is that the religious leaders again rejected Him, and intensify the conflict between them. Jesus had upset the normal “religious” atmosphere of the temple, which led the religious leaders to question His authority to do so.
Jesus’ authority is of paramount importance, and His work as teacher and prophet requires validation. It is therefore include in each of the synoptic Gospels [: “By what authority are you doing these things?” (Matt 21:23; Mark 11:28; Luke 20:2)]. The leaders asked two questions: By what authority was He acting, and who gave Him this authority? (Luke 20:2) The first question dealt with the kind of authority Jesus was using. Was He a prophet, a priest, or a king? The second question dealt with who was backing Him. Did Jesus believe that He was acting on His own or was He acting for some group?
Their questions are answered by another question which reveals the interrogators’ inconsistency. He asked them about the authority behind John’s baptism. The religious leaders had disapproved the preaching of John, for John had humiliated them and had taken away some allegiance from their religious system (Matt. 3:7–10). Because the crowds believed John the Baptist to be a prophet, the religious leaders were afraid to deny his authority and therefore refused to answer Jesus’ question (Luke 20:7; 19:48). So Jesus therefore refused to answer … by what authority He had cleansed the temple. The obvious implication is that He was doing His work with the same authority from God in heaven by which John the Baptist preached and baptized. [Martin, J. A. (1985). Luke. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, pp. 254–255). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.]
I. A QUESTION RELATING TO THE BASIS FOR AUTHORITY, 1-2.
II. A QUESTION RELATING TO THE RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY, 3-8.
Having left Galilee where Herod Antipas held the jurisdiction Jesus was now teaching in Jerusalem and more specifically in the temple, the sphere of Sanhedren authority. As verse 1 reveals, the temple leaders quickly confront the one who had successfully challenged their authority. “One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up
Much of Jesus’ last days were spent “teaching in the temple” complex. His teaching no longer confined for those who followed Him but He openly taught all the people who drew near to listen. The thrust of His teaching was the good news of the kingdom. The uniqueness of His teaching power had always been evident. The people were amazed at the power and authority of Jesus’ teaching (4:32, 36) which their religious leadership were lacking.
The Sanhedrin, which was in effect the Jewish ‘parliament’, was composed of representatives from each of the three groups named here, chief priests, teachers of the law and elders, totaling seventy-one members under the chairmanship of the high priest. The chief priests were members of the leading high-priestly families and holders of various offices (e.g., the ruler of the temple, the leaders of the weekly and daily groups of priests, the captains and the treasurers). The elders were the lay representatives of the people. [Marshall, I. H. (1994). Luke. In D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham (Eds.), New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 1011). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.] [The chief priests were the temple officials; the teachers of the Law, often called “scribes,” were made up of both Pharisees and Sadducees; and the elders may have been laymen who were political leaders.]
The Sanhedrin representatives confront Jesus with two questions concerning His authority in verse 2. ‘and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.”
His opponents seeking for justification to kill Jesus tested Him at the point of authority. The two questions were intended to discredit Jesus by eliciting messianic claims they could disavow or so they could accuse Him of blasphemy or treason. The first question dealt with the kind of authority Jesus was using. Was He a prophet, a priest, or a king? No doubt the words “doing these things” referred to the authority to clear out the temple, but also His power to cast out demons (4:36) and to forgive sins (5:24).
The second question dealt with who was backing Him. Did Jesus believe that He was acting on His own or was He acting for some group?
The reason they questioned Jesus’ authority was because they believed they had bases for their authority. The scribes had studied with rabbis to qualify them to teach the law. The priests had inherited their authority because they came from the linage of Aaron and Levi. The elders had the authority of age and experience that had gained them leadership in the social and economic affairs of the community. They compared themselves to this back-country preacher Jesus with no formal training with the rabbis, no priestly linage and no experience with the elders. How dare He usurp their positions and contradict their decisions. They wanted to expose Jesus’ lack of credentials and thus rob Him of the authority everyone saw and heard in His life and teachings. [Trent, Butler. HNTC, Luke. Nashville, TN. 2000. P 332.]
II. A QUESTION RELATING TO THE RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY, 3-8.
In acceptable Jewish and Hellenistic style Jesus replied with a counter-question in verses 3 & 4. ‘He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me, (4) was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?”
I will tell you if you tell me. Jesus avoids the trap by asking about John the Baptist’s authority. Was it divine or human authority that empowered John’s ministry? [By the baptism of John, his whole ministry and mission, of which baptism was the seal is intended.] Let them first tell him whether John the Baptist had received his authority from heaven, i.e. from God (15:18), or from men.
John claim no authority except from heaven. Neither did Jesus. Would the Jewish authorities admit to and submit to heavenly authority? No they would not even recognized the rightful authority of the one and only Son of God nor His teachings and so they set a president for religious and political leaders everywhere which still exists to this day.
In verse 5 the leaders discuss the expressing of their belief in the teaching and the heavenly authority of John. “And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’
The trappers were trapped. If the group had replied “from heaven” they would be acknowledging that they should have gone to him in repentance and been baptized. Jesus then could have asked them why they did not accept John (Mt. 21:32) and it would also have implied that He Himself also had divine authority. [“Why then did you not believe?”—that is, in his testimony to Jesus, the sum of his whole witness.]
In verse 6 they discuss the other option of expressing their disbelieve in the authority of John. “But if we say, ‘From man,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.”
The dilemma they made for themselves was that if they denied the authority of John, they would have landed themselves in trouble with the people who certainly regarded John as a prophet. They did not want to be publicly seen as rejecting one acknowledged as a true prophet of God. Jesus has built a solid analogy, but they will not accept either John or Jesus. The private dialogue reveals the blatant hypocrisy of the ruling counsel.
In verse 7 the conniving leaders plead ignorance. “So they answered that they did not know where it came from.
Successfully cornered, they respond that they could not tell. The conniving, crooked, cowardly hypocrites! No wonder Jesus gave them no answer (Mt 7:6). But what dignity and composure does our Lord display as He turns their question upon themselves! Their answer, we don’t know, was pitifully weak, and Jesus in effect won the argument. Yet the story is not about Jesus’ outwitting people in argument. Rather it shows how the questioners were unwilling to admit divine authority when they saw it and could not make up their minds what to do in the situation.
The leaders were only looking to justify killing Jesus but feared the crowds who supported Jesus.
In verse 8 Jesus acknowledges that they did not meet their end of His bargain. “And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
His opponents realize that however they answer they will provoke the crowd. When they refuse to answer, Jesus claims the same privilege.
Jesus implied that, because they hadn’t responded to John’s identification of Him as the Lamb of God, it was pointless to provide them with further identification. To the audience though the answer is clear. The Jewish leaders would not allow their centralized, self-contained, self- perpetuated authority for leadership to be challenged. No heavenly authority would be considered if it contradicted their own, even if it came straight from God Himself.
The implication of Jesus’ question is clear (vv. 3–4). Jesus refused to give more light to those who refused to accept the light they had (v. 8) and make a clear decision concerning it (vv. 5–7). They refused to live according to their awareness of the heavenly dimension of life (v. 7), choosing instead to stay on a worldly consciousness level.
Men often pretend to examine the evidences of revelation, and the truth of the gospel, when only seeking excuses for their own unbelief and disobedience. Christ answered these priests and scribes with a plain question about the baptism of John, which the common people could answer. They all knew it was from heaven, nothing in it had an earthly tendency. Those that bury the knowledge they have, are justly denied further knowledge. It was just with Christ to refuse to give account of His authority, to those who should know the baptism of John to be from heaven, yet would not believe in him, nor own their knowledge. [Henry, M., & Scott, T. (1997). Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary (Lk 20:1). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.]
IN CLOSING
The Jewish authorities wanted to know what authority Jesus had to cast moneychangers out of the Temple and teach the Word. Instead of answering directly, Christ countered with a question about whether John the Baptist’s ministry was of God or not. Since they refused to acknowledge or disown Jesus’ forerunner (due to political expediency), they deserved no further revelation from Christ (vs. 8).
If you will but acknowledge what the Spirit of God is revealing to you, He will lead you into greater truth, until you clearly see that Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior of the world.
Will you do that now?
[On Sunday, as Jesus rode into Jerusalem, He was hailed as King. On Monday, as He cleansed the temple, He acted as the Great High Priest. Here, on Tuesday, as He answers with tremendous skill and wisdom every question hurled at Him, He will show Himself to be a Prophet like no other. Prophet, Priest, and King are the three offices only Jesus can and does hold simultaneously. [Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson’s Application Commentary (p. 398). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.] [This is the first of a five controversies with the leadership in Luke 20.]
