Comments for September 27

It clearly is the purpose of this narrative now to start at the beginning of David's influence over the nation, and this chapter represents a very brief introduction to this aim. This record is clearly not inclined to dwell on the things of Saul!

10:1 Now we backtrack to the end of the reign of Saul, the first king in Israel.
10:8 The events recorded here are paralleled in 1 Samuel 31:8 Compare the two accounts.
10:11 The men of Jabesh Gilead had been delivered by Saul 1 Samuel 11:1-13 This doubtless explained their valiant actions.

v.13 shows the nature of unforgivable sin. It is a matter of heart. No sin is any worse than any other in the sense that the smallest sin leaves us in need of God's grace. It is certain that the sins which are recorded of David would prevent his entry into eternal life, were it not for the grace of God. So we have to conclude that it is not the presence or absence of sin which affects our salvation, but the attitude of humility and contrition which God requires, which was not present in Saul.

:1-14 The death of Saul at the hands of the Philistines

So the book of Chronicles dismisses the whole of the reign of Saul in one chapter. No mention of any of his activities. Chronicles is concerned with the line of David. Hence Saul is passed over so quickly.

TIME TO DIE

There could be an apparent contradiction here. Saul's death is recorded for us. At first we read that "when the archers overtook him, they wounded him. Saul said to his armour-bearer, 'Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will, come and abuse me.' But his armour-bearer was too terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it ... So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together." (1 Chronicles 10 v 3 - 6) But then, at the end of the chapter we read that "The LORD put him to death." (1 Chronicles 10 v 14)

Saul's time was up. The LORD had declared that David would be king over Israel and this was the time that Saul should be removed from being king. Saul may have taken his own life but God determined the time and place it should happen. It may have seemed like Saul's life was in his own hands, but it was not. The LORD put him to death. Just as easily, even against all of Saul's wishes, God could have kept him alive, but his time was up.

In just the same way God is in perfect control of our lives. He has a plan for us and will see that plan through. We have no control over the day of our birth or the day of our death, so let us also trust God for every moment in between.

When we learn that Saul was fighting the Philistines near Gilboa we realise that Saul's kingdom was confined to the hill country. A review of a map will explain that the Philistines were in control of the whole of the coastal plain and the Jezreel valley.

10:6 In saying 'his whole house died together' we have to realise that there were other of his or his sons' descendants still living after this event.  Mephibosheth, for example, was still alive for he came to David some years  later (2Sam 9:6) The point that is being made here is that the line of kings through Benjamin was over.

The details of this chapter have no relation to the preceding genealogies and seem to be inserted solely to introduce the narrative of David's elevation to the throne. The parallel between the books of Samuel and Chronicles commences with this chapter, which relates the issue of the fatal battle of Gilboa almost in the very same words as 1Sam 31:1-13

1Chron 10:13,14gives an interesting summary of Saul's sins.  Looming large in that list is Saul asking the future from a woman with an evil spirit.  How God hates such things!

V.14 In view of 1Sam 28:6, it would appear that "he enquired not of the LORD" that Saul did not habitually or perseveringly enquire of the LORD, or that he failed to enquire at the ark or of God's high priest. Possibly, when answers were given, he rejected them as not coming from the Lord.

10:13-14 And so the reason for the rejection of Saul is stated baldly and simply – he didn’t enquire of God. The details are outlined in the book of Samuel but the reasons can be simply stated as they are here.

V.13 The demise of Saul is explained by the chilling words: Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD.  But, Saul's end is the same for all who are unfaithful to Yahweh. 

Jesus exhorts the ecclesia at Smyrna to: Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life (Rev 2:10). 

We are part of the same ecclesia of Christ, and so the exhortation applies to us.  Let us, then, hold fast to our faith in these last days: ...but he who stands firm to the end will be saved (Matt 10:22).

10:9 In taking Saul’s head and armour the Philistines are copying what David did to Goliath – 1Sam 17:54

10:1 We must remember that the historical narrative which starts here with the death of Saul does not naturally follow on from the list of names which we have been reading. The lists run right on past Saul. The lists, in part, provide the historical background to the history. We are now being provided with the background to the reign of David.

10:5 Here we have the historical details of the death of Saul. The record in 2Sam 1:1-10 recounts what an Amalekite said. He is lying because he thought to ingratiate himself with David.  There is no contradiction between these two accounts. One is historically accurate. The other is an account of the attempt by an Amalakite to cash in on the death of Saul. 

V.10 Dagon originated in Babylon, but it became associated as the Philistine god.  Dagon had the head and arms of a man but the body of a fish. 

The dress of bishops in the Catholic and Anglican Churches is patterned after Dagon.  The bishop’s mitre - it opens like the mouth of a fish.  The bishop’s cloak flows down from the mitre like the body of a fish flows from its mouth.

10:2 When we think of Saul’s sons our mind focuses on Jonathan. Here we are reminded that, in fact, he was one of three. He figures prominently because of his Godly support of David.

10:1  So the Chronicles record simply passes over the people’s choice of a king, and that king’s life.  Chronicles’ focus in of God’s kingdom.

10:4    The account here is the accurate historical narrative of the death of Saul. The claim of the Amalekite –2Sam 1:9-10 – was a fabrication to serve the ends, as he thought, of the Amalekite.

10:7  The way in which Israel, on learning of the death of Saul and his sons, fled gives an indication of the way in which the nation were locked in a regard for an earthly king rather than God.  Success or failure was not dependant on one man and his sons. It was in the hand of God.

Taking the easy way out

v14 "therefore He slew him [Saul], and turned the Kingdom unto David the son of Jesse"

If we read this verse in isolation, not knowing any of the story of David and Saul, what would we think had happened? It sounds like someone went to the King, struck him a blow with a sword, took his crown and put it on the head of David. It sounds surgical.

But the reality was anything but quick. Years had passed of David running away from Saul, being harried and persecuted. David's family and friends were never safe from Saul throughout all that time. It seems like a mess. Even when Saul finally died and David became King there were still 7 years of war between David's house and Saul's house.

When God decides to do something it is as good as done, but we must not forget that where people are concerned, things take time. David needed to grow from a boy into a man. He needed to go from Shepherd to King. He had to go from son to leader. His faith had to grow from self centred to being centred on his followers. David had to go through trials, temptations and ordeals in order to grow into the man that God wanted on the throne - an opposite to Saul. So we see that v14 is accurate, that it was surgical and precise, but the operation was still a long one. God, as the Master Craftsman of people's lives, can create change in our lives, but He uses circumstances to do so.

Perhaps the main difference between Saul and David was that David had time to prepare for Kingship, whereas Saul had it thrust on him suddenly. Next time we complain about character building circumstances, we can think of Saul and David. Saul who always took the easy way out, even at his death, or David who persevered and became a man after God's own heart.

10:1  A cursory look at a map will show that Mount Gilboa, in the Jezreel Valley, is quite some distance from the Gaza Strip – the home of the Philistines. We can, therefore, conclude that the Philistines were in control of the coastal plain and down into the Jezreel Valley. Quite a tract of land the majority of which should have been part of Saul’s kingdom. 

10:9    In the fact that the Philistines took tidings to their idols we see that their idols did not know what had happened. An indication, maybe, that the Philistines did not even consider that their idols were involved in their victory.

10:8    It appears that the Philistines had not realised that Saul had died in the battle.

10:4     It is as if, at last, Saul has appreciated the fact that the Philistines were not in a covenant relationship with God. Saul often encounters the Philistines but rarely notes that they are uncircumcised.

10:10   what we are told here fits into the historical narrative in 1Sam 31:10

10:2  the death of Saul’s three sons make it clear that the kingdom would not continue as Saul’s dynasty.

10:6 The emphasis that the whole of the family of Saul died –mentioned twice in the verse – forces a realisation that the dynasty of the House of Saul is over. Benjamin had been rejected as unsuitable for kingship. The tribe of Judah sow fills the breach – as God intended.

10:5 We might presume that Saul’s armour bearer killed himself because he felt that he had not protected Saul from the Philistines so deserved to die.

10:11-12 Saul was doubtless descended from a woman from Jabesh Gilead because women from there were stolen to provide wives for the remaining men of Benjamin in the time of the Judges – Judg 21:10-14. It seems their act of valour was to show respect to one of their own rather than respect for Saul because he had been the king of Israel – or was it that as Saul was king they valiantly recovered his body. Whatever the reason we should impute good motives. In the same way we should assume good motives for actions of our fellow believers rather than thinking the worst of them when we cannot know for certain their motives.

10:5  So we learn that Saul died. However the record informs us that Saul and his sons died on a number of occasions - :7,8,9,12,13,14 . More times than the way that the death of any future king is spoken of.

The record is making it very clear that the line of the house of Saul was over, especially when - :14 – we are told that the kingdom was turned to David.

v.20 - Strangely, an investigation into the word translated 'paramours' reveals that elsewhere the word (<0630> piylegesh) is translated concubine. Was there such a thing as a male concubine? If not, just what does this mean? Whatever it is telling us, the thrust of the issue comes in v.22 when the idols of her youth will now turn against her and destroy her. We know this to be a fact of life within the context of the way the first half of the chapter is presented, but do we learn the required lesson from reading these things? We must apply this to our lives and purify ourselves against it, so ensuring that we do not suffer the same fate.

23:10 famous Deuteronomy 28:37
23:46 to be removed Deuteronomy 28:25
23:1 - 21 picks up the theme of Eze 16 to show Israel how they had turned from Yahweh to serve the nations round about.
23:22 - 26 This is why the nations were to come against Israel. To show them that they should not place their trust in false gods or the nations.
23:27 The captivity was to rid them of such behaviour. The captivity was chastening from Yahweh.
23:47 'stone ... stones' catches the Levitical judgement on a woman who has gone and worshipped other gods as shown in Deuteronomy 17:5

v.4 - Aholah = "She has her own tent (or tabernacle)" where Aholibah = "My tent (or tabernacle) is in her" making the distinct difference between Samaria and Jerusalem, where both had turned to idolatry, yet the promises still applied to Jerusalem. Even in this chapter of doom there is evidence in these names that God still intended to make his tabernacle with men by the results of the work and life of Jesus, who would establish God's tabernacle with man eternally.

23:4 The naming of the names:-
Aholah She has her own tent
Aholibah Tent of the height

Aholah is Samaria - the northern kingdom
Aholibah is the kingdom of Judah centred in Jerusalem.

Samaria made her own system of worship - tent.
Jerusalem, whilst having been chosen by God - high- sought her own ways.

23:9 In saying that He had 'delivered her …' God is clearly speaking of the captivity of both Samaria and Jerusalem. It is rather like Psalm 81:12 which is quoted in Romans 1:26 to explain that the consequences of consistent false worship and actions is God's rejection.

V.20 A concubine is essentially a woman who co-habits a man outside of marriage. The term paramours (Heb. pilegesh) does mean concubine but can mean a male lover as well.

Israel was the bride who was supposed to be married to Yahweh but she committed adultery (idolatry) with those to whom she was not married. These lovers, the idolatrous nations around, are cast in the role of opportunistic males who are willing to accommodate a promiscuous wife.

V.9-10 The judgement of the Northern Kingdom is described in these two verses. Israel was "delivered into the hand of her lovers" when Hoshea was dethroned and the ten tribes carried captive into Assyria (2Kin 17:4-6). So with Judah: her lovers were to be her judges. Her heart became "alienated"( V22) from Babylon when Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar as recorded in 2Kin 24:1 and later when Zedekiah rebelled.(2Kin 24:20)

Vs.6,15,16,40 Jerusalem's idolatry is likened to a whore who had courted many suitors.  Dyeing garments and painting faces were part of attracting other people, often for illicit purposes.  Personal decorations were used by people with questionable reputations, like Jezebel (2Kin 9:30).  Jeremiah's description of Jerusalem's downfall could easily be a description of Jezebel's demise (Jer 4:30). 

Dyeing in the ancient Near-East was an important industry.  The main colours were blue, red (crimson), and purple.  Blue was obtained from the rinds of pomegranates; crimson from grubs that fed on oak trees; and purple from a tiny shellfish found on the Phoenician coast. 

For painting the lips, ochre (red) was used.  Various materials (depending upon the colour desired), in powdered form, were used to paint the eyes.  Water, or gum, was added to the powder, and the substance applied to the lids.  Heavy black lines were painted in an almond shape around the eyes to make them look bigger.   

God went right back to Israel’s beginnings, in this chapter, and spoke of the time when Israel was in Egypt, and then how they settled in the promised land.  Both parts are portrayed as daughters, the north and the south. Judah in the south would know how the north had been taken captive, and this would ensure they got the message. Israel’s sins against God are adultery. God was Israel’s husband, (see Jer 3:14). Therefore the Lord God is to punish the lewd women, Aholah and Aholiabah (Eze 23:44)

23:3  In saying that Israel committed whoredoms ‘in their youth’ he is speaking of the nation in Egypt again – He has already done this in Eze 20:7-8. So the nation are no better now than they were when they were delivered from Egypt.

V.20 Judah lusted after other nations and their idolatrous practices.  Her insatiable desire is couched in animalistic terms.  This analogy is a clearly pointing to their disobedience by referencing the Law (Lev 18:23).   

23:10 ‘famous’ carries the idea of ‘byword’ in Deut 28:37. Ezekiel is again showing how the curses that would follow Israel if they were faithless are coming upon them.

23:11 Aholibah (Judah) having seen the warning (note V.10) of Aholah (Israel), before her eyes, instead of profiting by it, went to even greater lengths in corruption. They constantly looked to Egypt for help instead of the Lord her God. Now the Babylonians and their allies would bring about the punishment decreed by God.

23:46 in speaking of being ‘removed’ the prophet harks back to his behaviour – Eze 12:3– and also the terrible warning that Moses had given – Deut 28:25

FAMILIARITY AND CONTEMPT

The picture of Jerusalem and Samaria as two adulterous sisters is a very sad one. These two sisters had everything they could have wanted. God was their husband. They were given everything that was good for them and they lacked nothing. But it seems that familiarity brought contempt. They were no longer satisfied with the LORD and lusted after other gods just as an adulterous wife lusts after other men. No doubt the new men were exciting. They dressed differently, they spoke differently, there were things to learn about them - but the pleasure was short lived. Soon these new men would surround the sisters, strip them, beat them and leave them for dead.

Would we ever abandon God in the same way? Would we do it to our families? Of course not! Yet the same situation does happen very easily when we become familiar with a person or routine. Why is it that our best behaviour is saved for people other than our families? Why is it that going to church each week can be hum-drum, but going to a party is much more exciting?

Yes, the same attitude can happen to us. It is all too easy. Let's always give our best to those that are most important to us. Usually those people are not strangers, they are our family, and most importantly, the Lord God and his Son, Jesus. Let's not treat them with the contempt that comes from familiarity, but with the honour deserved by those we love.

V.4 Aholah (she has her own tent) signified Samaria = Israel.  Aholah had her own tent (tabernacle) because Jeroboam had set up two golden calves, one in Bethel and the other in Dan. Ahola courted Assyria and was eventually taken captive.

Aholibah (My tabernacle) signified Jerusalem = Judah.  There were no golden calves set up in Judah.  Yahweh was worshipped (my = Yahweh’s tabernacle).  However, Judah was worse that Israel and allowed Babylon to corrupt her.  She did not take to heart the example of her sister Aholah’s disastrous relationship with Assyria.

Back to where we started

The picture language of Jerusalem as a woman is developed in Chapter 16. But Chapter 23 gives us some important additional information. Here in v2 we see that the girl/nation was already maturing whilst in Egypt. So this can't be talking about the birth of the nation of Israel at the Exodus. Instead 16:3-6 must refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with whom the nation started, and was almost lost in its infancy due to the famine at the time of Joseph (see Gen 42:2 and 43:8). But God delivered the infant nation and caused it to live by sending Joseph to Egypt (Gen 45:5-11 compare Eze 16:6-7).

Chapter 23 also gives us the additional information that she/they were born in Chaldea (23:15) which would confirm their birth as being the calling of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 11:31). God is making the point that Israel have come full circle and been absorbed back into the world they were called away from - which is a powerful point for us personally; in lurid picture language we can't possibly misunderstand.

23:40 ‘from afar’ speaks of the coming of the Babylonians against Jerusalem.

23:47  The warning that the sons and houses will be burn echoes the words of 2Chron 36:17,19

23:5    Whilst Ezekiel is speaking about what will happen to Judah he reminds them that the northern kingdom – Samaria – despite her attempts at liaisons with Assyria – still went into captivity.

23:7   The “whoredoms” of course, of false worship. False worship is likened to sexual immorality to bring the nation face to face with the consequences of their sinful behaviour. That false worship is likened to sexual immorality is common in Scripture and is a consequence of not listening to God’s word. A very clear example is to be found in Prov 7:1-27

1.Ezekiel chapters 16 and 23 are similar though 16 is more about the Canaanite religion and 23 has more emphasis about trusting in political alliances with other nations as opposed to trusting in God's leadership and protection .

2. Eze 23:4 - "Aholah"(<170> "her own tent") or Samaria/Israel built and designed her own places of worship (1Kin 12:26-31,33); "Aholibah"(<172> "my tent [is] in her") refers to Jerusalem/Judah where God chose to have His habitation (1Kin 8:27-33).

3. Eze 23:11 - instead of Judah learning a lesson from what happened to Israel/Samaria, she became even more corrupt than her sister to the north; the reason for God punishing (Eze 23:28-31,49).

4. unfaithful Israel and Judah to God contrasted to the faithfulness of Christ to his bride:

5. Eze 23:40;Matt 3:16-17 - "wash thyself".

6. Eze 23:31-33;Matt 20:22;26:27,28,39 - the cup.

7. Eze 23:41;Psa 23:5;Luke 22:19-21;1Cor 10:21 - "a 'table'<7979> prepared".

8. Eze 23:25;Luke 21:50-51 - taking ears vs healing ears.

9. Eze 23:6 - "Blue"(<8504> violet) vs scarlet/purple (Mark 15:16;Matt 27:28 ).

10. Eze 23:42;Mark 15:17;Matt 27:29;Heb 2:9;Rev 14:14 - a crown.

11. Eze 23:37,45 - "blood is in their hands...women that shed blood" vs shed blood that was on Christ's hands (Psa 22:16;John 20:25-27;Isa 53:12;Luke 22:20).

12. Eze 23:36,37,39 - children were offered as a burnt sacrifice to idols vs Christ who saves children and was the ultimate unblemished voluntary burnt offering (Isa 53:10;Lev 1:3;9:2-3).

13. Eze 23:12 - "rulers clothed most gorgeously" vs clothed in garments of righteousness (Isa 61:10;Psa 132:9;Rev 3:5;Rev 1:13;15:6;John 20:12;Luke 24:4;Matt 28:2-3).

14. Eze 23:45,47;Lev 20:10;Deut 22:20-25;John 8:3-5 - stoning for being judged unfaithful vs Christ's second coming to be a stone entering in a millenium of salvation because he was/is faithful (Dan 2:34-35,44-45).

23:7-9 Seeking help from both Egypt and Assyria was fruitless. Israel went into captivity. We should learn from this. Serving sin, whilst initially seeming to bring benefits, actually ends in death.

23:35      We see that the prophet, moved by God, links immorality with turning away from God. He is the only source of knowledge and wisdom about morality. If we shun Him and His word then we will begin to follow an immoral lifestyle. We may not descend into sexual immorality but we certainly will engage in spiritual immorality.

23:1-49    The way in which the behaviour of Israel and Judah is portrayed as behaviour even worse than harlots might embarrass us. However God uses this way to highlight how abhorrent false worship is to Him.

23:35    The way in which those in captivity had cast God behind their back is reminiscent of Jeroboam’s evil behaviour as seen in 1Kin 14:9

23:47-49         A rather extreme solution! The wickedness was to be removed by removing the wicked. This was a last resort for God. His objective was that the people would repent so that He did not need to destroy them. It was only because of their unwillingness to repent that they were finally destroyed.    

23:6,12,23 Three times, speaking of Israel and Judah’s turning to Assyria and the Chaldeans, God speaks of those nations as “all of them desirable young men”. We should appreciate that sin is appealing to us. If it wasn’t we would not do it.

23:38 notice how God speaks. The people had, by their false worship, defiled the temple but God speaks of it as impacting on Him. In like manner our behaviour impacts on God.

23:1-31 Siblings learn from each other. Younger children seem to learn from their elders. In the case Ezekiel is speaking of both Samaria and Judah turn away from God. We should remember that we learn from each other. We should, however, seek to learn from good, not bad example. The company we keep affects how we think and behave – 1Cor 15:33

23:28 Chapters  20 - 23 appear to have been spoken at the same time to the elders who came to sit before Ezekiel. One major theme of this event is the impact of Egypt on Israel. The impact was Israel learnt idolatry. We find this mention repeatedly-  20:7-8, 23:8,19,27. Israel were taken to Egypt in Jacob’s day by God because of the famine. So God’s love was seen. In Egypt Jacob’s children did not see Yahweh’s deliverance. They just saw the idol worship and copied that. Freed from sin and death do we gaze at what is around us or reflect on the deliverance we have gained?

23  Ezekiel 16 reproved Jerusalem for her godless behaviour. Now Ezekiel, under the power of inspiration, turns to the two nations, Isabel and Judah, to make the point that Judah did not learn from the fact that Israel had been taken captive by the Assyrians for their godless behaviour.

23:11-12  The capture of the northern kingdom in the days of Hoshea by the Assyrians should have been a salutary warning to Judah in the south. However it was not. They, according to God, behaved even more corruptly that the northern kingdom. This might surprise us as we might think that the kingdom in the north was worse as it never had a good king. However God’s view is different. It is different because the lesson of the evil in the north was not learnt, it was simply ignored.

v.25 - This basic principle pervades NT teaching. We must be sure that we stay within the confines of the law of the land and give honour to rulers. It is God's wish that we do this. Rom.13:6-7, 1Pet.2:13-17. On the other hand, if the law of the land denied worship, Peter was quick to put his faith on the line - Acts 4:19-20,29

20:9 certain man planted a vineyard Isaiah 5:1
20:14 saw him Genesis 37:18
20:14 let us kill him Genesis 37:18
20:14 inheritance Psalm 2:8
20:17 The stone ... of the corner Psalm 118:22
20:18 whomsoever ... grind him to powder Daniel 2:34
20:42 The Lord ... footstool Psalm 110:1
20:47 devour widows houses Ezekiel 22:25

20:1 - 6 The question of the authority of John is not a 'cop out'. John had testified of Jesus. If they did not believe John then they would not believe Jesus. The question of Jesus' authority had already been established by John the Baptist. All three 'synoptic' gospels present this discussion. Matthew 21:25 Mark 11:30 Luke 20:4
20:27 - 33 The Jews seemed to - and still do - delight in hypothetical discussions. Jesus demonstrates that Scripture cuts through the trivia of hypothetical discussion and provides a clear answer. The warning is clear for us - as we, at times, seem to indulge in such discussions. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians said 'prove all things' 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and this should be our approach. There is no value discussion hypothetical issues. Real life problems that we experience are sufficient to keep our minds exercised without having to dream up problems!
20:40 This marks the end of the 'examination' of Jesus during the three days that the Passover lamb was kept up from the 10th to the 14th of the month. It is recorded in both other accounts. Matthew 22:46 Mark 12:34

When comparing the parable of the vineyard (20:9-16) we notice some variations between here and Matthew. On this occasion the response is 'God forbid' (2016) whereas Matt 21:41 has 'He will miserably destroy …' The resolution to the seeming contradiction is this. The common people give the response recorded in Matt 21 whereas Luke records the horrified response of the leaders on hearing the response of the common people. They did realise that the parable was spoken against them (Matthew 21:45) and so would see the implications of the common people's response.

:14 That they 'saw him' and 'reasoned' and said 'let us kill him' Jesus returns to the life of Joseph (Genesis 37:18) and continues the theme started in the parable of the prodigal son (see ...note on Luke 15).

20:46-47 Jesus short warning here is amplified inMatt 23 which was spoken at the same time as this. 

V.21 "Master, we know that thou...teachest the way of God truly" So truthful is Christ that even his enemies admit it

20:21  ‘Master we know …’ shows the true motives of those who were speaking to Jesus. How often do we flatter people to trap them? Are we always honest in our motives?

V.46-47 Certain things never change. At the time of Jesus they had the scribes here described by Luke. This is not unlike what it is like with many of the organisations that we are surrounded by in the twenty first century.

Vs.1,2 The chief priests and the scribes asked Jesus to justify His authority.  If He had replied: God, then they would have claimed to have the same authority.  Not wishing to be associated with them, look how Jesus replied (vs.3-8).  He applied Prov 26:4.    

V.17 Jesus quoted Psa 118:22 in which He is described as the cornerstone or capstone.  A cornerstone is a right-angled stone found at the base of two conjoined walls.  Both walls are built upon this shared stone.  The figure aptly describes Jesus because He is the conjunction of two walls: the Jews and the Gentiles. The Old Covenant and the Law grew out of Him, around Him, for Him; and so did the New Covenant.

20:39  When ‘certain of the scribes’ thought Jesus had given a good answer it is probable that they viewed his answer as a good debating answer rather than a profound Scriptural one. We do well to realise, in our discussions, that it is not simply a matter of making a ‘good point’. Rather it is a matter of presenting Bible truth which should affect the way we live.

20:42,44        Doubtless this very question had been debated by the Jewish leaders for centuries. That they did not have an answer to the question highlighted that they approached Scripture from their own pre-conceived stand point. What about ourselves?

Luke 20:37 We might never have thought of using Exo 3:6 to prove that there will be a resurrection. However Jesus’ use of this passage demonstrates that it is proof. Why is that so? In the next verse Jesus says ‘for all live unto him’ but clearly Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have no consciousness at the movement. Therefore Jesus’ point is that as far as God is concerned they are still alive in His consciousness. Isn’t it a wonderful comfort that even when we are dead our God remembers us?

Vs.35,36 These verses give important information about those who will be accepted at the judgment.  Those accepted will form the Redeemed, who will be with Jesus in His work in the Kingdom.

The Redeemed are sometimes termed the multitudinous Christ because of their inseparable relationship with Jesus. And, because of this special relationship, the Redeemed will be greater than the angels, as Jesus Himself is greater.

And so, the term: equal to angels (ESV) does not imply that the Redeemed and the angels are equal in status.  The phrase supports the previous clause: for they cannot die anymore (ESV) which shows that the Redeemed will be immortal like the angels are immortal. It is the immortality which is equal and not the status.

20:44-45  Notice that Jesus asks the question and then moves directly into a warning about the scribes. Clearly they had no answer to the question worth listening to and so they deserved the condemnation of Jesus.

v9  In what sense did God go into a far country for a long time?  Is this a reference to the period from Malachi to Matthew?

v15  Similarly, Golgotha was outside the city walls

v16  Give the vineyard to others - the gentiles?   The expression God forbid is only found elsewhere in Paul's writings.  Was Paul present in the audience at this time?

v17  This is a quote from Psalm 118.  Earlier, his disciples had been quoting it and the authorities had tried to silence them, perhaps successfully? (Luke 19:39)  Now Jesus is able to return to the Psalm and does so again later, Matt 23:39 making the point that it refers to him and that Scripture cannot be silenced.

20:16 Jeremiah, when speaking of the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, uses similar language in Jer 8:13. Doubtless the Jewish leaders understood the force of Jesus’ words.  The temple was to be destroyed.

20:3-4   Jesus is not avoiding the question. Rather there would be little point answering the question saying that John Baptist had spoken of him unless those questioning Jesus recognised the authority of John the Baptist.

Luke 20:27-38.

20:6  How often is our behaviour conditioned by what others will think of us? This was a major problem for the religious leaders. They should have been giving the people an example as to how to live but in reality they chose to be influenced by the people.

20:43  An element of the quotation – Psa 110:1– speaks of David’s lord sitting at the right hand of Yahweh. So implicit in the Psalm  is the resurrection of Jesus to immortality.

The parable of the Vineyard in v9-16 has its counterpart in Luke 11:47-51.

20:19  In seeking to lay hands on Jesus the leaders were showing that Jesus’ parable was a true description of their attitude. How often do our action demonstrate the truth of some uncomfortable thing that might be said of us?

Luke 20:23-26  - they refused to answer about the inscription.

http://mindrenewers.com/2013/03/26/whose-is-this-image-and-superscription

http://www.thelordsway.net/Beliefs/render.htm

on the inscription of the denarius it reads "Tiberious Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, Augustus" - Tiberious was claiming to be the son of the divine.

from a talk given by S. Cheetham 8/23/15 at Moorestown, NJ, USA

19:12 Here we have an indication from Jesus that after his resurrection he would not be around for some time but would return. Doubtless at the time Jesus said these things no one understood what he was saying. After his resurrection and promise to the disciples – Acts 1:11 – these words would have made a lot more sense to them.

20:20  The “governor” is Pilate. Whilst the Jews were concerned to indict Jesus on the basis of  blasphemy they realised that Pilate would not be interested in such a charge so they seek to find a charge which will cause the Romans to be willing to charge Jesus.

20:5      We should never ned to think about what others might think before we answer a question in order to give an answer which avoids the truth behind the question.

20:13   When Jacob wanted to see how his sons fared he sent Joseph who was his favourite son. This detail adds yet another dimension to the parable of the wicked husbandmen

20:17  The way in which the opponents of the lord of the vineyard would “grind them to powder” echoes the way in which the stone in Dan 2 would destroy the image – Dan 2:35.

20:18 falling o the stone and being broken speaks of submitting to Jesus’ authority. Something the Jewish leaders were unwilling to do.

20:8 As John has testified of Jesus’ status and the leaders did not acknowledge what John said there was little point in Jesus actually answering the question. They had undermined the foundations so there was little point building on the foundations that John had laid.

20:17 In quoting Psa 118:17 “the stone … corner” Jesus is drawing attention to the same Psalm that the people were using  as Jesus came to Jerusalem. We will see Jesus use the Psalm again – Matt 23:39 – the last words in his public ministry

20:6  “all the people” recognised John the Baptist as a “prophet” but the Jewish leaders would not. Why?

The reason is clearly that they, of they recognised John as a prophet, would have to accept that their self-appointed status would be removed.

20:20 Whether Jesus knew who the individuals were who came to challenge him or not was irrelevant. Jesus always answered accurately and based on scripture whoever he spoke with. He was not a respecter of person. Rather he was one who respected God’s word. This was whether those who came were spies of true men.

Luke 20:17

“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?”

“MEN were engaged in the building of a house for the accommodation of the government of a state. They had made their plans and were gathering the material. Many were engaged in the work; but as was usual in the East, the master-builders alone knew the plans and others worked to their directions. In every worth-while building, just above ground level at the principal corner, a special stone was placed. It was selected for its freedom from flaws and was carefully prepared—its sides being accurately squared. It was, more than any other stone in the building, a ‘tried stone.’ All other stones would be built in alignment with it.

A stone was offered the master-builders about which exceptional claims were made. The stone was examined, but certain prejudices in the builders prevented them from discerning its qualities. They rejected it. But another Master-builder knew of the stone and its perfect suitability for a building he was erecting. He obtained the stone, and it was placed in a structure of unique characteristics. The building was erected in line with the stone, and men marveled at the beauty and grace of the building.”

John Carter, Parables of the Messiah, pp. 140,151

In Isa 28:16, we read of this prophecy and fulfilled in Christ, the Cornerstone and a sure foundation of our faith (Matt 21:42; Eph 2:20; Psa 118:22). Jesus, the Cornerstone, is also a “tried stone;” his followers are compared to as “living stones” rejected by men, but chosen by God, being built upon a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, offering up spiritual sacrifices acceptable and pleasing to God through Christ - but, let us not forget we are also “tried stones”  (1Pet 1:7; 2:4,5; 4:12,13).

Cf. IT HAS BEGUN!!! (brEAKING WORLD NEWS) (youtube.com)/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v3RDPCo8n51/