Luke 20:1Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Yet they foolishly challenge Him, asking, “By what authority do You do this?” They should have understood that, with the endorsement of the prophet's words, it was clear that God commanded this action, as His house should not be a den of thieves during which greed and trade are prevalent. They inquire, “By what authority do You act?” insisting that the law grants control to those of the tribe of Levi, questioning how He, lacking Levitical descent, could assume such rights. But, O Jews, recall the words of David: “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec” (Psalm 109:4). Melchisedec, identified as a priest, did not derive his priesthood from the law or from Levi since he preceded Levi by many years. Why, then, do you demand a legal justification from Christ? God is above any legal constraints. While He established that priests should come from the tribe of Levi when needed, He has now set aside that law to foreshadow the priestly order of Melchisedec. Thus, He drove out those who sold sacrificial animals such as sheep and doves, both to uphold the sanctity of the temple and to indicate that reliance on animal sacrifices for atonement must cease. It would have been simple for the Lord to respond with, “it is thus declared,” affirming that the command came from either the prophet or directly from God. However, to expose their persistent resistance to the Holy Spirit and their reluctance to believe not just the ancient prophet Isaiah—who may have been forgotten—but also John the Baptist, who had recently come and held a remarkable spiritual presence, He poses them a perplexing question. This query silences them, illustrating that if they could not accept the witness of John, whom they regarded as significant, they were unlikely to trust His affirmation of authority regarding His actions. Regardless of His response, they would find a way to misinterpret and mock it, just as they had previously scorned the words of John, who held notable esteem among them.

If you truly understood the Scriptures, inspired by God, and the words of the holy prophets, you might recall the blessed David, who, moved by the Spirit, proclaims to Christ, the Savior of all, "The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Therefore, explain which Pharisee or Scribe has served God according to the order of Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham and received tithes from him? As the wise Paul writes, "Without a doubt, the lesser is blessed by the greater." Thus, the root and foundation of Israel, the patriarch Abraham, was blessed by the priesthood of Melchizedek, a foreshadowing of Christ, our Savior, Who has been appointed as our High Priest and Apostle. He does not draw near to God the Father through the shedding of blood or offerings of incense, but rather perfects believers through a ministry superior to the Law: for "such a High Priest we have, Who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven." The distinction between these ministries is profound: the Savior offers to God the Father the confession of our faith and the "torrent of a sweet spiritual aroma," because "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." However, the bloody sacrifices they offer are not pleasing to God. He even declared to them, "I detest your feasts, and I take no pleasure in your solemn assemblies. Although you present Me with burnt offerings and sacrifices, I will not accept them, nor look upon the salvation of your offerings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the music of your harps." Understand that He expresses His disdain for their festivals, indicating that both their praise and their sacrifices are rejected by Him. Yet God delights in being praised—not by impure mouths or a defiled tongue; as it is written in the Psalms, "But to the sinner God has said, Why do you recite My commandments and lift My covenant to your lips, while you dislike My instruction and cast My words behind you?" And once more He states, "Do not continue to tread My courts; if you bring fine flour, it is futile; your spices are an abomination to Me." Why then, O Pharisee, do you complain about things being removed from the sacred courts that were used for legal sacrifices, when the time has come calling men to a life greater than shadows and to true justification through faith in Christ, the embodiment of truth? However, the range of topics we are addressing leads us towards lengthy discussions, and whatever exceeds proper limits tends to displease both listeners and speakers. Let what has been articulated thus far suffice for now, and what remains we will conclude when Christ gathers us again here; to Him and with Him, to God the Father be glory and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.

You have assembled once more, I trust, to receive instruction, and I commend your conduct, considering your eagerness worthy of admiration; for it is written, "Wisdom is better than precious stones, and nothing you desire can compare with her." The wisdom that comes from above—from God—is an unrivaled blessing, and as we attain it through the holy Scriptures, inspired by God, we gain divine enlightenment that guides us toward what is beneficial for our spiritual growth. Come, let us carefully examine the meaning of the Gospel lessons already read to us. In our previous gathering, we discussed the ignorance of the Pharisees, their profound folly, and their baseless accusations. They approached Christ, the Savior of us all, and asked, "By what authority are You doing these things, and who has given You this authority?" What had Christ done? He had driven out those selling sheep, oxen, and doves from the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers, proclaiming, "Take these things away; do not make My Father's house a house of trade." He declared, "My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers." We related these matters thus: as the Lord sought to gather the shadows of the Law, deemed already ineffective and superfluous, He aimed to abolish the bloody sacrifices, for the time was close when worship in spirit and truth must be established. Since He is the truth, the appearance of the truth rendered types unnecessary. Despite this, those miserable beings aggressively opposed the Lord of all. This is where we concluded our discussion at the last meeting. We will now demonstrate how the leaders and teachers of the Jewish synagogue also vigorously attacked Christ in another manner. For the Savior was teaching in the temple, providing instruction superior to the Law; the way of evangelical conduct. Out of indignation, they wickedly approached Him again, demanding, "Who gave You this authority?" What does this mean? They accused Him of teaching in the temple, while coming from the tribe of Judah, not among those designated to serve as priests. They questioned why He taught things contrary to the commandments of Moses, which do not align with the ancient Law we received. To those who speak in such a manner, let us pose this question: Does this trouble you and provoke your jealousy? Tell me, do you accuse the Lawgiver of abolishing the Law? Are you making an outcry against Him for not obeying His own laws? Tell me, is God bound by His own Law? Were the commandments spoken by the holy prophets created for our sake, or perhaps for His own benefit? It is obvious, even if you do not acknowledge it, that God exceeds all Law, and we are the ones under the obligation of His commandments. When a man like us breaks the Law, we condemn him for his disobedience. But the One who enacted the laws, not for Himself but for us to follow, occasionally changes what was commanded at His discretion, not to lower those under the Law into anything evil but to elevate them toward what is better. Thus, the time has come to end the shadows and for the instruction of the Law, given to guide ancient peoples, to be replaced so that greater teaching—given through the Gospel—might emerge. You may ask, was this according to the will of Him who appointed Moses to declare that earlier commandment? Indeed, I affirm, not from my own reasoning but with proof from the prophetic Scriptures. God spoke through Isaiah, saying, "And the laws of My people shall be abolished." How have the laws of the people been abolished? They have been rendered void by the revelation of a new and superior commandment, spoken by the Son, previously announced by Ezekiel regarding the people of Israel: "Behold, I will gather them from every land where I have scattered them in My anger, fierce displeasure, and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them dwell in safety; they will be My people, and I will be their God. I will give them a new way and a new heart that they may fear Me all their days." A new way has been given to them as the legal service and the instruction based on writings and types were gathered up, opening the way for the Gospel, whose essence and foundation is faith. This faith leads to justification and raises up those who draw near to God in sanctity. The conclusion that Moses' institutions were designed to end, making way for a new law and covenant from Christ, is easily drawn as He clearly states, "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will institute a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord." Thus, He promises a new covenant, and as the wise Paul writes, "In that He says, a new one, He has made the first obsolete; but what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Since the first covenant has become obsolete, it was necessary for the new to take its place—this was not brought forth by a holy prophet, but by the Lord of the prophets Himself. Why then do you grumble, O Pharisee, at the fulfillment of divinely inspired Scripture, and at the realization of the prophecies fulfilled by the holy prophets?

At that moment, the God-Man was not fully acknowledged by the populace as the Messiah, except by a few, like John the Baptist and the righteous Simeon, who had received special revelations. Generally, He was regarded merely as an extraordinary Teacher, whose fervent zeal led Him to perform remarkable acts. However, His fervor was now perceived differently; in His confrontation with the merchants, they recognized a messianic action that infringed upon the Jewish hierarchy's authority presiding over the temple, signaling the onset of the anticipated social and religious upheaval associated with the return of the esteemed descendant of David. In their frustration, various strategies were considered to eliminate Jesus (Luke 19:47-48; Mark 11:18), but the steadfast support of the people rendered these plans futile. Thus, they awaited a more opportune moment to resort to force, deciding instead to dispatch a delegation to interrogate the Wonderworker on behalf of the Sanhedrin, in front of the assembled crowd regarding His actions and purposes. This approach seemed highly plausible (Deuteronomy 17: 18; 19: 17; Ezekiel 64: 15-24), as the public had long anticipated a formal investigation into Jesus Christ. This action appeared to be the most gracious and unbiased: it would theoretically annul any decision to detain Jesus, allowing Him the freedom to demonstrate the divinity of His claim. His adversaries, in turn, hoped that while the inquiry would not annihilate Jesus, it would significantly undermine His objectives. They expected that in defending His actions, He would assert His messianic rights, and such a declaration could serve as a sufficient basis to accuse Him of a criminal offense before the Roman authorities (Matt. 27:63; 27:11). To enhance the significance of the delegation and demonstrate that the Sanhedrin was attentive to the emergence of the Messiah, the messengers were chosen from various branches of the Sanhedrin, including esteemed priests, community elders, and scribes (Mark 11:27; Luke 20:1). When the Lord entered the temple and began teaching the people, the Sanhedrin's representatives approached Him to question Him. The extraordinary nature of their visit certainly drew significant attention, as if the entire Jewish nation had gathered to present itself before their Messiah. For Jesus' disciples, this delegation held particular significance. As Jewish citizens, they were expected to remain loyal and obedient to the governing authority of their people. By following Jesus, they had chosen to disregard the Sanhedrin's authority, believing it more right to heed the Messiah than human leaders—to follow God rather than men. Yet the populace had not yet reached a consensus regarding Jesus' standing, a question they believed was already resolved. Consequently, many might view the disciples as unfaithful to their homeland, prioritizing personal convictions over communal judgment. Now it appeared that their homeland sought to issue a definitive judgment on Jesus. Who would feel this judgment more acutely than those who had already taken it upon themselves to express their opinions publicly? The disciples' concern for their homeland's views is evident in the example of the apostle Paul, who regarded it as a severe punishment to stand before his fellow Jews as a false witness concerning the Messiah (1 Cor. 15:15). Thus, the oldest of the envoys initiated the discourse, stating, “The Sanhedrin seeks to ascertain, in accordance with its duty: by what authority—divine or human—do You perform these acts; acquiring the title of Son of David from the people, triumphantly entering Jerusalem, and driving out the merchants from the temple? Who conferred this authority upon You? Did it come directly from God, or was it given by one in direct communion with Him?” The precision and formulation of the inquiry revealed that those who posed it were likely among the scribes.

Who empowered John in his ministry? Was his calling of human origin or Divine? Had they claimed the latter, they would have feared the unfavorable interpretations that might arise in their minds. But they hesitated to reject it entirely, knowing it could incite the admiration of the common people, who regarded John as a prophet. As a result, they gave the evasive reply, 'We do not know,' prompting the Lord to respond in kind. They ought to have answered with honesty; had they done so, they might have been led to resolve the question they themselves had posed.

The chief priests and scribes realized this implication and thus avoided providing a direct answer. They feared a negative response, as they were in the presence of the people, who revered John as a prophet. Consequently, they replied, "We do not know." In turn, Jesus declined to give them a straightforward answer to their request.

Following the surge of excitement during Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, there was widespread hope that He would proclaim Himself as King of Israel, leading to the long-awaited Jewish dominion over the earth. Yet, to everyone's astonishment, He did not make this declaration but instead departed on foot with His twelve disciples to Bethany that very evening. This caused uncertainty to seep into the hearts of many. Hence, the Sanhedrin's intended trial of Jesus was partly driven by the people's expectations. It remains unclear whether it was a representative group or the full assembly of the Sanhedrin, but given the significance of the task the individuals approaching Jesus were tasked with, it can be presumed that it was the Sanhedrin as a whole rather than merely a delegation. The procession into the temple where Jesus was already present drew a large crowd. Upon their entry, the members of the High Council began their interrogation: “Tell us, by what authority do You do these things?" (Mark 11:28). “Who has granted You the right to enter Jerusalem in such a manner, to accept the title of Son of David from the people, to drive out merchants from the temple, and to perform healings? Who conferred this authority upon You?” Had the Sanhedrin chosen to conduct a fair investigation into everything they were aware of concerning Jesus (and they were well informed, having been continually observing Him), they would have acknowledged His authority long ago and recognized Him as the Messiah. Instead, they lacked such objectivity. Fearing for their influence over the populace and the privileges associated with it, they were prepared to eliminate anyone, including the Messiah, who posed a threat to their power.