Luke Chapter 20
(2020 - Mostly things previously covered in other gospels.)
This follows Jesus cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem. It starts with "One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple..." I think Luke's point is that these things he is about to relate were not necessarily just right after the cleansing of the temple, maybe not even the same day. Maybe not even that same trip. BUT, we know from other gospels about when it was, because this is when the angry Pharisees and temple officials want Jesus to tell them who authorized him to pass judgement on the temple merchants.
Then the parable of the vineyard and the evil tenants that had charge of it and killed the owners son in the end. At the end of this account, upon hearing that the owner of the vineyard will destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others, those present say "Surely not!" This indicates that they understood Jesus to be saying that the blessing given to Israel would be taken from them and given to others. They knew he meant a break in the covenant at least, or even a permanent change in the parties to the covenant. They knew how big this was.
2020 - So the parable is an expansion on the meaning of that original verse, again in Psa 118. This "stone" is not about adding to what already exists. The chief cornerstone is the first stone laid. It indicates new construction. And that is exactly how Jesus means it. The old is taken away, the covenant is abrogated, and the Jews are out. The "new" building is the church, and it is given to an entirely different people, and looks only to the heart. The perfect sacrifice is behind so the church does not sacrifice.
2023 addendum - Compare this parable to Isaiah 5's description of the vineyard. Jesus knew that his listeners would connect the vineyard in his parable to the vineyard in Isaiah 5 which is absolutely and unarguably about Israel. They will recognize that the passage in Isaiah was about the apostasy of Israel that was so intense that God brought the Babylonians to take them into captivity as punishment, and here is Jesus in Luke talking about that same sort of vineyard failing in its purpose so profoundly as to have it taken from them and given to others. This NOT a random parable! Look also at Lk 21:24, which is cited in the TCR margin as related. Jesus was tying not just to the metaphor of the vineyard, but to the whole content of that passage in Isaiah. The passage has 6 "woes", 6 indictments of the people of that time. It is a scathing "sermon" against widespread sin and of indifference to sin, and to the consequences of such "wild grapes" in a perfect vineyard. Wow. Jesus meant all this with his parable.
So Jesus makes it plain that this is not just a concept he's come up with on his own - which is how they would have, and probably did treat it - by quoting the Old Testament to them as the foundation of the parable he's just told. He quotes Psa 118.22, about the rejected stone becoming the chief cornerstone. This verse says they will "miss" their Messiah, and that the rejected Messiah will be the core of a new "temple" around which an entirely new religion will be built. It isn't just a story, it is what is about to happen.
2022 - The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people. Luke 20:19 ESV. Against them as in the religious leadership, or against the Jews as a people? Only the leadership was offended by Jesus, not the people. So to whom were the prophets sent? Leadership or people? Perhaps we should understand this as being about all Israel, as represented by the leadership.
Since they cannot take Jesus by force directly, they try to get him to "run a red light" and get himself arrested by the civil authorities whom the people fear. Taxes to Caesar is their first attempt.
The Sadducees ask about marriage in the resurrection. 2020 - Again. Luke's emphasis is different than that we've seen before though the question and the answer are undoubtedly the same. Luke focuses on the answer's implication to Gentiles. They will never die, they will be as angels, they will be sons of God. This is "more" than was said previously.
2023 - I wonder if the use of the phrase "sons of God" in vs 36 can be related back to the OT where the sons of God came to the children of men? I don't see how that could work, really. Jesus is talking about physically resurrected bodies like what he has after coming back to life after the crucifixion. No one ever had that kind of body before. So I would say that sons of God here in this verse is a term we should look to the NT to define, and not try to tie it in with some strange things that happened in the OT.
Who's son is Christ?
Luke describes the warning about the Pharisees in the shortened version about widow's houses, rather than the 7 point version in Matthew. Matthew wrote to Jews, and so would put more emphasis on things said to them. Luke does not emphasize that since he was writing to a person, and to Gentiles in general. His emphasis is therefore very different.