IV. Leading Up to the Cross. 19:1-21:38

A. In Jericho: His and the Disciples’ Ministry Defined. 19:1-27.

1. Zacchaeus: 19:1-10.

Chapter 19 opened with the second of the three sections that are placed in Jericho by Luke (18:35:43, 19:1-10 and 19:11-27), this story was similar to the earlier Jericho section or pericope: it was story of salvation extended to a most unlikely individual. It was the story of another tax-gatherer. No doubt Luke saw this profession as the perfect metaphor from which to teach grace. A tax-collector would be the most unlikely of occupations from which one would expect to find a true disciple of the way.

a. The Story: Effort made, grace extended, response to the law.

In 19:1, Jesus entered and was passing through Jericho (where as in 18:35 He was approaching Jericho). However, Jericho was not the goal, Jerusalem was. His goal was to move towards His destiny or doom. What took place was in the deepening shadow of the Cross. Most of us would be consumed by dread, but Jesus was observant.

In 19:2, the narrator introduced Zaccheus in three ways: his name, his occupation and his financial standing. He had a name, had a disreputable occupation and was rich. As was noted above, tax-gatherers were deeply hated and gained their wealth through despicable means. However, in 15:1 Luke said they were coming near Him to listen to Him. Their coming near Jesus created a great deal of harm to His image both with the leadership in 5:30 and 15:2 as well as with the general population in 19:7. This tax-gatherer was a sinner, and a rich one and Jesus had repeatedly announced that the poor were blessed (6:20) and no man could serve two Masters (16:13). This man did not seem a likely candidate for discipleship, but he had something the rich man in 16:19, 20 did not have: a name. The rich man in the story of Luke 16 who died and went to Hell as well as the rich young ruler of Luke 18 did not have names given to them by Luke, but this man did. Luke would soon let us know why.

This was a story about salvation and salvation for a most unlikely individual. This fits well with many of Luke’s other stories about those who would enter the kingdom (the prostitute in 7:50, the demoniac in 8:36-39, tax-gatherer in 18:13, the children in 18:17 and the Blind man in 18:43).

The man had initiative and foresight. Successful business men often have these qualities and here they helped gain this man access to God. He had a desire to see who Jesus was, and he had obstacles in his way: he was short and there were crowds blocking his view. His money was of no help in gaining him access to Jesus (or access to God) but his initiative was. He ran ahead, climbed into a sycamore tree so he could see Him as Jesus was going to pass that way (19:4-5).

Jesus came by and looked up. Again, the text of Luke portrays Jesus as observant. It is so easy to get caught up in our own dread or our own pressing agenda. Jesus was some how able to see a man, a despicable man, in need and looked at him. So often in a teaching situation we worry about our notes, our own acceptance by the audience or our own personal tragedies that await us after the teaching opportunity is over. Jesus was always looking and looking at others who many would not bother with.

He then spoke to the man in an extraordinary fashion and received the response He desired. The speech by Jesus opened with Zaccheus’ name. He knew his name, as God always knows our names if we are His elect. He did not address the moral rich young ruler by name (in Luke 18), but he did this particular tax-gatherer. Then Jesus authoritatively invited Himself to lunch: “hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” The tax-collector did exactly as he was told: he hurried and came down and received Him gladly. The mention of joy in the demeanor of Zaccheus could be tied to the parables of salvation in chapter 15. In that chapter, Salvation produced joy as when something that was lost and then was found produced joy (see 15:7, 10 and 24). The angels in heaven sing over the repentance of a sinner and this sinner had begun to be in line with heaven’s perspective.

The story then took a turn. The crowds were also observant, and they began to grumble and remark how Jesus had gone to be the guest of a sinner. This was when the aggressive man who had hurried down now stopped and made a speech. It appeared he was perceptive, was much like the Gentile Centurion of chapter 7:1-10, in that they both were aware that their reception by Jesus was going to damage Jesus’ reputation. The speech here in chapter 19:5 as in chapter 7 was obviously meant to cover Jesus. We do not know if this man did, intended to do what he then proposed before he met Jesus, or if it was a spontaneous reaction to the acceptance of Jesus (and therefore God) or a reaction to the threat to Jesus’ reputation. It could be that the murmuring of the crowd spurred the speech. It could be Luke’s way of showing us that the disapproval by the crowd of Jesus’ association with this wayward Israelite produced something. We are commanded to love God with all your heart, soul and might (Deuteronomy 6:5), and this man chose a particular avenue of expressing what a true Israelite was supposed to do.

His speech opened with a title of address, and he called Jesus, “Lord”. Then he proceeded to make two very expensive promises. He stated he would give half of his possessions to the poor (Deuteronomy 26:12) and would give to anyone he had defrauded a four-fold return (Exodus 22:1). You cannot serve two masters and Zaccheus’ financial decisions showed that he had became a monotheist (16:13).

Jesus responded both to the tax-collector and to the crowd in 19:9-10. First, Jesus pronounced salvation over this disreputable man’s house (19:9), and second, He explained again the nature of His mission (19:10). In regard to His first statement, He justified His pronouncement of salvation over this sinful man by an interesting phrase: “for he too, was a son of Abraham.” He did not call him a “son of Moses” and yet all that the tax-collector had done was modeled on the teachings of Moses. Luke was showing us the way of salvation and the place of the Law. Zaccheus had prepared for himself a place in the bosom of Abraham (16:22): he had placed himself clearly into the arms of the covenant much like Lazarus. It was not the covenant of Moses, but of Abraham. His actions of divesting his wealth were acts of faith.

Abraham was the “father of the faith”; however, the definition of the covenant of Abraham was later given by Moses. The boundaries of the covenant were defined by the Law. Zaccheus showed us how the Law was to be seen in relationship to faith. He did not earn his salvation, he believed by faith and to demonstrate his faith he obeyed the Law. The Law became the manner in which Zaccheus physically, or in a sacramental fashion, acted in accordance with the Law. He was clearly repenting and doing so in a physical, concrete fashion. The rich, young, moral ruler had refused (18:23) to respond to the Law (Exodus 20:2-3) in a tangible fashion. Faith had to take a tangible form as Abraham had to tangibly leave Ur, and this man acted like his predecessor. Abraham submitted to the will of God and did so by faith. Zaccheus submitted to the will of God and did so by courageously, and at great financial loss, obeying the Law.

Jesus’ second statement in 19:10 could be seen as addressing the crowd’s displeasure at Jesus’ association with sinners as well as a reminder or statement to Zaccheus that he was indeed lost and needed to be saved. Jesus used this exchange as an opportunity to do more that just help Zaccheus. It became the opportunity for Jesus to explain the real thrust of His ministry and therefore open the door for anyone else who wanted to repent. Between the two of them, Jesus and Zaccheus had defined how to be saved (Ephesians 2:8). It was by grace (the sinful man had no claim on Jesus’ attention) through faith (and that faith was demonstrated in a practical, physical action of repentance). It was a word of hope for even the most despised sinner and guidance for those who wished to come out of the crowd and encounter God.

b. His teaching Method: participatory pedagogy.

Jesus had just given a class in soteriology. Method-wise it contained some rather unusual features. The physical setting of the class was in the street and not in a classroom. The method of teaching was different from what we normally would think of as a way to teach theology. It was tied to actions done by the teacher, the tax-collector and the audience. The action of Zaccheus climbing into the tree was the catalyst for the “give and take” of Jesus, the crowds and Zaccheus. When Jesus looked up and acknowledged Zaccheus He had started class. It was a class with lots of drama; a man hanging around in a tree, Jesus stopping in His tracts, issuing an alarming self-invitation to communion with a person everyone despised, drawing the crowds in by braving their disapproval, and then using Zaccheus’ bold declarations to explain to everyone the nature of salvation and then going on to define the ministry of the Son of Man.

It was a class with some other alarming and yet familiar features. First, there was the alarming use of the gift of knowledge (knowing Zaccheus’ name, I Corinthians 12:8).

Second, it appeared that the motivation for Zaccheus’ grand proposals was linked with his desire to protect Jesus’ reputation that His acceptance of Zaccheus had seriously damaged. In an odd sort of way, Zaccheus was being the consummate host by protecting his guest’s reputation against the grumbling crowd. Such hospitality had its precedent in the actions of Abraham in Genesis 18:2-5 and in the actions of Lot in Genesis 19:1-3. The action of extravagant hospitality preceded Abraham receiving the announcement of the impending birth of the promised son (18:9-15) and Lot receiving deliverance from destruction (19:13, 22). In the Old Testament, the beginning of the way of salvation was begun in Abraham. Now some of those familiar features were brought to the fore in the story of this short tax-collector. The features were familiar to the stories of salvation in the Old Testament, and yet they still catch us off guard. We might expect a miracle (the word of knowledge in knowing Zaccheus’ name) to be involved with salvation (similar to the miraculous plagues and opening of the Sea in Exodus), but we are surprised by the great role played by the act of hospitality. Hebrews 13:2 wisely counsels us to show hospitality to strangers for we could be entertaining angels.

This story about salvation also brought to the fore that effective learning about the nature of salvation had to be experiential learning. Such learning cannot take place passively. Zaccheus was actively and physically involved by climbing the tree, rushing to get down and assertively speaking in the street in defensive of Jesus. This action was capped with a very expansive, expensive and profound commitment on his part. He was said to be rich and his commitment therefore took a financial aspect. True theological learning cannot be passive learning that involves no commitment on the part of the student.

Finally, the form and content of the teaching on salvation show Jesus to be tremendously in line with Old Testament themes. This takes two directions. First, Jesus was speaking to Israelites and so used Israelite forms and allusions. His mention of Abraham and the term “Son of Man” were from their culture’s sacred literature. The aspect of “looking” reminds one of Exodus 2:25 when “God saw the sons of Israel, and God took notice of them”. The physical nature of Zaccheus’ response in giving to the poor and repaying those he had defrauded is typical of how repentance in the Old Testament took place. Giving to the poor is an enormous theme found in Scriptures as part of the confession of Job, the Psalmists, and has repeated references in the Law (for example Deuteronomy 26:12-15 is a confession of being responsible with giving to the poor that follows the famous confession of salvation in 26: 5-11 of God’s saving acts). However, many of these aspects are not just cultural “tie-ins”, but foundational to all Jesus’ teaching about salvation.

God was schooling the Jews to be a light to the nations. We would be walking on dangerous ground to teach salvation with out costly commitment (Abraham had to leave Ur, David had to face the Giant, Moses had to go down to Egypt and risk his life to get his people out) and center it on just a mental assent to doctrines. To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ can never be a mere mental or emotional affair. It has to involve our body and in a costly, risk taking manner. We have seen in Luke that those who made spiritual progress had to come out of the crowd and commit themselves in some physical fashion. The call to discipleship was not only about “belief systems” but about “taking up one’s cross”. It appears that Jesus was quite deliberate in His choice of metaphors. His metaphors have an action component to them because action was essential to the very nature of how to respond to the call of God. God called the physical world good in Genesis 1, and it was to be used in the response to the call of God.

Finally, there was an interactive nature to the teaching that takes place in this passage. First, Jesus, as the teacher, looked up and noticed the man in the tree. He boldly spoke to the man in a highly personal (by his name) and involved manner (He was going to the man’s home). He was bold and authoritative both in demanding the man move out of the tree and get ready for His arrival but also in His bold assertion of the man’s salvation and the nature of His ministry. Second, there is interaction, of course, on the part of Zaccheus by coming down and by speaking up to clear Jesus’ name. Third, both parties were aware of and interacted with the social reality of the crowd’s disapproval (19:7). Jesus must have known the reaction His self-invitation would draw and used it pedagogically. It became the platform for the serious choice Zaccheus made.

Jesus was not a talking head in this particular educational experience. He would act the role of the “talking head” in the pericope that follows in 19:11-28 and such teaching methods have their role as Jesus’ use of them shows, but nothing was said to have happened in those settings that changed lives. Interaction often seems to be the crux of effective, efficacious communication.

2. The Parable of the Minas. 19:11-28.

a. The Setting. 19:11.

The setting for this next teaching was also in the streets, and it was tied to what had gone before. They were still in the same place, and Jesus no doubt had their attention through the dramatic interchange with Zaccheus. It appeared that the salvation agenda of saving the lost was listened to (19:10). Perhaps, Jesus owed that to the demonstration of repentance by the tax-collector. 19:11 says “while they were listening”. The tax-gatherers positive obedience brought help to others. He became Jesus’ co-teacher.

Jesus then changed gears. He was heading towards Jerusalem (19:28), His brief sojourn in Jericho had dramatically affected one of their former oppressors (in the person of Zaccheus), and perhaps they thought He would bring complete social reform when He arrived in the capital city. Luke tells us that they supposed that the kingdom of God would appear immediately. We are not told if this was the crowd’s view, the disciples view or both. It is in this context that Jesus decided to tell them another parable.

It always has to be remembered that though teachers are clear and persistent with their message they will still be misunderstood because the student or audience wishes to hear otherwise. With human resistance to truth that does not suit them, it would seem that truth, especially hard truth, is difficult to teach. However, for Jesus, all was not over, persistence and creativity was Jesus’ response. The parable would make clear, at least in retrospect, that Jesus would not immediately establish the kingdom of God but would go away first. Whether the audience wanted to hear that, or took it to heart at that time we are not privileged to know, but we do know that Jesus made an effort to correct their perspective.

b. The Parable of the Minas. 19:12-27.

1) The story itself

The parable concerned a nobleman who went on a journey to receive a kingdom, and he called ten of his slaves and gave them a certain amount of money or resources. He was hated by the citizens when he left but did receive the authority to come back to rule over them. He was to deal with his enemies who had rejected his rule, but he dealt first with the slaves he had entrusted funds to. At his return, a series of interviews with the various slaves followed with only three of the interviews being given. The first interview ended with the master pleased with the 10 fold gain acquired, and generous rewards were given in the form of authority over 10 cities plus he was allowed to keep his gains. The second interview ended with the master again pleased with the five fold gain of that slave who was rewarded with authority over 5 cities, and it was implied that he was allowed to keep his profits. The third interview ended in disaster when the master found that the man did not do anything with the resources entrusted to him and who in his defense for his action defamed the master’s character.

This third interview dominated the story. Each of the first two interviews took two verses to record while the third interview took seven verses. The master responded to the defamation of his character with a judgment using the man’s words. He then gave the third slave’s amount of money to the one who had gained the most. The man who had not used his resources used as an excuse the master’s taking what did not belong to him. However, the fact that they were allowed to keep their profits showed the definition of the master’s character in the third interview was in error. When questioned as to why the man with the most should receive more the master responded with a proverb. Then he demanded that his enemies be brought before him to be slain.

2) Interpretation: delay offers opportunity for responsibility.

Jesus was clearly indicating that there would be a delay before the kingdom of God began. This was a key part of the parable’s meaning. He would go away to receive authority indicating that something must happen first to make legitimate the coming reign of God. Jesus would go away in death which was necessary in order to pay for our sins and those of the world. He would come back and come back with authority. He was referring to His second coming that would be with authority in contrast to the humble manner of His first coming. He would not be wanted by many which no doubt predicted His rejection as the messiah and those who rejected Him were going to be judged for their rejection. He wanted His audience to understand that He would go away and there would be an interim period. He did not want His audience to have a misguided understanding of the way His ministry would progress in time as He did not want them to misunderstand the goal of His ministry which was to seek and save the lost.

However, the bulk of the parable was concerned with those given resources by the nobleman no doubt referring to the impartation of spiritual gifts he would give the church. Only 3 verses were concerned with the acceptance or rejection of the master whereas 13 verses chronicled the nobleman’s impartation of resources to his servants. His main intention in teaching this parable was dominated by how those left in charge performed their duty. Clearly, Peter had it right when he warned us that the judgment would first begin with the household of God (I Peter 4:17). Reward or judgment and the extent of it were contingent on how much one used their resources. Great judgment was imposed on the one who would not try.

In typical Old Testament fashion, those in need of repentance got the most space (Cain was given more space in the Cain and Abel story than the righteous Abel). The story clearly was aimed at encouraging (by means of future reward) those who would be diligent with what they had been given. However, the main focus was on those who would not be diligent. The parable wished to spur those who were not doing their duty to realize that they awaited judgment for their inaction. What was remarkable was that the slave or servant justified his lack of diligence by reference to the character of the nobleman. It was his understanding of the nobleman’s value system that was used to justify his lack of action. In other words, the Christian who does not work hard before the Second Coming of Jesus is justifying his lack of action by his understanding of the character of God. The individual in the parable saw defects in his master’s character. His viewpoint was incorrect as the story proved as it unfolded, but it was the only message we have about the third slave’s motivation.

The little proverbial statement in verse 26 was in response to the growing wealth of the already wealthy and successful man who had made the greatest (ten fold) gains. He who has gained would gain more, and he who did not have would lose even what he appeared to have. It appeared that what the slaves with gains of 10 and 5 amounts of money ultimately gained both the increase they had manufactured and new authority while what the third slave had by not doing the will of the nobleman was nothing. What particularly this “increase” is and how it is gained are questions that are raised in our minds. Those questions the story did not answer. It was clear that a lack of effort or obedience was judged and only successful effort was praised. Second, it was also made clear that the lack of effort or doing what we are commanded was directly tied to our view of God’s character: specifically, our view of how fair He is.

Other questions arise: “What did it mean to put the money in the bank?” Again, we are not told, but rather the ridiculousness of not doing something was stressed. Finally, what did it mean that “what he does have will be taken away”? Does that mean in the final judgment? In addition, what could that mean about our lives now? What is being predicted about our present efforts now as the church or as individuals while we await the coming of God? What “taken away” means is not clear, however what is clear is that judgment and loss will accompany the presence of or the lack of obedience to delegated responsibility.

What do the “minas” or amounts of money refer to? The natural association would be the gifts Jesus would give to His servants to accomplish a task. These gifts could be seen as the charismatic gifts found prevalent in the early church or the “minas” could be the treasure of the Gospel truth itself that must be used and not merely hidden. In the context of 19:1-10, it would appear that the story of the “minas” was tied to the issue of evangelism. The purpose of the first coming of the Son of Man was to seek and to save the lost. We have the ability to accomplish evangelism, according to the story, because of the impartation of the Master in the gift of the “minas”. We are to use what we are given. Perhaps our task is to multiply what we have been given and that multiplication is tied to evangelism. Multiplication is clearly praised in the story.

Therefore to not do evangelism because we are intimidated by what God will think of our efforts was clearly condemned as partaking in an incorrect view of God and one that plainly ignored the command to “put the money to work”. Disobedience was what was judged. It is intimated that failure is not possible. Those who “put the money to work” were successful. Only the slave who did not do anything with what he had was judged. Perhaps, Luke 16:10 comes into play: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much….” So many in the church do not make efforts to expand the Kingdom and therefore the parable could be saying that not to engage in such activity would be to damage our knowledge of God. Our lack of action would either destroy our view of God or our view of God will inhibit our action. In either case, it would lead to our judgment.

3) The Teaching Method: Working of Contemporary Situations.

Most commentators believe the parable was working off the local political setting of the Herod dynasty. It was surprising that Jesus would associate the God figure with Herod the Great who had attempted to kill Him in His youth and had murdered all the children of His village. Jesus’ relationship with one of Herod’s son was not cordial either. However, the use of a recent political event was clearly used to represent the reversal of power that would take place in the people’s rejection of Jesus and His subsequent return. Jesus was willing to connect with a political event that they could relate to.

The timing of the event is not an exact match either. Herod came back during the life time of those who rejected him and Jesus’ coming was going to stretch through out many generations of men. It is true that the judgment on many of those who rejected Him faced it in their life time in the Fall of Jerusalem about 40 years later. What both of these issues teach us about parables is that the proper stress should be placed on the pictures that help one visualize what is being communicated. Doing an overly strict allegory is not the proper way to read or interpret them. The pictorial aspects of the parable help us remember what was being said by creating a mental movie in our mind. The audience could certainly relate the swift judgment the Herod dynasty meted out to its opponents and thus be able to visualize the judgment that would come on those who rejected Jesus. Leaving, returning, judgment for rejection, reward for diligence in the handling of responsibility and judgment for lack of such diligence are the stress.

The manner in which the story was told shows the technique of using proportion to demonstrate importance. The large amount of verses allocated to the delegation of resources and the subsequent accounting of how the task was performed dominated the story (13 verses to 3). The emphasis of this parable was not only to predict His leaving or returning in judgment but in the giving of responsibility while He was gone.

Finally, if there is a conclusion/application to the parable it is in the little proverbial phrase in 19:26. The form partakes of an Old Testament form often called a paraenesis or an attempt to persuade. A paraenesis is an attempt to persuade by means of a promise and threat. There is the promise of receiving and the threat of losing. I believe the form leads us to a major consideration of the purpose or function of this parable. It was an attempt to persuade the disciples in the light of His leaving to be diligent with the entrusted responsibilities He would give them. He did not want His disciples to encounter judgment but wanted to persuade them to be responsible with the tasks they would receive. He was trying to persuade them that part of His ministry would be to delegate. Therefore part of understanding the ministry of saving that which was lost was to see that the task was going to be delegated to many others when He left.

The definition of the task when He left was dominated by 19:10: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” Jesus aggressively sought out this despicable man when He looked, stopped and invited. The church or individual believers are instructed by the story to observe the despised sinners of our cities, neighborhood and work places who show the similar signs the Tax-gatherer did, stop and then invite ourselves to fellowship with them. We must brave the criticism of the society and be willing to be filled with praise for sinful people as they attempt to right the wrongs they have committed. If we fail to be like this we miss the very reason for the coming of Jesus Christ to earth. If we fail to make efforts such as this we will tweak our very knowledge of God and also face drastic judgment. Trying to use our God given resources is not an optional activity. Perhaps, many in the church today have a skewed view of God because of their refusal to obey the heart of the Lord and author of the church.

c. The Conclusion to the Teaching. 19:28.

Luke ended this episode by saying that when the teaching was completed, Jesus continued on to Jerusalem. He went towards His destiny that would include betrayal, rejection, humiliation, and death but also resurrection. He would return, and it was in the knowledge of that return, that He spoke of delegation.

B. Entering Jerusalem. 19:29-48.

1. Acquiring Jesus’ Mount: Gaining Trust through Obedience. 19:29-35.

a. The story about finding the colt Jesus would ride

This short episode at first sight seems to be insignificant. Jesus had been teaching in a powerful manner about the reason He came to earth (19:1-10) and the role the disciples were to play (19:11-28). He did all of this teaching in the face of the dread of His own coming crucifixion. As they drew near Jerusalem (near Bethphage and Bethany), near Mount Olivet He commissioned two of the disciples. This sending of two of the disciples or entrusting them with a task was reminiscent of the parable when the 10 slaves were commissioned with the task of using the “minas” to gain more money.

This task was defined by Jesus’ speech to them in 19:30-31. It consisted of four commands: Go into the nearby village where they would find the colt, untie the colt, bring it and speak what He told them to the villagers.

They followed His instructions by going and discovering that what He spoke about was true. They found the colt, untied it and delivered the message they were commanded to give. They brought the colt to Jesus, threw their garments on it, and Jesus was placed upon it.

b. The interpretation: obedience brings revelation.

They were sent to do a potentially embarrassing thing. They were to take something from a small village where everyone looked out for everyone else. Jesus anticipated the opposition to their action by the owners and gave them a speech to say: “The Lord has need of it”. This sounds rather odd to us. We would have expected the instruction should have included a down payment and a promise of a rental fee instead they are merely to tell the owner God had need of it. The disciples obeyed and found Jesus had predicted the situation accurately, and they found a colt that had never been ridden. They also encountered the anticipated question: “Why are you untying the colt?” They delivered the commanded message, and it worked.

The physical obedience brought revelation of God’s wisdom and foreknowledge, and it built confidence. This could be the encouragement they needed to have when they finally realized what His whole mission was about (24:45-48) and that they would be given gifts (24:49) or “clothed with power from on high.” This was a precursor to the success predicted in the parable (19:16, 18). They were to trust in His character and prove that trust by obedience to His words. As they obeyed they would see more and more of Who He was and that what He said was true. Later, in Luke, in the final speech that Luke recorded Jesus giving to His disciples, He began it by saying: “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44).

There was a side light to this story. They became partners in His entry to Jerusalem. They had played a necessary role in His entrance. They were empowered as the parable had predicted. They had been allowed to participate in the beginning of the salvation of the world. They would not save the world, He would do that, but their task was to obey and see. Their obedience would allow them to play a part in the great drama that was to unfold.

c. His Method of Teaching: Interim Fulfillment.

Jesus was using something that was again common in the Old Testament: an interim fulfillment that helped the believer see that the larger promise would take place. The entire book of Isaiah was designed this way. The experience of acquiring the colt became a sign of things to come. The disciples in essence practiced physically obeying and began to see the positive results that came. Good teachers help students see in little, but concrete ways the truth of the larger issues. Good teaching consists of practicing the lesson. Jesus had earlier sent the disciples out on missions in Luke 9 and 10 and this was similar to that experience. They saw that they would be effective because they experienced it (see also 22:7-13).

Obedience becomes necessary to the perception of truth. This experience also went back to the parable. The one man did not perceive the true nature of the nobleman who commissioned him with a task because he did not physically go out and use the minas entrusted to him. His insight into the character of the master was skewered by his lack of obedience where as the disciples gained insight into the foreknowledge of Jesus by the obedience in the seemingly “doomed to failure” command to gain Jesus a colt to ride. Jesus’ knowledge of the future would again be displayed in Luke 21:8-36, and this experience no doubt also enhanced their confidence in His teaching.

2. The Triumphal Entry. 19:36-48.

a. The actual entry. 19:36-40.

The entry into Jerusalem caused quite a stir. As He traveled they spread their garments in the road. This action was obviously an action of respect. Then when He neared the descent of the Mount of Olives the whole group of disciples went one step further, and they began to praise God joyfully and loudly indicating Jesus’ entry had messianic import. Their actions drew a response from some of the Pharisees who demanded that Jesus rebuke His disciples, but He declined.

Luke did not tell us specifically why the Pharisees disapproved of the disciples’ praise. What they asked though was reasonable. They called Jesus a “teacher” and teachers are responsible for their student’s actions. Jesus agreed, but did not see His student’s actions as inappropriate. He thought their joyful and loud praise was not only appropriate but necessary. He stated that even nature would protest if the disciples were silent: the very stones would cry out. The text says they were not illogical for they were motivated by all the miracles they had seen. So they cried out:

“Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest.”

The disciples were not wrong. Jesus was humble but He was not falsely humble. He was the king, and more of a king than the disciples knew, and He did come in the Name of the Lord. He was the Name of the Lord: He was God Incarnate. Indeed, in Him was the fellowship of heaven and endless, unlimited glory.

b. First Action: the Teacher weeps. 19:41-44.

The attitude or mind set of a true teacher cannot be distracted or caught up by crowd/staff adoration. As a good teacher, Jesus accepted due praise, but did not get caught up in praise. True teachers understand those they wish to teach. So Luke carefully noted that as Jesus approached He saw the city. He perceived the heart of the city, and He wept (19:41). Teachers should love those they teach (see 19:47 and 20:1 where Luke said He taught daily). He loved them even though He knew the bulk of them would reject Him (19:14). He also knew the consequences of their rejection, and it caused Him to weep.

Like the great prophet Jeremiah who saw clearly into the heart of his people and knew their doom (Jeremiah 9:2) he too wept: “Oh, that my head were a spring of water and my eyes a fountain of tears! I would weep day and night for the slain of my people.” Jeremiah would later be called by two titles: the prophet of tears and the lover of the nation. Jeremiah was given the unenviable task of telling the people what they did not want to hear: they were sinners and only through repentance could they be saved. In Luke 15 and the story of the tax-gatherer in 19:1-10 Jesus was clearly teaching the same truths. He knew they would not respond and so the response of both Jesus and Jeremiah was to weep.

He then proceeded to give the justification for His lament: judgment was coming because of their spiritual imperceptiveness (19:42-44). He began by saying if they knew how to make peace with God at this time it would have saved them, but it has been hidden from them. God had come in the flesh, but they did not see (19:42). Then He prophesied that enemies would throw up siege walls, surround and hem them in and then level both the walls and the people within the walls. The destruction would be complete (19:43-44b). Stones were mentioned again (see 19:40) but this time in judgment. Finally, the cause of the judgment was repeated: “you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you” (19:44).

His Teaching Method.

We are left with several insights into good teaching. Popularity or acceptance is not the goal. Teachers should love their students and no good teacher would fail to warn his students or audience of what would destroy them. True teachers see the people’s true need. They need to recognize God, not recognize the sagacity and brilliance of the teacher or speaker.

Good teachers are deeply moved and intensely involved emotionally in the welfare of their students. Jesus was like His Father, the God of the Old Testament, who was filled with intensity (Exodus 20:5). The prophets of the Old Testament were brilliant in their persuasive metaphors and focused as evidenced by their intense preaching to try and keep their people from a coming destruction. They did not stand on the side lines and throw stones, but suffered with their people because the death of their people was part of their own death. Jesus did not condemn the city and pass on. He would die for it. He did not assess and leave but would teach daily until it was too late for both Him and them.

There is one thing left unsaid in Jesus’ speech. He did not spell out why they were imperceptive. He would do that, at least partially in the verses to come.

He was in the city of Zion, where God had caused His Name to dwell. It was where the Holy Temple stood. At that time it was one of the seven wonders of the Ancient World. It sat on near 35-40 acres and the very crest of the temple was covered in gold. Some estimated that 1/2 a million people could worship there at one time. It was the place where peace with God could be made: it was to be the fountain of shalom or communion with God.

c. Second Action: the Teacher Cleanses. 19:45-48.

Luke says Jesus entered the Temple and began to clean out all those were selling. At first glance we are so familiar with this that we could miss its import. However, the cleansing of the Temple would prove to be a key to understanding the pronouncement of the city’s judgment due to their imperceptions. The main reason for their lack of perception was now to be exposed. They had been betrayed by their leaders. The place of insight and truth had become corrupt and the cause was money-motivated leaders.

Enormous amounts of money were made due to the pilgrims who visited the Temple site and brought offerings and sacrifices. The pilgrims were told that proper sacrifices were only those bought by the sellers on the Temple grounds and with that great corruption had taken place. People were cheated by having to use only “Temple approved money” and so had to go to the money changers for the proper currency and were cheated in the process. They had to offer sanctioned offerings that had to be purchased on site at exorbitant prices. The people were cheated within the very shadow of the dwelling place of the God of Justice (19:46). “It is written, `My house will be a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers.'”

The leadership of the day was not teaching true Torah. They allowed their people to be led astray and deeply resented what Jesus taught. They did not want the “King who comes in the Name of the Lord” to come (19:39-40). He, of course, was teaching daily in the Temple but the chief priest and scholars and leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him. He was a threat, and they wanted Him removed (19:47). In essence, Jesus now turned His opponents’ criticism that teachers are responsible for their students’ actions back upon them: they had allowed corruption to flourish. They were the teachers of the nation and under their auspices people were being fleeced on the Temple grounds. This was surely the place that one would expect there to be some justice on the earth.

Luke recorded in 19:48 that their efforts to destroy Jesus were temporarily blocked. They could not find any way to accomplish their goal. The reason was the presence of the people: “because all the people hung on His words.” The fear of people, not God (see also 20:6, 19, 26, and 40) was what constrained them. They were not like the great prophets who fearlessly told the truth. The Spirit that was the inspiration of the prophets was in the truths of Luke 12:4-5: “do not be afraid of those who kill the body … fear Him….” They wanted the respect of the people, but they did not have a heart for the people (see 20:45-47). They were image conscious, but did not fear God, nor love humans. Their leadership was an incarnation of a different sort: the opposite of the foundation of the Law.

Is Jesus saying that money can be the cause of the downfall of religious leadership? Does He tie the tug of financial gain to lack of spiritual insight? Jesus’ focus was on the poor: “Blessed are the poor, for there is the kingdom of heaven” (6:20) and “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the good news to the poor” (4:18). His brother, James, would later warn the early believers to not favor the rich (James 2:5-7), and perhaps we favor the rich because we want their riches. Good teaching keeps this straight. Jesus had the uncanny ability to keep observant and keep His eyes on those everyone else despised and not on the rich. He would interrupt His passage towards the powerful synagogue ruler to minister to a penniless woman (7:40-56), and He would see clearly right up to the end (21:1-2). He was modeling for us what good teachers should do to not lose their ability to perceive spiritual truth.

C. TEACHING IN THE TEMPLE. 20:1-21:38.

The setting for the next two chapters was given in 20:1: “while He was teaching the people in the temple”. It will end in chapter 21:38: “And all the people would get up early in the morning to come to Him in the temple to listen to Him”. In between we have two main sections: controversy in the Temple in chapter 20 and teaching to the disciples (with the crowd listening) in chapter 21. There is a transitional section in 20:45-47 where the focus begins to move away from the controversy with the leaders in 20:1-44 and the teachings to the disciples in 20:48-21:38. The first chapter of the Temple teaching centers on the issue of “identity” while the second chapter centers primarily on the issue of a disciple being “alert” or “observant”.

1. Controversy in the Temple: over His Identity. 20:1-47.

This first section (Chapter 20) is primarily organized on the themes of “Attack and Response”. There was an attack that moved into a dialogue or controversy in 1-8 and then Jesus responded with a parable in 20:9-19 and then two attacks in 20-39 that each are separate dialogues or controversies followed by a response by Jesus in 40-47. Thus, there are three separate controversies challenging Jesus: His identity or authority (1-8), His view of proper human authority brought up by the issue of taxes (19-26) and His understanding of the Resurrection brought up by the issue of marriage (27-39). Following the first challenge (8-19) and following the second challenge (40-44) was a counter challenge with Jesus speaking of His identity as the Son. Then the chapter ends by Jesus boldly telling His disciples the identity of the religious leadership of that day (45-47). He would then move into the issue of preparing His disciples further by His teaching in chapter 21 (though it started in 20:45-47).

a. The First Attack and Response. 20:1-19.

1) The Controversy about His authority. 20:1-8.

a) The story: a trap set and a trap avoided with a gift.

In 20:1, Luke tells us Jesus was teaching in the Temple and then Luke added a phrase: “and preaching the gospel”. Perhaps, Luke added that phrase because of what happened next. The religious leadership (the chief priests, teachers of the law in concert with the elders) approached Him. They contested His authority. Luke appears to say there would be opposition when the “good news” or the “gospel” was preached.

They demanded to know by what authority he was doing these things. They wanted to know “who” gave Him such authority. They wanted to know where He received the justification for what He did, and He would answer by changing the question to not where He got His authority, but by stating Who He was because that was where His authority resided. He would answer subtly in the parable in 20:9-19 (especially 20:13) and again in 20:40-44, but at first He did something that appeared to be crafty but in essence was a loving action. He turned the question back onto them.

It could be, though Luke does not directly tell us, that what disturbed them most was the issue of His stopping the Temple corruption and therefore the flow of money (16:14). He had just thrown out the sellers in the passage before (19:45-48). They apparently did not want to know where He got His authority as they wished to discredit Him for disturbing their commerce. This is mentioned because Jesus did not appear to take their question as an honest one. He consistently answered honest questions, but insincere questions cannot bring anyone aid and so how to handle them will be demonstrated in this passage, in 20-26 and in 27-39 (though this later question was a bit closer to an honest one).

He responded by asking them a question and at first glance it seemed to come out of left field. His counter question concerned the origin and authority of John the Baptist: “was it from heaven, or from men?” His counter question had framed their real question. Did He do what He did because it was the will of heaven or was it the will of man that Temple corruption needed to cease?

Their response to His question about John was in two stages: first they discussed among themselves the options, and second they gave an answer. The discussion was needed because His question had pinned them against the “proverbial wall”. John was deeply respected by the people as a prophet of God, and they risked stoning if they denigrated his name by saying John’s authority was from men. If they said it was from God then they risked being shown up for what they were, disobedient to the prophetic voice of God. John had called on them to be humble and repent and had validated Jesus as the “Coming One”. Jesus was forcing them to go back to an earlier attempt by God to call them to the truth. Their second response was to plead ignorance: “they did not know where it was from”. Jesus had trapped them. They avoided it, as they were smart and did not allow themselves to be publicly defamed.

Jesus’ answer was to respond that since they would not answer, neither would He. Jesus rightly saw that they in actuality had refused to answer, and so His response was a match to their own. They did not contest His answer as they were intelligent and knew what they were doing, and that He had out-smarted them.

b) Interpreting the story: the gift to obtain insight.

Jesus had out maneuvered them with a brilliant counter question, but He did more than that: He gave them a gift. They had tried to trap Him because He was doing what they did not like. His actions not only cost them money but it was bringing to focus their corrupt handling of the Temple. His answer was to show them that their focus on His authority was prompted because they were spiritually blind, and He wished to show them how they got to that condition. Going back to John was to go back to God’s earlier attempt to bring them to a state of repentance and therefore of right standing with God. He wanted to show them that they were unwilling to learn and unable to see what they were doing because they had first rejected God’s other messenger. Everyone saw the contradiction and travesty of the Temple corruption. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that what Jesus did in 19:45-47 was appropriate. It was clearly a proper correction but they were unable or unwilling to see that. The key, Jesus pointed out, was their past.

They had, to use Paul’s words, “quenched the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:30, I Thessalonians. 5:19) by their disobedience. They had closed their hearts and refused to respond to the first message. This theme of rejecting the first messengers would be played out in the parable that would follow in 20:9-19 and was something they should have known from the teachings of the Old Testament (Isaiah 63:10, Psalms 78:40, Psalms 106:33). The Israelites repeatedly refused the direction of God as they came out of Egypt and finally God pronounced that they would not enter the Promised Land but only their children would (Numbers 14). Repeated disobedience sets “habits of the heart” that endanger our very spiritual lives. The stories of the Wilderness wanderings were to be a gift to Israel lest they repeat that mistake and the preaching of the prophets were gifted to Israel so they could learn from the past. “Quench not the Spirit” is an Old Testament truth taken right on into the teachings of Jesus and the early church (Acts 7:51). Jesus wanted them to go back to where they went wrong previously and build from there.

c) His teaching method: Thinking clearly under Pressure.

Most people would be unnerved to be in His situation: to be teaching publicly and then be confronted with the powerful figures that accosted Him in 20:1. His teaching technique in such a situation is instructive. First, He was not defensive but went on the offensive. He was not frozen with fear, but was clear thinking and logical. He did not attack their character here but through a carefully crafted question showed them how they went wrong without ever calling them wrong.

Second, He countered with a question of His own that placed them in the position of giving an answer. It takes great presence of mind to be able to do this.

Third, these were intelligent and thoughtful men, and He approached them indirectly so that tempers would not flair, but would allow them time to ponder. He did not ram the inappropriateness of their answer down their throats. They cheated in the exchange, and He did point it out subtly with His response but did not try to push too hard here. Thoughtful men need time.

Fourth, the past was the gateway to their future. John was the key to their hope. They needed to revisit their past, and obey there before they could come forward into the future and have insight. This is an old method of counseling and a powerful one. To help someone go back into their past and see where they started down a wrong road takes great skill and giftedness as well.

Fifth, Jesus was not obsessed with wanting to win. He was not vindictive though He had good cause to be so. The reference to John was not merely to trap them but to help them. To think this well under pressure one has to be free of needing to defend oneself and truly desire the welfare of the attackers. This last issue is a tough one and is a gift of the “spirit” which Jesus said was to be asked for (11:13). Good communicators must be “filled” to be able to respond in such a manner and to be “filled with the Spirit” is not the result of intelligence, skill or study, but comes in the “asking” (11:13).

Finally, His attitude towards them in desiring to give them a chance to see how to get out of the condition they presently were in was proved by what follows. He was both loving and instructive here. He did not hate them. He could have walked away, so to speak, as the winner of a controversy, but that was not His goal. He had defeated them, and they all would have admired Him, at least to some degree, if He had stopped there. However, He wanted them to come to spiritual insightfulness and to be saved. So He pressed on (20:9-19). It is dangerous to do this, but necessary if we love our audience.

2) The Response: The Parable of Vine-Growers. 20:9-19

a) The Parable

Jesus then told the people a parable. Everyone had heard the discussion in verses 1-8, and so they were also privileged to hear what followed. In essence, the parable was as follows: a man invested in property, developed it and then rented it to some farmers. He came to collect the rent by sending a slave (it was paid in those days by part of the harvest) but the farmers abused the slave, sent him away and paid nothing. This was done three times (10-12). Then the owner decided to send his son and the tenants decided to kill the heir thinking they would then get the land. Jesus then asked a rhetorical question as to what the proper response should be and said the tenants would be killed in return and the land given to other tenants.

The audience responded in horror (16c) and Jesus then looked at them and asked them the meaning to a quotation from Psalm 118:22: “the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.” It appeared that this second question was also meant to be a rhetorical question for He followed up with a saying: “everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed” (20:18). He told them that which was rejected will be the decisive factor in their judgment.

The leaders did not respond well to the parable or its interpretation. They wanted Jesus immediately arrested because they clearly saw themselves as the ones being spoken about in the parable. However, “fear” of the people kept them in check, just as fear of the people kept them in check in 20:6.

b) Interpreting the parable: a warning to the leadership.

If one looks at this parable allegorically: the vineyard owner was God. God planted and founded Israel or the church. It belonged to God. The farmers or tenants were the leaders God had entrusted His people to (and their accompanying institutions). The earlier slaves were prophets and no doubt in Jesus’ mind that included John. The son, of course, was referring to Jesus. Killing the son would not have brought the land into the hands of the tenants, but neither was it rational to suppose that one would get away with murder and think that profit would be the result. It is interesting that in the parable the tenants talked the matter over, much like the Temple leaders did in 20:5. The tenants, as the leadership in Jesus’ day, did not want submission, nor co-inheritance but wanted full authority. This is often the case with religious leaders. The removal of the tenants indicated that God would judge those who hurt His messengers and give the leadership to others. Jesus had predicted their removal as shepherds of God’s people.

The response to the parable was somewhat ambiguous. The people responded with “may it never be”, but it is unclear what they wished would not be. Did they mean that such cruelty towards the owner, his slaves, his property and his son should never be? Did they mean the killing of the tenants or judgment should never be? It would appear that the former would be the best guess.

The interpretation of the parable centered on the aspect of rejection. The stone that was rejected had become central and would be the determining cause of their judgment. It would either break them or crush them. Were the two ways of destruction in parallel or in contrast to one another? Was it better to be broken by the Stone than be crushed by the Stone? Does God need to break us so as not to destroy us or was this merely a way of saying twice that the One they rejected would be the cause of their judgment? What is clear is that rejection of Jesus was rejection of the center piece of what God was going to use to build His reign in the world. The leadership of the day was blind to this, and they would be judged for their blindness. Their judgment was a promise of the Resurrection and a subtle promise of the Second Coming, the killing of the Son would not be the last word. What they would reject would triumph.

The cause of the triumph of the rejected “One” was tied to Whom they rejected. We are often called upon to reject things but it is dangerous or blessed depending on what or who is rejected. Jesus could be harking back to Isaiah 8.

“The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, He is the one you are to

fear, He is the one you are to dread, and He will be a sanctuary; but for both houses

of Israel He will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them

fall” (Isaiah 8:13-14).

The leaders seemed to be affronted that they were implicated in the parable more than the fact that they were guilty of poor leadership. There is no remorse, no repentance, just the desire to stop the messenger. Their reaction fulfilled the nature of the tenants in the parable. It would not be too long before they fulfilled the entire parable and killed the Son.

There is a minor, but significant aspect to the parable: the slaves were twice sent away empty handed. Of the four attempts to get the justified payment, twice in the beginning, the slaves were said to be sent away empty handed. It is, of course, implied in the latter two attempts of obtaining the payment. Empty-handed, is a Torah term associated with worship and response to the gifts of God. You were not to appear before Yahweh empty-handed when you came to worship: Exodus 23:15, 34:20 and Deuteronomy 16:16-17. In addition, when Moses was told the Israelites they were going to leave Egypt he was told they were not going to leave their years of servitude empty-handed. It would be inappropriate to not pay for their labor and the Egyptians did. It was correspondingly inappropriate to not show respect to the gifts God has given us and come empty-handed when we come to worship before Him: “No man should appear before the Lord empty-handed. Each of you must bring a gift in proportion to the way the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 16:16-17). Correspondingly, if God has given the gifts of leadership then it is inappropriate to come before Him empty-handed. As it was wrong to send away the messengers of the owner and not give proper response so it was inappropriate for the leaders of God’s vineyard not to respond properly to His prophets and most of all His Son. However, this does not merely apply to the Jewish leadership of that day but the church’s leadership as well. Christian leaders must “hear” (see 20:1-8) when messengers speak or lose their leadership position (20:16c).

c) Teaching Method: Loving and Aggressive.

The use of parables here follows many of the techniques and traits noted already. There was a surprising element in this parable like in so many before it. Here the extravagant element was the sending of the son when it was clear that the tenants were violent. They had already beat two servants (10, 11), shamefully treated the second slave (11) and wounded the third (12). Why would a Middle Eastern father risk the safety of his son? The extraordinary element was in concert with much of the sending of the prophets and in line with the first words God said to the humans: “Where are you?” Despite how humans turn on God’s Person and misappropriate His gifts He still seeks to bring us back into an appropriate relationship with Himself.

The structure of the parable also contained other messages. There was no immediate reprisal for the mishandling of the servants. The delay in judgment was built into the fabric of the story as such delay is built into the fabric of the Genesis 3 story and into the fabric of reality. The delay allows freedom of choice.

There was also subtle play on the use of the metaphor of a vineyard. Jesus was using an agricultural metaphor so His society and that particular audience would be more liable to understand. Jesus was also clearly playing off of the famous vineyard metaphor of Isaiah 5. It was, no doubt, not lost to His audience of priests and scholars who knew the Scriptures well. There too the image of the vineyard was used to convey justified judgment by God. Similar to our passage in Luke, in the near context of Isaiah 5 the justification of judgment was given: it was the rejection of the holy one (Isaiah 8:13-15). There the metaphor used had some striking similarities to our text here: a stone will cause men to stumble (see 20:18). In the Isaiah passage the nation itself was indicted, and the stress was not solely on the leadership. However, one does not have to look very far in the prophets to find many specific indictments of the leadership (i.e. Ezekiel 34 or Zephaniah 3:1-4). The image of bloodshed in Isaiah 5:7 is also present in Luke 20:15. In addition, a clear motive for the judgment in Isaiah 5 was economic oppression (5:8) and that was also in the context of Luke 20. Both Isaiah 5 and Luke 19-20 spoke of economic oppression. Destruction was the final end of those in the Isaiah 5 passage as the Fall of Jerusalem in 586/7 was surely known to the listeners in the Temple of that Day.

Good teaching is aggressive teaching when the time is right. It was noted above at the end of the comments on 20:1-8 that Jesus had clearly won the controversy, and He could have ended the interaction as a victor. However, His aggressive pressing on with the parable goes much further than clever maneuvering around the trap that concluded in 20:8. He clearly indicted the leadership as dishonest, greedy and illogical. He predicted their coming judgment and justified it. It ended with them wanting Him arrested and only the crowds’ presence saved Him. He was showing us that good teaching will at times go further in making the point clear even at great cost to the teacher. It would add fuel to a burning rage that was in the leadership and had been growing, especially after the cleansing of the Temple. He would get even bolder in 20:45-47.

He spoke with great skill and great subtlety, but He was not overly cautious and not afraid to call the powerful on the carpet for obvious corruption and for poor leadership that damaged the people. His skill with allusions and subtle phrases was not used to protect His career but to open the door again for their repentance. He was a skilled and bold teacher, but one that loved those He confronted. He loved but did not fear His audience.

As noted on many occasions Luke presented Jesus as steeped in the Old Testament. He clearly cast Jesus in the well known prophetic role. He used metaphors, themes and theology that were skillfully drawn from the Scriptures (especially Isaiah). Jesus’ use of the Old Testament was good exegesis. He was not killed because He violated Torah, but because He was too aligned with its very essence. It could be seen that understanding the Scriptures well could be a dangerous thing.

b. The Second Attack: On Hot Topics: Taxes, Resurrection. 20:20-47.

The first controversy centered Jesus’ identity. They were pressing Him for an answer as to what authority He had in cleansing the Temple, and He pressed back on their improper use of their own authority over God’s people. Jesus had confronted them with their poor handling of God’s messengers and therefore giving the improper response to God. So the first interchange with the authorities ended with the religious leaders wanting to arrest Jesus, but they did nothing because of the presence of the crowds. They needed to get rid of Him, and so they tried another tactic, use the secular authorities or somehow separate Him from His base of protection: popularity with the people.

1) The Second and Third Controversies. 20:20-39.

a) The Second Controversy: Taxes to Caesar. 20:20-26.

(1) The Episode: Presentation of a Coin.

The religious leaders kept a close watch on Jesus. They did not continue to listen to Him to gain the way of truth but rather watched for something He might say that they could use to get Him in trouble with the Roman governor. So they sent individuals (spies) among the crowds, and they asked Him about taxes. They called Him “teacher”, followed with compliments, and then asked a question about whether God’s people should pay taxes to a foreign government. He was not fooled by their deception, and so He requested that a coin be brought and asked whose inscription it bore. They answered “Caesar’s” and so He responded with: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what belongs to God.” They could not use this answer against Him and so were silent.

(2) The Method of Teaching: Handling Dangerous Situations.

The content of what Jesus said and method of response were intertwined, and so we will discuss them in tandem with one another. Jesus was modeling for us what to do in dangerous situations. They wanted Jesus to make a political mistake. Many who live in countries that are officially hostile to the Gospel face this all the time. He basically skirted the issue in my opinion. He in effect made no comment on the foreign occupation of His country or the present political set-up. They were not really interested in His views, and He knew that, they were only looking in a superficial manner for a superficial response to betray a fellow countryman to a foreign government they despised themselves. They asked a superficial question and got a superficial answer.

Their salvation and the salvation of those listening were not seemingly helped in one bit by such questioning but He did point back to the real issue under discussion: “Do not come before God empty-handed.” His phrase: “Give to God, what belongs to God” addressed the issue of the leaders who did not properly respond to the ownership of God. We are in “His image” (Genesis 1:26-27) and so He took a trap and turned it into a spiritual challenge. We belong to God and so should give ourselves to Him.

He was clever, and they were impressed. He wisely stirred around the issue by making them answer their own question with the use of the coin. He was again aggressive and countered brilliantly with a command and a question and put them on the defensive as He did in Luke 10:25-29. He was quick on His feet. It is almost intimidating to see how quick He was and whether we could ever do that ourselves. Perhaps, a “word of wisdom” is what Paul would call what Jesus did. Perhaps, this is another manifestation of being a teacher filled with the Spirit of God, filled with the wisdom or skill of God. An African bishop from Nigeria once said, when he went into pressured situations that demanded discussion with the hostile Muslim mullahs, “I have learned to go into such volatile situations only armed with the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit”.

Jesus also was tempted to be lulled asleep with praise as in 4:3 and 4:9 by the Devil in the desert and later in the sermon in 4:22 in His home town. He was not sidetracked with praise in 11:27-28 when the woman praised Him. He keenly saw that she needed to see something rather than just remain the giver of praise. When we speak publicly we are vulnerable and therefore are often hungry for praise. Those who praise could be pretenders (20:20 b) who lavish such words as: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” (20:21-22). Luke says Jesus “saw through their duplicity” and so should we. Our goal is to help people, not garner praise, and it seems that praise can relax our diligence and put us off from our main goal if we are not careful. He would demonstrate this one more time in our present chapter with the praise accorded Him by the scholars or scribes in 20:39 and His intellectual challenge of them in 20:41-44 and the attack on their hypocrisy in 20:45-47.

Jesus was possessed with a proper sense of His identity, and thus He avoided such traps. He was the Son, and He wanted His disciples to have the same proper self-esteem. Such understanding of who we are as teachers clears the mind to focus on others. A good doctor who believes he is a great physician is free to focus on his patient’s well being rather than being side-tracked with worry over his self-worth or performance. In Luke 10:16, before Jesus sent them out to preach He reminded them that those who rejected them, rejected Him and those who rejected Jesus rejected the One who sent Jesus. If we understand that we are the ambassadors of God we can keep the hunger for praise at bay. In similar fashion, in Luke 12:6-7, Jesus taught them that as God knew the flight of every bird, that we were much more important than birds, and that He had the very hairs of our heads numbered.

b) The Third Controversy: Resurrection. 20:27-39

(1) The Episode: A Rabbinical supposed case.

He was challenged in the political arena in the passage above, but then the attack took a Torah interpretation focus. This attack came from the Sadducees who did not believe in life after death in opposition to their counter parts the Pharisees. The Sadducees addressed Him as teacher and pressed Him to give an opinion on the issue. They used a well know “supposed case” of the woman who married multiple times and then died childless. In the resurrection, whose wife would she be? Jesus answered that the afterlife was different than they supposed, and there was no marriage and no death. He then quoted Exodus 3:6 about the famous introduction God gave of Himself to Moses as the God of His fathers. Jesus then followed with the statement that God was not the God of the dead (referring to the clear teaching, primarily in Deuteronomy, against a death cult, i.e. the place of Moses’ burial was kept secret as to keep it from being a place of worship and the extensive prohibitions of touching dead bodies point in this same direction) but of the living. He used only Pentateuch Scriptural passages to make His argument as those books and only those books were regarded as canonical by the Sadducees. Some of the scholars present praised Jesus for His answer as most scholars were of the Pharisaical party. The answer ended the attacks seemingly because they knew they were dealing with an expert in Torah.

(2) The Teaching: He is the God of Life.

We are shown that Jesus did hold specific views on specific topics under discussion in His community. There was a split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees on the doctrine of the Resurrection. Most allusions to the doctrine can be found in the prophets or in the writings or the latter two-thirds of the Old Testament. The Sadducees did not regard anything but the first five books of the Old Testament (the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch) to be authoritative. Jesus was Pharisaical in much of His doctrine on this issue and on the extent of the canon. He believed all of the Old Testament to be canonical. In addition, He firmly believed and taught the doctrine of the Resurrection as did the Christian church which He founded.

The “case study” offered by the Sadducees was meant to ridicule such a belief. Their case was built on the “Levirate marriage law” found in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and used as a backdrop to the famous story in chapter 4 of the book of Ruth. The law was meant to cover the vulnerability of widows and orphans and to insure some dignity and significance for a man who was cut short in life without children to carry on his name. Jesus did not take issue with the law but said their problem was in the application of that law to the resurrection because of the actual nature of life after death. The whole issue turned on the nature of the afterlife: there was no death for those in the resurrected life, so no need of children to carry on one’s memory or name. Therefore, there was no marriage. There would be no more children, but they would be the children of God, the sons of the Resurrection. Life after death would not be exactly similar to the life we now lead.

His use of the quotation from Exodus 3:6 was a brilliant reminder that God was the God of the living. God named the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and when God knows your name, we will live.

(3) Teaching Method: Using Common Ground.

In an intellectual argument, opponents will not have a fruitful discussion if they do not operate from similarly held common foundations. Jesus’ use of quotations and allusions to only the first five books of the Torah which were the only ones considered authoritative by the Sadducees was an example of playing the game in the opponent’s court. He argued from commonly held premises that they all could agree on. Both agreed that the first five books were canonical.

Jesus’ response to the Sadducees was a logical one based on deductions drawn from commonly held truths from literature they both regarded as authoritative. Jesus was a logical man and reasoned with them. We have seen elsewhere that His teaching was filled with motive clauses or reasons for obeying His commands, and here He gave a logical argument in effort to persuade the Sadducees that His position was valid. Paul would later say we should be ready to give an account for the hope that lives within us and that for two reasons if we use Jesus as our model. Our faith is logically sound and is defendable. Second, Jesus respected the minds and thinking ability of His audience and so should we. His use of a logical argument was in effect, a show of His respect and love for His attackers. He respected them enough to give them a logical answer in an effort to persuade them. He did not commit an ad hominem fallacy of logic (the trick of attacking the man instead of the argument). He had respect for them as humans who could think and reason logically to ascertain the truth.

His respect for them did not keep Him from pointing out their mistakes. He would later in this chapter harshly attack the scholars (20:46-47), tell His disciples in the hearing of all that they should watch out for them and be wary of their influence yet still He would give reasons for His statements.

2) Response to the Attacks: A Riddle and Warning. 20:40-47

As Jesus had gone further when He had seemingly won the controversy in 20:1-8 with the devastating condemnation of the leaders with His parable in 20:9-19, He would do the same again. He had silenced His critics to their own marvel (20:26) and praise (20:39) but was not content to merely win an argument. He wanted to go further which had the potential to bless them and bring them to salvation (20:40-47), but it had just as much chance to bring about His own demise which it did.

a) The Riddle Given to the Scholars. 20:40-44.

1) The Riddle: The Lord is David’s Son.

The scholars who praised Jesus in 20:39 were seemingly the primary audience of 41-44. He posed a riddle for them taken from Psalm 110. He opened with a rhetorical Question: “How can the Christ be David’s son?” Then He quoted Psalm 110:1 noting that David called the Messiah “Lord” and yet the Messiah would be David’s son. He did not explain the riddle nor try to proclaim, describe or explain what we would later call the dual nature of Christ: fully God and fully man. He was claiming to be the Son of God although He often used the phrase “Son of Man”.

These verses also went back to 20:13. After the first attack in 1-8 that focused on what right or by what authority Jesus said these things or cleansed the temple, Jesus told them the parable about the vine-growers, and that the “son” was sent. Then after the Second and Third attacks He went on to pose the riddle about the “Son” who was both David’s heir and David’s Lord. He was answering their question as to His identity, but subtlety and letting them connect the dots. His handling of all three controversies ended with His defeating their attacks or traps. His superior logic, knowledge of Scripture and intelligence defeated them. However after the first and after the last two controversies Luke showed Jesus going beyond the debate and pushing hard in two directions. He hinted that His authority was based on who He was, and He wanted them to see who they were. It was the knowledge of both of these two aspects that could lead to their salvation but also to His death.

He was the Son, the bearer of truth and should be dealt with appropriately as the supreme messenger of God the Father’s will. He was also aware that repentance needed to take place, and therefore they needed to know who they were so they could see the need to repent. He laid the foundation for both of these aspects in chapter 19. He thought it appropriate to let the crowds call Him the King who comes in the Name of the Lord in 19:40, and He showed the religious leadership that their dealing with the Holy Temple was corrupt in 19:45-47. In chapter 20, He continued these two themes: who He was and who they were. He twice said He was the Son of God (20:13 and 20:41-44) and twice showed them that they had disobeyed God while being in roles that were supposed to lead others to God (20:1-8 and 20: 45-47). The leadership resisted His actions in chapter 19 of the cleansing of the Temple, and so He interacted with them in a typical rabbinical debate (three times). He won all three controversies and then tried to show them again who He was and who they were. They did not listen to God’s messengers and they were guilty of fostering an image that portrayed them as pious when they were the opposite (behind the scenes) of what they pretended to be.

(2) His Teaching Method: Emphasizing their Views.

One word could be said about His decisions to answer the question about His identity in such a metaphorical and non-direct manner. He has done this often in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark is very much written this way in its portrayal of the “messianic secret”. Though John’s Gospel seems the most straight-forward in presenting Jesus’ divine claims it is apparent that Luke is theologically similar to Mark. So why would Luke present Jesus as making His audience connect the dots? Why does Jesus not boldly and clearly come out and say I am the incarnate Son of God. I am the second part of the Trinity. I am Yahweh. In essence, Luke presented Jesus as saying this, but it was often in metaphor that was not always clearly picked up at first. Perhaps, the reason why could be partially seen from a “teaching perspective”.

What is very clear in this chapter is Jesus has communicated to the religious leaders that they are guilty before God in their role as leaders. They clearly see that and were clearly upset with His pointing this out. Perhaps, Jesus was wisely showing us how to deal with certain evangelistic settings that we would find ourselves in. An example would be evangelistic efforts with Muslims. We could clearly inflame them with our claims to Jesus’ deity and fall under the rubric of being sinners because we have committed shirk (contradicting monotheism by associating something physical with God which is what they would interpret us as doing in calling Jesus the man God). Our very creeds make us guilty of shirk. However true our creeds are and however vital they are to the salvation of the Muslims our approach might be helped by watching Jesus’ teaching methods. He did not lie, nor back away from His claims of deity, but He was clearest in showing from their own religious beliefs that they needed salvation and needed to repent. Perhaps, we should know the Koran well enough to help Muslims see their own guilt before God and the need of a Savior based on their own belief structures and the presentation of their own actions which contradict their texts. If we love them, we should be willing to do this and it would take careful and insightful thinking. Jesus loved the Pharisees and Sadducees, and we should love the leaders of the Muslim world.

We might add three more thoughts gained from the Gospel of Luke. The first is Jesus was not very successful with highly religious, especially self-righteous people, who had become very religious but had lied to themselves about their true nature. These people would eventually kill Jesus, but He still made extensive efforts to convert them and it would logically follow that we should do the same for our corrupt Christian leaders or with corrupt Muslim leaders. It would also logically follow that we might suffer death at the hands of some of them. Second, Jesus did miracles and though they did not always help the leaders see the truth, the miracles were in themselves, a form of argumentation about the identity of Jesus and His right to do what He did. If we as a church are devoid of “signs” and unable to pray over the sick, free the demon possessed or raise people from the dead then we are not presenting truth in the manner in which He did. It is true that the miracles were usually done purely out of compassion, and they were often dismissed by His detractors with some very faulty reasoning on their part. However, He did do them, and they were signs that some in the Jewish leadership clearly saw as signs that God was at work in Jesus’ ministry.

Finally, Jesus lived out what He preached and by His actions was in clear contradiction to their behavior. Good evangelism must be done by evangelists who are willing to die because of the convicting messages that are given derive from the teacher’s love of those dying in their deceit. The messages must be backed by the loving administration of powerful and effective miracle producing prayers for the sick, etc., but also it must be done by evangelists who live out truly godly lives that are in deed, not merely in word, true piety. Muslims that often have converted have commented on the righteous lives of those who bore the message to them.

b) Warning against the influence of the Scholars. 20:45-47.

Beginning in 20:45, He addressed His disciples and so this passage could possibly be seen as connected with chapter 21 which was for disciples. In addition, 21:1-4 seemed to belong to 20:45-47 in that it stood in contrast to 20:45-47. Both speak of money, and one was a negative portrayal of dealing with finances and the other a positive example. The one brought condemnation (20:45-47) and the other praise (21:1-4). The two chapters are tied together in that they took place in the same location with basically the same people listening though the material in 20 was primarily aimed at the religious leadership and the 21 was primarily aimed at the disciples. It seemed that in between the two chapters in 20:45-21:4 was a bridge.

Most of this section was a speech by Jesus. We are told who was listening and who was directly spoken to (20:45) and what He said in 46-47. He opened by warning them to beware of the teachers of the Law or scribes (the scholars or PhD’s in Bible of that time). They were accused of desiring to dress in a manner that denoted their rank and accused of accepting the perks of proper greetings, places in synagogues and banquets that came with such a position. However, they had financial dealings that hurt the weak members of society (devoured widows’ estates) and covered their actions with public long prayers. He predicted their severe judgment. They looked good, but acted poorly. They were His opposite. He gave widows back their only means of support in 7:11-17, not took it from them. His final word was strikingly, almost hauntingly, going back to the condemnation found in 20:16b-18.

He was speaking to two audiences. He warned the disciples, but He was also warning the scholars themselves. He did not want His disciples to be caught in such things and wanted the leaders in the Temple to repent. He was not trying to earn a victory in debate; He had already won. He was trying to save the souls of those with whom He argued and prevent the spiritual death of His own disciples when they came into positions of power. He knew His disciples would eventually have power, and He wanted them to be different than what was presently ruling over the House of God. He wanted them more like Himself and to not come before God empty-handed.

The empty-handed motif would continue on into chapter 21. It would be physically demonstrated before the eyes of His disciples on the very grounds of the Temple. It would cover the theme of money, but serve as a positive example of how to deal with money. His primary means of teaching truth in the realms of finances would be a woman. She would become the living example of His earlier teaching in 16:10: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much.…”

2. Instructions to the Disciples: Be Alert. 21:1-38.

a. God’s Perception. 21:1-4.

As mentioned above, Chapter 21 was in the same location as chapter 20 and 21:1-4 was related to 20:45-47. They were both on the theme of faith and money. He spoke the last word in the hearing of the people to His disciples (20:45) and this no doubt drove his opponents away because of the offensive nature of His accusations. He basically called them money-grubbing oppressors of the poor; the very opposite of the teaching of the Prophets and the Law which they were supposed to be the exponents of. After this condemnation, His attention was then aimed towards His disciples, and He would deliver a series of warnings and instructions of what to do and what to avoid.

1) The Story: God sees what we have as well as what we give.

As mentioned above He first condemned the scholarly and religious world for their hypocrisy. They were condemned for wanting to image well and gain respect from their community but did not show respect towards the poor. Had they respected the poor they would have treated widows with respect instead of devouring their estates. He would then show, in characteristic fashion, how to follow the Law and God’s will by being aggressive. The disciples were not merely to avoid hurting the poor but to show respect intentionally towards them. The disciples were to aggressively seek that which is present in their lives that is worthy of praise and to verbalize and appreciate such qualities. Not only are the poor to be cared for and not oppressed but Jesus showed them an even higher way: they were to respect them. This was done by being insightful. It was to be done by being observant and knowing what was before them that were important to the Creator of the World.

Luke began with Jesus’ teaching with one of his favorite metaphors: eyes. Jesus looked up (21:1), and therefore He perceived. He saw what others did not see and wanted His disciples to have the same perception (the same view of the Spirit of God). He noticed the Temple proceedings, and He saw that there were two categories among those who gave: the rich and the poor. He saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury, and He saw a poor widow (c.f. 20:47) putting in two small cooper coins. He then made a pronouncement about the perspective worth of their offerings. He opened with a word of emphasis and then pronounced the widow as the most lavish of the givers present that day. The rich gave of the excess of their wealth, and she gave out of her poverty all that she had. He taught that giving was to be valued by God in terms of proportion. What portion you gave of the whole was what God saw.

2) Teaching Method: Using what was before them.

He was going to teach them again how to truly understand the Law: the heart and will of God. The teachers of the Law did not really understand what they had extensive training in. Not by might, nor by our intellect, nor by training but by His Spirit was truth gained. They were unschooled in the very thing they were experts in. He condemned them and praised a poor widow. There was no elitism in Jesus’ teaching. There was something about the truth of God that was not the held captive by the learned. The insignificant widow was the hero. She gave in faith, whether she understood that she did, we are not told, but she was in the center of the Law, and the scholars, in contrast, were promised severe punishment (20:46-47).

Jesus again taught off what was at hand. He used a physical object to illustrate His point. It was a woman, a poor, disadvantaged woman who was the center example of how to worship God. The Old Testament taught the people to not come before God empty handed and to give as they were able. She did not come before God empty handed and so her gift was greatly esteemed of God. She went further, she gave out of her need, so she gave by faith that God would keep her. It was not ritual alone that inspired her nor was it an easy, socially praised, motive that drove her (20:46, 47) but faith that obedience would bring blessing. She truly understood Deuteronomy.

One of the beauties of the Law was that it tied our bodies and our inward souls together. We are always to be sacramental (expressing our religious beliefs in concrete physical ways). We are to always incarnate our faith in the flesh. He was the primary example in His very presence among men. He was the ultimate sacrament expressing the love of God. He became flesh among us, to give to us, and she was in the same vein as He was. It was no doubt in deliberate contrast to the scholars in the chapter above who knew the law but in their actual daily lives violated its principles that Luke gives us this little story about this woman.

Both of these stories have something in common in that they are actual occurrences or fulfillments of what Jesus was teaching. The scholars became the negative and the woman the positive historical example of truth. Together these two stories would set up the eschatological teaching that was to follow. It would set the tone for the understanding of such material. Her example was the beginning of how to see eschatological teaching. It was a matter of building something. She was teaching what it was that was important to God to be in the process of building.

b. Teaching His Disciples about the End Times. 21:5-36.

1) The Setting to the Eschatological Teaching. 21:5-7.

While Jesus was still in the temple the disciples began to remark about the amazing beauty of the structure. It was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. Obviously, the temple was the tangible center of national pride and religious devotion. It was an amazing building sitting on 35-40 acres and able to host a half of million worshipers. It was reported that the top of the temple was adorned with gold. It was a magnificent structure. This was what the disciples saw. However, as we noted above, Jesus saw or perceived something more important: the widow.

Jesus’ response to the temple that He had cleansed from corruption (19:45-48) was that it would be soon be torn down. He would pick up a new theme that would be carried in the metaphor of stones and the image of building. This was used perhaps because of the beautiful stones before them and that these stones were, no doubt, in the minds of His disciples as they gazed on this beautiful edifice. He responded in a way that must have surprised them. He was not focused on the beautiful stones (21:5), but that the stones would cast down (21:6). He had already predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (19:40-44), and He used the stone metaphor there as well: “They will not leave one stone on another….” (19:44). Before, He had spoken of stones “crying out” if the children did not speak of the coming of the King of Creation (19:40), and He also used this metaphor in 20:17 in His metaphorical warning of the stone that was rejected but was in fact, the chief corner stone and would be the decisive element in their judgment (20:17-18). He saw stones not merely as a metaphor of strength and permanence but also as a signs of judgment (Isaiah 8:14-15). It was true that stones were to be used to build and to build that which was solid and that which was lasting. The disciples, in their minds, had seen an impressive example of proper building in their midst but seemingly had missed the lasting stones. To miss those stones would turn the metaphor from solidity to one of judgment.

They did not seem to understand that the true stones were not the ones bought by the gifts “dedicated” to God, but the true stones were tied to what the widow did. She illustrated that building the heart not building a temporal building (as permanent as they seemed at the time) was the key issue. Her humility and obedience to the Law in faith was the action of true building. Jesus’ attitude was not unique:

“This is what the Lord says: `Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.

Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things and so they came into being?’ declares the Lord. `This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.'” Isaiah 66:1, 2

Jesus’ prediction of the temple’s destruction was no doubt alarming and signaled for them great destruction. They knew that the last time the Temple was destroyed the entire nation was demolished. This prompted them to respond with a question (21:7). They wanted to know when this event would appear and what the sign of its approach would be. However, His focus was to warn them about the present interpreters of their religion and to be aware of higher truth in the example of the widow (see also James 1:27). She had constructed something truly permanent and beautiful in the eyes of God. What she had done could not be torn down by the actions of armies or nations. He then went on to show how to obtain this permanence. Now that He had dramatically grabbed their attention, He began to give them further warnings and further instructions about the end times so that the coming chaos did not rob them of eternal reward.

2) Eschatological Teaching. 21:8-36.

a) Warning against false leadership and fear. 21:8-9.

His opening was to warn them again about being misled by false teaching (similar to 20:45-47). Jesus clearly thought there was true teaching and dangerous false teaching. He loved His disciples so He warned them against what would harm them much like a good parent would warn their child about things that were poisonous to eat. First, they were to not believe anyone who claimed to be the “one” and that the time was near. Such people were not to be followed. Secondly, they were warned against being overcome with fear. He did not want His disciples to be ruled by anxiety. He did not want them ruled by the fear of men, money, or success and now not to be fearful of the coming destruction of the society as they knew it. They were not to be frightened of wars and societal upheavals. These things had to happen first, but it was not the end.

The disciples wanted to know “when” but He was more concerned with their ability to handle social chaos more than how to predict its arrival. They were to be wary of pretenders in such times of upheaval and were to not follow those who claimed authority and who “knew” it was near. Rather, they were not to be frightened but steady, expecting such things, not fearful of such things. More instructions were to follow….

b) Additional Exhortation and Instruction. 21:10-28.

The teaching on the end times had three main divisions based on three speeches: 8-9, 10-28 and 29-36. The second speech appears to have four divisions: 10-11, 12-19, 20-24 and 25-28. The disciples asked about a sign (21:7) and the word sign was used twice more: in 21:11 (seemingly within the section of 10-11) and 21:25 (seemingly in the fourth section 25-28 of the second speech). The first seems to be tied with international strife and chaos (10-11) while the teaching in 25-28 appears to be more eschatological and was concerned with the “coming of the Son of Man”. In between it appeared that one was given practical instruction for how the disciples were to behave themselves (21:12-19) and a specific prediction about Jerusalem’s judgment (20-24).

It is not apparent that Jesus was giving a time line, and it is not completely clear whether 12-24 is an interim time to take place before the “signs” teaching. It appears that way with verse 12 opening with “before all this….” One thing is clear: 20-28 mirrors the Isaiah material. In verses 20-24 there is the prediction of the Fall of Jerusalem where as the material in 25-28 is more symbolic and opens with the phrase “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars” in the heavens as the section in 10-11 has a similar phrase “and great signs from heaven”.

The movement from the historical application to eschatological teaching that is so typical of the overall structure of the book of Isaiah seems to be present in Jesus’ eschatological teaching as well. Isaiah has three major teaching blocks that center around two historically given signs that are meant to be seen as interim fulfillments. The listeners of Isaiah’s day were challenged to believe or to have faith. The first historical episode concerned the sign to king Ahaz who refused to receive a sign (Isaiah 7) and yet the sign was given and was proved historically true with in the life time of the hearers. The second episode with Hezekiah (Isaiah 37 and 38) concerned the sign of the sun dial (or the deliverance from Assyria) but did not provide Hezekiah with the strength to withstand the temptation of the Babylonian envoys or to perceive the sign of the sun dial. The predictions of events made by the signs took place in the life times of the viewers of those signs (both Ahaz and Hezekiah) but the final predictions or signs in Isaiah were of the end times, and were to be understood only in the far future. They were to be believed because of the tangible “interim fulfillments”.

The judgment that befell the city of Jerusalem took place during the life time of many who heard Jesus that day. In a few decades (70 A.D.) the fall of the city became an “interim fulfillment”. Just as in Isaiah’s day, there were historically fulfilled predictions that acted as “interim fulfillments” to justify faith in the coming predictions that looked beyond Isaiah’s day, perhaps the fall of Jerusalem did the same for the early church. It was an interim fulfillment that gave the believers courage to believe that as the city fell so would the prediction of the coming of the Son of Man take place.

(1) International Strife and Chaos Predicted. 21:10-11

“Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom” (21:10). International strife would come and then earthquakes, famines, pestilences and fearful events with “great signs from heaven”. This appears to answer the question of when and what signs would take place asked by the disciples in 21:7. The answer was vague to some degree but partook of one great theme: massive and destructive activity.

(2) How to behave during chaos. 21:12-19

As was mentioned above, the second section opened with “before all this”. Before all the great signs in the heavens and earthquakes, etc., Jesus predicted that they would be persecuted. The form the persecution would entail was being delivered to both sacred (synagogues or today Mosques and Churches) and secular authorities (kings and governors) all on account of His Name (21:12). Jesus predicted this would result in their being able to be witnesses to the authorities (21:13). They were not to be filled with worry as to what they would say because they would be given the words to defend themselves and such words would be highly effective (21:14-15). The exhortation was to not worry as they would be effective witnesses.

Then what was predicted to follow was rather disturbing: betrayal, death and hatred. All of these were caused because of Jesus. They were to be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends and some of them would die. They would be hated by “all”. However, these three dark predictions were followed by two rays of light; by two promises. Not a hair on their head would be harmed and they would gain their life by standing firm. Obviously, He was not predicting their immunity from martyrdom (see 21:16b “and they will put some of you to death”) but predicting that they would come through this having kept their very inward life intact. The key was to stand firm. That was their hope, if they stood firm they would not be lost.

Jesus clearly did not see persecution as we do. He saw it as an opportunity not a tragedy. The fear to overcome was not betrayal, death or being hated, but the fear to overcome was failing as a witness and not standing firm. This fear, He assured them did not need to concern them. Great words would come, not necessarily to deliver them from persecution, but for witness to their persecutors and their standing firm would gain them life. He had great words, amazing words in the midst of His persecution or attacks in 20:1-44, and so He had already modeled to some degree what they could expect. His words did not deliver Him, but rather enabled Him to be a witness to His opponents and others.

Jesus was always an example, an incarnation of His message. In the chapters that would follow, He was not delivered from hatred, betrayal or death, but He was given the words He needed, and He did gain His life though He drank the cup of suffering. He was predicting that they would join Him in such things. It would take place before the “signs” were to be seen.

(3) Judgment on Jerusalem: 21:20-24.

These verses were primarily concerned with the future of Jerusalem. The time of when the fall of the city was to take place was given first: when the city was surrounded by armies (21:20). Then another exhortation, like the ones given elsewhere followed, but it seemed to be of a different type: they were to flee. They were to flee either to the mountains or to flee from the city (21:21). This is in contrast to the above where they were not to flee the persecution but rather be filled with hope of being successful witnesses and of standing firm in the midst of betrayal, death (to some) and hatred (21:12-19). Here, in this case, they were to flee the city and if in the country, not to enter the city because it was to be judged (21:22) and then the specifics of the city’s judgment were given (21:23-24).

In general terms, the “day of vengeance” had come and what was written was to be fulfilled (21:22), and in specific terms great distress would be upon the land, wrath upon the people as they would fall by the sword, be led captive unto all the nations and Jerusalem itself would be trampled under the foot of the Gentiles until their time was fulfilled (21:23-24).

This was a specific prediction about a specific city and history tells us it happened as was predicted here. Many fled to the city for protection, and it became just the opposite. To obey this series of exhortations (21:21) would be to obey by faith not by reason. Common sense would dictate that they flee to where there were walls to protect them but the disciples were to be saved by faith. Perhaps, this was a concrete example of why the other exhortations and admonitions were to be obeyed. They had an interim fulfillment, and so it became the reason to be people of faith. Jesus taught them to be risk takers and seemingly go against common sense when His Word so demanded. In the final analysis, because of God’s foreknowledge, to risk on God’s Word was to imbibe most fully of common sense or to do the most reasonable thing. The key was not risk taking in itself, but taking the appropriate risks that God Himself asked them to take. That obeying Him was indeed reasonable would only be proved in retrospect. Faith was needed here to take the risk, as it was with the tangible signs given to the kings in Isaiah’s day.

(4) The Coming of the Son of Man. 21:25-28.

Jesus returned to the “sign” aspect in verse 25 (seemingly returning to the discussion in 21:12) and the sign asked for was tied to what took place in the sky: the sun, moon and stars. On earth the nations would be perplexed and dismayed at the roaring of the sea. We are not sure if the ocean itself was meant or if this was a symbolic reference to death and chaos (the meaning of the Hebrew words for ocean and death are normally associated with the depths of the ocean or the sea). Were the people of the earth shaken due to the extensive death and chaos or to the upheaval of the ocean (a possible tsunami) (21:25)?

We are told that men were passing out due to the very thing the disciples were encouraged not to fear: war and chaos (21:9). In verse 26, humans were terrorized by apprehension of what would come upon the world due to what was happening in the heavens. In 21:25-26, there is an A, B, A- arrangement: there is the shaking of the heavens (25a), then dismay, perplexity and fear (25b-26b) and finally the shaking of the heavens (26c). Such chaos and apprehension that gripped the world due to the events in the heavens was not to grip the disciples: they were to be confident (21:28). In contrast, they were to understand that when such things took place that it was not an occasion for anxiety but the occasion to stand up and lift up their heads (no doubt symbolic of dignity and confidence) because their redemption was soon to come. He would come back for them. Therefore, for the disciples, the events in the heavens were to bring hope not perplexity, fear and dismay.

The signs have to do with the sky, in answer to the question of 21:7 and what exactly that was to mean was not given. However, the exhortations given were much clearer: they were to be free of fear, of anxiety, and be filled with confidence because of Who was coming.

All was tied to the coming of Jesus. His presence was the key element. They were to avoid being misled by false pretenders who made predictions, expect persecution but to deal with it with confidence that the real issue was not their pain but the hope of being effective witnesses to Him. Despite grievous persecution they were to know that they would some how gain true life. They were to be confident in their obedience to these exhortations due to their experience or knowledge of the judgment of Jerusalem. The confidence gained by their obedience to the instructions to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem was to show them that all of His instructions were wise and for their benefit. They were to be focused on His Word and to be filled with hope because He Who spoke the Word would come for them. All centered on Himself: the stone that the builders rejected (20:17-18). The true rock was grasped by obedience. The disciples were to obey what they first heard and therefore gain confidence to obey later instructions in contrast to the religious leaders of that day that first disobeyed John and so later rejected Jesus (20:1-18).

c) Concluding Parable and Exhortation. 21:29-36.

(1) The parable of the tree blooms. 21:29-33.

Jesus concluded His eschatological teaching (the third speech of 21:8-36) with a parable about a fig tree but the fig tree was symbolic of all trees. A fig tree might have been selected because of its presence near Jerusalem, but the fig tree itself was not the issue but rather the growing season was. Jesus asked His disciples to be reminded of His coming whenever they saw the spring bloom begin. They were to be hopeful, just like the beginning blooms in spring are hopeful signs of the coming summer and resultant fruiting of the trees and blessings they would bring. When the signs mentioned above would appear the coming of the Kingdom of God was near.

The parable was followed by a perplexing statement, at least to us today: “this generation will certainly not pass away until all things have happened” (21:29-32). What did He mean here? Was this a reference to time and if so what did “generation” mean? Certainly, He meant to stress imminence. However, was “this generation” stressing the generation who originally heard the words or that once the eschatological events began they would all take place in that generation in which the “signs” began?

It is unclear what was meant in verse 32 but not unclear what He meant in the verses that followed. They were to be certain that His Words were true. Like the prophets of old whose words were certain because they were the very thoughts of God (Isaiah 40:8 and 55:10-11), so were His words.

(2) Concluding Exhortation: Be on Guard. 21:34-36.

The final exhortation was to be vigilant. They were to be on guard against what could dilute their diligence. Their hearts could be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness or the worries of life and then the disciples would be trapped by such things when that “day” came (21:34). It would come to all (21:35) Jesus insisted, and so all should be careful not to be side-tracked. We can be drunk by the focus of our “careers”, or “our ministries” or materialism, politics, etc. We could lose our focus discipline-wise and become slothful and thus our dissipation would be our undoing. It is so easy to get lazy or be dissipated by self-interest. Finally, as we struggle to make ends meet either financially, emotionally or health-wise we are encouraged to be watchful: the day is coming.

He repeated the exhortation to be vigilant in verse 36 by saying that they should always be on guard. Then He encouraged them to pray for two things: to escape all that was to happen and to be able to stand before the Son of Man. In the context, it did not appear that they should pray for escape from persecution, but from all that could harm them spiritually and thus to be able to stand. The exhortation to pray was specific and helpful. The disciples would not be encouraged to pray for something He would not give. If they chose to focus on not failing, but escaping fear, anxiety, false claims, etc., they would be heard. If they chose to pray and therefore focus on standing firm, it would keep them aware, alert and vigilant and unharmed spiritually.

d) His Teaching Method:

The teaching method for this section used many familiar techniques we have seen before: physical references, metaphors, repetition, use of the Law (the Old Testament), reversal and above all a confidence or sense of authority. He thought His words were true; everlastingly true (21:33).

(1) Metaphor and Symbols.

He used the fig trees as metaphors of reminder so that whenever they saw a bloom they would be brought back to their senses and reminded not be caught off guard by the worries of life, etc. He used the stones of the temple to practically impress upon them what was truly permanent and this was reinforced by the example of the widow. Every small act of devotion would remind of how God saw what was truly important.

Therefore, what He saw was permanent, not what the world saw. The woman became a symbol or a metaphor as a physical demonstration of what He valued, and her action that day became a concrete fixture in their minds of what God’s value system comprised of. In similar fashion, He used John the Baptist’s rejection as a concrete reference or symbol of their previous rejection and therefore blindness. He used the physical reference of the coins thrown His way that were meant to distract or trap Him to teach His agenda via metaphor about submission to God. Again, the reference of marriage was meant to trap Him but it became the part of His own illustration for eternal life’s true nature. He repeatedly used metaphors: tenant farmers to stress the issue of “empty handedness” before the throne of God, and stones to build a case for their own self-designed judgment, money as the test of Torah loyalty and stones again as the emblem of permanence.

(2) Repetition.

He repeated important issues: twice reminding them to stay alert (21:34-35 and 36), twice predicting the tragedy that would imperil life’s continuance (in stressing pregnant and nursing mothers) in 21:23. Twice He made reference to signs in the heavens (21:11, 25), and to the hope His disciples should have in the face of impending chaos in 21:28 and 21:29-31. He hammered home the danger of rejecting what the prophets of God had said in the interchange first about John the Baptist (20:3-4) and the parable of the tenant farmers who disregarded the claims of the servants (20:10,11,12 and 15). If repetition in Hebrew literature denotes importance then Jesus was clearly setting out for us what He was most interested in.

(3) Reference to the Old Testament.

His constant reference to the Old Testament either directly or from a depth psychological reference clearly portrayed His belief in its authority. The oddity was that the very protectors and students of the Law were those most against His efforts. However, His rebuttals of their attitudes, perspectives and actions were always drawn from or justified by reference to the Scriptures. His opening rebuttal to their question to His authority at the beginning of chapter 20 was to appeal to the “prophetic nature” of John. Their culture was committed to the divine authority of true prophets and Jesus used that to stop their attack and attempt to lead them to what could realign their perspective (20:3-6). His choice of a vineyard parable clearly harked back to Isaiah 5 (20:9-15). He referred to the concept of not coming before Yahweh empty handed in the parable of the tenant farmers and to Isaiah 8 and Psalm 118:22 in the reference to the rejected “stone”. He played off the word “image” in the coin incident clearly going back to Genesis 1 that man was in the image of God as the coin was in the image of Caesar (20:19-25). When confronted with the trap from the quote from Deuteronomy 25:5 about the levirate marriage he countered with a reference to Exodus 3:6 about God being the God of the patriarchs and therefore the God of the living because Deuteronomy clearly taught not to be taken up with a death cult (Deuteronomy 14:1,2; 18:10,11,12; 26:14). He then propounded a riddle from Psalm 110 speaking of His being the Messiah and the son of David in 20:41-44. He referenced, in substance, Isaiah 66:1, 2 in the story of the widow who gave two small coins. In addition, in condemning the scribes in 20:47 for harming widows He was going back to numerous passages in the Old Testament that spoke of not harming widows (i.e. Exodus 22:22-24). His use of an interim fulfillment (21:7, 11 and 25) was in concert with the same use of signs by the prophet Isaiah. Finally, He equated His words with the solidity of the words of His Father and the prophets who spoke in His Father’s Name in 21:33 (as in Isaiah 55:10-11, etc.).

Jesus was an adapt Rabbi. He knew the Scriptures and what is more He knew what they truly meant and was not caught up with the blindness of His age. He modeled for us a use of the Old Testament that both went back to direct use but also to an imbibing of the very spirit of the text. He knew well both the letter and the spirit of the text. His constant encouragement to be filled with the Spirit of God would hint that part of the benefit of such an infilling (despite its great costs) would be to come into sync with the very Spirit that wrote both the Old Testament and inhabited Jesus.

(4) Confidence, not Arrogance.

Jesus again would speak clearly of His disciples not being dominated by fear (21:9, 28) in the face of either persecution or social chaos. This was a theme He had taught on before, but in chapter 20 He was the demonstration of such an attitude. When He cleared the temple He incurred for Himself great animosity from the power structure, the very ones who had the capacity to harm Him (19:47) and when they came to contest His action He did not cower but boldly convicted them of their rejection of John (and therefore of Himself). After He won the debate in 20:1-8, He did not retire with a victory but pushed them even further in the parable of the tenants (20:9-16) and then again went further and boldly told them the fate that awaited them (20:17-18) and in 20:19 they wanted His blood all the more.

His opponents tried to spin careful intellectual traps in an attempt to separate Him from the audience that protected Him. They tried to get Him to declare something they could use against Him to accuse Him of being in violation of the Torah. He never gave into panic but coolly untwisted their two traps about the coins and marriage. He won these second two encounters as well and again pressed the point of His identity (20:41-44) and their error (20:45-47) as He had done in 20:1-18. He was fearless, bold, confident and therefore calm under fire or pressure of attack. He was filled with the Spirit.

He was confident and clear headed as He contrasted the scribes’ love of money with the poor widow who gave two mites (20:45-21:4) and then confidently predicted the demise of the temple that the whole nation held dear. He boldly contrasted that building garnered from gifts to the temple with the giving by faith of the widow. Finally, He boldly proclaimed His predictions and exhortations as worthy and as permanent in contrast to the solidness falsely attributed to the stones of the temple. He was the true stone, whose acceptance or rejection was the center issue of their judgment. He confidently knew His words were everlastingly true, and they would never pass away though the all the heavens and earth would (21:33).

This confidence, clarity under fire, and aggressive confrontation was anything but meek and mild. However, His confidence was not arrogance. He deemed it worthy of His time to use repetition, clever metaphors or effective physical references to help others understand and to carefully document His authority not only in Himself but in the Scripture which they held as authoritative. He truly cared that they understood. He did not arrogantly dismiss them but with great effort used their own culture in explaining His point of view. He did not arrogantly want to vanquish them in debate and walk away as He could in 20:8 or in 20:40, but aggressively went dangerously further (for the sake of their salvation) to push them to see not only that they were wrong but why they were wrong. He desired that the correction of their views be logically pursued. In addition, He allowed Himself to be questioned in 20:2, 21, 28, and 21:7. He was not arrogant, but rather He was intense. He was not a passive contemplative “guru” but an intense dynamic teacher. His teachings are constantly peppered with “words of emphasis”. He wanted to get His points across, and He was deeply interested in their understanding. He knew what was coming in regard to His impending death (22:2-6) but still arrived every morning early to teach to the people (21:38). Arrogant people do not put out that much intense effort, concerned, confident people do.

c. The Conclusion to the Temple Teaching. 21:37-38.

These two verses conclude Luke’s report of Jesus’ final week of teaching. We are told that He taught each day and that each evening He went out of the city and spent the night on the Mount of Olives. His teaching would begin early each morning, and He spoke to eager crowds.

D. Looking Back and Looking Ahead.

After chapter 21, Luke moves us directly to the center of the “passion” of the Passion Week. Luke would show us that He would deliberately plan for privacy with the twelve before the approaching storm. Jesus would still teach and as a skillful teacher knew that some things needed privacy. The majority of the verbal teaching, what little there was, would be addressed to the disciples. He would continue to teach through action and only sparingly with words (though powerfully done when He did so). However, basically, Luke recorded a hiatus of teaching the disciples from 22:54 until after the Resurrection that in chapter 24:17 where He would begin again His remarkable method of opening their minds to reality.

Though Jesus still taught after chapter 21, there was a change that took place. That chapter ended with a primary emphasis on the instruction of the disciples and that emphasis would continue through the rest of Luke. He would rarely speak to the crowds or His detractors. Luke portrayed Jesus speaking to those outside the apostolic band only in 22:69-70; 23:3, 28-31, 43 and that sparingly. Only the weeping women who lamented His fate received an extended speech (23:28- 31), and the one word of encouragement that came to the repenting thief on the cross (23:34).

It seemed that His detractors had lost an opportunity to continue to hear the “Master Teacher”. That great privilege was now concentrated on the disciples: the ones who had committed themselves to Him. He was not angry though, nor resentful of His rejection. The attitude in His earlier tears over Jerusalem held fast (19:41-44). This is shown when He spoke publicly to His Father. His detractors and the crowd were allowed to hear His prayers. First, He spoke of their forgiveness in 23:34 and then in triumph of His completed task (23:46). His task was to die for them and He modeled what He spoke of in 21:12-19. He did testify well and witness well (21:13).

He illustrated His message of what He promised would happen to His disciples in 21:16-19. He told them they would be mistreated but would gain their souls and not a hair of their head harmed. He meant that metaphorically. He was betrayed, put to death and hated (21:16-17), but not a hair of His sacred head was filled with resentment, anger or bitterness. Despite the injustice, cruelty and barbarism of their actions “by standing firm” He gained His life (21:19). The same Jesus that went to the fire of the Passion Week and experienced all the hatred, betrayal and death was not marred nor ruined in His inner spirit or attitude. That same Jesus came out of the persecution with not a hair of His personality or spirit harmed. He gained His life with endurance (21:16-18). He predicted such things for His disciples when they too would come under fire but before they faced their trials, He demonstrated the truth of His teaching by His own actions. He was His message.