Render Unto Caesar

Hey, 

Today we are going to look at the story in Luke 20:20-26, where Jesus is asked about whether the Jews should pay taxes to Caesar or not.  As he always does, Jesus sees right through the trap and outsmarts his opponents.  Here is my translation: 

 20 Watching him closely, they sent spies who pretended to be sincere, hoping to trap him with his own words. Then they intended to hand him over to the rule and authority of the governor. 21 They asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach correctly. You show no partiality, but instead teach God’s true path.  22 Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

23 Jesus saw through their deceit, and said to them,  24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription is on it?” 

They replied, “Caesar.”

25 Jesus said to them, “Then give to Caesar, what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what is God’s.” 

26 They were unable to trap in words in the presence of the people. Since the people were amazed by his answers, they remained silent.

The chief priests and scribes are really desperate to trap Jesus somehow.  They send spies who pretend to be sincere, in hopes that they can somehow trap Jesus in his own words.  They have been trying to trap him for a while, but Jesus always outsmarts them and their trap always springs back on themselves. If, somehow, their trap was successful, they intended to hand Jesus over to the governor, Pilate, a man with a reputation for cruelty. The blame for Jesus’ demise could be placed on the enemy Romans. 

These spies start with flattery, making statements about how Jesus teaches the truth and does not show any partiality. Then they put out what they believe to be a trap that Jesus can’t get out of.  They ask about whether they should pay taxes to Caesar or not.  

If Jesus says ;yes,; it will make the people angry, as it sounds like he supports their cruel overlords, the Romans.  If he says ‘no,’ the Romans would take this as treason and do Jewish leadership’s dirty work for them and get rid of Jesus. 

Michael Burns, explains in his book Escaping the Beast, the meaning of what Jesus says here.  Jesus' question is important.  He asks in response whose image is on the coin.  The answer is "Caesar.'  Jesus then says that we should give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but give to God what belongs to God. He takes his audience all the way back to Genesis 1 where God created mankind in His image.  So, while the coin bears the image of Caesar, each person bears the image of God.  Caesar can have his coin, God wants something from us that is far more valuable than our money. We owe Him, ourselves.  (Burns, 231.)

Jesus has recognized the need to honor our civic responsibility to pay taxes, but that we have an even greater responsibility to honor God.   

We can also see something that Jesus is not.  He is not trying to lead a revolution.  Darrell Bock says this: “One can at least say that Jesus rejects an aggressive, nationalistic, revolutionary Zealot-like approach to the question.  Jesus' current kingship is not designed to lead a revolution to overthrow Rome.  Whatever he is teaching, it is not political insubordination.” (Bock, 1614.)

This section of scripture ends by saying that the people were amazed by his answer and so his detractors remained silent.  Jesus has outsmarted them again.  They were hoping that either the people or the Romans would be upset by his answer.  Jesus, being infinitely smarter than his opponents, answered in a way that they could not have anticipated and he upset neither. 

Broken or Crushed?

 Hey everybody,

As we have been looking at Luke 20, Jesus is in temple some time after driving out the moneychangers, and the leadership has just asked Jesus about where he draws the authority by which to do such things.  Jesus has not answered them.  In the verses that follow (9-19) Jesus tells a parable that clearly takes aim at this same group of leaders.  Here is my translation of verses 9-19:

9 Then Jesus began telling the people this parable. “A man planted a vineyard and rented it out to tenant farmers, then went away for a long time. 10 In time, the man sent a servant to the tenant farmers so that they would give him his portion of the harvest, but after beating the servant they sent him away empty-handed.  11 The man proceeded to send another servant. The tenant farmers also beat this one, treated him shamefully and sent him away with nothing. 12 So the man sent a third servant, but in the same way, they injured him and threw him out. 
13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, “What do I do? I will send my son, whom I love.  Maybe, they will show him some respect.”
14 Seeing the son, the tenant farmers discussed among themselves, saying, “This is the heir.  Let’s kill him so that the inheritance will come to us.” 
15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What do you think the vineyard’s owner will do?  
16 He will come and destroy those men and give the vineyard to someone else.”
Those hearing this said, “May that never happen!”
17 Jesus looked right at them and said, “Why then is it written,
     ‘The stone the builders rejected,
          This has become the chief cornerstone.’
18 All of those who fall upon this stone will be broken, but those upon whom it falls will be crushed.” 
19 At that moment, the chief priests and the scribes were wanting to seize him, because they were aware that this parable was spoken against them, but they were afraid of the people.

In this parable, a man has grown a vineyard and rented it out to tenant farmers before going away for a while. From this distant place, the man sent a series of servants to receive payment from the renters, but the men would routinely beat these servants and not make any payment.  Eventually, the man sends his son in hopes that they would treat him with respect.  Instead the men foolishly kill the son, reasoning that they would then receive the son’s inheritance.  Jesus finishes the parable by stating that the owner of the vineyard would come and destroy the tenant farmers and give the vineyard to someone else. 

The parable has some clear parallels that many in the audience seemed to get right away.  The owner is God and the tenants are Israel, and the vineyard is the promise of God’s favor. The idea that the man is gone for a long time would indicate that this covers Israel’s long history, showing Israel’s pattern of killing the prophets that God sends to it. 

The fact the servants are each in turn sent back to the owner empty handed shows that God was expecting fruit from Israel, but the type of fruit that He was expecting was sorely lacking in Israel’s history. In the parable, after the servants are beaten and returned without any payment, the man sends his son.  He has no better representative than his son.  Obviously, the son represents Jesus.  God has sent Jesus into this fruitless vineyard to call his people back to Him, but they refuse and kill the son. 

The thinking of the tenants is nonsensical.  Why would someone think that they would be rewarded by killing a man’s son.  The parable is a clear warning to the nation, and specifically to its leadership. 

The parable drew a strong reaction from the crowd, exclaiming, “May this never happen.”  It appears that they understood what Jesus was implying with this parable.  Certainly the chief priests and the scribes recognized that the parable was pointed directly at them. 

After the reaction of the crowd, Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22, asking why it was written that the builders would reject a stone that would become the chief cornerstone. 

Jesus is the beloved son that has been rejected by the nation.  He is the chief cornerstone. Those that fall on him will be broken, but those he falls on will be crushed. What does Jesus mean by this?  To me, it seems that we have a choice.  We can choose between being broken, or being crushed.  Of the two, broken seems better, as the healing process is much easier.  So, then, as we "fall on" Jesus, or perhaps, fall before Jesus, we do get broken. That much is true.  But, it is clear that brokenness toward Jesus is the better option. 

Israel's leadership had chosen to reject Jesus.  They would not be broken, but the time would come when they would be crushed, instead. 

Another Fine Day at the Temple

 Greetings everyone.

We are starting Luke 20 today, with a look at Jesus, as he continued to teach the people, but gets confronted by the leadership for his actions.  Here is my translation of verses 1-8:

1 On one of those days, as Jesus was teaching the people and declaring the good news in the temple, the chief priests and scribes, along with the elders, 2 approached Jesus and said, “Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things?” And who gave you this authority?” 
3 He answered them, “I will also ask you a question and you answer me. 4 Did John’s baptism come from Heaven or from men?’ 
5 They discussed this question among themselves, saying 'If we say ‘from Heaven,’ then he will say, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say ‘from men,’ all of the people will stone us, since they are convinced that John was a prophet. 7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it came from.” 
8 Jesus responded to them, “Then neither will I tell you where my authority came from.” 

So, even after driving the moneychangers out of the temple, Jesus continued to be right there in the temple, teaching people.  Luke says that he was ‘teaching the people and declaring the good news.”  After doing something that was bound to make the powerful people in Jerusalem angry, Jesus did not hide from them.  He continued to teach, as he always had, in the public view. 

As Jesus taught, the leadership showed up, demanding to know from where Jesus had gained the authority by which he was doing things like overturning tables and throwing out the moneychangers.  Jesus, as he always does, outsmarts those who are trying to trap him in his words. 

Jesus responds to their question with a question of his own.  (Both Matthew and Mark include a statement from Jesus that if they answer his question, then he will answer theirs.  Luke omits this statement.)

Jesus' question is about John the Baptist and his baptism.  Where did it originate? Was it from heaven or from men?  Jesus knew that they would be unwilling or unable to answer the question.  It is not that Jesus was afraid to answer their question.  We can only speculate, but perhaps his answer, that his authority came directly from God, would have pushed the arrest at this point, when it was not yet time.  

The leaders are now in a difficult position.  They cannot admit that John was of God, since they refused to obey him.  In saying this, they open themselves up to the question ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’  They would look foolish.   Of course, these leaders did not believe that John was from God, but to say this publicly would not sit well with the public, who believed John was a prophet of God.  

Fearing the reaction of the public, they simply said, ‘We don’t know.” Darrell Bock points out that this is not a very satisfying answer coming from the people who were supposed to be the spiritual leaders of the nation. If they are unable to make a judgment on John, how can they be trusted to judge Jesus?  (Bock, 1588.) 

Since they would not answer his question, Jesus refuses to answer theirs.  Of course, we understand that Jesus’ authority comes from God, the ultimate source of authority.  He does give an answer to this question later, when he is on trial.  

In this battle of wits between Jesus and his detractors, score another point for Jesus. So far, in this continued battle between Jesus and the leadership of Israel, Jesus has scored every point, and the Jewish leadership is being shut out.

A Fine Day at the Temple

Hello everyone.

Today, I will finish up Luke 19 with Luke's brief account of Jesus casting out the merchants in the temple.  Here is my translation: 

45 Then he went into the temple and began to throw out those who were selling things. 46 He told them, “It is written, 
     ‘My house is to be a house of prayer,
        But you have made it into a den of thieves.’”
47 Every day he taught in the temple. Meanwhile, the rulers, scribes and leaders of the people were looking for a way to kill him.  48 However, they could not find a way to do it, since the people listened to him intently.

Luke gives us an account of the cleansing of the temple that is only two verses long.  He does not mention the overturning of tables that we read about in Matthew and Mark.  So, shortly after his triumphal entry in the city, Jesus goes into the temple and begins to throw out the moneychangers and overturning tables. Mark records that Jesus visited the temple and looked around and left, then comes back the next day, after cursing the fig tree, and then begins to throw out the moneychangers.  This doesn’t negate Luke’s narrative, as the next day is still shortly after triumphal entry.  

Robert Stein states that Jesus cleanses the temple as a messianic act, at least in the sense that he was acting as the Messiah.  However, it was not what was being expected of the Messiah, the general population that was expecting a Messiah would have thought he do something against the Romans, not the Jewish religious leadership. 

Luke uses the word ἑκβαλλειν (ekballein) which means "to throw out, or cast out."  This is the same word used when Jesus casts out demons.  

As Jesus is throwing out those who are selling stuff in the temple, he quotes two OT scriptures.  

First, Isaiah 56:7, which says “for my house will be a house of prayer for all nations.” (Mark includes the words ‘for all nations.’)  Matthew and Luke do not.  The significance of the words ‘of all nations’ is that this temple  was supposed to be a light for everyone to see God, not just the Jewish people.  In this regard the Jews had failed.  They had become arrogant and insular.  

Then he quotes Jeremiah 7:11 which says, ‘Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching.’  So the temple which was supposed to be a house of prayer for all people, had become a place where many were unwelcome and those who occupied it turned a profit to fleece others in the name of religion.  

After Jesus rids the temple of that defilement, he continues to do what he had always done, teach people.  He spends every day in temple teaching.  Meanwhile, his detractors gather and conspire, looking for a way to kill him.  It is amazing to me that such supposedly righteous men could gather and justify a plot to murder someone. Nevertheless that is what the religious leadership of Jerusalem does. 

Meanwhile, Jesus holds the rapt attention of the people, so those who sought to kill him were constantly being frustrated.  Luke uses the word ἐξεκρέματο (exekremato) to describe how intently the people were paying attention to Jesus. The word means to ‘hang on’  In English we would say, ‘they were hanging on his every word.’  With the people paying such close attention to Jesus, the leaders knew that they could not arrest Jesus publicly.

So, Jesus has a great day at the temple, honoring God and helping the people.  First, he reminds all of the promise of the temple, a house of prayer for all nations, a promise that it had failed to live up to.  Then, he threw out those who would cheat and rob others in their financial dealings. After that, it became business-as-usual, teaching the people about God.  

The King Arrives, Part 2

Hello veryone.

We will cointunue to the look the Jesus and his triumphal entry in Jerusalem today.  Here is my translation of the remainder of the passage. 

35 So they brought the animal to Jesus and placed their garments on it.  Then they put Jesus on it. 36 Then as Jesus went along, people spread their garments out in the road. 
37 As he came near the spot where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began to joyfully praise God in loud voices because of all of the miracles they had seen.  
38 They were saying,
     “Blessed is the one who is coming,
         The King coming in the name of the Lord.
      Heaven’s peace 
         And glory in the highest. 
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” 
40 Answering them, he said, “I am telling you, if they remain silent, the stones would cry out.”
41 As he was about to enter the city, he saw it and wept over it, 42 saying “If only you knew today, what would bring you peace, but now it is hidden from you. 43  A time will come when your enemy will build an entrenchment to surround you and close you in on all sides. 44 They will beat you and your chidren into the ground, and will not leave a stone on top of another stone, because you did not recognize the time when God visited you.” 

Now that they have the necessary donkey, Jesus' disciples place their own garments on the colt and then place him on it, and he begins his ride into Jerusalem. As Jesus rides this donkey colt into Jerusalem, the people come out to praise him.  Their words are filled with hope for the Messiah, 

Luke records the people like this:

   “Blessed is the one who is coming,

        The King comes in the name of the Lord.

      Heaven’s peace 

         And glory in the highest. 

Mark records it like this:

   “Hosanna!”

    “Blessed is the one coming in the name of the Lord.”

  “Blessed is the coming of the kingdom of our father David.”

     “Hosanna in the highest heaven.”

It is clear from what the people are saying in both accounts that the people see Jesus as the Messiah.  That he is the king that comes in the name of the Lord.  However, the city that turns out to embrace him on this day, rejects him a week later and demands that he be crucified.  

The praise for Jesus was not unanimous.  (Just like later, the cries for his death will not be unanimous either.)  There are Pharisees there that do not like all of this carrying on, and demand that Jesus rebuke his disciples for this display.  

Do the Pharisees respond this way out of fear that the Romans might react to such support for a Jewish ‘king,’ or do they just find the whole thing offensive?  I don’t know.  Either way, Jesus refuses their demand.  He does not and will not rebuke his disciples here. In fact, Jesus supports them, saying that this occasion was so momentous, so worthy of an outpouring of emotion and praise, that if the people had remained silent, that the rocks would have taken their place and cried out in praise of Jesus.  

Darrell Bock says, “Creation is aware of Jesus, but the leadership of the nation is not.  That which is lifeless knows life when it sees it, even though that which is living does not."  (Bock, 1560.) 

As Jesus enters the city, he weeps for it.  He knows that this city has rejected him.  The nation has missed the signs that they were supposed to be looking for.  The Messiah came and they not only were missing it, they were  going to kill him.  Now, what could have saved them was going to be hidden from them. Jerusalem would face judgment because of its refusal to acknowledge God.  The thing that would bring them peace was right in front of them and they refused to see it.  Now, not only would they not be able to see, their city would face destruction.  

A generation later, Jerusalem was indeed destroyed by the Romans. Their defeat would be complete, without one stone being left on top of another.  God’s judgment on them would be severe, because God appeared to them and they refused to see Him. 

The King Arrives, Part 1

 Greetings

Today, I will continue my exegesis of Luke 19, looking at the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.  This story will need two posts to conver, so today, I will give you Part 1, looking at verses 28-35.  Here is my translation:

28 After saying this, Jesus continued on, going up to Jerusalem. 29 When he came near Bethpage and Bethany, by the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, 30 saying, “Go into the village ahead of you. When you enter it, you will find a donkey colt tied up that no one has ever sat upon. Untie it and bring it to me. 31 If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying that colt?’ Tell them, ‘The Lord needs it.’ 
32 The two he sent left and found things just as Jesus said they would be. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked, “Why are you untying that colt?” 
34 So they responded, “Because the Lord needs it.” 35 So they brought the animal to Jesus and placed their garments on it.  Then they put Jesus on it.

The journey toward Jerusalem that began back in chapter 9 is finally over.  Jesus is about to arrive in Jerusalem. In Luke 13:33, he had said, “I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day - for surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem.”  Aloing the way, Jesus has predicted his death more than once. He is on a mission of self-sacrifice and ultimately, death.  Jesus has been saying this, but no one has really understood it.

In his arrival, he shows up in such a way to declare himself to the Messiah. Zechariah 9:9 says, "Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem!  See, you king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey."  Jesus is aware this prophecy.  So are the Pharisees, scribes and elders, the group that will confront him, later.  The king will ride in on a donkey colt.  So, to announce his arrival, Jesus needs a donkey.

Jesus gives specific instructions to two of his disciples.  He tells them where to go and exactly what they will find. He even tells them what to say if anyone questions them.  Then, everything happens just as Jesus says it will. The two apostles that are sent into the town are told to respond to anyone who asks about the colt, “The Lord needs it.”  

In Mark’s account, Jesus’ message for the donkey-lender was “The Lord has need of it. He will send it back to you soon.” Jesus is a good borrower. We see that Jesus has a prescience about him that is unexplainable except to say, “Well, he is God in the flesh.”   We have seen that he knows what is in people's hearts.  Now, we see that knew where he could get a donkey colt in the nearby town.  It seems that he knew that the owner of the donkey would allow him to use it, even knowing exactly what to say to assure the owner that his donkey colt was not being stolen. 

Jesus has his donkey colt and could now fulfill Zechariah’s prophecy while also declaring himself king.  In his book, King Jesus, Steve Kinnard makes a really great point.  Jesus did not enter on a stallion or war-horse.  He entered on a symbol of peace. Jesus declares himself king, but in a way that would not have been expected. (Kinnard, 234.) He is a servant riding on a donkey, not the military commander they were seeking to cast out the Romans. The disciples placed their cloaks on the donkey and King Jesus sat on it and rode into town.  People placed their own clothes out in the road for the donkey to walk on.  They run out into the fields and cut off leafy branches for the donkey to walk on.  It seems that they recognized what was happening,  A king had come to Jerusalem.

Zechariah 14:3-5 indicates that when the Messiah comes, he would come into Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives.  Verse 3 says, ‘the Lord will go out and fight against the nations.”  Verse 4: “On that day, his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives.”  So when Jesus rides into Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives on the colt of a donkey, he is fulfilling both of these Zechariah prophecies.  There is no mistaking it.  Jesus is declaring himself to be king. 

Seeing Clearly

Hello everyone.

We just looked at the story of Zaccheus in Luke 19.  We will continue the story there, today, covering verses 11-27. Zaccheus' story takes place in Jericho, which is eighteen miles from Jerusalem.  They had been on this long journey toward Jerusalem, and they were getting close. Everyone understood that Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem was significant.  However, their understanding of its significance was probably quite different.  Jesus understood exactly what was to happen, while the disciples were expecting some kind of political revolution and the restoration of the Davidic kingdom.  Verse 11 tells us that as they neared Jerusalem, they were thinking that God's kingdom was about to come.  It was, indded, about to come, but in the way that they thought it would. 

The parable Jesus tells here is very similar to a parable that Matthew tells. (Matt. 25:14-30)  There are differences however:

• The location where the parable is told is different.
• The number of servants and the amount of money given is different. 
• In Matthew’s account, three servants are given various amounts of money based on ability.  In Luke’s account, ten servants are all given the same amount of money. 
• Luke includes a second plot about the citizens of the country not wanting the man to rule over them. 

Within this context Jesus tells a parable of a man who goes away to a distant land to be made king, while leaving his servants in control of his money with the expectation that they would put the money to use and earn more. As the man is preparing to leave he brings in ten of his servants and gives them each a mina and tells them to conduct business in his absence. A mina is worth about three months wages. 

Here is the man's thinking. He is about to be made king, and when he is, he will give his faithful servants positions of authority in his new kingdom. The task that he gives them prepares them for work he has in mind for them to do later.  Those that prove faithful will be given more.  

When the man returns, the servants are called to account for their actions while their master was gone.  How have they conducted business in his absence? 

The first servant is very successful.  He turns one mina into ten more.  The second is also pretty successful.  He turns one mina into five more.  The master responds to these two servants with great generosity.  For example, the first servant took three months wages and turned it into thirty months wages.  It is quite a profit.  He is rewarded by being placed over ten cities.  He has certainly done well, but his reward does seem outsized in comparison to what he has done.  

However, the third servant is unsuccessful, and does not produce anything. The man made no effort to produce anything with the money that had been entrusted to him.  He merely wrapped it in a cloth and hid it away for safekeeping.  The third servant’s rationale for hiding the money was that he was afraid of the king, calling him a difficult man, who withdrew money that he had not deposited and reaped where he had not sown.  But, based on the response the master gave to the other two servants, we know that this perception of the master is incorrect.  The master has already shown himself to be quite generous.  This misunderstanding of the nature of the Master led the servant to be paralyzed with fear.  So, he does nothing.  The servant may have felt like he was in a no-win situation.  The master would keep any profit, and blame the servant if he lost the money, so he took no chances and simply gave back what he had been given.   

Just like this servant, many misunderstand the Master, seeing God as mean and vindictive.  They reject Him because they do not see Him clearly.  

The Master’s judgment of the third servant is interesting.  He tells him that he will be judged by his own words.  The man calls the master a difficult man, and the master doesn’t deny it, even though he had not shown himself to be difficult to this point. The master judges the servant based on the servant’s view of the master.  The master does inquire as to why the man did not at least put the money in a bank to draw interest, rather than just hiding it.  He could have made a small profit while doing absolutely nothing, but in his foolishness, he doesn’t even do that. 

After their accounting, the first two receive commendation and promotion.  They will play an important role in the new king’s administration. Darrell Bock points out that the faithful receive reward and responsibility, while the unfaithful receive judgment. (Bock, 1540.)

Becasue the third servant does not see the master clearly, he ends up with nothing.  What little he has is taken and given to the one who had made the biggest profit.  It seems that it is our best interests to see God clearly. 

There is a secondary plot in this parable about people who did not want the man to rule over them.  Verse 14 says that those who he would one day rule over, hated him and sent a delegation after him to declare that they did not want his leadership. This subplot seems to have very little to do with the story of the servants and the money, but we see after the settling of accounts with the servants, the new king calls for those who did not want to rule over them, whom he calls enemies in verse 27, brought in before him and slaughtered. 

On the surface, this seems like a strange disconnected addition to the parable, having nothing to do with the story of the servants and their business dealings.  However, this part is connected to their imminent arrival in Jerusalem, where Jesus has come as their king.  However, he is rejected as king by the people there. Jesus has been telling his disciples that this would happen, but they have been very slow to understand what Jesus has been saying to them.  They are expecting the Messiah.  Jesus doesn’t fit their idea of Messiah.  In fact, he is going to be rejected by the nation of Israel, and the world, but his disciples will be expected to serve him faithfully, until he returns.