Luke 20:41 - 21:4

Last evening we looked at Jesus’ fifth of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The second was over Jesus’ prophetic parable concerning the upcoming change in leadership (vv. 9-19). The third was over paying taxes (vv. 20-26). The forth was over the resurrection, and this, the fifth controversy, is over the interpretation of Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44).

What does “Messiah” mean?

            The term, as such, is actually a Greek transliteration (literally substituting a letter from one language to another) from the Aramaic (the mother language of Hebrew), which has led some to conclude the word 'Messiah' isn't in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament); rather, what sounds like messiah in Hebrew (mashiah), because it is so similar to Aramaic, should always be translated as "an anointed one."  The Hebrew noun “mashiah” derives from the verb “masah” which means “to anoint, smear with oil.”  Theologically it is very rich in meaning and implies: a setting apart for divine use (Gen 31:13); special status (2 Sam 23:1); divine protection (1 Sam 2:10; 2 Sam 22:51; 1 Chron 16:22; 2 Chron 6:4; Ps 2:2; 105:5; Hab 3:13); divine spirit-empowerment (Is 61:1), and not to be overlooked - divine election (Is 45:1).  It was applied primarily to kings (1 Sam 2:35), priests (Lev. 4:3), and with lesser frequency, prophets (1 Ki. 19:16; Ps. 105:15).  In classical Greek the verb chrio simply meant to rub/anoint.  Ironically, the verbal adjective christos when used of people, was not a word of honor, but tended toward dishonor.  So the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiah, is christos, which means "an anointed one," but it never carried the negative connotations of classical Greek.  As Paul evangelized it might have brought some puzzlement to the Greeks, but after explaining its Hebrew meaning, it would have been all cleared up.  The above positive sense of anointing was applied to Jesus, and the association was so strong it acquired the character of a proper name; thus, we get Jesus Christ.  From the New Testament perspective, it is essential that the term be understood as a title, e.g., His Christ, i.e., God’s anointed elect one (Rev 11:15 ), and the Christ, i.e., the anointed one of God (Acts 18:5, 28).  First and foremost, then, Christ is a designation of the holy-anointed, spirit-empowered, and elect one of God, and it is in this sense that we must understand what later became associated with the proper name, Jesus Christ.  

So for those scholars who say “messiah” does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is true only in a technical sense, i.e., because the word is actually a Greek transliteration from the Aramaic, and not a translation from Hebrew.  So whether one uses 'anointed one' or 'messiah', as time progressed, a significant portion of the Jewish community was expecting "someone" from God; and this person was both 'historical' (a real person) and 'eschatological' (a truly new era); both concepts were merged together with varying degrees of meaning; it's just that a singular person had not been unambiguously identified.  What's clear, is that some of the promises associated with the Messianic hope had not been fully realized, and so Israel began to look for its fulfillment after her 'anointed' kings failed to deliver (Jer. 33; Is 9 and 11; Dan. 9; Micah 5:2; Zech 9 and 12). 

Who was the Messiah according to the Jews?

This is similar to asking “What is the economic philosophy of American economists?”  It is simply too varied to answer in the singular.  In the intertestamental period alone (the time between the completion of the writing of Malachi around 400 B.C.to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem A.D. 70) some scholars have summarized six views: 1) doing away with a literal Messiah, 2) two separate types of Messiahs – kingly and priestly, 3) a substantial number viewed the messiah as a warrior-king type who would free them from Roman rule, 4) an apocalyptic Davidic king who was considered the ‘elect one’ and ‘Son of Man’, 5) the Samaritan view which is an expectation of a prophet like Moses who would restore mainly through teaching, and lastly 6) a teacher or sage (Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, p. 410, (1997)).

Did Jesus consider himself to be the Messiah?

            There is considerable debate within the academic community, and it all has to do with the agreed upon fact that Jesus did not ‘push nor promote’ himself as the messiah in any overt sense.  This notable fact has been captured with the phrase “the Messianic Secret.”  What to do with the silence of Jesus is where the debate begins.  On the far left, the silence of Jesus reflects the church’s attempt to ‘explain’ how Jesus can be something he didn’t claim for himself, i.e., the messiah, and that the church fabricated the few claims, which Jesus was suppose to have said.  In other words, the church deceived the world by claiming Jesus viewed himself as the messiah.  The more conservative, and less cynical, say that Jesus’ silence was normal given the volatility of the prevalent view that the messiah was a warrior-king who would overthrow Rome.  Timing of his acknowledgement had to be planned accordingly, so that his death would happen according to God’s timing.  In other words, Jesus implemented a strategy in light of the imminent detention and execution that would follow.  One’s view primarily reflects prior suppositions, and is another topic for another time.   

Did Jesus consider Ps 110 to be a Messianic Psalm, and if not, what was Jesus’ point?

    In one sense it doesn’t matter.  If we restrict the Psalm to a kingly notion (which has over-lap with a messianic sense), Jesus is content to claim that a mere human king is NOT what David had in view; indeed, I believe Jesus’ argument is even stronger - a mere human successor is ‘impossible’.  When Jesus cites the verse of Ps. 110:1 (“The Lord said to my Lord…”), he argues for a Davidic context (which his hearers probably agreed with) and believes this proves his point, i.e., that a mere human lineage cannot be what David meant.  Underlying Jesus’ argument is a working premise (again which the audience agreed with) that David would not have called his human son lord.  Another working assumption of Jesus is that the notion of ‘Lord’ is so impregnated with divinity that no mere human descent could ‘flip the bill’ so to speak.  Interestingly, we will see later on (Luke 22:67-70) that Jesus does view Psalm 110 as messianic and claims that he indeed is the Christ of God.  Here Jesus seems content to show the impossibility of mere human descent of the Davidic Kingship, alluding of course to some divine/human necessity concerning the Messiah’s identity.

Once again Jesus’ person becomes the focus, and then Jesus follows with a critique of Israel’s leadership and worship ( Luke 20: 45-47) which abuses the most vulnerable within Jewish society, i.e., widows, and focuses on the outward appearance - as well as a positive affirmation (and perhaps with tinge of poetic justice) that true worship consists of inward devotion to God; again, exemplified by the most vulnerable within Jewish society, i.e., a widow (Luke 21:1-4).

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!- for the God-man Messiah of God has appeared to bear the sins of the world!   

Luke 20:27-40

Last evening we looked at Jesus’ fourth of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The second was over Jesus’ prophetic parable concerning the upcoming change in leadership (vv. 9-19). The third was over paying taxes (vv. 20-26). The fifth controversy is the interpretation over Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44), and this, the fourth, is over the resurrection (vv. 27-40).

Who were the Sadducees?

Essentially they were aristocrats; they were wealthy land owners whose influence was mostly seen within and around Jerusalem.  Their date of origin is usually set between 160-134 B.C.  Ever since their beginnings they have had an ongoing power struggle with the Pharisees.  They regained considerable power when Judea became a Roman province in A.D. 6.  After that date they dominated the Sanhedrin (though some Pharisees were present too), the Scribal circles (though some Pharisees were scribes as well), and the chief & high priestly ranks (Acts 5:17 - though some Pharisees reached those levels too); in other words, they dominated the temple life within Israel.  Their domination stemmed from wealth, and were considered “rigidly conservative” (ISBE, p.279) at least in two respects.  First, they did not like change.  Coupled with money and positions of power they much preferred ‘the status quo’; it benefited them immensely.  Second, they held to a restricted source of authority, tenaciously clinging to the Torah – the first five books of Moses.  They rejected as binding authority, the oral law tradition, which the Pharisees readily embraced (the Pharisees claimed oral tradition went back to Moses), and some of the early church Fathers (Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome) said the Sadducees did not recognize the prophetic books within their canon.  But this claim is questionable at best, as between the testaments there was wide-spread consensus that the writings of the prophets were indeed Scripture.  Furthermore, the sources which give us the history of the Sadducees (Jerome and Talmudic) were written from the Pharisaic perspective, and the latter written after the demise of the Sadducees.  So conclusions must be held with caution.  Conservative though they were, they were not well liked by the people.  They were seen as aloof and detached, and viewed as reaping the benefits of the status quo.  For all of the reasons above, they were favored by Rome, who cherished social stability.  Theologically, they rejected the resurrection of the body (Lu 20:27-40; Acts 4:12; 23:80); indeed, Josephus said they didn’t believe in existence after death (Ant. XVIII.l.4[16]), and they denied the existence of angels and spirits (Acts 23:8).

The Sadducees attempt to show why a resurrection is absurd

            Here they seek to show the utter absurdity of a resurrection.  A woman through Levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10) had seven husbands (all from the brothers of her first husband), and each husband died without impregnating her, thus leaving her childless.  Finally, the woman dies.  Sarcastically they ask Jesus (Luke 20: 33), “Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Jesus refutes the Sadducees by contrasting the ‘two ages’

            Jesus refutes their position – not by denying the absurdity (to the contrary, Jesus affirms it!), but by denying the premise, i.e., all things remain the same. 

Jesus says, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage (v. 34).” The phrase ‘this age’ can refer to an over-all value judgment of God against the world as evil (Gal 1:4), or it can refer to every source of knowledge outside the message of the cross (1 Cor 3:18ff), and even still, it can refer simply to the age which believers partake of along with unbelievers (Luke 18:29-30).  It is the latter meaning, I believe, that is present in this text.  Marriage is a common arrangement for both believer and unbeliever alike.

Jesus juxtaposes those of ‘this’ age with those of that age …[who] "will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (v. 35).  While Scripture says we don’t know what our resurrected bodies will be like (1Cor 15:35ff); here, it says we will be “equal” to the angels.  Such equality, however, is delimited by the phrase “for they cannot die.”  We mustn’t see support here for androgynous existence.  The connective ‘for’ explains equality in terms of ‘not dying’.  Angels do not procreate because they do not die; likewise, when we no longer are subjected to death, then there will be no need to procreate.[1]  Marriage, then, will cease to exist, and that makes the Sadducee’s point moot.  In the resurrection ‘the natural earthy body’ of this age gives way to a ‘spiritual heavenly body’ of the age to come.  The two ages operate on two very different levels of being.  What does that mean?  I don’t know and neither did Paul.  He was simply left with contrasts, e.g., natural, earthly, perishable, and mortal vs. spiritual, heavenly, imperishable and immortal!  Beyond this we dare not go. 

Jesus refutes the Sadducees by deducing resurrection from God’s exchange with Moses.

Next, Jesus turns to the Sadducee’s recognized authority, the Torah.  He cites God’s exchange with Moses (Ex 3:6) wherein God says, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” and concludes by saying, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him” (v. 38). Luke’s added phrase (neither Matt nor Mark have it) “for all live to him,” would seem to point toward God as a being who promotes a culture of life rather than death, e.g., Acts 3:15; 17:28; Col. 1:16; 3:3-4; 11:36.

Furthermore, the phrase “God of” means that God is the savior, protector, and deliverer of those whom he declares to be in covenant with, e.g., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, et al.  And while if one lived a good long life, and was blessed with many offspring, no one in the Jewish culture would have deemed God as having failed as savior, protector, and deliverer, e.g., the Sadducees, but as God’s revelation progressed in history, faith reached for higher provisions of these promises, and so death itself was looked upon as an enemy that needed to be defeated (Dreyfus as delineated by Nolland).  But I think there’s even more.  I don’t think we need ‘increased expectation’ to explain the belief of a resurrection; to the contrary, Abraham himself was given ‘promises’, and Abraham must ‘see them’ realized (Heb. 11:13-16); otherwise, the promises would lack extensive realization, and as great as God is, such a lack would be incompatible with God as savior, protector, and deliverer.  It delights him to no-end for Abraham and all his children to see the promises realized, and therefore, there is a resurrection!  So don't be a Saduccee, for the are (sad-you-see) because they deny the resurrection!  

In our blessed hope,

Nate

---

[1] Any sex in heaven?  Probably not.  This has troubled many modern commentators, for it seems to suggest sex was for but one solitary purpose: procreation (even Roman Catholicism advocates a dual purpose within sexual intimacy – both a creative and a unitive aspect.  The unitive is distinguishable yet not separable from openness to the creative).  One may wonder why the ‘unitive’ aspect of sexual intimacy could not continue; or for that matter, one may wonder why ‘no more people’ follows from 'no more death'?  Such does not logically follow by any necessity that I can detect.  Some have said that what disappears in heaven, though proper and needed in this life, is the 'exclusivity' of the marriage relationship (Wiles (Theol 60 [1957] 500-502) in Nolland).  At the risk of being accused of being neo-platonic, my best take would be to say that sexual intimacy in this life points to a grandeur intimacy, and so love-making as we now know it (earthy and of this age), yields to its corresponding and consummate reality (heavenly and of the age to come) of which sexual intimacy pointed to all along (Eph 5:25ff).

Luke 20:20-26

Last week we looked at Jesus’ second of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The second was over Jesus’ prophetic parable concerning the upcoming change in leadership (vv. 9-19). The fourth is resurrection and marriage (vv. 27-39). The fifth controversy is the interpretation over Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44), and this, the third, is paying taxes (vv. 20-26).

On a literary level (because Luke is selecting which events to cover), and on an historical one (because these events actually occurred), we are witnessing a little ‘poetic justice’. The leadership is attempting to do to Jesus, what Jesus had earlier done to them, but it backfires, and once again they are left speechless.  Earlier when Jesus asked, “Was John’s baptism from God or men?” he, in effect, presented them with a ‘no win’ situation. They could not answer ‘from God’ as it would beg the question why they didn’t submit to John’s message and be baptized. Nor could they answer ‘from men’ or the people might stone them. They were forced into silence; they simply were ‘out strategized’ by our Lord. Now it’s pay-back time. They figure one good turn deserves another, and they are willing to sacrifice a bishop (or a rook or even a queen?) in their little game of chess with Jesus. What they implicitly denied earlier by questioning his authority, i.e. that he was from God and spoke the truth, they now all but affirm with the words, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right…” Since the text says the leadership was hoping to ‘catch’ Jesus in saying something that was condemnable, we are free to summarize by saying: What they couldn’t accomplish with direct communication, they now try with flattery. We all know that a stroked ego is susceptible to its own aggrandizement; nothing produces over-confidence quite like success!

Now a three-fold cord of anything is hard to deal with (Ec. 4:12), let alone flattery, and we should ponder a bit just how much they are willing ‘to give’ Jesus in order to bring him down. They acknowledge that Jesus 1) teaches what is right, 2) is impartial, and 3) teaches ‘the way’ in accordance with the truth. But are they just engaging in lip-homage, or does their cajolery reflect a deeper entrapment scheme? We must exercise caution here, but it seems that Israel’s leadership (including the apostles) expected the kingdom to arrive in a single all-encompassing event. So now, if Jesus is going to speak candidly (which they now admit he does); if he perceives the time is ‘at hand’ (which he has proclaimed), then at some point the allegiance to Rome (exemplified by paying taxes) must be replaced with non-compromising allegiance to the God of Israel! They know the Scriptures; God’s kingdom does not tolerate divided loyalties! They know and believe this is what Scripture teaches, so in effect they might be presenting Jesus with an allegiance challenge – “which kingdom, Jesus > God’s or Caesar’s?”

Reason would dictate that Jesus is in no position to lead a revolution, yet their idea of the kingdom entails getting out from under Roman rule. Some think that the leadership might have been alluding to Is. 44:5 where in eschatological fashion God speaks of inscribing God’s name on those who are a part of such a revolution. So if Jesus’ over-inflated ego aligns himself with some end-times fulfillment (and obviously he did) then perhaps evidence of ‘political insubordination’ will give them just what they need to hand him over to the authorities. In giving away what they earlier chose not to acknowledge, i.e., he teaches correctly and his authority is from God, they expect high dividends, and feel quite strongly that this is their moment. If Jesus cowers, then the fanaticism with which the people had been surrounding him might quickly deflate; on the other hand, if he rises to the occasion, then they’ve got him for insubordination to Rome! Jesus appears to be in the exact position he placed Israel’s leadership in earlier – a no-win situation. We need to keep in mind that the leadership’s move is hypocritical. They truly want Rome over-thrown, but when it serves their purposes, they will lean on Rome to do their bidding. They demonstrate they can feign honor as easily as they can feign ignorance.

What Israel’s leadership presented as an either/or, Jesus responded with a both/and – an absolutely brilliant maneuver! In typical Messianic fashion, “he perceived” their crafty entrapment, and dealt with it accordingly; he boldly asserted that to honor God means to honor the state. So instead of Jesus and his movement being deflated, the question itself deflates! Poetic justice indeed! What the donkey-riding king did successfully - posing a no-win situation with an either/or question - the well establish money-infested leadership of Israel was unable to do; rather, their mimetic strategy fritters into oblivion. This is seen from their response, “…marveling at his answer, they became silent.” Luke keeps this motif of grand reversal on many levels and implements many literary devices, e.g., paradox, irony, and poetic justice (as seen above); here, it operates on the level of paradox. God’s control and authority are somewhat hidden, but for the leadership of Israel, it rises in the most unfortunate of circumstances and at the most inopportune moments. God’s chosen one > the God-man, whom God chose to present as a non-accredited and humble prophet rising out of obscurity – literally dismantles the highest accredited leadership of Israel, one exchange after another – truly a divine work of art! Simeon’s earlier prophesy that Jesus would be responsible “for the rising and fall of many in Israel (Luke 2:34), is happening before their very eyes, but Jesus is from Nazareth – a non-credentialed person from a no-name locale! What’s not evident, but should be recognized, is divine humor, i.e., stripping the corrupt authority structures of their hubris; and it is to be seen even in the presence of the imminent and ominous event of the cross. Ironically, based on their own assumptions, the very coins they have in their pockets and present to Jesus, give evidence of their corrupt loyalties, for it is evidence that taxation and profits flow freely within their midst! Furthermore, we will see that allegiance is foremost a heart matter, and though Jesus just approved of two spheres/kingdoms, corruption is still possible, as was seen earlier by means of the money changers (Lu 19:45) and what we will see when Jesus discusses robes and widows (Lu 20: 46-47). Paradox is heightened beyond imagination when this victorious, non-checkmated, donkey-ridding king is put to death; his kingdom seems doomed. But we’ll have to wait for Luke to masterfully show us how Jesus truly ushered in a divine coup d’état! To be sure, at this point, even his followers are a bit perplexed as well: Is Jesus advocating two spheres, or even more, two separate kingdoms? What happens when there’s conflict between these legitimate spheres/kingdoms and the allegiance due? Sorry, for the moment, we can only go where Jesus takes us, and he doesn’t go there.


Nate

Luke 20:9-19

Last evening we took a look at the second of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The third is paying taxes (vv. 20-26). The fourth is resurrection and marriage (vv. 27-39). The fifth controversy is the interpretation over Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44), and this, the second, is Israel’s rejection of God’s messengers and its consequences (vv. 9-19).

This parable is definitely an allegorical parable.(1) Allegory has been used and abused in the history of Christian interpretation; indeed, it was so abused perhaps we could say that the Reformation was as much a hermeneutical revolution as it was a doctrinal revolution. Luther was blunt and adamant (not that he was always consistent), and incisive when he said, “What is theology, but grammar applied to the text?” By that, of course, Luther meant that the correct way of understanding Scripture is in its plain, literal, and historic sense, not in some fanciful deeper mystery. And while that emphasis was much needed during Luther’s time, it was a ‘corrective’(2) against abuse; allegory is undeniably present in many texts, including this one. But what is allegory? Some say it is an “extended metaphor.” A metaphor, as its etymology states, is a “transference” of meaning from one thing to another. When we say “God is my rock,” we do not mean that God is literally a rock, but rather the solidity of ‘rockness’ brings out God’s strength and dependability; likewise, an allegory functions in a similar, yet extended manner. We could say that a metaphor functions implicitly in its transference of meaning whereas allegory functions explicitly. Perhaps an oxymoron is needed. Dare we say that an allegory is more concretely symbolic in its representation?!

One word of caution: Don’t over-interpret the symbolism. Such interpretive activity can easily get fanciful, e.g., perhaps the most famous parable, The Prodigal Son, the ring given to the prodigal by the father was said to possibly ‘represent’ Christian baptism and the banquet, the Lord’s Supper (Tertullian). So again, we must exercise caution. One sound principle reflecting Christian humility is that - if there are a variety of interpretations as to the symbolism of a given item, then we should be cautious in affirming its significance.

Having cleared that all up :), what are the concrete transfers within our text, and what do they mean? Most who acknowledge allegory see at least three principle players: 1) vineyard owner = God, 2) original tenants = Israel’s leadership, and 3) new tenants = a new leadership, i.e., within or without Israel. Others see more: 4) the son is Jesus, 5) the servants are the prophets, and 6) the vineyard is people of Israel, or the kingdom.

vineyard owner

servants?
son?
vineyard?
new tenants original tenants

(1) For an excellent summary of all the issues, applied to Jesus’ parables, see: Interpreting the Parables, by Craig Blomberg
(2) Corrective measures often over-reach. In our text, the story so matches God’s relationship with Israel (Is 5:1-7), and therefore its allegorical intent is almost undeniable, that many modern scholars deny that Jesus spoke it, and some even go so far as to say that the presence of allegory ‘means’ someone, i.e., most often the Christian church, added these as a way of ‘re-writing history’.


Nate