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