The Parable of the Tenants
9 He went on to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.
13 "Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.'
14 "But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
"What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others."
When the people heard this, they said, "God forbid!"
17 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone' [a]?
18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but anyone on whom it falls will be crushed."
19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.
Dig Deeper
There is a rather amazing trend that is currently going on in American politics since the last presidential election. It seems at every turn that politicians, regardless of their party, their geographic location, or their past experience and popularity are being unceremoniously voted out of office, one after the other. The one thing that all of these people have in common is that they are incumbents. The people of the United States have spent years demanding, to one degree or another, politicians that go to Washington DC and look out for the best interests of the country. But it seems clearer, with each passing election, that the politicians get there, cut their little deals and really look out for no one except themselves. There are many decent people who love their country and the idea of America who are just sick and tired of these politicians who go to Washington and then look out for only themselves. By their actions they show that they don’t really care about what is good for the country. They care about themselves and their own positions, first and foremost. So, people have finally become fed up. Regular people are starting to come out of the woodwork, people that have never been in politics before, and are running for major offices. And they are winning left and right. It seems that our country has finally hit a tipping point where the political games will no longer be tolerated. Those who promise change and then come and engage in the same old behavior are getting tossed out and people are turning things over to an entirely new generation of leaders, whom they hope will once again embrace the American ideals and return the country to its true ideals.
Of course Jesus was not talking of politicians in this parable but he certainly was talking about leaders that had become so self-focused that they had completely lost sight of what they were supposed to be doing. God had given so much to the nation of Israel and expected them to use it to hold to his will, his purposes, and his ideals. But they had long ago abandoned that. They had ceased to think of the Temple as a shining light for the world. Nowhere in sight was God’s promise of his people being the one true family of all nations. They had taken all that God had given them and begun to think that it belonged to them. They had, in fact, become so entitled that they were much more acting in their own interests rather than God’s. God had warned the people, especially the leaders, that they needed to return to him and his agenda or they would find themselves outside of the covenant with God, but they had failed to listen. The tipping point had finally come. Yet, God would give his people one more chance. He would send his own Son as a final warning. But would they listen? Would they cling to the true ideals of the family of God or would they try to fight back against God’s agenda? With this parable, Jesus answered that question loud and clear.
In the previous encounter, in verses 1-8, Jesus squared off with the chief priests who demanded to know the source of his authority and just why Jesus thought he had the right to enact judgment and authority over the Temple. With this parable, Jesus turns to the regular people and takes his case to them. Why is he exercising authority over God’s house and why are the chief priest and religious leaders so worked up about it? In fact where is this all leading and what will happen in the end? This is what Jesus is gong to explain in this parable. He will make clear who he believes himself to be, why he is coming and assuming authority, and why the leaders will oppose him all the way to his death.
It is clear that one of the more important Old Testament passages to Jesus was that of Isaiah 5:1-7. In fact it is so vital that it is next to impossible to fully understand important New Testament passages like John 15 and this parable without a at least some knowledge of Isaiah 5. Isaiah 5 depicts God as a loving gardener and his people Israel as his vineyard. The loving gardener denies no amount of love and care for his vineyard but whenever he goes to his garden to look for the good fruit of obedience and keeping his covenant, he finds nothing but the sour grapes of a people that rebel against their God. What does God say he will do in Isaiah 5? He will make it a wasteland and cut it down to nothing.
Jesus’ parable is built on the imagery of that song from Isaiah 5 but Jesus has made important changes to relate it directly to his situation. The direct point of Isaiah 5 likely had to do with the exile that Israel would face at the hands of the Babylonians, but that exile was the precursor that pointed to the ultimate exile for an Israel that continued to produce nothing but bad fruit. In John 15, Jesus promised that those who would enter into his life and remain there would finally be able to do what not even God’s people, the nation of Israel could do, they would bear fruit that would last. They would be able to keep the covenant by remaining in Christ and would become the body of Christ, the true Israel.
But what of this parable? The overall meaning of this parable is rather obvious. God is the landowner while the vineyard is the promised family. In Isaiah 5 the people of God were virtually one in the same with the vineyard but now Jesus changes that in an important way. The vineyard is indeed the promised people and family of God, but the people of Israel, particularly the religious leaders, are now cast as the tenants. They have completely misused the vineyard and began to feel so entitled to it that they thought of it as their own to do with as they pleased. The owner continued to send one slave, (rendered “servant” in the TNIV) after another, but the tenants didn’t care. They were unconcerned with what the owner wanted so they beat and drove out the owner’s messengers. Yet, they would not leave his land because they thought they had a right to it. The slaves in this parable are clearly the prophets, from the Old Testament prophets right down to John the Baptist (it was common in the Old Testament to refer to God’s prophets as slaves: 1 Ki. 14:18; 15:29; 2 Ki. 9:7; 10:10; 14:24; Isa. 20:3; 44:26, etc., although the TNIV also renders all of these references as “servants”).
Left with no other options, the owner will give his wayward tenants one more chance and send his son, the one whom he loves. Surely they will listen to the sole possessor of the father’s inheritance. This is a clear indicator of who Jesus thought he was. The chief priests demanded to know where Jesus’ authority came from and here, Jesus gave the crowd the deafening answer. He is the beloved Son, the one whom the Father declared to be the Son that he loved at his baptism (Lk. 3:22). He is the rightful heir who was coming on the authority of the Father to warn the tenants that their time was up. The owner was not pleased and it was time for them to go if they would not fall in line with the owner’s purposes. But the tenants had things so backwards that they killed the son. In their twisted thinking they somehow believed that they could kill the son and take his inheritance and then the vineyard really would be theirs. In so doing they proved that they underestimated the Son and they didn’t know the true nature or plan of the Father at all.
So what will the owner do? How will he respond? He would respond swiftly and decisively. He would, said Jesus in a thinly veiled promise, come to the vineyard and kill the tenants. He would remove them forcefully from his vineyard and give the promise of the resurrection, the covenant family of all nations, the kingdom of God, in short, the inheritance, to others. It would be given to those who would, as Jesus stated so succinctly in John 15, enter into his life and trust nothing more than that.
When the people heard this, they knew precisely what Jesus was saying. He was claiming that the nation of Israel was being removed as the tenants of the family of God and the family would be given to someone else. They simply could not believe that he was teaching this. Could this possibly be? But Jesus appealed immediately to Psalm 118:22, a Psalm that was often used in connection with the annual rite of re-enthronement of the king. There is a bit of irony here in that, according to scholar Joseph Fitzmeyer, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day referred to themselves as the “builders of Israel.” Psalm 118 promised that God would build a gate for all to enter into his kingdom, but the finishing stone, the most important one, would be the very one that the builders rejected. “Yes,” Jesus was saying, this is how it had to go down. The “builders” were before their very eyes rejecting the Son, the cornerstone. What was the response of the people going to be? Were they going to side with the tenants or the Son?
In fact, said Jesus, “Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.” Simeon had taken the infant Jesus in his arms and prophesied that he would be the cause of great trouble for and division in Israel (LK. 2:25-35). That was happening and Jesus, with his seemingly enigmatic reference to everyone being broken up and crushed by the stone, was confirming that prophecy by appealing to Daniel 2:44-45. The passage in Daniel prophesied that God would set up a kingdom one day that would never be destroyed and that this kingdom, depicted as a great stone, would crush all kingdoms that were opposed to God’s kingdom. The nation of Israel had clung to the belief that this would happen to the pagan nations one day, but they failed to see that they had become the chief among those opposed to God. All nations, all peoples, including Israel would be judged by this stone and anyone who opposed it would be smashed to pieces.
We must wonder if the chief priests understood Jesus’ point. Did they understand that he was denouncing them and declaring quite clearly his identity, his authority, and the judgment that was about to come down on the nation of Israel? Were they clear on the idea that they vineyard was going to be handed over to someone else? Did they grasp his claim that the nation of Israel would no longer be the true Israel, the true people of God (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6; Gal. 3:7)? Yes, they understood well his point and they wanted to lay their hands on him to arrest him, to shut him up, and eventually to kill him. They, evidently, did not catch the irony of wanting to kill Jesus for the fact that he was declaring himself to be the Son that they wanted to kill.
As Jesus’ people, members of his family, we cannot ever forget that just as he went into places of power, religion, injustice, and opposition to God and was soundly rejected, we must be prepared to go preach the true gospel in the same types of places and expect similar reactions. But there is one important difference. The vineyard owner already has returned to restore his vineyard and it is our job to call people to be part of that grand kingdom and bear the fruit of the life of Christ. We don’t have to declare that the owner of the vineyard is coming but that he has already come and that all people and all nations can be part of his family right now.
Devotional Thought
The main problem that Israel’s leaders had was that they began to turn the benefits of the vineyard in on themselves rather than serving as a light to all nations. How does this challenge you to constantly work to make sure that your church family is committed to the ministry of reconciliation rather than making your church a comfortable place for those already there?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Luke 20:1-8 Commentary
The Authority of Jesus Questioned
1 One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?"
3 He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?"
5 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' 6 But if we say, 'Of human origin,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet."
7 So they answered, "We don't know where it was from."
8 Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."
Dig Deeper
A few years ago I had asked one of my sons to clean his room and told him that he needed to get it done by the end of the day. I trusted that he would take care of it and didn’t go to check until the next morning. When I got up there I discovered that he had not cleaned his room at all. When I asked why he hadn’t done what I said, he responded by saying that he decided it was a better idea to wait a day or two. So what do you think my next question was? It’s almost a universal truth. In fact, I’m pretty sure you could go try it out almost anywhere and find it to be true. The fact is, if you begin to take actions that challenge already established routines, orders, or bastions of authority, the first question that will be asked in nearly every situation is “who do you think you are?” In other words, by what authority are you taking these actions? In general, this question signals two things. The first is that the action you have taken is an indicator that you think you have some sort of authority to act in the manner that you have. The second thing is that, by asking that question, someone is generally indicating that they are not convinced that you have the authority that you are taking. In fact, the question would be rather moot and not be asked at all if your authority were already agreed upon or recognized, so the very act of asking what authority you have or who you think you are is a loud statement about the skepticism that exists over your perceived grab at authority.
It’s easy to look at Jesus’ actions, especially those he took in the Temple in the previous passage and pass over the importance of them. From our vantage point, complete with a lack of appreciation for the deep cultural, social, and spiritual aspects of the Temple in Jewish life, we can reduce Jesus’ actions in the Temple to a mere angry protest over a little crass commercialization. The Jewish religious leaders understood Jesus’ actions, however, to be far more significant and worrisome than that. This was a man who had Messianic claims and fervor swirling all around him and now he was taking action that screamed loud and clear that he believed himself to have the authority to step in and act out a parable of judgment and authority over the Temple. To be as popular as he seemed to have the potential of being combined with this perceived assault on their power was rightly discerned by the religious leaders as a dangerous threat to their position and authority. So the obvious question is exactly, in essence, the one that they demand Jesus answer. Who did he think he was?
On the heels of his acted out parable of authority and judgment, Jesus had the nerve, in the eyes of the chief priests and other teachers of the law, to show back up to the Temple. But he didn’t just show up and walk around. He was boldly teaching the people and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God and the fact that he was revealing the presence of the Father to those who wanted to join the family of the Messiah. He was, in effect, teaching people that everything that they got from the Temple could now be experienced by going to Jesus. He was the new Temple and the old one was under his authority and judgment. So the questions on the minds of the religious leaders was seemingly a fair question. “By what authority are you doing these things?” The second question was really the more important one and got to the heart of the matter. Who, they wanted to know, gave him the authority that he was putting on display for all to see? He was not a priest and had no legitimate authority in their eyes to engage in any action in the Temple of such a nature. They were in charge and in control of the goings on in the Temple, not this man.
The questions asked of Jesus were really a trap. This was, in some senses not unusual in the Jewish culture. It was a very common rabbinical style to argue or have debates by asking questions. You would ask your opponent a question and they would respond in kind, if they were able, with another more difficult question. In the end, the conversation was “won” by the one who could ask the last question. This is why Jesus so often responded to questions with a question of his own and why we never see anyone top Jesus with a question that he could not answer back to with a question of his own. But make no mistake, this was not an innocent question. If Jesus indicated somehow that God was the source of his authority, then he would be giving them all the ammunition that they needed to charge him with blasphemy.
Jesus responded carefully with a brilliant question that turned the tables on the whole situation but we must remember that this was not an example of Jesus dodging the question. In his culture, he was doing a very acceptable thing of responding to their tricky question with an even better question. If they wanted to know on whose authority he was acting then he would ask them a question about John and his baptism.
It’s easy for us to look at this and wonder what John has to do with this at all. We haven’t heard about John the Baptist in a long time and it seems completely out of left field to ask a question about him now. So why did Jesus ask them about the origins of John’s baptism? Because it not only put them in a difficult situation to answer, it cut right to the heart of the source of Jesus’ authority. If they honestly answered the question they would have their answer. Did John’s baptism have human or heavenly origins? In other words, from where did the authority of John’s baptism come. These leaders would have been well aware of the fact that Jesus was baptized by John, an act that seemed to serve as an anointing of sorts of the Messianic figure that had been sent by God and confirmed as God’s unique Son by the voice of the mighty God himself. The authority that he had was the royal and heavenly authority of the Messiah, a fact that was confirmed when the Spirit of God descended upon him like a dove and marked him out definitively as the promised Messiah.
So if that all happened at John’s baptism, then the question of the authority of John’s baptism becomes central. Was John a true prophet sent from God or not? Since an important biblical aspect of his ministry was to prepare the way for the Messiah, then the key question of his reliability and status from God could not be more important. If John was a true prophet of YHWH then Jesus really was the Messiah and had every right to exercise authority over the Temple. If John was not a true prophet, then Jesus was acting blasphemously and could be dealt with accordingly.
From a very straightforward standpoint, the chief priests and teachers of the law lost this discussion. Jesus had asked a question that they either could not or would not answer. But Luke has allowed us to see into the conversation and know exactly why they couldn’t answer. They were not really primarily concerned with the things of God. They were concerned with public opinion. Jesus’ question had put them in their own difficult situation and they didn’t have a good way to answer. But we should note the difference between the two situations. The trap that they were trying to lay for Jesus in inducing him to say that he believed his authority came directly from God was a trap of their making, and yet Jesus was not afraid to make the answer available to those who would simply recognize that John had been sent as a true prophet of God. The trap for the chief priests, however, was self made. They were in the difficult situation solely because they were so concerned with how their answer would play to the crowds. If they were more concerned with what God thought than with what the crowds thought, they would not have been in that position.
But because they did care so much about their positions of authority, they felt that they were in a no-win situation. They were faced with either admitting that John was from heaven and that they were in the wrong for not accepting him (which would have also meant that Jesus had every right to do what he did in the Temple) or with being consistent with their position that Jesus had no legitimate authority which meant that John was not from God, a position that they worried would have so enraged the crowds that they would have turned violently on the chief priests themselves. So they decided to pass. The showed that truly defending God and his Temple took a backseat to their own positions, respect, and authority and they refused to give an answer, simply saying that they just didn’t know.
Luke has already shown us that one of Jesus’ charges against the nation of Israel as a whole was that they were ignorant as to coming visitation of the very one that they claimed to be their God (Lk. 19:44). Now, the religious leaders of Israel incriminate themselves on that very charge. Had God come to them through the prophetic ministry of John and was the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem and his display of authority in the Temple the very coming of God himself? They did not know. And that was the problem. They were in complete ignorance when it came to the coming of God’s kingdom. If they wouldn’t answer that, then there was no reason for answering their initial question. The answer was obvious but their intentional ignorance would keep them blind to the truth.
It is up to us then, to ensure that we are always sensitive to the authority of Jesus in our own lives and don’t fall into the trap of feigning ignorance to the ways that he exercises his authority in our own communitites, families and lives.
Devotional Thought
What are some ways that you can easily ignore God’s authority in your life by refusing to recognize his authority? Is there an area of your life that you need, right now, to submit to God’s authority and recognize the time of his visitation?
1 One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?"
3 He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?"
5 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' 6 But if we say, 'Of human origin,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet."
7 So they answered, "We don't know where it was from."
8 Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."
Dig Deeper
A few years ago I had asked one of my sons to clean his room and told him that he needed to get it done by the end of the day. I trusted that he would take care of it and didn’t go to check until the next morning. When I got up there I discovered that he had not cleaned his room at all. When I asked why he hadn’t done what I said, he responded by saying that he decided it was a better idea to wait a day or two. So what do you think my next question was? It’s almost a universal truth. In fact, I’m pretty sure you could go try it out almost anywhere and find it to be true. The fact is, if you begin to take actions that challenge already established routines, orders, or bastions of authority, the first question that will be asked in nearly every situation is “who do you think you are?” In other words, by what authority are you taking these actions? In general, this question signals two things. The first is that the action you have taken is an indicator that you think you have some sort of authority to act in the manner that you have. The second thing is that, by asking that question, someone is generally indicating that they are not convinced that you have the authority that you are taking. In fact, the question would be rather moot and not be asked at all if your authority were already agreed upon or recognized, so the very act of asking what authority you have or who you think you are is a loud statement about the skepticism that exists over your perceived grab at authority.
It’s easy to look at Jesus’ actions, especially those he took in the Temple in the previous passage and pass over the importance of them. From our vantage point, complete with a lack of appreciation for the deep cultural, social, and spiritual aspects of the Temple in Jewish life, we can reduce Jesus’ actions in the Temple to a mere angry protest over a little crass commercialization. The Jewish religious leaders understood Jesus’ actions, however, to be far more significant and worrisome than that. This was a man who had Messianic claims and fervor swirling all around him and now he was taking action that screamed loud and clear that he believed himself to have the authority to step in and act out a parable of judgment and authority over the Temple. To be as popular as he seemed to have the potential of being combined with this perceived assault on their power was rightly discerned by the religious leaders as a dangerous threat to their position and authority. So the obvious question is exactly, in essence, the one that they demand Jesus answer. Who did he think he was?
On the heels of his acted out parable of authority and judgment, Jesus had the nerve, in the eyes of the chief priests and other teachers of the law, to show back up to the Temple. But he didn’t just show up and walk around. He was boldly teaching the people and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God and the fact that he was revealing the presence of the Father to those who wanted to join the family of the Messiah. He was, in effect, teaching people that everything that they got from the Temple could now be experienced by going to Jesus. He was the new Temple and the old one was under his authority and judgment. So the questions on the minds of the religious leaders was seemingly a fair question. “By what authority are you doing these things?” The second question was really the more important one and got to the heart of the matter. Who, they wanted to know, gave him the authority that he was putting on display for all to see? He was not a priest and had no legitimate authority in their eyes to engage in any action in the Temple of such a nature. They were in charge and in control of the goings on in the Temple, not this man.
The questions asked of Jesus were really a trap. This was, in some senses not unusual in the Jewish culture. It was a very common rabbinical style to argue or have debates by asking questions. You would ask your opponent a question and they would respond in kind, if they were able, with another more difficult question. In the end, the conversation was “won” by the one who could ask the last question. This is why Jesus so often responded to questions with a question of his own and why we never see anyone top Jesus with a question that he could not answer back to with a question of his own. But make no mistake, this was not an innocent question. If Jesus indicated somehow that God was the source of his authority, then he would be giving them all the ammunition that they needed to charge him with blasphemy.
Jesus responded carefully with a brilliant question that turned the tables on the whole situation but we must remember that this was not an example of Jesus dodging the question. In his culture, he was doing a very acceptable thing of responding to their tricky question with an even better question. If they wanted to know on whose authority he was acting then he would ask them a question about John and his baptism.
It’s easy for us to look at this and wonder what John has to do with this at all. We haven’t heard about John the Baptist in a long time and it seems completely out of left field to ask a question about him now. So why did Jesus ask them about the origins of John’s baptism? Because it not only put them in a difficult situation to answer, it cut right to the heart of the source of Jesus’ authority. If they honestly answered the question they would have their answer. Did John’s baptism have human or heavenly origins? In other words, from where did the authority of John’s baptism come. These leaders would have been well aware of the fact that Jesus was baptized by John, an act that seemed to serve as an anointing of sorts of the Messianic figure that had been sent by God and confirmed as God’s unique Son by the voice of the mighty God himself. The authority that he had was the royal and heavenly authority of the Messiah, a fact that was confirmed when the Spirit of God descended upon him like a dove and marked him out definitively as the promised Messiah.
So if that all happened at John’s baptism, then the question of the authority of John’s baptism becomes central. Was John a true prophet sent from God or not? Since an important biblical aspect of his ministry was to prepare the way for the Messiah, then the key question of his reliability and status from God could not be more important. If John was a true prophet of YHWH then Jesus really was the Messiah and had every right to exercise authority over the Temple. If John was not a true prophet, then Jesus was acting blasphemously and could be dealt with accordingly.
From a very straightforward standpoint, the chief priests and teachers of the law lost this discussion. Jesus had asked a question that they either could not or would not answer. But Luke has allowed us to see into the conversation and know exactly why they couldn’t answer. They were not really primarily concerned with the things of God. They were concerned with public opinion. Jesus’ question had put them in their own difficult situation and they didn’t have a good way to answer. But we should note the difference between the two situations. The trap that they were trying to lay for Jesus in inducing him to say that he believed his authority came directly from God was a trap of their making, and yet Jesus was not afraid to make the answer available to those who would simply recognize that John had been sent as a true prophet of God. The trap for the chief priests, however, was self made. They were in the difficult situation solely because they were so concerned with how their answer would play to the crowds. If they were more concerned with what God thought than with what the crowds thought, they would not have been in that position.
But because they did care so much about their positions of authority, they felt that they were in a no-win situation. They were faced with either admitting that John was from heaven and that they were in the wrong for not accepting him (which would have also meant that Jesus had every right to do what he did in the Temple) or with being consistent with their position that Jesus had no legitimate authority which meant that John was not from God, a position that they worried would have so enraged the crowds that they would have turned violently on the chief priests themselves. So they decided to pass. The showed that truly defending God and his Temple took a backseat to their own positions, respect, and authority and they refused to give an answer, simply saying that they just didn’t know.
Luke has already shown us that one of Jesus’ charges against the nation of Israel as a whole was that they were ignorant as to coming visitation of the very one that they claimed to be their God (Lk. 19:44). Now, the religious leaders of Israel incriminate themselves on that very charge. Had God come to them through the prophetic ministry of John and was the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem and his display of authority in the Temple the very coming of God himself? They did not know. And that was the problem. They were in complete ignorance when it came to the coming of God’s kingdom. If they wouldn’t answer that, then there was no reason for answering their initial question. The answer was obvious but their intentional ignorance would keep them blind to the truth.
It is up to us then, to ensure that we are always sensitive to the authority of Jesus in our own lives and don’t fall into the trap of feigning ignorance to the ways that he exercises his authority in our own communitites, families and lives.
Devotional Thought
What are some ways that you can easily ignore God’s authority in your life by refusing to recognize his authority? Is there an area of your life that you need, right now, to submit to God’s authority and recognize the time of his visitation?
Friday, June 11, 2010
Luke 19:41-48 Commentary
41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come on you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."
Jesus at the Temple
45 When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling. 46 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer' [c]; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.' [d]"
47 Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him. 48 Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words.
Dig Deeper
I just couldn’t believe what I saw going on that day. At the time, in fact, it seemed like one of the worst things that I had ever seen. I just couldn’t imagine how someone could do that. I was a young college student and was making a few bucks on the weekends by working at the YMCA in the small Oklahoma town where I went to school. I did many different things at the YMCA including refereeing basketball games, tutoring and mentoring young kids and teaching a physical education class for home schooled students. It was that class for home schooled kids where the offense took place. I walked into the gym one day and most of the kids were already there getting warmed up and having a good time, and then I saw it. They were playing a game of kickball . . . wait for it . . . with a basketball. Take a moment to recover if you’d like. I’m sure you’re as horrified by this as I was. As someone who greatly loved the game of basketball and, at the time, put much more importance on the game than I should have, it was just deeply shocking. I scolded them firmly that they should “never, ever, ever, kick a basketball.” They were taking something that was very important to me and completely misusing it and I would simply not stand by and watch that happen. I took the basketball away from them and began the class by having them run a few extra laps just to teach them to never forget this vastly important lesson.
Of course, I write the previous paragraph with a little bit of humorous exaggeration, or as the saying goes, “with my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek,” but there is a true principle behind it that is deeply related to this passage as Jesus finally arrives in Jerusalem and strides into the Temple. The nation of Israel had been given so much by God and had misused it. The Temple was the central symbol of all that God had given to Israel and all that she was to become. It was a towering example of God’s promise to protect his people. But God’s people had misused that Temple. I was upset at a silly and rather unimportant thing because some kids were misusing something that was dear to me. On an unimaginably greater level of infinitely more importance, this was at the heart of Jesus’ actions in the Temple. The people of Israel were not acting like the people of God. They had taken a precious gift and had kicked it around for their own amusement and their own purposes and now time had run out. The tune had been played and the piper would be paid.
As Jesus approached Jerusalem, the scene is striking for what we do see and for what we don’t see. What we don’t see is any gloating or enjoyment on Jesus’ part. Luke has depicted Jesus as resolutely making his way to Jerusalem, preaching a message of peace and reconciliation for those who would embrace the opportunity to enter into God’s new family that Jesus was creating around himself, but it was a message of terrible judgment that would come upon the nation of Israel if she remained in resolute opposition to God. But Jesus does not relish this moment. There is no hint of an “it serves you right” attitude.
What we do see is Jesus weeping as he stood on the outskirts of the city that had refused to repent and go the way of peace (Lk. 13:5). This was not a picture of an angry God that was itching to destroy his wayward people. This was the picture of a God that had emptied himself and come to his own people as one of them and had longed to gather them together under his wings to protect them (Lk. 13:34) but now the house would be left desolate. Israel had run out of time, though some individuals had repented and chosen the way of God’s peace, the nation as a whole had not. The opportunity had been lost and now the nation would never know the blessing of the return of their God, they would know only the curses that came for those who failed to live up to the covenant that they had made (see Ps. 137:9; Isa. 29:1-4; Jer. 6:6-21; 8:18-22, Nah. 3:10). The curses were the harsh reality of entering into covenant with the almighty God going back to Deuteronomy 28-32. Israel had already lived through pre-cursors of that judgment through the nations of Babylon and Assyria and the great exile but now the ultimate fulfillment was on its way.
“The days will come,” said Jesus, indicating a prophetic utterance (see 1 Sam. 2:31; 2 Ki. 20:17; isa. 36:9; Jer. 7:32-34; 32:38; 33:14; 49:2; Zech. 14:1), when God will once again work through Israel’s enemies as they will siege the city and ultimately destroy it. The people of God would not recognize the time of God’s coming, or as it more literally reads, “the day of God’s visitation.” It is important to note that virtually every word from Jesus’ prophetic oracle comes directly from the Old Testament: your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you - Isa. 29:3; also see Isa. 37:33; Jer. 6:6-21; Ezek. 4:1-3; 2 Ki. 6:14; and hem you in on every side - Ezek. 4:2, 21:22; see also Jer. 52:4; They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls - Ps. 137:9; see also Hos. 10:4; Nah. 3:10; 2 Ki. 8:12; They will not leave one stone on another - 2 Sam. 17:13; see also Ezek. 26:12; you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you - Jer. 6:15, (although the language in the TNIV does not makes this connection obvious) demonstrating that this should have been seen coming all along and was not something ‘out of left field’. What Jesus had alluded and hinted to in Luke 13:35, he now makes quite clear. Israel would be judged and destroyed. Not one stone would be left on another, Jesus said, which was a common way in his day of saying that the thing referred to would be totally and utterly wiped out.
Much could be said about Jesus’ entrance into the temple, including the fact that we’re unclear as to how many times he cleared the Temple and there is still much debate over what exactly Jesus intended by his actions in the Temple. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place the clearing out of the Temple during the last week of Jesus’ life, while John places a similar incident near the beginning of his ministry. It seems most likely that John either described an earlier and smaller affair involving Jesus in the outer courts of the Temple or he is describing the same event as the other Gospel writers but placed the account earlier to make a theological point. It seems virtually certain, however, that Jesus did enter into the Temple during the last week of his life just as Luke has described here.
So, what was Jesus doing in the Temple? It certainly seems that each Gospel writer saw and emphasized a different aspect of this deeply meaningful and important act. And it was certainly vitally important, not just in Jesus’ message, but it was an act that was so confrontational and disturbing to the Jewish religious leaders that it would be the specific act that finally instigated the arrest of Jesus. One of things that is often missed about this incident is that Jesus seemed to be intentionally acting in the long Jewish prophetic tradition of acting out a parable. This was not primarily an issue of being angry over the fact that the Temple had turned into a commercial operation in many ways. This was a parable that declared that the true Temple had arrived and was exercising his authority over the Jerusalem Temple (as we will see in the next passage, the issue of authority would play a major role). Just as Isaiah had stripped naked to declare judgment over those who had set themselves against God’s people (Isa. 20:1-6); just as Jeremiah had smashed a pot to demonstrate that Israel had set herself against their God (Jer. 19:1-5); and just as Ezekiel had laid on his side for over a year to symbolize the siege of Jerusalem, so Jesus was acting out an object lesson. Jesus came into the Temple as though he had complete authority to it and took the one action that would immediately bring all activity to a halt. He was in charge and wanted that to be extremely clear.
Admittedly, the common interpretation here is that Jesus was upset about those who were making money at the expense of others and had commercialized the Temple. But he never criticizes the sacrificial system and, in context, that doesn’t seem to be the primary target. Luke gives us the reason for Jesus’ action in the quotes that came from Jesus in verse 46. The first quote, “my house will be a house of prayer” comes from Isaiah 56 while “you have made it a den of robbers” comes from Jeremiah 7.
Isaiah 56 is a passage that declares that the Temple was to be a place of justice for all who obeyed the Lord. It would be a house of prayer for all people from all over the world. It should be noted that in the Jewish mind, prayer was a revelatory act where one sought and connected with God’s will, as well as being a place of the constant pursuit of justice and openness to God. Jeremiah 7 was a promise that God’s wrath would be poured out on those who had oppressed others, acted unjustly, and engaged in idolatry. They were “bandits” (a word that is translated “robbers” here but meant something more like “brigand,” “revolutionary,” or “rebel”) that were using God’s house as a front for their own agenda and then justifying their practices. Jesus’ point was to intentionally combine these two ideas. They were turning the Temple of God into a sham and using it for their own purposes.
Luke makes clear how they were doing this with a brilliant piece of word play that seems obscure to us but, I believe, would not have escaped the notice of his first readers. As New Testament readers we should be very careful as we read quotes from the Old Testament. We often don’t even bother turning to the Old Testament to read the original context of the quote but it is always so important to do. The context of the original passage is often key for us understanding the intended meaning of the New Testament passage. In addition to that we need to pay special attention to any changes in the quotation. In Luke 19:38, for instance, we saw that Luke intentionally changed the Old Testament quotation from “blessed is he” from Psalm 118:26 to “blessed is the king”. This was a vital change intended to make a clear point.
Here Luke has done something similar that is nothing short of brilliant. In verse 46 he has quoted from Isaiah 56:7 which says “My house will be a house of prayer for all nations.” But in verse 46 he has left off the “all nations.” The question must be “why?”. Why would Luke leave off one of God’s most important promises, that all nations would be blessed through the family of Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and that God’s people would be a light for all people (Isa. 49:6). The answer comes in verse 48 as Luke says that “all the people (using the words “laos” which can also be translated as “nations”) hung on the very words of Jesus.
Luke’s point is that Jesus was sending the clear message that the Temple was being misused to mark out “insiders” from “outsiders” rather than being a light to call the “outsiders” to join God’s people. They were misusing the Temple for their own benefit rather than for it’s proper purpose. All the people were not being fed and the Temple was not being used as a house of prayer for all the nations. But, as Luke has made clear already, Jesus was the true Temple that was coming to replace the old Temple. The old Temple was not meeting it’s purpose but Jesus was. That is why “all the people” were clinging to him. What they were not receiving rightly at the Temple, Jesus was providing. He was the place where all the people could connect truly with God’s word. He had become the true house of prayer where all the people could go for God’s will to be revealed to them and where they could pursue the justice and openness of God. Jesus was the true Temple.
The New Testament writers make clear that God’s family, the body of Christ, is now the Temple of God, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; Eph. 2:21). The question that we must always ask of ourselves is this: “Is our Temple truly a house of prayer for all nations and all people?” Are we intentionally calling all nations to come to the light and find the revelation of God’s justice and mercy? These are questions that should always be on our hearts in everything we do.
Devotional Thought
Do you have such zeal and passion for God and his purposes that you would take such a bold act to defend God’s will? Are you willing and ready to stand up righteously and protest when God’s Temple is not being the house of prayer that it was intended to be?
Jesus at the Temple
45 When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling. 46 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer' [c]; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.' [d]"
47 Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him. 48 Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words.
Dig Deeper
I just couldn’t believe what I saw going on that day. At the time, in fact, it seemed like one of the worst things that I had ever seen. I just couldn’t imagine how someone could do that. I was a young college student and was making a few bucks on the weekends by working at the YMCA in the small Oklahoma town where I went to school. I did many different things at the YMCA including refereeing basketball games, tutoring and mentoring young kids and teaching a physical education class for home schooled students. It was that class for home schooled kids where the offense took place. I walked into the gym one day and most of the kids were already there getting warmed up and having a good time, and then I saw it. They were playing a game of kickball . . . wait for it . . . with a basketball. Take a moment to recover if you’d like. I’m sure you’re as horrified by this as I was. As someone who greatly loved the game of basketball and, at the time, put much more importance on the game than I should have, it was just deeply shocking. I scolded them firmly that they should “never, ever, ever, kick a basketball.” They were taking something that was very important to me and completely misusing it and I would simply not stand by and watch that happen. I took the basketball away from them and began the class by having them run a few extra laps just to teach them to never forget this vastly important lesson.
Of course, I write the previous paragraph with a little bit of humorous exaggeration, or as the saying goes, “with my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek,” but there is a true principle behind it that is deeply related to this passage as Jesus finally arrives in Jerusalem and strides into the Temple. The nation of Israel had been given so much by God and had misused it. The Temple was the central symbol of all that God had given to Israel and all that she was to become. It was a towering example of God’s promise to protect his people. But God’s people had misused that Temple. I was upset at a silly and rather unimportant thing because some kids were misusing something that was dear to me. On an unimaginably greater level of infinitely more importance, this was at the heart of Jesus’ actions in the Temple. The people of Israel were not acting like the people of God. They had taken a precious gift and had kicked it around for their own amusement and their own purposes and now time had run out. The tune had been played and the piper would be paid.
As Jesus approached Jerusalem, the scene is striking for what we do see and for what we don’t see. What we don’t see is any gloating or enjoyment on Jesus’ part. Luke has depicted Jesus as resolutely making his way to Jerusalem, preaching a message of peace and reconciliation for those who would embrace the opportunity to enter into God’s new family that Jesus was creating around himself, but it was a message of terrible judgment that would come upon the nation of Israel if she remained in resolute opposition to God. But Jesus does not relish this moment. There is no hint of an “it serves you right” attitude.
What we do see is Jesus weeping as he stood on the outskirts of the city that had refused to repent and go the way of peace (Lk. 13:5). This was not a picture of an angry God that was itching to destroy his wayward people. This was the picture of a God that had emptied himself and come to his own people as one of them and had longed to gather them together under his wings to protect them (Lk. 13:34) but now the house would be left desolate. Israel had run out of time, though some individuals had repented and chosen the way of God’s peace, the nation as a whole had not. The opportunity had been lost and now the nation would never know the blessing of the return of their God, they would know only the curses that came for those who failed to live up to the covenant that they had made (see Ps. 137:9; Isa. 29:1-4; Jer. 6:6-21; 8:18-22, Nah. 3:10). The curses were the harsh reality of entering into covenant with the almighty God going back to Deuteronomy 28-32. Israel had already lived through pre-cursors of that judgment through the nations of Babylon and Assyria and the great exile but now the ultimate fulfillment was on its way.
“The days will come,” said Jesus, indicating a prophetic utterance (see 1 Sam. 2:31; 2 Ki. 20:17; isa. 36:9; Jer. 7:32-34; 32:38; 33:14; 49:2; Zech. 14:1), when God will once again work through Israel’s enemies as they will siege the city and ultimately destroy it. The people of God would not recognize the time of God’s coming, or as it more literally reads, “the day of God’s visitation.” It is important to note that virtually every word from Jesus’ prophetic oracle comes directly from the Old Testament: your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you - Isa. 29:3; also see Isa. 37:33; Jer. 6:6-21; Ezek. 4:1-3; 2 Ki. 6:14; and hem you in on every side - Ezek. 4:2, 21:22; see also Jer. 52:4; They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls - Ps. 137:9; see also Hos. 10:4; Nah. 3:10; 2 Ki. 8:12; They will not leave one stone on another - 2 Sam. 17:13; see also Ezek. 26:12; you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you - Jer. 6:15, (although the language in the TNIV does not makes this connection obvious) demonstrating that this should have been seen coming all along and was not something ‘out of left field’. What Jesus had alluded and hinted to in Luke 13:35, he now makes quite clear. Israel would be judged and destroyed. Not one stone would be left on another, Jesus said, which was a common way in his day of saying that the thing referred to would be totally and utterly wiped out.
Much could be said about Jesus’ entrance into the temple, including the fact that we’re unclear as to how many times he cleared the Temple and there is still much debate over what exactly Jesus intended by his actions in the Temple. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place the clearing out of the Temple during the last week of Jesus’ life, while John places a similar incident near the beginning of his ministry. It seems most likely that John either described an earlier and smaller affair involving Jesus in the outer courts of the Temple or he is describing the same event as the other Gospel writers but placed the account earlier to make a theological point. It seems virtually certain, however, that Jesus did enter into the Temple during the last week of his life just as Luke has described here.
So, what was Jesus doing in the Temple? It certainly seems that each Gospel writer saw and emphasized a different aspect of this deeply meaningful and important act. And it was certainly vitally important, not just in Jesus’ message, but it was an act that was so confrontational and disturbing to the Jewish religious leaders that it would be the specific act that finally instigated the arrest of Jesus. One of things that is often missed about this incident is that Jesus seemed to be intentionally acting in the long Jewish prophetic tradition of acting out a parable. This was not primarily an issue of being angry over the fact that the Temple had turned into a commercial operation in many ways. This was a parable that declared that the true Temple had arrived and was exercising his authority over the Jerusalem Temple (as we will see in the next passage, the issue of authority would play a major role). Just as Isaiah had stripped naked to declare judgment over those who had set themselves against God’s people (Isa. 20:1-6); just as Jeremiah had smashed a pot to demonstrate that Israel had set herself against their God (Jer. 19:1-5); and just as Ezekiel had laid on his side for over a year to symbolize the siege of Jerusalem, so Jesus was acting out an object lesson. Jesus came into the Temple as though he had complete authority to it and took the one action that would immediately bring all activity to a halt. He was in charge and wanted that to be extremely clear.
Admittedly, the common interpretation here is that Jesus was upset about those who were making money at the expense of others and had commercialized the Temple. But he never criticizes the sacrificial system and, in context, that doesn’t seem to be the primary target. Luke gives us the reason for Jesus’ action in the quotes that came from Jesus in verse 46. The first quote, “my house will be a house of prayer” comes from Isaiah 56 while “you have made it a den of robbers” comes from Jeremiah 7.
Isaiah 56 is a passage that declares that the Temple was to be a place of justice for all who obeyed the Lord. It would be a house of prayer for all people from all over the world. It should be noted that in the Jewish mind, prayer was a revelatory act where one sought and connected with God’s will, as well as being a place of the constant pursuit of justice and openness to God. Jeremiah 7 was a promise that God’s wrath would be poured out on those who had oppressed others, acted unjustly, and engaged in idolatry. They were “bandits” (a word that is translated “robbers” here but meant something more like “brigand,” “revolutionary,” or “rebel”) that were using God’s house as a front for their own agenda and then justifying their practices. Jesus’ point was to intentionally combine these two ideas. They were turning the Temple of God into a sham and using it for their own purposes.
Luke makes clear how they were doing this with a brilliant piece of word play that seems obscure to us but, I believe, would not have escaped the notice of his first readers. As New Testament readers we should be very careful as we read quotes from the Old Testament. We often don’t even bother turning to the Old Testament to read the original context of the quote but it is always so important to do. The context of the original passage is often key for us understanding the intended meaning of the New Testament passage. In addition to that we need to pay special attention to any changes in the quotation. In Luke 19:38, for instance, we saw that Luke intentionally changed the Old Testament quotation from “blessed is he” from Psalm 118:26 to “blessed is the king”. This was a vital change intended to make a clear point.
Here Luke has done something similar that is nothing short of brilliant. In verse 46 he has quoted from Isaiah 56:7 which says “My house will be a house of prayer for all nations.” But in verse 46 he has left off the “all nations.” The question must be “why?”. Why would Luke leave off one of God’s most important promises, that all nations would be blessed through the family of Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and that God’s people would be a light for all people (Isa. 49:6). The answer comes in verse 48 as Luke says that “all the people (using the words “laos” which can also be translated as “nations”) hung on the very words of Jesus.
Luke’s point is that Jesus was sending the clear message that the Temple was being misused to mark out “insiders” from “outsiders” rather than being a light to call the “outsiders” to join God’s people. They were misusing the Temple for their own benefit rather than for it’s proper purpose. All the people were not being fed and the Temple was not being used as a house of prayer for all the nations. But, as Luke has made clear already, Jesus was the true Temple that was coming to replace the old Temple. The old Temple was not meeting it’s purpose but Jesus was. That is why “all the people” were clinging to him. What they were not receiving rightly at the Temple, Jesus was providing. He was the place where all the people could connect truly with God’s word. He had become the true house of prayer where all the people could go for God’s will to be revealed to them and where they could pursue the justice and openness of God. Jesus was the true Temple.
The New Testament writers make clear that God’s family, the body of Christ, is now the Temple of God, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; Eph. 2:21). The question that we must always ask of ourselves is this: “Is our Temple truly a house of prayer for all nations and all people?” Are we intentionally calling all nations to come to the light and find the revelation of God’s justice and mercy? These are questions that should always be on our hearts in everything we do.
Devotional Thought
Do you have such zeal and passion for God and his purposes that you would take such a bold act to defend God’s will? Are you willing and ready to stand up righteously and protest when God’s Temple is not being the house of prayer that it was intended to be?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Luke 19:28-40
Jesus Comes to Jerusalem as King
28 After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. 29 As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, 30 "Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' say, 'The Lord needs it.' "
32 Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?"
34 They replied, "The Lord needs it."
35 They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it. 36 As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road.
37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38 "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" [b]
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
40 "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."
Dig Deeper
During the presidential election for the United States in 2008, one of the then candidates, now President Barack Obama, made a rather controversial splash when he began to show up to election rallies in a different way than any other candidate for President ever had. Rather than coming out to crowds like a candidate for President and speaking surrounded by campaign posters and supporters, Obama had a seal made for himself, one that looked nearly identical to the official seal of the President of the United States. When Obama would show up for campaign rallies, he and his staff went to a great deal of trouble to make his arrival and subsequent speech look like someone who already was the President of the United States. Not the least of those efforts was that Presidential-looking seal that sat boldly and auspiciously on his speaking podium. The response to all of this was quite varied. Those who supported Obama saw no problem with it. In fact they encouraged it and embraced it as a reality that was to come. Those who did not support Obama, however, had a much different perspective. They saw it as offensive, presumptuous, and arrogant. They urged him and his followers to stop such a display and wanted him to immediately discourage his supporters from acting like he was already the President of the United States when he clearly was not yet.
The big difference between that example and the scene that Luke describes here is that Jesus comes into Jerusalem surrounded by all the trappings and symbols of a Davidic king, yet he really is king it was just that no one yet fully recognized it. Everywhere we look in this passage we are confronted by the sights, sounds, and symbols of the triumphal entry of a king, but this was no presumptuous act. This was the arrival of the king. Jesus was the king that had been described in the parable in the previous passage. He was the one who had been away for a long time. Israel was awaiting the return of their God and the arrival of their promised Messiah, and it was all happening in one fell swoop right in front of their eyes. Jesus’ disciples were determined to make this the kingly event that they believed it to be, even if they didn’t yet fully grasp everything that was going on and didn’t entirely understand who Jesus was yet. Some of the Pharisees, however, were firmly against all this. They saw it in the same negative light that Obama’s critics did. It was arrogant and presumptuous, and beyond that, Jesus’ actions were potentially dangerous if Herod or the Romans got wind that some sort of Messianic uprising was taking place. Whatever Jesus was up to, his opponents didn’t like and wanted it to stop immediately.
This passage represents the climax of the travel sequence that began all the way back in Luke 9:51 when Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. Now Jesus has finally arrived. How will he be received? How will he be treated? In some ways this passage begins to answer the first of those questions, but it also creates an even bigger surprise for the answer to the second question. Jesus’ initial reception and his final treatment could not be at further ends of the spectrum.
Luke draws special attention to the fact that as Jesus approached Jerusalem, he came to the Mount of Olives. The prophet Zechariah spoke symbolically of the Messiah setting foot on the Mount of Olives and creating a vast division. It seems that Luke possibly intended some allusion to the passage from Zechariah 14:4-5 as he stresses that Jesus has arrived at the Mount of Olives.
As he looked towards Jerusalem, Jesus sent two disciples ahead to collect a young donkey for him to ride in on. As they arrived they found the situation just as Jesus had described. They spotted a young colt, untied it, and when asked by the owners what they were doing, they simply explained that the Lord needed it. Luke doesn’t tell us the response but they do come back with the colt. Many commentators have speculated that Jesus had somehow pre-arranged this situation, but the text doesn’t even hint at any such arrangement and it seems that Luke intends for his readers to see Jesus’ foreknowledge of the situation more than he does any such speculative pre-arrangement. The situation is not as strange as it might seem to us, though, as there was a common practice in ancient Isreal called “angaria,” where an important person, such as a rabbi or priest, could commandeer the use of property such as animals for personal reasons.
The primary point of the colt section, however, seems to be to stress the fact that this young animal had never been ridden which likely was an allusion to the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. This was a powerful prophecy of the peace-making and humble Messiah that would ride in on a colt, the foal of a donkey. The Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament in use in Luke’s time, stressed that it was a “new colt” so it was likely that Luke wanted to make the point that this incident was a specific fulfillment of Zechariah’s great prophecy. It is also quite possible that Luke mentions the detail of the young donkey being tied and untied so often because in those details he saw a clear prophetic connection to Genesis 49:11 which spoke of the Messiah tying his donkey to the choicest vine.
It should not be missed, however, that everywhere we look in this passage, we see that Luke wants to make the point that this was the reception of a king. As Jesus approached, his disciples began to spread their cloaks on the ground in a manner reminiscent of 2 Kings 9:12-13 which describes the triumphant reception of Jehu as king of Israel: “'This is what the LORD says: I anoint you king over Israel.' They quickly took their cloaks and spread them under him on the bare steps. Then they blew the trumpet and shouted, "Jehu is king!’” As they were laying down their cloaks in a kingly reception to this humble king who was riding in on a donkey just as Solomon had when he was being recognized as King of Israel (1 Ki. 1:38-39). Riding the donkey then, was a symbol of kingship, but of humble rule rather than base power.
As Jesus passed the Mount of Olives, the disciples began to praise God for all that they had seen and for the miracles that had pointed the way to the kingdom of God that was breaking into the present age. Luke says that they shouted “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest.” This is significant and interesting for several reasons. This is a quote from Psalm 118, a hymn that was used in ancient Israel both as a hymn of royal entry during the ritual of re-enthronement and as a song that pilgrims would sing on their way to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration. This event brings both of those elements together. Jesus is the king that is returning to Israel to demonstrate that he is the true king, albeit it would be in way that no one expected. But he is also the fulfillment of the Passover. He is the lamb being led to slaughter so that God’s people can be freed from their slavery to sin. His blood would bring freedom to the people of God and they will be his people and he will be their king. It is extremely interesting, however, that the text of this blessing has added “the king,” as the original language of Psalm 118:26 reads “blessed is he.” This addition, whether it was the disciples who made it that day, or Luke who added it in later, ties together this praise passage from the Psalm with Zechariah 9:9 and the other elements surrounding Jesus’ entry to demonstrate that Jesus is the king.
But just as Jesus made clear in the previous parable of the Ten Minas, not everyone would want this man as their king. There were Pharisees who did not “want this man to be our king” (Lk. 19:14). They saw all of this as terribly inappropriate and downright dangerous. So they call on Jesus to rebuke his disciples for this outburst and the obvious kingly and Messianic reception that they were giving him. Luke likely omitted the mention of the waving of the palm branches mentioned by John’s Gospel in John 12:13 because he wished to avoid the political connections that palms had with the political aspect of Judas Maccabeus who was greeted with the waving of palms. Thus, Luke is stressing the Messianic aspect of Jesus’ kingly reception rather than being a political king or ruler.
The response of Jesus to this request to silence his disciples is quite fascinating. Not only did Jesus refuse to quiet those who were properly praising and receiving him as the Messiah, he retorted that “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” It was John the Baptist who had declared to the people of Israel “do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham” (Lk. 3:8). That is precisely what was taking place. Those that did not want Jesus as king were rejecting him and God would indeed raise up “stones” to be the children of Abraham. Those that would come to Jesus in faith to be the Messiah, King, and Lord would be “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) and could truly say that they “like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5).
It is striking to consider that the same people who were so exuberant in their reception of Jesus as King and were so ready to take part in the pomp, circumstance, and emotion of this moment, are the same people who will be so quick to abandon him when stiff opposition and death stare them directly in the eye. Let us not be those who are quick to follow Jesus when things are going well but who are also so quick to abandon his kingdom agenda at the slightest hint of controversy.
Devotional Thought
Are you as willing to follow Jesus into trouble and trials as you are to spread your cloak on the ground and receive him as King when things are going well? Spend some time considering that question as it applies to your life and then praying for strength and boldness to follow Jesus through any situation.
28 After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. 29 As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, 30 "Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' say, 'The Lord needs it.' "
32 Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?"
34 They replied, "The Lord needs it."
35 They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it. 36 As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road.
37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38 "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" [b]
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
40 "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."
Dig Deeper
During the presidential election for the United States in 2008, one of the then candidates, now President Barack Obama, made a rather controversial splash when he began to show up to election rallies in a different way than any other candidate for President ever had. Rather than coming out to crowds like a candidate for President and speaking surrounded by campaign posters and supporters, Obama had a seal made for himself, one that looked nearly identical to the official seal of the President of the United States. When Obama would show up for campaign rallies, he and his staff went to a great deal of trouble to make his arrival and subsequent speech look like someone who already was the President of the United States. Not the least of those efforts was that Presidential-looking seal that sat boldly and auspiciously on his speaking podium. The response to all of this was quite varied. Those who supported Obama saw no problem with it. In fact they encouraged it and embraced it as a reality that was to come. Those who did not support Obama, however, had a much different perspective. They saw it as offensive, presumptuous, and arrogant. They urged him and his followers to stop such a display and wanted him to immediately discourage his supporters from acting like he was already the President of the United States when he clearly was not yet.
The big difference between that example and the scene that Luke describes here is that Jesus comes into Jerusalem surrounded by all the trappings and symbols of a Davidic king, yet he really is king it was just that no one yet fully recognized it. Everywhere we look in this passage we are confronted by the sights, sounds, and symbols of the triumphal entry of a king, but this was no presumptuous act. This was the arrival of the king. Jesus was the king that had been described in the parable in the previous passage. He was the one who had been away for a long time. Israel was awaiting the return of their God and the arrival of their promised Messiah, and it was all happening in one fell swoop right in front of their eyes. Jesus’ disciples were determined to make this the kingly event that they believed it to be, even if they didn’t yet fully grasp everything that was going on and didn’t entirely understand who Jesus was yet. Some of the Pharisees, however, were firmly against all this. They saw it in the same negative light that Obama’s critics did. It was arrogant and presumptuous, and beyond that, Jesus’ actions were potentially dangerous if Herod or the Romans got wind that some sort of Messianic uprising was taking place. Whatever Jesus was up to, his opponents didn’t like and wanted it to stop immediately.
This passage represents the climax of the travel sequence that began all the way back in Luke 9:51 when Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. Now Jesus has finally arrived. How will he be received? How will he be treated? In some ways this passage begins to answer the first of those questions, but it also creates an even bigger surprise for the answer to the second question. Jesus’ initial reception and his final treatment could not be at further ends of the spectrum.
Luke draws special attention to the fact that as Jesus approached Jerusalem, he came to the Mount of Olives. The prophet Zechariah spoke symbolically of the Messiah setting foot on the Mount of Olives and creating a vast division. It seems that Luke possibly intended some allusion to the passage from Zechariah 14:4-5 as he stresses that Jesus has arrived at the Mount of Olives.
As he looked towards Jerusalem, Jesus sent two disciples ahead to collect a young donkey for him to ride in on. As they arrived they found the situation just as Jesus had described. They spotted a young colt, untied it, and when asked by the owners what they were doing, they simply explained that the Lord needed it. Luke doesn’t tell us the response but they do come back with the colt. Many commentators have speculated that Jesus had somehow pre-arranged this situation, but the text doesn’t even hint at any such arrangement and it seems that Luke intends for his readers to see Jesus’ foreknowledge of the situation more than he does any such speculative pre-arrangement. The situation is not as strange as it might seem to us, though, as there was a common practice in ancient Isreal called “angaria,” where an important person, such as a rabbi or priest, could commandeer the use of property such as animals for personal reasons.
The primary point of the colt section, however, seems to be to stress the fact that this young animal had never been ridden which likely was an allusion to the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. This was a powerful prophecy of the peace-making and humble Messiah that would ride in on a colt, the foal of a donkey. The Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament in use in Luke’s time, stressed that it was a “new colt” so it was likely that Luke wanted to make the point that this incident was a specific fulfillment of Zechariah’s great prophecy. It is also quite possible that Luke mentions the detail of the young donkey being tied and untied so often because in those details he saw a clear prophetic connection to Genesis 49:11 which spoke of the Messiah tying his donkey to the choicest vine.
It should not be missed, however, that everywhere we look in this passage, we see that Luke wants to make the point that this was the reception of a king. As Jesus approached, his disciples began to spread their cloaks on the ground in a manner reminiscent of 2 Kings 9:12-13 which describes the triumphant reception of Jehu as king of Israel: “'This is what the LORD says: I anoint you king over Israel.' They quickly took their cloaks and spread them under him on the bare steps. Then they blew the trumpet and shouted, "Jehu is king!’” As they were laying down their cloaks in a kingly reception to this humble king who was riding in on a donkey just as Solomon had when he was being recognized as King of Israel (1 Ki. 1:38-39). Riding the donkey then, was a symbol of kingship, but of humble rule rather than base power.
As Jesus passed the Mount of Olives, the disciples began to praise God for all that they had seen and for the miracles that had pointed the way to the kingdom of God that was breaking into the present age. Luke says that they shouted “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest.” This is significant and interesting for several reasons. This is a quote from Psalm 118, a hymn that was used in ancient Israel both as a hymn of royal entry during the ritual of re-enthronement and as a song that pilgrims would sing on their way to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration. This event brings both of those elements together. Jesus is the king that is returning to Israel to demonstrate that he is the true king, albeit it would be in way that no one expected. But he is also the fulfillment of the Passover. He is the lamb being led to slaughter so that God’s people can be freed from their slavery to sin. His blood would bring freedom to the people of God and they will be his people and he will be their king. It is extremely interesting, however, that the text of this blessing has added “the king,” as the original language of Psalm 118:26 reads “blessed is he.” This addition, whether it was the disciples who made it that day, or Luke who added it in later, ties together this praise passage from the Psalm with Zechariah 9:9 and the other elements surrounding Jesus’ entry to demonstrate that Jesus is the king.
But just as Jesus made clear in the previous parable of the Ten Minas, not everyone would want this man as their king. There were Pharisees who did not “want this man to be our king” (Lk. 19:14). They saw all of this as terribly inappropriate and downright dangerous. So they call on Jesus to rebuke his disciples for this outburst and the obvious kingly and Messianic reception that they were giving him. Luke likely omitted the mention of the waving of the palm branches mentioned by John’s Gospel in John 12:13 because he wished to avoid the political connections that palms had with the political aspect of Judas Maccabeus who was greeted with the waving of palms. Thus, Luke is stressing the Messianic aspect of Jesus’ kingly reception rather than being a political king or ruler.
The response of Jesus to this request to silence his disciples is quite fascinating. Not only did Jesus refuse to quiet those who were properly praising and receiving him as the Messiah, he retorted that “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” It was John the Baptist who had declared to the people of Israel “do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham” (Lk. 3:8). That is precisely what was taking place. Those that did not want Jesus as king were rejecting him and God would indeed raise up “stones” to be the children of Abraham. Those that would come to Jesus in faith to be the Messiah, King, and Lord would be “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) and could truly say that they “like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5).
It is striking to consider that the same people who were so exuberant in their reception of Jesus as King and were so ready to take part in the pomp, circumstance, and emotion of this moment, are the same people who will be so quick to abandon him when stiff opposition and death stare them directly in the eye. Let us not be those who are quick to follow Jesus when things are going well but who are also so quick to abandon his kingdom agenda at the slightest hint of controversy.
Devotional Thought
Are you as willing to follow Jesus into trouble and trials as you are to spread your cloak on the ground and receive him as King when things are going well? Spend some time considering that question as it applies to your life and then praying for strength and boldness to follow Jesus through any situation.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Luke 19:1-10 Commentary
Zacchaeus the Tax Collector
1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a sinner."
8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."
9 Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."
Dig Deeper
By the time that I had got married and had a son, I was working as a high school history teacher and living in a fairly large city. My usual routine after school was to go home, play with my son for awhile, see my wife off to work for her third shift nursing job, and then get my son to bed. This would leave me with several hours a night for my two favorite activities at the time, being alone and reading history books. After studying the Bible with some disciples and becoming a Christian myself, my mindset of wanting to be alone as much as possible didn’t change a whole lot. I enjoyed spending time with my wife and son but beyond that, to be honest, I wanted to be a Christian but didn’t really want to be around other Christians all that much. My problem in this area was twofold. The first was that I was selfish and enjoyed being alone and saw no problem with that instinct.
My second problem was that I had a fundamental flaw in my understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. I sincerely thought that becoming a Christian was some private spiritual endeavor that I took to restore my personal relationship with God and that was it. At best, I saw the role of other Christians in my life as people with whom I could practice some of the commands of the Christian life, as a group of people who shared my beliefs, and as an environment which could foster my own spiritual growth so that I could have a better relationship with God. What I was missing was the true nature of salvation. Although there is an individual aspect to salvation, our Westernized modernistic societies generally miss the deeper truth of salvation. It is not solely an individual event but a community-creating event. It is, as Jesus will make clear to Zacchaeus, a matter of being accepted into the family of God. Fellow Christians are not just a group of people who share common beliefs but are members of our new family, the family that God promised to Abraham. The family through whom the entire world would one day be blessed.
As Jesus was going through Jericho, a town about 20 km (12 miles) from Jerusalem, it was obvious that there was quite a stir going on around the movements of Jesus. People had heard that something was unique about this man and were coming from all around, and quite willing to go out of their way to see this Jesus, and see what he was up to. Jesus was attracting crowds, including a man named Zacchaeus.
Luke doesn’t give us many details about Zacchaeus but based on his description of Zacchaeus as a chief tax collector and a wealthy one at that, we can know a few things about him with relative certainty. Tax collectors in Israel were not well liked. They generally worked, at one level or another, for the Roman Empire and were thus seen as traitors to their people. They basically had freedom to collect the taxes that Rome required of each person and additional taxes that they added on as their own fee. This is how they could get quite wealthy in a short period of time. They literally grew rich at the expense of their own people while working for the hated enemy. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how everyone else in Israel would have felt about them. But Zacchaeus wasn’t just a tax collector, he was a chief tax collector which meant that he oversaw other tax collectors and, no doubt, took an extra cut from each of them as well. Tax collectors were well off but were reviled and ostracized by most Jews. In fact, many Jews believed that tax collectors were such obvious sinners that they would not even allow them into their home in the belief that their mere presence made the entire home unclean and in need of purification.
Most of us know of Zacchaeus from Sunday School and from songs about the wee little man but there is at least one detail in this passage that is a bit ambiguous and may not be quite what we have always thought. Luke tells us that Zacchaeus could not see past the crowd because he was “short.” The word, “helikia,” though literally means “of little stature” and could refer to height, age, or even status. Just as possible as Zacchaeus being short, is the possibility that he was quite young or was so reviled that the crowd intentionally pushed him to the back so that he could not see. Either way, Zacchaeus climbed up a nearby tree because he was determined to see Jesus. The action of a wealthy man climbing a tree would have been unseemly in that culture, so it’s obvious that Zacchaeus really wanted to see this man.
When Jesus saw this hated man that was straining to see him, he knew that this was the kind of lost person that he came to seek so he told Zacchaeus that he would be coming to Zacchaeus’ house to be treated with hospitality. That would have been an acceptable and deeply symbolic action in that culture and would have been to accept Zacchaeus in a way that was shocking to those that saw him as a sinner. In fact the crowd began to mutter and grumble immediately (bringing to mind the grumbling and complaining of the Exodus generation) that Jesus would dare go to this man’s house. To accept hospitality from a known sinner who had been firmly rejected as part of the people of God, the true family of Abraham was outrageous and just unacceptable in the eyes of the crowd.
Verse 8 is a bit of mystery. The typical understanding of this passage is that Zacchaeus really was a terrible sinner who, after spending an evening with Jesus, humbly declared that he was going to repent and make right what he had done. Although that is the popular view of this passage, commentators and biblical scholars are split. That could be the meaning of this passage but others argue that nowhere does this passage confirm that Zacchaeus was guilty of doing what others thought of him and nowhere does it explicitly state that he repented. The statements in verse 8 are actually all in the present tense (the TNIV and other translations add “will” before “pay” to make it a future event in the attempt to help clarify otherwise ambiguous language) so some argue that Zacchaeus is simply declaring what he already does and that perceptions of him are false. This view then says that Jesus accepts his actions and declares him in the right. Although that is a tempting theory with some credibility to it, I tend towards the traditional view of this passage and would argue that Zacchaeus was so desirous of being part of Jesus’ people that he was declaring that he would make amends for his past actions immediately, that this was now who he was. To further add to this view is the fact that Jesus declared that “today” salvation had come to his house, as though something was now different based on what Zacchaeus had said and done.
If the traditional view is correct then it is of note that the repentance of Zacchaeus was seen in his desire to make restitution for his previous actions of defrauding his fellow countrymen. Repentance was not a matter of just thinking differently, although that was certainly part of it, but Zacchaeus’ repentance was demonstrated by his desire to live by a whole new reality. He was willing to go far beyond the normal standard of restitution laid out in the Old Testament.
Because of this desire to live differently, Jesus declared that restoration, salvation, had come to Zacchaeus. But it was not limited to some individual event. Zacchaeus, said Jesus, was truly a member of the family of Abraham. He had been rejected by the people of Israel as just such a member of the covenant family, but Jesus was declaring that membership into the promised family of Abraham was not based on being born into the right ethnic family but was now based on association with Jesus. Jesus was radically redefining the promised family. Salvation then, was not some vague spiritual experience where one could start to have a personal relationship with God (a phrase that never appears in the Bible) but was the reality of repentance, turning to Jesus, and the being received into the family of God with open arms. God had promised Abraham that he would bless the entire world through a family of many nations (Gen. 17:3-8). As we have seen throughout the Gospel of Luke and in the other Gospels, Jesus was clear that part of his ministry was to bring the fulfillment of that promised family (Mark 3:31-35; Lk. 11:27-28; 9:23-26; 14:25-27; Mark 10:28-30, etc.). Speaking of Jesus, Paul declared that “He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near . . . Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God's people and also members of his household” (Eph. 2:17, 19), and that “the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children” (Rom. 8:15, 16).
Jesus was telling Zacchaeus that he really could be part of the promised family of God, despite the fact that those who clung to that distinction the most had rejected him as hopeless and were quite sure of their own status. Jesus had made clear the very thing that Paul, writing a generation later, would remind the Galatians of: “those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’” (Gal. 3:7-8). Zacchaeus had found the path to entering that promised family and was being welcomed into it. The Son of Man, as the three parables in chapter 15 made clear, truly came to seek and save what was lost. He had come to gather up God’s lost children and bring them back into the one family of many nations. He did it for Zacchaeus and he wants those of us who have already been found and adopted as sons and daughters to do the same for others. This doesn’t mean inviting people some new religious experience but showing them what it means to truly be adopted into the family of God.
Devotional Thought
One of the most memorable aspects of this account for most people is the great lengths that Zacchaeus went through to be able to see Jesus. Are you willing to go through similarly extreme measures to spend time with Jesus each day or can the slightest little things keep you from spending time with God? Why do you think Zacchaeus was so determined to see Jesus. What can you learn from that to apply to your life?
1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a sinner."
8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."
9 Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."
Dig Deeper
By the time that I had got married and had a son, I was working as a high school history teacher and living in a fairly large city. My usual routine after school was to go home, play with my son for awhile, see my wife off to work for her third shift nursing job, and then get my son to bed. This would leave me with several hours a night for my two favorite activities at the time, being alone and reading history books. After studying the Bible with some disciples and becoming a Christian myself, my mindset of wanting to be alone as much as possible didn’t change a whole lot. I enjoyed spending time with my wife and son but beyond that, to be honest, I wanted to be a Christian but didn’t really want to be around other Christians all that much. My problem in this area was twofold. The first was that I was selfish and enjoyed being alone and saw no problem with that instinct.
My second problem was that I had a fundamental flaw in my understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. I sincerely thought that becoming a Christian was some private spiritual endeavor that I took to restore my personal relationship with God and that was it. At best, I saw the role of other Christians in my life as people with whom I could practice some of the commands of the Christian life, as a group of people who shared my beliefs, and as an environment which could foster my own spiritual growth so that I could have a better relationship with God. What I was missing was the true nature of salvation. Although there is an individual aspect to salvation, our Westernized modernistic societies generally miss the deeper truth of salvation. It is not solely an individual event but a community-creating event. It is, as Jesus will make clear to Zacchaeus, a matter of being accepted into the family of God. Fellow Christians are not just a group of people who share common beliefs but are members of our new family, the family that God promised to Abraham. The family through whom the entire world would one day be blessed.
As Jesus was going through Jericho, a town about 20 km (12 miles) from Jerusalem, it was obvious that there was quite a stir going on around the movements of Jesus. People had heard that something was unique about this man and were coming from all around, and quite willing to go out of their way to see this Jesus, and see what he was up to. Jesus was attracting crowds, including a man named Zacchaeus.
Luke doesn’t give us many details about Zacchaeus but based on his description of Zacchaeus as a chief tax collector and a wealthy one at that, we can know a few things about him with relative certainty. Tax collectors in Israel were not well liked. They generally worked, at one level or another, for the Roman Empire and were thus seen as traitors to their people. They basically had freedom to collect the taxes that Rome required of each person and additional taxes that they added on as their own fee. This is how they could get quite wealthy in a short period of time. They literally grew rich at the expense of their own people while working for the hated enemy. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how everyone else in Israel would have felt about them. But Zacchaeus wasn’t just a tax collector, he was a chief tax collector which meant that he oversaw other tax collectors and, no doubt, took an extra cut from each of them as well. Tax collectors were well off but were reviled and ostracized by most Jews. In fact, many Jews believed that tax collectors were such obvious sinners that they would not even allow them into their home in the belief that their mere presence made the entire home unclean and in need of purification.
Most of us know of Zacchaeus from Sunday School and from songs about the wee little man but there is at least one detail in this passage that is a bit ambiguous and may not be quite what we have always thought. Luke tells us that Zacchaeus could not see past the crowd because he was “short.” The word, “helikia,” though literally means “of little stature” and could refer to height, age, or even status. Just as possible as Zacchaeus being short, is the possibility that he was quite young or was so reviled that the crowd intentionally pushed him to the back so that he could not see. Either way, Zacchaeus climbed up a nearby tree because he was determined to see Jesus. The action of a wealthy man climbing a tree would have been unseemly in that culture, so it’s obvious that Zacchaeus really wanted to see this man.
When Jesus saw this hated man that was straining to see him, he knew that this was the kind of lost person that he came to seek so he told Zacchaeus that he would be coming to Zacchaeus’ house to be treated with hospitality. That would have been an acceptable and deeply symbolic action in that culture and would have been to accept Zacchaeus in a way that was shocking to those that saw him as a sinner. In fact the crowd began to mutter and grumble immediately (bringing to mind the grumbling and complaining of the Exodus generation) that Jesus would dare go to this man’s house. To accept hospitality from a known sinner who had been firmly rejected as part of the people of God, the true family of Abraham was outrageous and just unacceptable in the eyes of the crowd.
Verse 8 is a bit of mystery. The typical understanding of this passage is that Zacchaeus really was a terrible sinner who, after spending an evening with Jesus, humbly declared that he was going to repent and make right what he had done. Although that is the popular view of this passage, commentators and biblical scholars are split. That could be the meaning of this passage but others argue that nowhere does this passage confirm that Zacchaeus was guilty of doing what others thought of him and nowhere does it explicitly state that he repented. The statements in verse 8 are actually all in the present tense (the TNIV and other translations add “will” before “pay” to make it a future event in the attempt to help clarify otherwise ambiguous language) so some argue that Zacchaeus is simply declaring what he already does and that perceptions of him are false. This view then says that Jesus accepts his actions and declares him in the right. Although that is a tempting theory with some credibility to it, I tend towards the traditional view of this passage and would argue that Zacchaeus was so desirous of being part of Jesus’ people that he was declaring that he would make amends for his past actions immediately, that this was now who he was. To further add to this view is the fact that Jesus declared that “today” salvation had come to his house, as though something was now different based on what Zacchaeus had said and done.
If the traditional view is correct then it is of note that the repentance of Zacchaeus was seen in his desire to make restitution for his previous actions of defrauding his fellow countrymen. Repentance was not a matter of just thinking differently, although that was certainly part of it, but Zacchaeus’ repentance was demonstrated by his desire to live by a whole new reality. He was willing to go far beyond the normal standard of restitution laid out in the Old Testament.
Because of this desire to live differently, Jesus declared that restoration, salvation, had come to Zacchaeus. But it was not limited to some individual event. Zacchaeus, said Jesus, was truly a member of the family of Abraham. He had been rejected by the people of Israel as just such a member of the covenant family, but Jesus was declaring that membership into the promised family of Abraham was not based on being born into the right ethnic family but was now based on association with Jesus. Jesus was radically redefining the promised family. Salvation then, was not some vague spiritual experience where one could start to have a personal relationship with God (a phrase that never appears in the Bible) but was the reality of repentance, turning to Jesus, and the being received into the family of God with open arms. God had promised Abraham that he would bless the entire world through a family of many nations (Gen. 17:3-8). As we have seen throughout the Gospel of Luke and in the other Gospels, Jesus was clear that part of his ministry was to bring the fulfillment of that promised family (Mark 3:31-35; Lk. 11:27-28; 9:23-26; 14:25-27; Mark 10:28-30, etc.). Speaking of Jesus, Paul declared that “He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near . . . Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God's people and also members of his household” (Eph. 2:17, 19), and that “the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children” (Rom. 8:15, 16).
Jesus was telling Zacchaeus that he really could be part of the promised family of God, despite the fact that those who clung to that distinction the most had rejected him as hopeless and were quite sure of their own status. Jesus had made clear the very thing that Paul, writing a generation later, would remind the Galatians of: “those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’” (Gal. 3:7-8). Zacchaeus had found the path to entering that promised family and was being welcomed into it. The Son of Man, as the three parables in chapter 15 made clear, truly came to seek and save what was lost. He had come to gather up God’s lost children and bring them back into the one family of many nations. He did it for Zacchaeus and he wants those of us who have already been found and adopted as sons and daughters to do the same for others. This doesn’t mean inviting people some new religious experience but showing them what it means to truly be adopted into the family of God.
Devotional Thought
One of the most memorable aspects of this account for most people is the great lengths that Zacchaeus went through to be able to see Jesus. Are you willing to go through similarly extreme measures to spend time with Jesus each day or can the slightest little things keep you from spending time with God? Why do you think Zacchaeus was so determined to see Jesus. What can you learn from that to apply to your life?
Luke 19:11-27 Commentary
The Parable of the Ten Minas
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. [a] 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17 " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25 " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.' "
Dig Deeper
Imagine a scenario in which a parent was preparing to leave their college-aged student that was home during the summer to care for the house while they went off for some traveling that they had to do for work. They ask their child to care for the house and make sure to keep things running well until they return. They then head out for their trip with perhaps a bit of fear, knowing that their kid is not all that responsible, but also knowing that, whether they fail or succeed, they need the testing. The kid needs to see for himself whether he is a responsible caretaker or not. When the parent finally returns home after nearly a month on the road, he finds, much to his horror, that the son has failed miserably. The lawn has not been mowed, the mail has not been brought in, no dishes have apparently been washed during the entire time, and the rest of the house is an absolute mess. When the father asks the son what happened, he said that he was afraid of messing anything up because he knows that his dad is particularly picky about how things need to be done just right. “So you didn’t anything,” asks the exasperated father, “ instead of at least trying?” “No,” says the son, seemingly proud of his inaction. When asked what he did do for the whole month, the son indicates that he took very good care of himself. He exercised a lot to get in optimum physical shape, he ate the best food available with the money that his dad left, which meant that he couldn’t quite pay all of the bills that he was supposed to, and he really enjoyed his free time with some relaxing video games.
What do you think the response of this dad would be? What would this episode tell him about his son? At the very least it would be a very real indicator that the son didn’t really know what was important to the father at all. His behavior demonstrated that all he cared about was himself. He had no concern for the affairs of the father or the father himself when it came right down to it. He had everything at his disposal and was asked to care for it but had instead let it go into ruin for fear of doing something wrong and had instead taken all of the privileges of staying in his parent’s house and used them for nothing beyond himself. So what would be the response of the parent? It would not be pretty, that’s for sure.
In Luke 9:51 Luke told us that Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem and we have accompanied him on that incredible journey ever since then. We know that Jesus going to Jerusalem will end with no accident. He is determinedly marching towards a confrontation with evil and death, and now Luke tells us that this journey is nearly over. He was near Jerusalem and people were starting to get excited. They had, for the most part, apparently discarded the many warnings that Jesus had given about his own shame, suffering, rejection, and death that were going to come in Jerusalem, and had clung instead to their own preconceived notions of what the coming of the kingdom would look like. Surely, they thought, this was going to be a momentous event. At least some people seemed rather confident that when Jesus finally arrived in Jerusalem that the glory of God’s kingdom would break through.
In response to these questions surrounding his arrival in Jerusalem, Jesus chose to tell a parable. It is important to remember that, despite the fact that this parable is widely interpreted to be about the second coming and the final judgment, Jesus told parables to teach aspects of his ministry and what he was up to as he brought the kingdom of God crashing into the present age. This particular parable is surely pregnant with contemporary meaning for the people of Israel at the time. Both Herod in 40 BC and Archelaus in 4 BC went off to Rome to receive the right to rule as kings from the Roman emperor. There was public opposition, especially to Archelaus, as the people did not want him for a king, but he came back with ruling power nonetheless.
Using that very historical and relatable setting as a backdrop, Jesus told a story about a group of servants and a king. It is usually a pretty safe bet, we should remember, to assume that when Jesus told a parable about servants and a king that, at least at some level, God was the king and Israel was in the role of servant. Before he was made king, this nobleman called together his servants and gave them the task of ruling while he was away and asked them to rule over his affairs until he returned. This would not be an easy task, though, since the subjects of the king clearly did not want him to rule over them. While away, the nobleman was declared king and had returned home. But Jesus was speaking here of God. The king that has returned this time was not the hated Archelaus but God. In fact, that’s what his arrival in Jerusalem was all about. Since the destruction of the Temple in the 6th century BC, the people of Israel spoke of the fact that God’s presence had not returned to the Temple and they eagerly awaited the time when he would return. So, the much awaited return of the almighty God, Jesus was saying, was happening in the form of his arrival in Jerusalem. The time had come. The king was returning and now it was time for him to settle up with his servants. Had Israel, particularly the leadership of Israel been good stewards while the king was away?
Israel could have comported herself like the servant who was given charge over one mina (one mina was the equivalent of about a hundred day’s wages for an average worker or approximately $10,000 - $15,000 dollars in today’s terms) and increased the one mina to ten, or the servant who increased his mina to five. But instead, Jesus wanted to focus on the third servant to explain what was really going to happen as he arrived in Jerusalem. What did the third servant do with the resources given to him? Nothing is the cold, hard answer. The servant was afraid of what might happen if he misused that which was entrusted to him, so rather than using it for the purpose of making more wealth for everyone, he kept it to himself and it became worthless to anyone around. Not even the small bit of interest was gained by putting it into a bank. Jesus, we must be clear, was not offering sound asset investment advice here, but was making the point that God had given Israel much. As Paul put it in Romans 9:4-5: “Theirs is the adoption; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah.” He goes on to make clear that despite all of these resources, Israel failed to use them to be the light of the world, the purpose for which these things were given them. They hid them away and kept it all for themselves.
The servant in Jesus’ parable was associated with the master but his inactivity demonstrated that he had no sense of loyalty to the master. He didn’t trust the master at all, even though the master showed himself quite fair and generous to the other servants by putting them in charge of entire cities based on their faithful stewardship. His response to the other servants showed that he wasn’t really a hard man. The servant just didn’t know the master’s character at all and he attributed his lack of action to the king. It was the king’s fault, said the servant. The servant claimed to serve the master but his actions blatantly contradicted that.
Jesus’ point was clear. Was the kingdom going to come when he arrived in Jerusalem? Yes it was. Not in the way they expected, though. The long-awaited king was returning but the people didn’t really want him back. They wanted to keep the kingdom for themselves. As the king returned, the people would show themselves to have been unfaithful servants who were rejecting his message but they should know that judgment was coming as well. The king would richly reward those who proved themselves faithful but the unfaithful would meet with God’s judgment. The reality was, Jesus was not just talking about God’s return to Jerusalem, he was enacting it. The prophet Malachi had promised that “suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple” (Mal 3:1), and that was being fulfilled as Jesus made his way to Jerusalem. That Luke believed this to be the case is overwhelmingly obvious.
Jesus’ words of judgment here cannot be watered down or lessened. Those who tried to keep the master’s resources for themselves will find that they have nothing extra to show and even what they did have would be taken away. Those who rejected the return of the king because they didn’t really want him as king would be killed. The time was nearly expired for the nation of Israel. The king was on the verge of returning and he would be taking account of what his servants had done while he was away. Israel was going to be exposed as one who was associated with the king but didn’t really know the king at all. This is the last warning, in fact, that Luke recorded before Jesus finally stepped foot in Jerusalem.
For us, we know that the king returned to Jerusalem long ago, but we await the return of the king to take possession of his entire world one day. The reality of Jesus’ words here should give us reason to take pause and consider the significance of this parable for us as we await his final return to take measure of his servants and restore his creation.
Devotional Thought
The problem with the servant in this parable was that he did not know the nature and character of the master. This got him, and Israel, into trouble. Do you take concern in your daily life to ensure that you are really living your life in accordance with the nature of the Master? Upon his return will he find that you have been a good steward of his resources?
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. [a] 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17 " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25 " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.' "
Dig Deeper
Imagine a scenario in which a parent was preparing to leave their college-aged student that was home during the summer to care for the house while they went off for some traveling that they had to do for work. They ask their child to care for the house and make sure to keep things running well until they return. They then head out for their trip with perhaps a bit of fear, knowing that their kid is not all that responsible, but also knowing that, whether they fail or succeed, they need the testing. The kid needs to see for himself whether he is a responsible caretaker or not. When the parent finally returns home after nearly a month on the road, he finds, much to his horror, that the son has failed miserably. The lawn has not been mowed, the mail has not been brought in, no dishes have apparently been washed during the entire time, and the rest of the house is an absolute mess. When the father asks the son what happened, he said that he was afraid of messing anything up because he knows that his dad is particularly picky about how things need to be done just right. “So you didn’t anything,” asks the exasperated father, “ instead of at least trying?” “No,” says the son, seemingly proud of his inaction. When asked what he did do for the whole month, the son indicates that he took very good care of himself. He exercised a lot to get in optimum physical shape, he ate the best food available with the money that his dad left, which meant that he couldn’t quite pay all of the bills that he was supposed to, and he really enjoyed his free time with some relaxing video games.
What do you think the response of this dad would be? What would this episode tell him about his son? At the very least it would be a very real indicator that the son didn’t really know what was important to the father at all. His behavior demonstrated that all he cared about was himself. He had no concern for the affairs of the father or the father himself when it came right down to it. He had everything at his disposal and was asked to care for it but had instead let it go into ruin for fear of doing something wrong and had instead taken all of the privileges of staying in his parent’s house and used them for nothing beyond himself. So what would be the response of the parent? It would not be pretty, that’s for sure.
In Luke 9:51 Luke told us that Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem and we have accompanied him on that incredible journey ever since then. We know that Jesus going to Jerusalem will end with no accident. He is determinedly marching towards a confrontation with evil and death, and now Luke tells us that this journey is nearly over. He was near Jerusalem and people were starting to get excited. They had, for the most part, apparently discarded the many warnings that Jesus had given about his own shame, suffering, rejection, and death that were going to come in Jerusalem, and had clung instead to their own preconceived notions of what the coming of the kingdom would look like. Surely, they thought, this was going to be a momentous event. At least some people seemed rather confident that when Jesus finally arrived in Jerusalem that the glory of God’s kingdom would break through.
In response to these questions surrounding his arrival in Jerusalem, Jesus chose to tell a parable. It is important to remember that, despite the fact that this parable is widely interpreted to be about the second coming and the final judgment, Jesus told parables to teach aspects of his ministry and what he was up to as he brought the kingdom of God crashing into the present age. This particular parable is surely pregnant with contemporary meaning for the people of Israel at the time. Both Herod in 40 BC and Archelaus in 4 BC went off to Rome to receive the right to rule as kings from the Roman emperor. There was public opposition, especially to Archelaus, as the people did not want him for a king, but he came back with ruling power nonetheless.
Using that very historical and relatable setting as a backdrop, Jesus told a story about a group of servants and a king. It is usually a pretty safe bet, we should remember, to assume that when Jesus told a parable about servants and a king that, at least at some level, God was the king and Israel was in the role of servant. Before he was made king, this nobleman called together his servants and gave them the task of ruling while he was away and asked them to rule over his affairs until he returned. This would not be an easy task, though, since the subjects of the king clearly did not want him to rule over them. While away, the nobleman was declared king and had returned home. But Jesus was speaking here of God. The king that has returned this time was not the hated Archelaus but God. In fact, that’s what his arrival in Jerusalem was all about. Since the destruction of the Temple in the 6th century BC, the people of Israel spoke of the fact that God’s presence had not returned to the Temple and they eagerly awaited the time when he would return. So, the much awaited return of the almighty God, Jesus was saying, was happening in the form of his arrival in Jerusalem. The time had come. The king was returning and now it was time for him to settle up with his servants. Had Israel, particularly the leadership of Israel been good stewards while the king was away?
Israel could have comported herself like the servant who was given charge over one mina (one mina was the equivalent of about a hundred day’s wages for an average worker or approximately $10,000 - $15,000 dollars in today’s terms) and increased the one mina to ten, or the servant who increased his mina to five. But instead, Jesus wanted to focus on the third servant to explain what was really going to happen as he arrived in Jerusalem. What did the third servant do with the resources given to him? Nothing is the cold, hard answer. The servant was afraid of what might happen if he misused that which was entrusted to him, so rather than using it for the purpose of making more wealth for everyone, he kept it to himself and it became worthless to anyone around. Not even the small bit of interest was gained by putting it into a bank. Jesus, we must be clear, was not offering sound asset investment advice here, but was making the point that God had given Israel much. As Paul put it in Romans 9:4-5: “Theirs is the adoption; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah.” He goes on to make clear that despite all of these resources, Israel failed to use them to be the light of the world, the purpose for which these things were given them. They hid them away and kept it all for themselves.
The servant in Jesus’ parable was associated with the master but his inactivity demonstrated that he had no sense of loyalty to the master. He didn’t trust the master at all, even though the master showed himself quite fair and generous to the other servants by putting them in charge of entire cities based on their faithful stewardship. His response to the other servants showed that he wasn’t really a hard man. The servant just didn’t know the master’s character at all and he attributed his lack of action to the king. It was the king’s fault, said the servant. The servant claimed to serve the master but his actions blatantly contradicted that.
Jesus’ point was clear. Was the kingdom going to come when he arrived in Jerusalem? Yes it was. Not in the way they expected, though. The long-awaited king was returning but the people didn’t really want him back. They wanted to keep the kingdom for themselves. As the king returned, the people would show themselves to have been unfaithful servants who were rejecting his message but they should know that judgment was coming as well. The king would richly reward those who proved themselves faithful but the unfaithful would meet with God’s judgment. The reality was, Jesus was not just talking about God’s return to Jerusalem, he was enacting it. The prophet Malachi had promised that “suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple” (Mal 3:1), and that was being fulfilled as Jesus made his way to Jerusalem. That Luke believed this to be the case is overwhelmingly obvious.
Jesus’ words of judgment here cannot be watered down or lessened. Those who tried to keep the master’s resources for themselves will find that they have nothing extra to show and even what they did have would be taken away. Those who rejected the return of the king because they didn’t really want him as king would be killed. The time was nearly expired for the nation of Israel. The king was on the verge of returning and he would be taking account of what his servants had done while he was away. Israel was going to be exposed as one who was associated with the king but didn’t really know the king at all. This is the last warning, in fact, that Luke recorded before Jesus finally stepped foot in Jerusalem.
For us, we know that the king returned to Jerusalem long ago, but we await the return of the king to take possession of his entire world one day. The reality of Jesus’ words here should give us reason to take pause and consider the significance of this parable for us as we await his final return to take measure of his servants and restore his creation.
Devotional Thought
The problem with the servant in this parable was that he did not know the nature and character of the master. This got him, and Israel, into trouble. Do you take concern in your daily life to ensure that you are really living your life in accordance with the nature of the Master? Upon his return will he find that you have been a good steward of his resources?
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Luke 18:31-43 Commentary
Jesus Predicts His Death a Third Time
31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; 33 they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again."
34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.
A Blind Beggar Receives His Sight
35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him, "Jesus of Nazareth is passing by."
38 He called out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"
40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, 41 "What do you want me to do for you?"
"Lord, I want to see," he replied.
42 Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you." 43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.
Dig Deeper
I recently saw a post-apocalyptic movie called “The Book of Eli.” I was hoping that the movie would be as good as the previews looked but it was somewhat of a disappointment. The movie is set a generation or so after a terrible calamity and war of some type has destroyed the world as we would know it. It also alludes to some cryptic nuclear event that left almost all people who were alive at the time of the event blind. At the time that the movie is set nearly everyone is younger and can see, but they never lived through or know much about the world before the great destruction event. The handful of older people that were still alive knew what life used to be like and could be like but they are marginalized for the most part because of their blindness. Eli seems to be an older person that is an exception to that as he makes his way through this incredibly dangerous and violent world in an attempt to preserve what is perhaps the only surviving copy of the Bible. At the end of the movie, though, we are let in on a major twist that changes everything about the movie that you just watched. Eli was in fact blind as well. He lived, moved, and fought in a world of people who could see physically but who could not see the reality of the way things could be in any way that mattered. Eli was blind and yet he was the one person who seemed to be able to really see what was going on and what things could be like. It was a deeply ironic and profound element.
As we have followed Jesus along on the road to Jerusalem, it has gotten increasingly intense and we get the sense that things are coming to a boiling point soon. The journey has been filled with people who could not or did not want to see what Jesus was brining to bear in a lost and fallen world. God’s new creation, the reality of his future age, was actually breaking into the present age through the ministry and kingdom message of Jesus but most were too blind to see what was going on. Even Jesus’ disciples, although they wanted to see and understand, were having a hard time seeing everything that Jesus was up to. That is why it is so deeply interesting that Luke describes a scene here in which someone finally does seem to grasp important aspects of who Jesus is and what he is capable of doing. It would be one thing to have a description of one person who somehow seemed to fathom some of the depths of what was swirling about all around them, but it is deeply ironic and profound that the man who could see what almost no one else could, was blind. He could see what the sighted could not.
Jesus had been clear throughout his journey to Jerusalem that it was not going to end in the way that people thought. Messianic expectations were so ingrained to look for a conquering hero who would drive out the Romans and all of the pagans, who would re-establish God’s reign from Jerusalem over the whole world, and inaugurate the age to come, that it was next to impossible for them to fathom how him suffering shame, being rejected, and even killed could possibly fit into that. Even Jesus’ disciples were having a hard time reconciling Jesus’ vision of his vocation with what a Messiah should be in their minds. It was as confusing as if a great athlete declared that they were going to win a championship but first he must suffer terrible losses and be knocked from the playoffs. How can you win a championship if you’re knocked out of the playoffs? Jesus must have meant something other than the clear literal meaning, his disciples evidently thought, because it didn’t make sense. In the same way, how could the Messiah that was supposed to free Israel from her enemies be rejected and killed? The Messiah was supposed to be defeating Romans not dying a shameful death while under the complete control of those Romans. Jesus must have meant something else because this just didn’t make sense.
Yet, he tells them here as plainly as he could possibly do what would happen to him. He would be turned over to the Gentiles to be mocked, insulted, spat upon, flogged, and eventually killed. But he would rise on the third day. How could the meaning of this be hidden from them? How could they not understand such a clear statement? It was because it sounded like such a category mistake. The Messiah suffering and dying just did not fit with anything they knew.
As clear as it seems to us, the reference to rising on the third day might possibly have played into their thinking that perhaps Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically. Hosea 6:1-2 declared “Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” It seems that at least some Jews, if not most, saw the “third day” as a symbol for the time of the resurrection. Thus, when Jesus declared boldly that he would die and rise on the third day, the potential symbolism of such a statement combined with their complete lack of understanding of the true role of the Messiah, led to their complete inability to see the plain truth that Jesus was teaching them. They could understand him claiming to be the Messiah. They could even understand someone speaking of the fact that they would be rejected and killed, only to have part in the resurrection. But they simply could not imagine combining those two realities. They were just simply blind to who Jesus really was as the Messiah and what he could do.
Now that Luke has laid out a clear picture of well-meaning disciples who simply could not see what Jesus was about to do he brings us to a blind man outside the city of Jericho. The Gospel of Mark tells us, assuming that this is indeed the same man, that the blind man’s name was Bartimaeus. Like most blind people in that culture, he would have been on lower rungs of society, forced to beg for a living, and considered an obvious sinner by most, and a man whose blindness was a result of being cursed by God for his rampant sin. As Jesus approached, though, the blind man, like so many others that would have been considered to be outside of the normal and decent structure of society, took the bold step of going outside of his accepted arena and cried out to Jesus for mercy. A call for mercy in this situation could have been nothing more than a plea for alms, but based on the situation and the fact that he singled Jesus out, it seems that he had much more in mind. As he called out to Jesus he addressed him in extremely Messianic terms. He was, in fact, recognizing Jesus as the promised Son of David, the Messiah that would come and save Israel and indeed the world. What Luke doesn’t tell us is how this man knew this. What had he heard? What did he know that would enable him to have such insight? We don’t know why but we do know that he believed Jesus to be the Messiah and turned to him in utter humility and reliance. He called to him in the manner of a child just as Jesus had urged that his disciples would need to do(Lk. 18:17).
The response of the crowd to the insightful faith that the blind man was showing was to rebuke him and shut him up. Their response was probably less to do with his belief in Jesus as the promised Davidic Messiah and more to do with the danger that such a public proclamation could have incurred. To claim that someone was a Messiah meant to invoke all of the cherished beliefs about the Messiah including the fact that he would render all of the other kings of the world subserviant to him. This would not have been a popular idea in Herod’s courts, much less in Rome. This man wasn’t concerned with any of that, however.
Just like the woman that reached out to Jesus for healing despite the fear that should have overwhelmed an unclean person stepping into the realm of the clean (Lk. 8:43-48), this man had more faith than fear. Impressed by the man’s relentless faith, Jesus called him to be brought near. As Jesus asked him what the man wanted Jesus to do for him, we should stop and think again how much faith it took for the man to say what he did. He could have stopped short. He could have asked for money or a blessing, or almost anything else but he believed that Jesus was far greater than any of that and well worth the risk of ridicule from those around him. He had just one request, he wanted to see. He knew that he was blind and he somehow knew that the only way for him to see was to go to Jesus in persevering faith and ask for sight.
We can’t help but think that Luke wanted us to see that this is exactly what the disciples, the Pharisees, indeed all of Israel needed to do. They needed to recognize their inability to see, their spiritual blindness, and simply cry out to Jesus. If they did that, he would do the same for them that he did for this blind man. The man’s faith in Jesus became the channel through which he could receive his sight.
Jesus promised those that would really hold to his teachings (not our own watered-down versions of them but the real thing) would know the truth and be set free (Jn. 8:31-32). That promise is certainly as true today as the day Jesus gave it but there are still so many areas that we can be blind. We can slowly begin to think that we are something when we are not (cf. Rev. 3:17-18). We think we need God far less than we do. It is at those times that we need to be like the blind man here. We need to recognize that we are blind and that crying out to Jesus as a helpless child is the only thing that will bring us sight. We need to stop trusting ourselves and thinking we can see and just cry out to the Son of David. When we do, he will surely ask us what we want from him. If our humble response is simply to see, he will give us sight.
Devotional Thought
Spend some time praying today for God to reveal areas in your life where you have been blind spiritually. Turn to Jesus alone in faith and ask him for sight and he will surely answer that prayer, maybe not in the way or timing you would want, but he will answer.
31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; 33 they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again."
34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.
A Blind Beggar Receives His Sight
35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him, "Jesus of Nazareth is passing by."
38 He called out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"
40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, 41 "What do you want me to do for you?"
"Lord, I want to see," he replied.
42 Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you." 43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.
Dig Deeper
I recently saw a post-apocalyptic movie called “The Book of Eli.” I was hoping that the movie would be as good as the previews looked but it was somewhat of a disappointment. The movie is set a generation or so after a terrible calamity and war of some type has destroyed the world as we would know it. It also alludes to some cryptic nuclear event that left almost all people who were alive at the time of the event blind. At the time that the movie is set nearly everyone is younger and can see, but they never lived through or know much about the world before the great destruction event. The handful of older people that were still alive knew what life used to be like and could be like but they are marginalized for the most part because of their blindness. Eli seems to be an older person that is an exception to that as he makes his way through this incredibly dangerous and violent world in an attempt to preserve what is perhaps the only surviving copy of the Bible. At the end of the movie, though, we are let in on a major twist that changes everything about the movie that you just watched. Eli was in fact blind as well. He lived, moved, and fought in a world of people who could see physically but who could not see the reality of the way things could be in any way that mattered. Eli was blind and yet he was the one person who seemed to be able to really see what was going on and what things could be like. It was a deeply ironic and profound element.
As we have followed Jesus along on the road to Jerusalem, it has gotten increasingly intense and we get the sense that things are coming to a boiling point soon. The journey has been filled with people who could not or did not want to see what Jesus was brining to bear in a lost and fallen world. God’s new creation, the reality of his future age, was actually breaking into the present age through the ministry and kingdom message of Jesus but most were too blind to see what was going on. Even Jesus’ disciples, although they wanted to see and understand, were having a hard time seeing everything that Jesus was up to. That is why it is so deeply interesting that Luke describes a scene here in which someone finally does seem to grasp important aspects of who Jesus is and what he is capable of doing. It would be one thing to have a description of one person who somehow seemed to fathom some of the depths of what was swirling about all around them, but it is deeply ironic and profound that the man who could see what almost no one else could, was blind. He could see what the sighted could not.
Jesus had been clear throughout his journey to Jerusalem that it was not going to end in the way that people thought. Messianic expectations were so ingrained to look for a conquering hero who would drive out the Romans and all of the pagans, who would re-establish God’s reign from Jerusalem over the whole world, and inaugurate the age to come, that it was next to impossible for them to fathom how him suffering shame, being rejected, and even killed could possibly fit into that. Even Jesus’ disciples were having a hard time reconciling Jesus’ vision of his vocation with what a Messiah should be in their minds. It was as confusing as if a great athlete declared that they were going to win a championship but first he must suffer terrible losses and be knocked from the playoffs. How can you win a championship if you’re knocked out of the playoffs? Jesus must have meant something other than the clear literal meaning, his disciples evidently thought, because it didn’t make sense. In the same way, how could the Messiah that was supposed to free Israel from her enemies be rejected and killed? The Messiah was supposed to be defeating Romans not dying a shameful death while under the complete control of those Romans. Jesus must have meant something else because this just didn’t make sense.
Yet, he tells them here as plainly as he could possibly do what would happen to him. He would be turned over to the Gentiles to be mocked, insulted, spat upon, flogged, and eventually killed. But he would rise on the third day. How could the meaning of this be hidden from them? How could they not understand such a clear statement? It was because it sounded like such a category mistake. The Messiah suffering and dying just did not fit with anything they knew.
As clear as it seems to us, the reference to rising on the third day might possibly have played into their thinking that perhaps Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically. Hosea 6:1-2 declared “Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” It seems that at least some Jews, if not most, saw the “third day” as a symbol for the time of the resurrection. Thus, when Jesus declared boldly that he would die and rise on the third day, the potential symbolism of such a statement combined with their complete lack of understanding of the true role of the Messiah, led to their complete inability to see the plain truth that Jesus was teaching them. They could understand him claiming to be the Messiah. They could even understand someone speaking of the fact that they would be rejected and killed, only to have part in the resurrection. But they simply could not imagine combining those two realities. They were just simply blind to who Jesus really was as the Messiah and what he could do.
Now that Luke has laid out a clear picture of well-meaning disciples who simply could not see what Jesus was about to do he brings us to a blind man outside the city of Jericho. The Gospel of Mark tells us, assuming that this is indeed the same man, that the blind man’s name was Bartimaeus. Like most blind people in that culture, he would have been on lower rungs of society, forced to beg for a living, and considered an obvious sinner by most, and a man whose blindness was a result of being cursed by God for his rampant sin. As Jesus approached, though, the blind man, like so many others that would have been considered to be outside of the normal and decent structure of society, took the bold step of going outside of his accepted arena and cried out to Jesus for mercy. A call for mercy in this situation could have been nothing more than a plea for alms, but based on the situation and the fact that he singled Jesus out, it seems that he had much more in mind. As he called out to Jesus he addressed him in extremely Messianic terms. He was, in fact, recognizing Jesus as the promised Son of David, the Messiah that would come and save Israel and indeed the world. What Luke doesn’t tell us is how this man knew this. What had he heard? What did he know that would enable him to have such insight? We don’t know why but we do know that he believed Jesus to be the Messiah and turned to him in utter humility and reliance. He called to him in the manner of a child just as Jesus had urged that his disciples would need to do(Lk. 18:17).
The response of the crowd to the insightful faith that the blind man was showing was to rebuke him and shut him up. Their response was probably less to do with his belief in Jesus as the promised Davidic Messiah and more to do with the danger that such a public proclamation could have incurred. To claim that someone was a Messiah meant to invoke all of the cherished beliefs about the Messiah including the fact that he would render all of the other kings of the world subserviant to him. This would not have been a popular idea in Herod’s courts, much less in Rome. This man wasn’t concerned with any of that, however.
Just like the woman that reached out to Jesus for healing despite the fear that should have overwhelmed an unclean person stepping into the realm of the clean (Lk. 8:43-48), this man had more faith than fear. Impressed by the man’s relentless faith, Jesus called him to be brought near. As Jesus asked him what the man wanted Jesus to do for him, we should stop and think again how much faith it took for the man to say what he did. He could have stopped short. He could have asked for money or a blessing, or almost anything else but he believed that Jesus was far greater than any of that and well worth the risk of ridicule from those around him. He had just one request, he wanted to see. He knew that he was blind and he somehow knew that the only way for him to see was to go to Jesus in persevering faith and ask for sight.
We can’t help but think that Luke wanted us to see that this is exactly what the disciples, the Pharisees, indeed all of Israel needed to do. They needed to recognize their inability to see, their spiritual blindness, and simply cry out to Jesus. If they did that, he would do the same for them that he did for this blind man. The man’s faith in Jesus became the channel through which he could receive his sight.
Jesus promised those that would really hold to his teachings (not our own watered-down versions of them but the real thing) would know the truth and be set free (Jn. 8:31-32). That promise is certainly as true today as the day Jesus gave it but there are still so many areas that we can be blind. We can slowly begin to think that we are something when we are not (cf. Rev. 3:17-18). We think we need God far less than we do. It is at those times that we need to be like the blind man here. We need to recognize that we are blind and that crying out to Jesus as a helpless child is the only thing that will bring us sight. We need to stop trusting ourselves and thinking we can see and just cry out to the Son of David. When we do, he will surely ask us what we want from him. If our humble response is simply to see, he will give us sight.
Devotional Thought
Spend some time praying today for God to reveal areas in your life where you have been blind spiritually. Turn to Jesus alone in faith and ask him for sight and he will surely answer that prayer, maybe not in the way or timing you would want, but he will answer.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Luke 18:15-30 Commentary
The Little Children and Jesus
15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
The Rich and the Kingdom of God
18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' [a]"
21 "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God."
26 Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
27 Jesus replied, "What is impossible with human beings is possible with God."
28 Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"
29 "Truly I tell you," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life."
Dig Deeper
I always enjoyed reading fables when I was growing up whether they were written by Aesop or someone else, or even were traditional fables with an unknown author. One of the most famous parables ever created, and one that has been duplicated and reworked hundreds of times, is the much loved fable of the monkey and the banana. The gist of that fable is that a monkey sees a jar full of bananas and greatly desires to have all of the bananas for himself. He sneaks up and plunges his hand into the jar and grasps onto a handful of delicious bananas. As he goes to jerk his hand out, he realizes a dire problem. His hand is stuck. He yanks and pulls and struggles but he cannot get his hand out of that jar. The ending of the story can vary but it usually doesn’t turn out well for the monkey. He is so focused on his desire for those bananas that he cannot escape the narrow neck of the jar. We, of course, know that he could be freed at any moment if he would just release his grip on his prize stash of bananas but he won’t. He has made a decision that the bananas are so important that he won’t ever consider letting them go. He doesn’t realize it, but the thing that he most desires is the very thing that is keeping him from his freedom.
At the heart of this short little snippet about children being brought to Jesus and a longer description of an exchange between Jesus and an important young man, and the ensuing discussion between Jesus and his disciples in response to that confrontation, we have a situation similar to that monkey and his bananas. It seems as if the most potent barriers to entering into the kingdom of God are those bananas that we can cling to. It might be our social expectations and biases, it might be out desire for wealth, or it might even be the aversion that some have to lose their individualism and self-focus in order to become part of God’s family in the way that he has described through his word. In both of these accounts the point is clear. One must drop their bananas to be freed from the old order of things and be able to truly escape and enter into the life of the kingdom of God. Those who continue to cling to their bananas will never be able to truly accept God’s kingdom.
It is possible that the specific reason that people were bringing their young children and babies to Jesus was part of the practice of bringing children to elders for special blessings on the eve of the Day of Atonement. Whatever the case, it seems obvious that Jesus’ disciples thought of this as trivial. Jesus was too busy with his kingdom announcement and had too many things swirling about him to bother with blessings for the most inconsequential social group in the land of Israel. Jesus had too much going on to be bothered with children who could do nothing to advance his cause. As usual, though, Jesus took advantage of the opportunity and the normal societal assumptions of the disciples to teach a larger truth about his kingdom.
Rather than ignoring the children or rebuking the parents for bothering him, Jesus offered a mild rebuke for his own disciples. It seems that they were trying to keep the children away because they viewed them as unimportant and unable to be of any value in this kingdom mission. But Jesus wanted them to see something extremely important. It was the Pharisees and those opposed to God who were into making value judgments about who was and who was not worthy to be part of the kingdom. Jesus wanted the children to come to him because they were a perfect example of what people needed to be like to receive the kingdom. Children are innocent and completely dependent on the provision of others. Why should Jesus’ time be taken up with children that were of such little importance? Because they were the perfect picture of what Jesus wanted to say. Anyone who wanted to truly receive the kingdom of God must do so with the innocence and lack of pretension of a small child. The children were a snapshot of what people needed to become to receive the kingdom. They needed to drop their social pretensions and what it meant to be important by the standards of the world and embrace the freedom that was reality of the life of the kingdom of God. They needed to let go of the bananas and pull their hand out of the jar.
We should note that some have misused this verse to argue for the salvation of babies but this cannot be the case based on a simple reading of this passage. Babies cannot repent (Acts 2:38), choose to die to themselves at baptism (Rom. 6:1-4; Gal. 2:20) or have faith (Heb. 11:6). Thus, it is obvious based on Jesus’ own words here that he was using babies and small children as an example and saying that people must receive the kingdom in a manner “like” a child who has no social expectations, he was not teaching that babies themselves can enter into the life of Christ.
Luke then transitions into another question of what it will require of people to enter into the kingdom. The question that the rich young ruler asked of Jesus needs a bit of explaining. He was not, as we tend to imagine in our time, asking what it would take for him to know that when he died one day he would go to heaven. The phrase that is translated “eternal life,” more appropriately means “the life of the age to come.” The age to come was the time when Jews believed that God would come and restore his once very good creation to its original intent (Matt. 19:28; Acts 3:21; Rom. 8:19-25). This would be the time of the resurrection, when God would bring heaven and earth together as one and he will dwell with his people forever (Eph. 1:10; Rev. 21:1-5).
The young man, then, wanted to know what he must do to be numbered among God’s people, those who were “worthy” of being included in the inheritance of that age. It seems, at every turn, though, that this young man thought rather well of himself. He began by calling Jesus the “good teacher,” a compliment that would have expected a reciprocating compliment in return. Jesus broke protocol, though, by not playing that game. Why call a teacher good when only God is good? Either this man needed to change his definition of “good” or he needed to realize that the one he was talking to was far greater than just the teacher that he imagined him to be.
If he wanted to receive the life of the coming age then the first point had to do with his diligence in holding to the five commandments that dealt with the relations between others in the community. How had he treated the people of God? The young man, no doubt, relished that question and felt that he had observed those commands without flaw. Surely, he expected the teacher to declare that the inheritance of eternal life was in his grasp and to receive a commendation from the teacher.
Yet, Jesus did not play into his hands and instead pointed out that he lacked one thing. The tension mounts here and we wonder how this young man will handle a challenge from the teacher that he has just called “good.” The expectation would have been that he would listen to and embrace whatever the “good” teacher pointed out. Jesus’ challenge was stiff and to the point. There was one thing that he was clinging to. It was his wealth and more particularly, his self-focus with that wealth. Would he be willing to sell all of his possessions and share with God’s people that were in need, the people that he was so proud of following commands that concerned them? Would he be willing to put the values of heaven, the place where God’s will is done perfectly (Matt. 6:10) ahead of the values of the present age? Would he put the welfare of the people of God ahead of his own personal status?
The response of the young man was decisive and seemingly final as he walked away. Jesus was making available right now the age of the life to come that he claimed to want. Surely it would come fully one day, but Jesus’ people needed to die to themselves and give up their grasp on the present age so that they could begin to grab hold of the eternal life right now (1 Tim. 6:12). But he couldn’t really be seeking the life of the coming age if he wouldn’t let go of the markers of the old one. He couldn’t give up his possessions. He just would not accept what Jesus was saying as a child would.
Jesus knew that there wasn’t anything inherently wrong with being rich but that those who are rich tend to be so shackled to the values of the present age that it would be easier for one of the largest of animals known at the time, the camel, to walk though the eye of a needle (some biblical commentators have claimed a quite fanciful tale of there being a gate at the Temple called the “Needle’s Eye” that travelers would have to pass through but those stories, as fascinating as they might be, are not based on historical fact). The statement would have been jarring to Jesus’ disciples that were thoroughly immersed in the Jewish view that wealth was a sign of God’s favor. Those who were wealthy, powerful, and important must have obviously, in their eyes, been accepted by God as special and worthy of blessing. Jesus blew a hole in that in a few short words. Salvation and being part of God’s family wasn’t about worldly signs of wealth or even clinging to the commandments. It was God alone who could provide salvation through the life of Christ.
If the wealthy weren’t automatically shown to be among God’s people, then who was? What did it mean to give up everything? Would the disciples pass that standard? This is why Peter throws out the statement that he does in verse 28. They had left everything to follow Jesus. They had left their families, their jobs, their status, and everything else. Was that enough? Jesus confirmed that it was. They had been willing to let go of the bananas of their family identity and status to mark them out as God’s people where the rich man would not let go of his banana. In giving up the things of the present age, including their family solidarity, they would not fail to be part of God’s new family and be blessed with many more spiritual mothers, brothers, and sisters. This would be the new family that would define their status as the people of God. They would be required to let go of everything, all of their bananas, but they would not fail to receive many more times that in God’s family in the present age (as the life of the age to come would break through into the present age through God’s kingdom people) and in the age to come.
This passage reminds us that we must let go of our grasp on the things of this age, whatever they may be, and give up everything to follow Jesus. Paul’s words put it succinctly and should continue to challenge us to ask if we have really given up everything to follow him: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).
Devotional Thought
Are there any bananas that you are still clinging to that keep your from fully embracing the life of the eternal age that God wants for his people? Will you listen to the Spirit’s prompting as he urges you to release your grip or will you be more like the rich young man and continue to cling to things of this age?
15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
The Rich and the Kingdom of God
18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' [a]"
21 "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God."
26 Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
27 Jesus replied, "What is impossible with human beings is possible with God."
28 Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"
29 "Truly I tell you," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life."
Dig Deeper
I always enjoyed reading fables when I was growing up whether they were written by Aesop or someone else, or even were traditional fables with an unknown author. One of the most famous parables ever created, and one that has been duplicated and reworked hundreds of times, is the much loved fable of the monkey and the banana. The gist of that fable is that a monkey sees a jar full of bananas and greatly desires to have all of the bananas for himself. He sneaks up and plunges his hand into the jar and grasps onto a handful of delicious bananas. As he goes to jerk his hand out, he realizes a dire problem. His hand is stuck. He yanks and pulls and struggles but he cannot get his hand out of that jar. The ending of the story can vary but it usually doesn’t turn out well for the monkey. He is so focused on his desire for those bananas that he cannot escape the narrow neck of the jar. We, of course, know that he could be freed at any moment if he would just release his grip on his prize stash of bananas but he won’t. He has made a decision that the bananas are so important that he won’t ever consider letting them go. He doesn’t realize it, but the thing that he most desires is the very thing that is keeping him from his freedom.
At the heart of this short little snippet about children being brought to Jesus and a longer description of an exchange between Jesus and an important young man, and the ensuing discussion between Jesus and his disciples in response to that confrontation, we have a situation similar to that monkey and his bananas. It seems as if the most potent barriers to entering into the kingdom of God are those bananas that we can cling to. It might be our social expectations and biases, it might be out desire for wealth, or it might even be the aversion that some have to lose their individualism and self-focus in order to become part of God’s family in the way that he has described through his word. In both of these accounts the point is clear. One must drop their bananas to be freed from the old order of things and be able to truly escape and enter into the life of the kingdom of God. Those who continue to cling to their bananas will never be able to truly accept God’s kingdom.
It is possible that the specific reason that people were bringing their young children and babies to Jesus was part of the practice of bringing children to elders for special blessings on the eve of the Day of Atonement. Whatever the case, it seems obvious that Jesus’ disciples thought of this as trivial. Jesus was too busy with his kingdom announcement and had too many things swirling about him to bother with blessings for the most inconsequential social group in the land of Israel. Jesus had too much going on to be bothered with children who could do nothing to advance his cause. As usual, though, Jesus took advantage of the opportunity and the normal societal assumptions of the disciples to teach a larger truth about his kingdom.
Rather than ignoring the children or rebuking the parents for bothering him, Jesus offered a mild rebuke for his own disciples. It seems that they were trying to keep the children away because they viewed them as unimportant and unable to be of any value in this kingdom mission. But Jesus wanted them to see something extremely important. It was the Pharisees and those opposed to God who were into making value judgments about who was and who was not worthy to be part of the kingdom. Jesus wanted the children to come to him because they were a perfect example of what people needed to be like to receive the kingdom. Children are innocent and completely dependent on the provision of others. Why should Jesus’ time be taken up with children that were of such little importance? Because they were the perfect picture of what Jesus wanted to say. Anyone who wanted to truly receive the kingdom of God must do so with the innocence and lack of pretension of a small child. The children were a snapshot of what people needed to become to receive the kingdom. They needed to drop their social pretensions and what it meant to be important by the standards of the world and embrace the freedom that was reality of the life of the kingdom of God. They needed to let go of the bananas and pull their hand out of the jar.
We should note that some have misused this verse to argue for the salvation of babies but this cannot be the case based on a simple reading of this passage. Babies cannot repent (Acts 2:38), choose to die to themselves at baptism (Rom. 6:1-4; Gal. 2:20) or have faith (Heb. 11:6). Thus, it is obvious based on Jesus’ own words here that he was using babies and small children as an example and saying that people must receive the kingdom in a manner “like” a child who has no social expectations, he was not teaching that babies themselves can enter into the life of Christ.
Luke then transitions into another question of what it will require of people to enter into the kingdom. The question that the rich young ruler asked of Jesus needs a bit of explaining. He was not, as we tend to imagine in our time, asking what it would take for him to know that when he died one day he would go to heaven. The phrase that is translated “eternal life,” more appropriately means “the life of the age to come.” The age to come was the time when Jews believed that God would come and restore his once very good creation to its original intent (Matt. 19:28; Acts 3:21; Rom. 8:19-25). This would be the time of the resurrection, when God would bring heaven and earth together as one and he will dwell with his people forever (Eph. 1:10; Rev. 21:1-5).
The young man, then, wanted to know what he must do to be numbered among God’s people, those who were “worthy” of being included in the inheritance of that age. It seems, at every turn, though, that this young man thought rather well of himself. He began by calling Jesus the “good teacher,” a compliment that would have expected a reciprocating compliment in return. Jesus broke protocol, though, by not playing that game. Why call a teacher good when only God is good? Either this man needed to change his definition of “good” or he needed to realize that the one he was talking to was far greater than just the teacher that he imagined him to be.
If he wanted to receive the life of the coming age then the first point had to do with his diligence in holding to the five commandments that dealt with the relations between others in the community. How had he treated the people of God? The young man, no doubt, relished that question and felt that he had observed those commands without flaw. Surely, he expected the teacher to declare that the inheritance of eternal life was in his grasp and to receive a commendation from the teacher.
Yet, Jesus did not play into his hands and instead pointed out that he lacked one thing. The tension mounts here and we wonder how this young man will handle a challenge from the teacher that he has just called “good.” The expectation would have been that he would listen to and embrace whatever the “good” teacher pointed out. Jesus’ challenge was stiff and to the point. There was one thing that he was clinging to. It was his wealth and more particularly, his self-focus with that wealth. Would he be willing to sell all of his possessions and share with God’s people that were in need, the people that he was so proud of following commands that concerned them? Would he be willing to put the values of heaven, the place where God’s will is done perfectly (Matt. 6:10) ahead of the values of the present age? Would he put the welfare of the people of God ahead of his own personal status?
The response of the young man was decisive and seemingly final as he walked away. Jesus was making available right now the age of the life to come that he claimed to want. Surely it would come fully one day, but Jesus’ people needed to die to themselves and give up their grasp on the present age so that they could begin to grab hold of the eternal life right now (1 Tim. 6:12). But he couldn’t really be seeking the life of the coming age if he wouldn’t let go of the markers of the old one. He couldn’t give up his possessions. He just would not accept what Jesus was saying as a child would.
Jesus knew that there wasn’t anything inherently wrong with being rich but that those who are rich tend to be so shackled to the values of the present age that it would be easier for one of the largest of animals known at the time, the camel, to walk though the eye of a needle (some biblical commentators have claimed a quite fanciful tale of there being a gate at the Temple called the “Needle’s Eye” that travelers would have to pass through but those stories, as fascinating as they might be, are not based on historical fact). The statement would have been jarring to Jesus’ disciples that were thoroughly immersed in the Jewish view that wealth was a sign of God’s favor. Those who were wealthy, powerful, and important must have obviously, in their eyes, been accepted by God as special and worthy of blessing. Jesus blew a hole in that in a few short words. Salvation and being part of God’s family wasn’t about worldly signs of wealth or even clinging to the commandments. It was God alone who could provide salvation through the life of Christ.
If the wealthy weren’t automatically shown to be among God’s people, then who was? What did it mean to give up everything? Would the disciples pass that standard? This is why Peter throws out the statement that he does in verse 28. They had left everything to follow Jesus. They had left their families, their jobs, their status, and everything else. Was that enough? Jesus confirmed that it was. They had been willing to let go of the bananas of their family identity and status to mark them out as God’s people where the rich man would not let go of his banana. In giving up the things of the present age, including their family solidarity, they would not fail to be part of God’s new family and be blessed with many more spiritual mothers, brothers, and sisters. This would be the new family that would define their status as the people of God. They would be required to let go of everything, all of their bananas, but they would not fail to receive many more times that in God’s family in the present age (as the life of the age to come would break through into the present age through God’s kingdom people) and in the age to come.
This passage reminds us that we must let go of our grasp on the things of this age, whatever they may be, and give up everything to follow Jesus. Paul’s words put it succinctly and should continue to challenge us to ask if we have really given up everything to follow him: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).
Devotional Thought
Are there any bananas that you are still clinging to that keep your from fully embracing the life of the eternal age that God wants for his people? Will you listen to the Spirit’s prompting as he urges you to release your grip or will you be more like the rich young man and continue to cling to things of this age?
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Luke 18:1-14 Commentary
The Parable of the Persistent Widow
1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4 "For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually come and attack me!' "
6 And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
Dig Deeper
“But it’s my turn,” he whined. “He played forever and now it’s my turn and he won’t give me the controller so that I can play.” “No,” retorted his brother, “he had it for twenty minutes and I just started playing and now he’s trying to claim that it’s his turn again.” This was a recent and fairly reoccurring type of disagreement between my two sons. If your a parent perhaps you can relate to the principles behind the argument if not the cause for the argument itself. Whenever they have these sorts of disagreements, though, it doesn’t take long before they turn to me or my wife to play the role of judge. They get to a point where they cannot work things out on their own and so before long they come to us to arbitrate the case and decide who is in the right. They both present their cases, although not always as calmly and collectedly as we would like. Oftentimes, as they are laying out their cases it starts to become rather clear, based on the testimony, who is in the right, but that simply points to the final verdict. Things are not really settled until my wife or I make a decision in the case (although we often tell them to work it out on their own, but that part of it falls a little outside of the point of this analogy). Once we have declared one of them to be in the right, the situation is resolved and the other one realizes that they need to change their perspective and their actions if they want to align themselves with the side that has been declared to be in the right.
At the heart of these two parables is just that idea. Justice in the ancient world was not like the court systems that we have today. You didn’t have a government that would bring cases for people and prosecute on behalf of the people. All cases, whether they were property disputes or a case of murder or theft, involved one person taking another to court as a dispute. There would be a judge that would hear the case and then decide who was in the right. As the case wore on, it might become obvious who was in the right, but that merely anticipated the final verdict that the judge would make. Things weren’t resolved until he made his judgment. When he finally did declare someone to be in the right, that verdict was called the justification. One was justified, the other was shown to be in the wrong.
As we read these parables, then, we would do well to remember that parables were used by Jesus to teach a truth about his ministry and the coming of the kingdom of God. We also need to remember that perhaps the primary theme of this journey to Jerusalem section from Luke 9-19 has been the warnings to Israel about being replaced as the people of God by the faithful Messiah and those who would place their trust in him by dying to themselves and entering into his family. The old Temple, as it were, was facing a showdown with the New Temple and that meant that those who would cling to the old Temple would find themselves in dispute with the new Temple. Thus, God would be turned to by both parties to act as judge. The cases would be laid out and the judge would have to decide which group would be vindicated, which group would be justified.
It is also important to keep in mind that each of these parables has a specific point within the immediacy of Jesus’ ministry but a broader principle that can be applied as well. The truth is that with both of these parables most people jump right to the larger principle without ever even considering the primary original meaning of Jesus’ words within the larger Lukan context. Yet, as we consider that here, we don’t want to only focus on that and forget that there are larger principles at play as well that apply to all Christians everywhere.
The first parable was a common type situation in the first century. Jesus painted a picture of a widow who had been wronged by an un-described adversary. The only recourse that she had, though, was to appeal to a judge that was quite unwilling to hear her case. Jesus’ crafting of the characters makes the situation particularly urgent as widows were a common symbol for the weakest members of the society that were in the most need of compassion and care. The judge is not a godly man and cares little about justice. Eventually, though, he grants justice to the widow because she has persistently clamored to be treated fairly. The widow was relentless because she believed in her cause, she was desperate to be declared in the right, and she knew that the judge was the only one who could do that.
Luke says, in verse 1, that this parable was intended to teach the disciples about the need to be persistent in prayer, but verses 7-8 round out the context. They are to pray persistently in all things of course. That is certainly a universally true principle, but the specific topic that Jesus was urging them to pray about was concerning the coming judgment upon Israel and the vindication of the Son of Man (and thus, his people) that was the subject of the previous passage. They should continue to pray for God to declare in no uncertain terms that the Messiah was in the right and that his people were the ones who would be justified. If an unjust judge will grant justice because of the persistence of the woman, how much more will God? Thus, in a specific sense, Jesus seems to have cast his disciples in the role of the widow.
They might seem helpless and powerless in the world and the face of their adversaries, but they would need persistence in prayer to God. If they continued to believe in the Messiah alone, were desperate to be declared in the right, and know that God was the only one who could do so, then they would be persistent in prayer and God would justify them. The big question, however, was “would the Son of Man find faith when he returned”? The term “ge” which is translated “earth,” can mean “land,” ranging from a field to a specific area like a country, or it can hold the meaning of the “whole earth.” It is the context of the sentence that determines the meaning. It is just as possible then, that Jesus was specifically asking if he would find faith in the land of Israel when he returned, which would seem to fit even better with the context of the passage.
The second parable isn’t as obvious in it’s theme of justification but it is a continuation of that theme as is indicated by an “also” that is in the original language of verse 9 but has been removed from the TNIV for ease of reading (as in “Jesus also told this parable”). The issue of the second parable makes all the sense in the world if we understand the above discussed meaning of the first parable. If the issue that Jesus was discussing was the need for his people to cling to their future justification and vindication and to persistently ask God for it to come, then they would need to be reassured that the confidence of the people that clung to the old system was not something that should sway them.
It is human nature to be intimidated and even begin to doubt oneself in the face of a very confident adversary. This second parable in this passage warns against that. The Pharisee, who represents the entirety of the Jewish leadership and those opposed to Jesus are not in the right and they will not be vindicated. What are they like? They are like a self-righteous Pharisee who separated himself from all of the sinners and thanked God that he was not caught in the three nets that cursed the Jewish people (see commentary on 16:14-18 for a full explanation of the three nets of riches, blasphemy, and adultery). He was not like those folks in his own mind and according to his boastful declaration. No, he was not a sinner, but Jesus has already, in 16:14-18, made the case that the Pharisees were guilty of those precise sins. All of his self-righteousness, his looking down on others, and his extraordinary observance of the law did him no good. He would never be in God’s family with such an attitude.
God’s people would be like a tax collector. They were the people that were of no account in the culture. They were reviled and certainly not considered to be religious by any cultural standard. This tax collector didn’t bother to separate himself from others, in fact, he knew that there was nothing special about himself. He didn’t rely on his own righteousness or observance of the law as advance signs of what the final verdict would be. Jesus’ people would be those that, like this tax collector, threw themselves on the mercy of God as self-recognized sinners. It would not be those who remained with Israel, represented by the Pharisee, but those who were like the tax collector, Jesus’ people, that would find themselves justified before God. They would be the ones that were declared to be in the right and that would find themselves in the right family. What they needed to do, though was to be like the widow and cling to that goal of justification as their sole focus and at the heart of their prayers.
The principles of this, though, cannot just be limited to the first century issue of the true people of God being vindicated as the old Temple was replaced by the new Temple. These passages, once properly understood, do still offer rich principles of what Jesus’ people should look like. We are people who should take seriously the call to be God’s family that are vindicated in the eyes of God and our adversaries. This should be at the heart of our prayers. We need to consistently petition God for him to show us to be his people and to empower us to live like it. At the same time, we need to be like the humble tax collector. We need to constantly and actively remember that we are God’s people solely because of his mercy. We will never seek the justification of being declared to be in the Messiah’s family if we think we have things about us that cause us to be worthy of standing before God. We need to humble ourselves before God as sinners and know that, only then, will we be lifted up and justified.
Devotional Thought
Do you ever find yourself feeling a lot more like that Pharisee than the tax collector? Do you truly pray with the kind of persistence that the widow demonstrated? What can you learn from these two parables that causes you to specific action today?
1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4 "For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually come and attack me!' "
6 And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
Dig Deeper
“But it’s my turn,” he whined. “He played forever and now it’s my turn and he won’t give me the controller so that I can play.” “No,” retorted his brother, “he had it for twenty minutes and I just started playing and now he’s trying to claim that it’s his turn again.” This was a recent and fairly reoccurring type of disagreement between my two sons. If your a parent perhaps you can relate to the principles behind the argument if not the cause for the argument itself. Whenever they have these sorts of disagreements, though, it doesn’t take long before they turn to me or my wife to play the role of judge. They get to a point where they cannot work things out on their own and so before long they come to us to arbitrate the case and decide who is in the right. They both present their cases, although not always as calmly and collectedly as we would like. Oftentimes, as they are laying out their cases it starts to become rather clear, based on the testimony, who is in the right, but that simply points to the final verdict. Things are not really settled until my wife or I make a decision in the case (although we often tell them to work it out on their own, but that part of it falls a little outside of the point of this analogy). Once we have declared one of them to be in the right, the situation is resolved and the other one realizes that they need to change their perspective and their actions if they want to align themselves with the side that has been declared to be in the right.
At the heart of these two parables is just that idea. Justice in the ancient world was not like the court systems that we have today. You didn’t have a government that would bring cases for people and prosecute on behalf of the people. All cases, whether they were property disputes or a case of murder or theft, involved one person taking another to court as a dispute. There would be a judge that would hear the case and then decide who was in the right. As the case wore on, it might become obvious who was in the right, but that merely anticipated the final verdict that the judge would make. Things weren’t resolved until he made his judgment. When he finally did declare someone to be in the right, that verdict was called the justification. One was justified, the other was shown to be in the wrong.
As we read these parables, then, we would do well to remember that parables were used by Jesus to teach a truth about his ministry and the coming of the kingdom of God. We also need to remember that perhaps the primary theme of this journey to Jerusalem section from Luke 9-19 has been the warnings to Israel about being replaced as the people of God by the faithful Messiah and those who would place their trust in him by dying to themselves and entering into his family. The old Temple, as it were, was facing a showdown with the New Temple and that meant that those who would cling to the old Temple would find themselves in dispute with the new Temple. Thus, God would be turned to by both parties to act as judge. The cases would be laid out and the judge would have to decide which group would be vindicated, which group would be justified.
It is also important to keep in mind that each of these parables has a specific point within the immediacy of Jesus’ ministry but a broader principle that can be applied as well. The truth is that with both of these parables most people jump right to the larger principle without ever even considering the primary original meaning of Jesus’ words within the larger Lukan context. Yet, as we consider that here, we don’t want to only focus on that and forget that there are larger principles at play as well that apply to all Christians everywhere.
The first parable was a common type situation in the first century. Jesus painted a picture of a widow who had been wronged by an un-described adversary. The only recourse that she had, though, was to appeal to a judge that was quite unwilling to hear her case. Jesus’ crafting of the characters makes the situation particularly urgent as widows were a common symbol for the weakest members of the society that were in the most need of compassion and care. The judge is not a godly man and cares little about justice. Eventually, though, he grants justice to the widow because she has persistently clamored to be treated fairly. The widow was relentless because she believed in her cause, she was desperate to be declared in the right, and she knew that the judge was the only one who could do that.
Luke says, in verse 1, that this parable was intended to teach the disciples about the need to be persistent in prayer, but verses 7-8 round out the context. They are to pray persistently in all things of course. That is certainly a universally true principle, but the specific topic that Jesus was urging them to pray about was concerning the coming judgment upon Israel and the vindication of the Son of Man (and thus, his people) that was the subject of the previous passage. They should continue to pray for God to declare in no uncertain terms that the Messiah was in the right and that his people were the ones who would be justified. If an unjust judge will grant justice because of the persistence of the woman, how much more will God? Thus, in a specific sense, Jesus seems to have cast his disciples in the role of the widow.
They might seem helpless and powerless in the world and the face of their adversaries, but they would need persistence in prayer to God. If they continued to believe in the Messiah alone, were desperate to be declared in the right, and know that God was the only one who could do so, then they would be persistent in prayer and God would justify them. The big question, however, was “would the Son of Man find faith when he returned”? The term “ge” which is translated “earth,” can mean “land,” ranging from a field to a specific area like a country, or it can hold the meaning of the “whole earth.” It is the context of the sentence that determines the meaning. It is just as possible then, that Jesus was specifically asking if he would find faith in the land of Israel when he returned, which would seem to fit even better with the context of the passage.
The second parable isn’t as obvious in it’s theme of justification but it is a continuation of that theme as is indicated by an “also” that is in the original language of verse 9 but has been removed from the TNIV for ease of reading (as in “Jesus also told this parable”). The issue of the second parable makes all the sense in the world if we understand the above discussed meaning of the first parable. If the issue that Jesus was discussing was the need for his people to cling to their future justification and vindication and to persistently ask God for it to come, then they would need to be reassured that the confidence of the people that clung to the old system was not something that should sway them.
It is human nature to be intimidated and even begin to doubt oneself in the face of a very confident adversary. This second parable in this passage warns against that. The Pharisee, who represents the entirety of the Jewish leadership and those opposed to Jesus are not in the right and they will not be vindicated. What are they like? They are like a self-righteous Pharisee who separated himself from all of the sinners and thanked God that he was not caught in the three nets that cursed the Jewish people (see commentary on 16:14-18 for a full explanation of the three nets of riches, blasphemy, and adultery). He was not like those folks in his own mind and according to his boastful declaration. No, he was not a sinner, but Jesus has already, in 16:14-18, made the case that the Pharisees were guilty of those precise sins. All of his self-righteousness, his looking down on others, and his extraordinary observance of the law did him no good. He would never be in God’s family with such an attitude.
God’s people would be like a tax collector. They were the people that were of no account in the culture. They were reviled and certainly not considered to be religious by any cultural standard. This tax collector didn’t bother to separate himself from others, in fact, he knew that there was nothing special about himself. He didn’t rely on his own righteousness or observance of the law as advance signs of what the final verdict would be. Jesus’ people would be those that, like this tax collector, threw themselves on the mercy of God as self-recognized sinners. It would not be those who remained with Israel, represented by the Pharisee, but those who were like the tax collector, Jesus’ people, that would find themselves justified before God. They would be the ones that were declared to be in the right and that would find themselves in the right family. What they needed to do, though was to be like the widow and cling to that goal of justification as their sole focus and at the heart of their prayers.
The principles of this, though, cannot just be limited to the first century issue of the true people of God being vindicated as the old Temple was replaced by the new Temple. These passages, once properly understood, do still offer rich principles of what Jesus’ people should look like. We are people who should take seriously the call to be God’s family that are vindicated in the eyes of God and our adversaries. This should be at the heart of our prayers. We need to consistently petition God for him to show us to be his people and to empower us to live like it. At the same time, we need to be like the humble tax collector. We need to constantly and actively remember that we are God’s people solely because of his mercy. We will never seek the justification of being declared to be in the Messiah’s family if we think we have things about us that cause us to be worthy of standing before God. We need to humble ourselves before God as sinners and know that, only then, will we be lifted up and justified.
Devotional Thought
Do you ever find yourself feeling a lot more like that Pharisee than the tax collector? Do you truly pray with the kind of persistence that the widow demonstrated? What can you learn from these two parables that causes you to specific action today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)