Proper 27
Preaching
Preaching Luke's Gospel
A Narrative Approach
Today's text comes to us rather radically ripped from its Lukan context. Proper 26 offered the wonderful story of Zacchaeus. Just a week ago, therefore, we were in the closing moments of the Travel Narrative. The grand climax of the Travel Narrative, of course, is the entry into Jerusalem. Palm Sunday, however, is far behind us now. We would encourage you to re-read the Palm Sunday material (Chapter 41) as you think about the context for this week's Gospel reading. The pericope assignments have moved us from 19:1-10 to 20:27-38. It is important to remind ourselves of what is missing as we move from Proper 26 to Proper 27.
After Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem on Palm Sunday he went directly to the temple (Luke 19:45, 47). The closing verses in Luke 19 set the context for Luke 20. "The chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill him; but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were spellbound by what they heard" (19:47-48). David Tiede in his Lukan commentary gives this heading for the material in 20:1„21:4: "Conflicts While Teaching In The Temple." Robert Tannehill summarizes as follows:
The persistent efforts of the Sanhedrin to find a way of re-moving Jesus in spite of the people's support is an impor-tant unifying thread in the narrative from 19:47 until Jesus' arrest.1
Luke 20:1-8 is the first attempt by the temple leaders to trap Jesus in his words. The chief priests and the scribes and the elders ask Jesus about the nature of his authority. If Jesus answered that his authority was from God they would accuse him of blasphemy. If he answered that his authority was mere human authority the crowds would be disenchanted with him. The trap doesn't work. Jesus parries question for question. "Did the baptism of John come from heaven or was it of human origin?" he asked them. They had no answer for Jesus. Round one goes to Jesus!
Before we come to round two in the verbal wrestling match between Jesus and the temple authorities we encounter a kind of allegorical parable on the lips of Jesus. "A man planted a vineyard and leased it to tenants...." When the master of the vineyard sent for his share of the produce his servant was sent away by the tenants. The master finally sent his "beloved son." "This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance may be ours." That's the response of the tenants. We read this to mean that when the Master of the human race sent his "beloved" son he was killed by the very persons who should have received him with joy. The scribes and chief priests got the point. They "realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people" (20:19). These conversations between Jesus and the temple leaders are not just interesting debates. Life and death hang in the balance.
Round two brings us to a conflict about the relative authority of God and Caesar (20:20-26). Once again Jesus proves the superior debater in a life-and-death quarrel of wits. "Then give to the em-peror the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's" (20:25). Jesus' words confounded them. Their rage mounted. "And they were not able in the presence of the people to trap him, by what he said; and being amazed by his answer, they became silent" (20:26).
Round three. This is the text assigned for this week. Now it's the turn of the Sadducees to question Jesus. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They had good reason. God hadn't done any resurrections as yet. God raising the dead was a deed for the future of Jesus. So the Sadducees were not stupid. They thought that resurrections were unbiblical and they tried to get Jesus to agree by presenting their hypothetical case of a woman who had seven husbands and no sons by any of them. "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be?" (20:33). Jesus was up to their challenge. Even the Sadducees admitted such. " 'Teacher, you have spoken well.' For they no longer dared to ask him another question" (20:39-40).
Round three in this debate also goes to Jesus! These stories that occur on the brink of Jesus' death are delightful nonetheless. As Tiede puts it, "These are stories which early Christian com-munities would have treasured as disclosures of the triumph of messianic teaching over the attacks of the temple leadership."2
In 20:41 the tables are turned and Jesus starts to ask the questions!
Homiletical Directions
In the first place, we must note that the stories we have looked at above are made for teaching. They are conflict stories between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders in the days leading up to the move on the part of the religious authorities to kill the Messiah. A teaching sermon could set the narrative context of conflict for these three dialogues with Jesus and then proceed to make Jesus' points in each of these stories clear in our exposition. Jesus taught. We teach. We seek to explain for faith today the true nature of Jesus' authority (20:1-8), how we should regard God and the emperor (20:19-26), and how we ought to think about the resurrection of the dead (20:27-40). Standard commentaries explicate the meaning of these stories very well.
A narrative alternative for dealing with these three stories would be to focus on the nature of the conflict rather than the content of the teaching. The issue for the sermon would be this series of conflicts as the Jewish religious leaders seek to trap Jesus so that they can undermine his popularity with the people and see to it that his days are numbered on this earth. We would tell these three stories but not with the intention of explaining them. Our intention would be to lay out the nature of the conflict. Life and death are engaged in these conversations. Tell the stories. Build the conflict. Life vs. Death.
It is probably best that our sermon not just deal with the nature of the conflict. We may need to jump ahead of ourselves a bit and anticipate the end of the conflict. The religious leaders won! At least that's how it looked for a while. They did get him crucified. The religious authorities unwittingly carried out God's plan! That plan is reiterated over and over again in Luke's Gospel beginning with 9:22: "The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." We refer you to Chapter 41 for a dis-cussion of God's plan that the Messiah must suffer. Predictions of Jesus' passion occur regularly in this Gospel. Suffering and death are part of the plan. As discussed in Chapter 41 the plan is explained in Luke 24. Twice in Luke 24 the newly risen Jesus indicates that it was necessary that he should suffer (24:26, 46). Jesus' suffering is completed and now the message of repentance and forgiveness of sins may be "proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (24:47).
The Homiletical Directions in Chapter 41 offer possibilities for preaching on this story of suffering that is the plan of God, brought about by the religious leaders, and proclaimed by us as the hope of the world.
____________
1.aRobert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, Volume One (Phila-delphia: Fortress, 1986), 189.
2.aDavid L. Tiede, Luke: Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minne-apolis: Augsburg, 1988), p. 336.
After Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem on Palm Sunday he went directly to the temple (Luke 19:45, 47). The closing verses in Luke 19 set the context for Luke 20. "The chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill him; but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were spellbound by what they heard" (19:47-48). David Tiede in his Lukan commentary gives this heading for the material in 20:1„21:4: "Conflicts While Teaching In The Temple." Robert Tannehill summarizes as follows:
The persistent efforts of the Sanhedrin to find a way of re-moving Jesus in spite of the people's support is an impor-tant unifying thread in the narrative from 19:47 until Jesus' arrest.1
Luke 20:1-8 is the first attempt by the temple leaders to trap Jesus in his words. The chief priests and the scribes and the elders ask Jesus about the nature of his authority. If Jesus answered that his authority was from God they would accuse him of blasphemy. If he answered that his authority was mere human authority the crowds would be disenchanted with him. The trap doesn't work. Jesus parries question for question. "Did the baptism of John come from heaven or was it of human origin?" he asked them. They had no answer for Jesus. Round one goes to Jesus!
Before we come to round two in the verbal wrestling match between Jesus and the temple authorities we encounter a kind of allegorical parable on the lips of Jesus. "A man planted a vineyard and leased it to tenants...." When the master of the vineyard sent for his share of the produce his servant was sent away by the tenants. The master finally sent his "beloved son." "This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance may be ours." That's the response of the tenants. We read this to mean that when the Master of the human race sent his "beloved" son he was killed by the very persons who should have received him with joy. The scribes and chief priests got the point. They "realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people" (20:19). These conversations between Jesus and the temple leaders are not just interesting debates. Life and death hang in the balance.
Round two brings us to a conflict about the relative authority of God and Caesar (20:20-26). Once again Jesus proves the superior debater in a life-and-death quarrel of wits. "Then give to the em-peror the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's" (20:25). Jesus' words confounded them. Their rage mounted. "And they were not able in the presence of the people to trap him, by what he said; and being amazed by his answer, they became silent" (20:26).
Round three. This is the text assigned for this week. Now it's the turn of the Sadducees to question Jesus. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They had good reason. God hadn't done any resurrections as yet. God raising the dead was a deed for the future of Jesus. So the Sadducees were not stupid. They thought that resurrections were unbiblical and they tried to get Jesus to agree by presenting their hypothetical case of a woman who had seven husbands and no sons by any of them. "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be?" (20:33). Jesus was up to their challenge. Even the Sadducees admitted such. " 'Teacher, you have spoken well.' For they no longer dared to ask him another question" (20:39-40).
Round three in this debate also goes to Jesus! These stories that occur on the brink of Jesus' death are delightful nonetheless. As Tiede puts it, "These are stories which early Christian com-munities would have treasured as disclosures of the triumph of messianic teaching over the attacks of the temple leadership."2
In 20:41 the tables are turned and Jesus starts to ask the questions!
Homiletical Directions
In the first place, we must note that the stories we have looked at above are made for teaching. They are conflict stories between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders in the days leading up to the move on the part of the religious authorities to kill the Messiah. A teaching sermon could set the narrative context of conflict for these three dialogues with Jesus and then proceed to make Jesus' points in each of these stories clear in our exposition. Jesus taught. We teach. We seek to explain for faith today the true nature of Jesus' authority (20:1-8), how we should regard God and the emperor (20:19-26), and how we ought to think about the resurrection of the dead (20:27-40). Standard commentaries explicate the meaning of these stories very well.
A narrative alternative for dealing with these three stories would be to focus on the nature of the conflict rather than the content of the teaching. The issue for the sermon would be this series of conflicts as the Jewish religious leaders seek to trap Jesus so that they can undermine his popularity with the people and see to it that his days are numbered on this earth. We would tell these three stories but not with the intention of explaining them. Our intention would be to lay out the nature of the conflict. Life and death are engaged in these conversations. Tell the stories. Build the conflict. Life vs. Death.
It is probably best that our sermon not just deal with the nature of the conflict. We may need to jump ahead of ourselves a bit and anticipate the end of the conflict. The religious leaders won! At least that's how it looked for a while. They did get him crucified. The religious authorities unwittingly carried out God's plan! That plan is reiterated over and over again in Luke's Gospel beginning with 9:22: "The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." We refer you to Chapter 41 for a dis-cussion of God's plan that the Messiah must suffer. Predictions of Jesus' passion occur regularly in this Gospel. Suffering and death are part of the plan. As discussed in Chapter 41 the plan is explained in Luke 24. Twice in Luke 24 the newly risen Jesus indicates that it was necessary that he should suffer (24:26, 46). Jesus' suffering is completed and now the message of repentance and forgiveness of sins may be "proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (24:47).
The Homiletical Directions in Chapter 41 offer possibilities for preaching on this story of suffering that is the plan of God, brought about by the religious leaders, and proclaimed by us as the hope of the world.
____________
1.aRobert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, Volume One (Phila-delphia: Fortress, 1986), 189.
2.aDavid L. Tiede, Luke: Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minne-apolis: Augsburg, 1988), p. 336.
