The Jerusalem conflict section of Luke

In Luke 20:1-21:4 we have a section characterised by

• Geographical location of Jerusalem
• Conflict stories between Jesus and the religious hierarchy.

The section is framed by:

• Jesus arrival in Jerusalem on the first Palm Sunday (19:28-48). The crowds’ cheering has not even died down before he weeps in public over what will happen to the city. The explanation given here for Jerusalem’s fate is her failure to recognise that God has come to visit. He then prophetically enacts this by driving out those who are misusing the temple.
• The extended exposition in Luke 21:5-38 of what will happen to Jerusalem.

We conclude that the intervening material (20:1-21:4) is an exposition of Jerusalem’s failure to recognise her Lord.

• At the heart of it, is a refusal to recognise the authority of Jesus (20:1-8).
• This will culminate (believe it or not) in the murder of the vineyard owner’s son; that misdemeanour, more than anything else, is why the tenants will be destroyed and the vineyard will be given to new tenants (20:9-17).
• This rejection of the Son’s authority is carried out by giving loyalty to the state that rightly belongs to him (20:19-26).
• This rejection of the Son’s authority is carried out by picking and choosing which Scriptures they will allow to tell us about God, and which ones they will disallow (20:27-40).
• What lies behind the rejection of the Son’s authority is the love the scribes have of their own religion – they expect Jesus to prop it up for them rather than be Lord over it (20:41-44).
• The other thing that lies at the heart of it is their love of their own status and standing (20:45-21:4).

So, 19:28-21:38 tells us that Jerusalem will be destroyed because she did not recognise God when he came to visit. Within that framework we have an exposition of what that failure to recognise looks like (rejection of the authority of Jesus), how it is done (loyalty to the state and to Scriptures of our choosing), and why it is done (love of religion and of self-standing).

Does that mean that this passage of Luke is only of historical interest, and is of no relevance to the present day reader? Not at all, because of the context of the journey section. We get to read of the hypocrisy and mistakes of the Jewish leaders of the day. Luke records that precisely so that we won’t repeat the mistakes, but will instead find better characters in Luke to emulate.

Indeed, the parable of the vineyard makes this explicit. We see here how God treats his tenants when they don’t realise that they are tenants not owners. God has given the vineyard to others, so we are now tenants. So we read here how God will treat us if we don’t realise that we are tenants not owners. And we read here how and why we might do just that.

Historically particular, but everything but irrelevant.