Study 44. Luke 19:45 - 20:8. 26/1/24

1. Exactly what was Jesus denouncing 19:45-48? Think about Luke 19:46. In your own words, explain what Jesus found wrong with the religion being practiced at the temple.

 

All four Gospels speak of Jesus driving traders out of the temple precincts, but the first three place it at the end of Jesus’ ministry and John at the beginning. There were probably two cleansings. ... The traders would have been in the court of the Gentiles, the only place Gentiles could go to pray. (Morris). - hence Jesus' emphasis on the 'all nations' in His denunciation.

The first cleansing would have been a warning; the second, a final judgment.

For those involved, the Temple existed purely for commercial purposes - there was no reverence involved. Their activities hindered true worship and distracted true worshippers. And the religious establishment condoned this. They likewise had no concern about the true meaning of the Temple.

 

 

How was Jesus' action different from the political protects, terrorism and violent overthrow of the government that the Zealots wanted?

His concern was that the purpose of the Temple be recalled by the people- a godward motive for religious purity rather than a political motive for regime change. 

But the deeper questions would be: When is 'freedom fighting' permissible? When are protests against authority and war against a ruler permissible?

My  short answer is that our patience must be long and that we should curtail our tendency to revenge. It's not wrong to take up arms for a good cause, but we should have a wide buffer before violence should be considered.

 

 

Is Jesus' action a model for us to follow in dealing with abuses in the church? Why, or why not? What about abuses in secular government?

This is a clear instance when we do not do 'what Jesus would do'. We don't have the perfect knowledge of the Father's will Jesus had. The epistles set out principles for church discipline. We do not follow the gospels in this regard, except where Jesus directly addresses the issue (Mt 18:15-20)

 

Submission to authority (Rom 16) is limited by compliance of that authority to the laws of God. We may and should protest when the laws of God are broken. In our protesting we must ourselves be careful not to break the laws of God.

 

Jesus' action was authorised by God. How do we know this? How could the Jews have known this? 

We know this on hindsight. It might have been hard to be sure if we were there at the time. Jesus was fulfilling Scripture (Mal 3:1-4). At the least the Jews might have thought Him a true prophet attested to by miracles.

 

How could the Zealots, Pharisees and priests have known that their religious and poilitical view and deeds were not authorized by God? How can we know whether our and others' actions are authorized by God or just personal opinion?

 

The character of Jesus’ teaching at this time appears in the reference to preaching the gospel. At the very time his enemies were plotting against him, he was bringing God’s good news to the people. He was interrogated by the chief priests and the scribes with the elders, which looks like an official inquiry from the Sanhedrin. Jesus’ recent activities had not endeared him to officialdom, so a deputation came to question him. They were concerned with the authority under which he had acted. Their question refers quite generally to these things, but they were doubtless primarily concerned at the cleansing of the temple. What authority could justify Jesus in acting like that? Perhaps he would say, ‘The authority of Messiah’? Then who had given him that authority? (Morris)

 

The key to us knowing or not knowing must lie in a depth of personal relationship with God that transcends agendas and views.

God has instituted 4 types authority on earth:

1. Parents over children
2. Husbands over wives
3. Employers over employees
4. Government over citizens
5. Church leaders over members.

These types of authority are not absolute, but are exercised on God's behalf.

2. How did Jesus' question in 20:3-4 pose a dilemma for the Jewish leaders (see 20:3-7)?

Jesus’ question put his opponents on the horns of a dilemma. They do not seem to have been concerned with the facts; they concentrate on the effects, not the truth of the possible answers. They had never accepted John’s baptism and thus to say that that baptism was of heavenly origin would leave them wide open, for in that case they should have believed him and followed him enthusiastically. Had they done this they would have had the answer to their question, for they would have recognized that Jesus derived his authority from the same heavenly source as did John. There can be no doubt that they would have liked to say, From men. That was what they believed, but John’s popularity with the people made it an answer impossible to give. They feared being stoned. 7–8. So they gave no answer and accordingly Jesus gave none to them. He did not say that he had no authority. Throughout the whole of the four Gospels it is clear that he is very conscious of possessing the highest authority. But he will not speak about it to men who will not answer a plain question to which they know the answer. (Morris)

Jesus refuses to entertain those who question Him but are not interested in truth - only in appearances

 

 

3. Why did the leaders' ability to understand Jesus' authority depend upon their understanding of John's authority (20:7-8)?

If they knew where John's authority came from they would have seen that Jesus' authority came from the same place. They should have had the discernment as religious leaders of the nation. If they could not see God's hand in John's ministry, they could not have seen likewise in JEsus'

 

Compare 20:1-8 to a similar question of authority in 11:14-32. Notice how Jesus handled such questions.j

 in Luke 11 there were questions and doubts that were unspoken, with some likelihood that some people really wanted to know the truth and could be reasoned with. Not so the Jewish leaders.

 

Or, compare a more honest question in 7:18-23. Did Jesus evidently prefer to tell people directly what to think of Him, or to let them observe and draw their own conclusions? Can you suggest reasons why?

He sometimes told people who He was (the 'Messianic secret'). Most times He let His actions speak for him. (Jn 10:25, 38)

This suggests to us that we also do not need to be quick to push our identity forward.

How did he handle sincere and insincere inquiries? Again, can you think of reasons for this preference?

God is not interested in insincere people and will not entertain them.