THEN HE ENTERED the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46“It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
47Every 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. 48Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words.
20:1One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, 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?”
3He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?”
5They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”
7So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”
8Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
Original Meaning
THE FINAL SECTION of Luke’s Gospel (19:45–24:53) presents the “passion” of Jesus, the events leading to his death and resurrection. The emphasis in this account is on Jesus’ innocence of the charges for which he is executed. Inexplicably, except for the hardness of the human heart, he goes to the cross. He suffers as a righteous sufferer. In fact, he even helps get himself there, since at his trial, when the Jews are having a difficult time convicting him, he utters words that lead to his condemnation.
Before the trial a series of controversies occurs that indicates just how far apart Jesus and the Jewish leadership are. His cleansing of the temple indicates how great the gap is between the worship Jesus calls for and what goes on in the temple. Jesus again predicts the fall of Jerusalem and uses it to picture what the events of his return will be like. Though Jesus is an innocent man sent to his death, he also is the vindicated one, who will return through God’s power.
The resurrection is the first step of that vindication. It takes the disciples by surprise, even though Jesus predicted it. Through it and the appearances that accompany it, Jesus explains God’s plan and prepares his disciples for the era that takes place while he is at God’s right hand. Jesus manifests his presence through his Spirit. Drawing on that resource, they can take the gospel to the world.
The first subunit of this concluding section (19:45–21:4) covers a wide array of controversies. Who initiates the controversy keeps switching. Jesus cleanses the temple (19:45–48), tells the parable of the tenants (20:9–19), and asks about the identity of the Messiah (20:41–44). The Jews ask about the source of Jesus’ authority (20:1–8), the issues of taxes to Rome (20:20–26), and the doctrine of resurrection (20:27–40). The subunit closes with Jesus’ warning to the people not to be like the leadership; he then lifts up a poor widow as an example of spirituality (20:45–21:4). These events, underscoring how the two opposing factions became so opposed, continue the tension already detailed in chapters 9–13.
In 19:45, Luke shows that once Jesus is in the city of Jerusalem, he wastes no time communicating his feelings about certain religious activities there.1 The background to this event is central to understanding what takes place here. In the temple precinct, items necessary for sacrifices were sold: animals, wine, oil, salt, and doves (John 2:14; Mishnah, Seqalim 1:3; 2:4).2 In addition money was changed from Roman currency to the required Hebrew shekels in accordance with the law (Ex. 30:11–14). This exchange had a built-in surcharge, some of which probably went to the high priest’s family. In Jesus’ view, the temple has become an excessively commercial enterprise, not a place of worship and prayer. Jesus’ action goes on to raise the issue of the source and nature of his authority, since the temple is the most sacred site in Judaism.3
Luke tells the story of the temple cleansing succinctly. Jesus drives out the merchants and quotes a composite Old Testament citation. The first part of verse 46 (the temple as “a house of prayer”) comes from Isaiah 56:7—a text that calls for justice and acknowledges the way to God is open to all, including foreigners and eunuchs, if they are faithful to God’s law. The second part comes from Jeremiah 7:11, which declares that God’s people have made the temple “a den of robbers.” Jeremiah calls the nation to repent of their misdeeds, warning them of judgment if they refuse to do so. With the support of the prophets behind him, Jesus condemns the desecration of the temple’s holy function.
Is the act messianic as well as prophetic? Little within the event itself is a reflection of messianic function.4 But its temporal juxtaposition to the Triumphal Entry means that this import cannot be far away. The one who entered the city to praise from Psalm 118 now cleanses the temple. The Messiah was supposed to bring wisdom and light to his people, so any activity related to the integrity of worship is certainly included.
Jesus’ action strengthens the resolve of the leadership to deal with him (6:11; 11:53–54). He cannot be allowed to dictate how worship will be conducted at the temple and thus blatantly challenge priestly practices. His actions would undoubtedly be regarded as blasphemous if they did not come from someone with prophetic authority, which is why the issue of Jesus’ authority is the next question raised (20:1–8). As Jesus shows up at the temple daily, the Jews plan to destroy him.5 But his popularity makes them hesitant. How can they do it when people are hanging on his very words? That is why they try to trip him up into saying something inappropriate.
Luke 20:1–8 returns to the central issue of the Gospel. Where does Jesus’ authority come from?6 This dispute is a serious one, since Jesus’ right to question worship at the temple is directly related to the source of his power. He has had no formal training and is a thorough outsider. So what gives him the right to tell the priests how to run a temple that they have been in charge of for centuries? What right does he have to make great religious claims?
Such concerns motivate the priests and teachers of the law to probe Jesus as he teaches in the temple courts and shares the gospel. Their question comes in two forms. By what authority does Jesus do these things, and who has given it to him? The reference to “these things” (v. 2) tells us that the action at the temple is only one thing that bothers the leadership.
Jesus responds with his own question. He asks them to assess John the Baptist’s ministry. The question is brilliant because John’s roots were as obscure as those of Jesus. Like Jesus, he had no formal training. He too preached repentance for all, yet the people acknowledged his ministry. What would the Jewish leadership say about a ministry like his? Sometimes a pointed question deserves a pointed question in return. The answer is significant because it links the two ministries together and the public has already made a judgment about John. The principle by which the leadership is judging Jesus—namely, he has no official priestly credentials—will also result in the rejection of John’s ministry, but John has already been accepted by the people as a prophet. Jesus has put them in a corner.
The character of the leadership emerges in their deliberations among themselves. The issue they discuss is not the truth, but appearances. To confess John’s ministry as possessing roots in heaven will expose their own lack of response. That answer is an embarrassment. However, to answer that it is from men rejects popular opinion, and they will face the wrath of the people for claiming an acknowledged prophet is not one after all. Everything about the reply is concerned with how it “will play in Peoria.”
The Jews decide to take a safe route and punt, claiming they do not know. The refusal to take a position leaves the door open for Jesus to refuse to commit himself, not because he does not wish to make a claim, but because the answer is obvious and need not be debated. They refused to recognize John, and now they are maintaining their distance from Jesus. Yet throughout his ministry Jesus has given plenty of evidence about the source of his authority (see 5:24; 11:20). The time for debate is past. The leadership has made their decision, and they should own up to it. Their failure to do so is the narration’s indictment on their action.
Bridging Contexts
THIS CLEANSING OF the temple took place at an institution of God that no longer exists. But a principle about worship surfaces in Jesus’ remarks that is still valid, even if the temple is no longer with us. Worship is a sacred trust, where commerce and hypocrisy have no place. The irony of this scene is that the priests’ concern for the temple and their authority over it lead them to contemplate destroying Jesus, the true temple (John 2:19–22). The sin of excessive religious commercialism has become compounded into contemplating murder. The mixed citation in verse 46 emphasizes that the sacred places of God are places of worship, not commerce. In addition, the worship God desires is linked intimately to the condition of the human heart (see John 4:24).
Another point to bear in mind is that sin usually does not take place in isolation. One sin tends to result in more sin. This tendency of sin to multiply like a cancerous cell is why turning from sin is so important. It prevents the disease from spreading to even more damaging proportions.
The fundamental issue in 20:1–8 is the source of Jesus’ authority. The linkage between John the Baptist and Jesus, as well as the evidence of Jesus’ own ministry, provides Luke’s answer. Beginning with 1:15–2:52, a significant number of texts in Luke raise this authority question because it is so central to everything he does to reassure Theophilus about who Jesus is. Important questions need lots of testimony, and Jesus’ ministry has supplied it, despite the hesitation of the chief priests and Jewish elders to admit it.
Also significant in this section is how rejection manifests itself. There is something fundamentally evasive about the Jewish leadership’s dealings with Jesus’ question. They do not want to answer it honestly and directly. This portrait of politics and public relations adds to the narrative portrait of how subtly sin works. The leadership’s continual sitting on the fence has an air of careful assessment, but their response to Jesus reveals the falseness of such assessments. Failure to embrace God’s way may manifest itself in this type of innocent-looking evasion, but it may be a response that is not as innocent as it looks.
In fact, there is a power play and manipulation in this text that reveals how sin often operates not overtly but covertly. The leadership’s behind-the-scenes dialogue to justify lack of public declaration is too often the case in our relationships. Honestly declaring where we stand and why is stifled by concern for how others may view us. The Christian faith is not committed to gaining the most votes, running a popularity contest, or finishing high in the polls. We must take a hard and honest stand for truth, even if it is not popular. Maneuvering to protect constituencies, as the Pharisees do here, is a sign of spiritual weakness that can kill a ministry or personal credibility. If we keep our eyes on the votes of our culture, God’s truth and being honest about it usually suffer. Being truthful does not mean being callous, but it does mean we should show enough honesty to make clear where we stand and why.
Contemporary Significance
OUR CULTURE MAY be right about certain expressions of the Christian faith when it accuses us of being too commercial. When money and prospering through the faith become more central than the worship of God, a distortion like that which occurred at the temple has taken place. It is hard to watch certain television ministries and not sense that money is more central than worship or ministry. When one attends church to facilitate meaningful business contacts, this distorted principle is also at work. What is most tragic is that resources from many well-meaning people may be going to sources that are less responsible than many organizations engaged in more authentic forms of ministry.
Often the lifestyles of the ministers who benefit from these resources are a clue as to how responsible the stewardship of God’s money is in such organizations. If a ministry refuses to be audited or to open its books for scrutiny, then its integrity may well be suspect. Neutral organizations like the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability audit and verify the integrity of a ministry’s financial practices. One should check to see if a ministry has such financial oversight and accountability before giving. Note how Paul expected that the money he was collecting for Jerusalem would be carried in such a way that more than one person knew about it (1 Cor. 16:3).
In our church we have recently assessed how we use our worship space as a venue for selling tickets for church functions and other items related to church activities. Though many well-meaning groups want to sell tickets to various fund-raisers or other events, we as a community have decided to move such sales away from the sanctuary as a way of honoring texts like Luke 19:45–46. Though less convenient, keeping the business of worship as the only business for the sanctuary seems the best way to keep a worshiping heart focused on meeting God.
We noted above how sin has a tendency to beget more sin. In Luke 19, concern for excessive commercial interests grows into a desire to eliminate Jesus. No doubt the leadership would have pled in their resistance to Jesus that they were merely trying to prevent someone from coming in and creating havoc at the temple. They may well have argued that law and order is not only the affair of governments; worship also needs oversight. But failure to engage in serious self-examination led to further sin. It is like the lie a spouse may tell to cover an affair. More damage follows as the marriage is eventually destroyed by compounding acts of sin against a vow originally made before God. Sins, like lies, tend to travel in packs and devour like wolves. Untreated, sin becomes a thoroughly destructive force.
As to the fundamental issue of Jesus’ authority and where it resides, does he have the right to do what he has done here? If so, we must take the warning here to heart. As Jesus nears the cross, we must reflect whether the official opposition to Jesus is appropriate. Preaching the arrival of God’s promise and cleansing the temple are acts that either are sanctioned by God or are wrong. Jesus is not just a good man here. The kind of benign respect our culture pays him is not a possible category that the Bible leaves open. He does not allow fence-sitting. He should either be embraced as Savior and Lord or opposed. If John the Baptist pointed to him as the Coming One, then Jesus is the Promised One of God.
Note Jesus’ hesitation to answer his enemies. Sometimes when ample opportunity has been given to respond, there no longer remains any need to keep answering what is essentially the same question. Jesus has answered numerous times in word and action the question the Jewish leadership raises. In our lives, this translates into a recognition that when we have shared Jesus with someone over a long period, there comes a time when answers may no longer be appropriate. Instead, we should urge the person to reflect on what has already been revealed. In some contexts, the only appropriate response to repeated inquiries is continued love, not more words.
The negative character lesson of the Jewish leaders’ deliberations has been noted above. But do we do the same things? Do we hesitate to speak up for our association with Jesus in contexts where it might not be popular? Do we use evasive tactics to hide previous actions that we now know were wrong? Do we tell people in public debate we are searching for truth, when our mind is already made up? Are we manipulative like the leaders here? Jesus urges us elsewhere that our “yes” should be “yes,” and “no” should be “no” (Matt. 5:37). Any other action undercuts integrity and trust.