A Study of the Book of Luke
Sermon # 55
By Who’s Authority?
Luke 19:45-48, 20:1-18
Over the last week or so we have seen pictures of thousands of Shiite Moslems as pilgrims in Iraq as demonstration of their religious devotion. A picture very much like what Jesus saw as he entered Jerusalem just before Passover. But as Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem, no matter which way he looked he saw cause for weeping concerning the city. I think that he was particularly distressed that as he looked over the city, he saw that it was literally filled to overflowing with multiplied thousands of pilgrims gathered for the Passover. Jesus saw lots of religious activity, but activity that accomplished very little, for the temple was filled with pilgrims celebrating a festival, but the hearts of the people were heavy with sin and the burdens of this life. With His heart still raw with grief, over the Jerusalem he enters the city and heads for the temple.
The issue that underlies this entire section of Scripture is that of authority. Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem demonstrated two landmark displays of His authority. First, Jesus clearly declared Himself to be Israel’s Messiah by His triumphant entry into Jerusalem recorded in Luke 19. The entrance of the Lord into Jerusalem (vv.28-36), his acceptance of the people praise (vv. 37-38), and His refusal to silence the multitudes (v. 39), all pointed to His right as the Son of God to accept men’s praise.
A second demonstration of Jesus’ authority, is given in Luke 19:45. Here we are told, “Then He went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in it, (46) saying to them, "It is written, "My house is a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a "den of thieves." These verses record Jesus’ entrance into the temple, and His cleansing of it.
When Jesus entered the temple area reserved for the Gentile worshippers, instead of a place of worship he saw something between a Circus and a K-mart during a blue light special. Here animals were being bought and sold for temple sacrifice and money was being exchanged so that the temple tax could be paid. Underlying all of this activity was a corrupt system designed by the high priest and his cronies of ripping off the common people and pilgrims. Because only “approved” animals (i.e. those they had for sale) could be offered and the temple tax could only be paid in temple shekels which had to be exchanged for a fee.
The temple which was to be “a house of prayer,” in the words of Jesus had become a “den of thieves.” According to G. Campbell Morgan, a den of thieves is a place where thieves run to hide after they have committed their wicked deeds. The only place given to Gentile to worship the one true God was a animal market. The one place that God has specifically assigned to Gentile evangelism was rendered ineffective.
The cleansing of the temple was a dramatic event that both captured the attention of the people and aroused the anger of the religious establishment.
Jesus virtually took possession of the temple for verse forty-seven says, “… He was teaching daily in the temple...” Jesus virtually took over the temple, going there daily to teach and then returning each night to the Mount of Olives to spend the night. It was bad enough that Jesus had entered Jerusalem as he had. It was a tremendous blow to the owners of the concession stands when Jewish drove the merchants for the temple. But when he set up shop in the temple, teaching there on a daily basis, it was just too much! Luke tells us the response of the Jerusalem Jewish leaders to his possession of the temple and his teaching there in the remainder of verse forty-seven,
“… But the chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people sought to destroy Him, (48) and were unable to do anything; for all the people were very attentive to hear Him.” The religious leaders were incensed and wanted to kill him, only their fear of the reaction of the people kept them from carrying out their plans.
Note with me three things about their rejection of Jesus.
First, their rejection of Jesus was not because of a lack of knowledge but because of unwillingness to accept the truth. (vv. 1-8)
So not too surprisingly the incidents concerning the temple brought some questions on Monday. Chapter twenty opens with; “Now it happened on one of those days, as He taught the people in the temple and preached the gospel, that the chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders, confronted Him (2) and spoke to Him, saying, "Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?"
The first attack of the religious leaders came in the form of an official challenge to the authority by which Jesus acted as He did in the temple. But as is often the case, hostility was expressed in the form of a question. But it was not a question to obtain information, but rather to discredit the one being questioned. These religious leaders wanted to embarrass Jesus so they challenged His authority. They were in effect demanding, “Who do you think you are?” They are asking a question concerning his personal authority. He was acting like the owned the place (the temple) because he did.
They were trying to push the Lord into a dilemma so that no matter how he answered, he would be in trouble. If he said that He had no authority then He was in trouble for acting like a prophet and doing the things he had done in the temple. If he said that His authority came from God, then He would be in trouble with the Romans who were always looking out for trouble, especially doing religious holidays when thousands of pilgrims were gathered.
Jesus never gave a direct answer to a trick question. Proverbs 26:5 says, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.” Someone put it this way, “When you are arguing with a fool, be sure that he is not similarly engaged.” So Jesus responded in verse three with, "I also will ask you one thing, and answer Me: (4) The baptism of John--was it from heaven or from men?" Jesus was saying, “The answer to my question is the same as the answer to your question.”
The problem for the religious leaders was that John the Baptist was a popular hero. The people had thronged to hear his message of repentance, had believed, and received his baptism as a symbol of their change of heart. But the religious leaders had not. Now what were they to say?
In verse five we are told how they reasoned among themselves, "… If we say, "From heaven,’ He will say, "Why then did you not believe him?’ (6) But if we say, "From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet." The deliberation of these leaders would be humorous if it were not so tragic. No where do they express an interest in what the truth is, only in the consequences of their answer. Now amidst the throngs in the temple, it might not prove very healthy to deny that John’s authority was from Heaven. They choose the coward’s way out and replied in verse seven, “So they answered that they did not know where it was from.” They lied. They did know, but they would not say. By their answer they reveal that their utter disregard for the truth. So Jesus answered them in verse eight with, "… Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
Their rejection of Jesus was not because of a lack of knowledge but because of unwillingness to accept the truth and ….
Secondly, their Rejection of Jesus’ would ultimately result in His Death. (vv. 9-16)
Now beginning in verse nine Jesus gives them a parable. “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers and went into far country for a long time (10) Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. (11) Again he sent another servant; and they beat him and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. (12) And again they sent him a third, and they wounded him also and cast him out. (13) Then the owner of the vineyard said, “What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him. (14) But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, “This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’ (15) So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? (16) He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.’ And when they heard it they said, ‘Certainly not.’ “
Jesus illustrates for us here that sin is progressive, “the more we sin, the worse it becomes. The tenants started off beating up some of the servants and wounding others, but they ended up becoming murderers. The Jewish leaders permitted John the Baptist to be killed, they asked for Jesus to be crucified and then they themselves stoned Stephen.” [Warren Weirsbe. Be Courageous Luke 14-24 (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1989). p. 87]
Their Rejection of Jesus’ would ultimately result in His Death And ….
Third, their Rejection of Jesus had solemn and eternal consequences. (vv. 17-19)
These men knew the Scripture well enough to realize that Jesus it was Israel was the vineyard that he was speaking about. And just in case they missed the application we are told in verse seventeen, “Then he looked at them and said, What then is this that is written: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the cornerstone.’ (18) Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
In these verses God offers us a choice of “brokenesses.” Those who cast themselves on Jesus, submitting their wills and all they are too him, will be broken by him of arrogance, hard-heartedness, and self-centeredness. It is a not a pleasant process but a very necessary one. But for those who do not submit to him, he will ultimately “fall on them,” an experience infinitely worse which the Bible says will be “crushing.” The choice is yours, broken before him or crushed by him.
Verse nineteen reveals that the religious leaders “knew he had spoken this parable against them” but they were too proud to repent and too hardened to turn from their sins.
Conclusion
So we return to where we began, I told you in the beginning, that the issue that underlay this entire section of Scripture was that of authority. It is not that the religious leaders did not know who Jesus was, but that they would not accept his authority.
We are in the sinful state that we are in today, not because we do not know that God exists, but because we have refused to acknowledge his authority. We would rather run our own lives, and live as we please. We would rather be like God than to be answerable to Him. Sin rejects God’s authority and seeks to live autonomously.
Even after we become Christian we continue to struggle with God’s demands on our lives. We struggle with the reality of what it means to allow Christ to truly be “the Lord of our lives.” Do you realize that Jesus claims authority in every area of our lives? We suffer tragic physical, emotional and spiritual consequences because we do not want Jesus to be the Lord of our whole lives, just sections of it.
