Luke 20:1-8
It is always a painful situation when we find that we are unable to trust authority figures and we find ourselves questioning their authority. Whether this be parents, teachers, police, church leaders, governmental officials, or other individuals we find ourselves somewhat lost when we realize we are uncertain that we have trustworthy leadership. We can feel hurt when we realize there is sharp disagreement over the way that matters are handled. As authority figures find themselves scrutinized and questioned, our own questions arise in which we ask, “Who gave you the authority to conduct your business in the way you do?” We might ask silently or loudly what some of the matters are that surface that have led to allowing these individuals to continue to work and impact others in their businesses and professions. What makes us listen to some rather than others or to fire a few and hire someone that has a different skill set or is differently qualified or better at the job or easier to get along with? Obviously, as tensions in today’s society run deep, there are equally deep matters that rise to the surface as we search for who we can trust in turbulent times and who we allow into positions of authority. These matters concern skin color, credentials, economic status that is measured through education, income, and occupation. Even the type of place that an individual lives can contribute to the factors in which one takes into consideration for fostering trust between authority figures and those under their care, watch, or leadership. This fostering of trust between the authority figures and those under is then nurtured and accomplished through listening to authority figures and through the act of giving them room to have a voice in society and in the lives of others. Assessing and analyzing the way that matters are handled teaches us who we trust and why we trust them or why we don’t when we disagree.
Today’s passage is Luke 20:1-8. The scene opens with Jesus in the temple and he is doing two things. He is teaching and he is proclaiming the good news. It does not seem to me as though this should be a big deal! It seems to me that these would be two very positive things to do. However, we see by verse 2 that the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders approach Jesus to question him. It does not say necessarily that they came with evil intent to trap Jesus (as is specific to previous conversations) but their opening question brought forth an uncertain discussion that did not lead to a productive conversation with Jesus. So, we want to ask ourselves, what does the proceeding discussion reveal to us about Jesus, about God, or about ourselves in addition to the circumstances concerning the relationship between the religious leaders and Jesus.
The question that they ask Jesus is, “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?” The religious leaders in Luke 19:39 had been looking for a way to kill Jesus and had not been able to because of the intensity in which the people listened to him. The people were hungry to hear the message that Jesus spoke and this hindered the religious leaders from having the opportunity to kill him. So, with their plans or ideas currently folding, they take the opportunity in Luke 20:1-2, to question Jesus. They are confronting Jesus on the origin of the authority by which he speaks. Their authority derived from the Torah which was the Judaic law or the Jewish bible. Yet, Jesus through his teaching broke the law on occasions and did not always heed the warnings of the Jewish leaders. His actions and teaching showed a freedom from the law and proclaimed a gracious and righteous God that contradicted the Jewish understanding of God and therefore the relationship that grew between the two had made them opponents by Luke 20.
The chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders asked Jesus, “By what authority are you doing these things?” and “Who gave you this authority?” Jesus was not naïve to their folded advances of Luke 19:39 and he pushed back against their question, not giving a direct immediate answer, but instead he began to answered their question with a question of His own: “Tell me: “John’s baptism”-was it from heaven or of human origin?”. The significance of Jesus’ question to the Pharisees would reveal what they thought of Jesus himself since John had baptized Jesus and John’s disciples began to follow Jesus and the good news that John proclaimed was “Repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near and prepare the way of the Lord and make straight paths for him (Matthew 3:2-3) and Jesus also had begun to preach the same, echoing John, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near (Matthew 4:17). If these religious leaders did not believe in the new birth that baptism represented which came through the Holy Spirit then the only birth that they believed in would be one of natural descent and of human decision or of a husband’s decision rather than of the decision of God (John 1:13). By asking if John’s baptism was of heaven or of human origin then Jesus was asking for a confession of their own understanding of the origin of their salvation.
Verse 5 says that they discussed it amongst themselves. The answer they supplied was two-fold. In considering the outcome of their answer, they said, “If we answer ‘from heaven’ then we will be asked ‘Why don’t you believe Jesus?’ but if we answer rather ‘John’s baptism was of human origin’ then we will make the people angry enough to stone us since they have been persuaded that John was a prophet.” The people recognized and listened to the gospel that John preached and became obedient to it. To reply incorrectly to Jesus in front of the people would show their unbelief. Already, they were not speaking with Jesus directly in terms of their own convictions but were weighing their answers in relation to the pressure of what others thought. The very question that Jesus would have asked in response to their reply (if they had answered “from heaven”) was “Why didn’t you believe him?” This question itself calls for their confession of their own sin to Jesus and they were unwilling to repent of unbelief. They were hardened of heart to such a degree that they refused to dialogue with Jesus about why they inwardly were full of unbelief. The other side of the question did not prove much help either. If they answered “of human origin”, they would find themselves at odds with the people to the point that the reaction of the people would involve a revelation of the character of their leaders and a response of obedience to God that entailed stoning their own leaders. According to Leviticus 24:13-16, stoning was the punishment for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:13–16). Blasphemy is taking the Lord’s name in vain and acting irreverently toward God by being profane or sacrilegious. It is cursing the name of the Lord.
By asking Jesus, “by what authority are you doing these things and then not admitting that John’s baptism was of heaven, the religious leaders were stating by their own understanding that they did not know God because they did not believe Jesus. They recognized the penalty that the people would inflict upon them if they answered that John’s baptism was of human origin and they acknowledged indirectly that they did not want to die at the hands of the people! As a result, the answer they gave to Jesus was, “We do not know where it was from.” They admitted ignorance. In the midst of all their understanding, they admitted a lack of understanding and a lack of the knowledge of God and their lack of understanding and knowledge of God was derived from their unbelief. As a result, Jesus could not answer their question. It is not that he just merely chose not to answer their question. Instead, he could not give them an answer by what authority ‘he did work according to’ because his answer was from God and contained the knowledge and understanding of God which they had denied.
This is a case of attempted dialogue between two types of human beings: one that contains the knowledge and understanding of God and whose end is with God. The other being does not contain the knowledge and understanding of God but instead denies it and their end will not be with God because they have rejected His will and His way and His word. Like oil and water that do not mix, the conversation does not go far with unbelievers but is cut short because the revelation of God is not perceived among those asking the original question of Jesus about where his authority comes from. Sometimes, we want desperately to enter into conversation with those who are far from God so that they may be drawn near by God’s Spirit of revelation to belief in Jesus Christ. We want fellowship with them and to be in good company! Yet, there are those who suffer the wrath of God for sin and who are unable to draw near to God and enter into salvation and in these times we recognize God’s Sovereign hand to do as He pleases. We leave all to God, trusting Him, when we can go no further. We do not join those living apart from Jesus, but we remain set apart for the things of God and we say like Jesus, “Then, neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
Some underlying questions that we might have as we read this passage are: Is Jesus accountable to the chief priests, teachers of the law, and the elders? Were they asking Jesus to hold them accountable? Is anyone here using or abusing authority? Many times, those who submit themselves to church discipline and who regard themselves as disciples consider accountability to be a blessed thing between two Christians in fellowship with one another. When one is tempted the other can encourage and keep the other accountable and vice versa. Proverbs 27:17 says, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another”. This verse can be used to describe a purpose of accountability. Due to the conflict going on between the religious leaders and Jesus, most likely they were not looking for accountability from Jesus. I would say here also that Jesus is not accountable to them. They may be using this question to get Jesus to fess up to the fact that the authority that he is claiming is deceptively clashing with their own authority and leading him into trouble and conflict and also misleading others-the very accusation that Jesus essentially has with them. Yet, nowhere in the gospels does Jesus try to submit himself to their authority and be accountable to their leadership. Even when Nicodemus in John 3 comes to Jesus at night to discuss that yes, they believe that Jesus was from God, the conversation turned to being born again rather than to becoming accountable to one another. The discussion revolves around believing in Jesus to have eternal life and not being accountable to the teaching of law and that Nicodemus’ people did not accept the testimony of Jesus. One who believes in Him is not condemned but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (John 3:18). There was no lesson on accountability in regards to the relationship between Jesus and the religious leaders because they could not accept the first lesson of belief in Jesus and the matters pertaining to salvation. Accountability hints at some sort of equality and an equal yoke within the relationship providing for common beliefs. Unbelief hints at the idea of inequality and a yoke that both do not bear and therefore accountability would not apply.
Perhaps the relationship of Jesus to the religious leaders could be compared to King Uzziah and the priests in 2 Chronicles 26:15-23.
“But with success and position, sometimes there comes a deadening pride.
The Scripture goes on to say: “His fame spread far and wide, for he was greatly
helped [by the Lord] until he became powerful. But after Uzziah became powerful,
his pride led to his downfall” (2 Chron. 26:15-16).
If you finish the story, you’ll find that, when the priests tried to hold him
accountable, he rebelled, telling them they had no right. After all, he was king!
What a dangerous attitude-full of ourselves, empty of God, available to everyone,
accountable to no one.”[i]
Jesus (like the priests) were ushering the religious leaders (like the king) away from the ‘alter of incense’ because only those who have been consecrated could offer incense. Yet, Jesus, the true king, faced the religious leaders deadening pride. They rebelled against God and told Jesus he had no right. Their attitudes were dangerous, full of themselves, and empty of God. Yet, they were available to everyone and accountable to no one.
Do you trust Jesus's authority and can you hear His voice in your own life?
As we conclude, we may ask what lessons can be learned about authority in this passage.
· If Jesus’ authority remains hidden to some, that does not change the fact that Jesus’ authority remains true in the face of unbelief. Stand firm in belief in Christ!
· His authority cannot be questioned without sincere belief in His identity as one from God or from heaven. Do you believe Jesus is from God?
· Unbelief does not excuse anyone from the consequences of disobeying God or denying His authority. Instead, receive God’s forgiveness and place your faith in Jesus today!
· Attempts to steal authority from God proves useless so don’t try to take from God what He hasn’t given you but trust Jesus instead. He won’t let you down!
[i] Bob Record, Beneath The Surface: Steering Clear of the Dangers that Could Leave You Shipwrecked (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 57.
Comentários