Luke 20:1-8
Let’s remember to pray for Jim and Marty.
“Notice what you notice.” My Study Bible opened a new possibility, that the Jewish leaders were not challenging Jesus’ authority to teach and preach, but that they were challenging Him for having cleansed the temple of the merchants and money-changers. And in this they had a good point, in that theirs was the responsibility for everything connected to the temple. Here’s my thinking on that. The Jewish leaders could have brought a civil case against Jesus, but that outcome would likely have been a fine for damages and lost profits. That is not what they wanted; what they wanted was His end and for that there were two possibilities. First they could have found Him in blasphemy and had the crowds stone Him to death. Or they could have brought Him to the Roman authorities and charged Him with insurrection (or something along those lines) and had the Romans kill Him. Having failed time and again on the former of those options, they chose a middle-of-the-night rabble crowd to deliver Him to the Romans.
Luke adds one phrase we haven’t seen before: … Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel. (v. 1) Whenever I see a reference to “preaching the gospel” I think of Father David’s promise to the people of St. Andrew’s, “You bring the people and I’ll preach the gospel.” Today we think of “preaching the gospel” as delivering a salvation message. I wonder what Luke had in mind when he wrote those words. What was “the gospel” to Luke back then? Was it John the Baptist’s message of repentance…? Or was it Jesus’ adding on to John’s message with forgiveness and following Him? Or what? Any thoughts?
Slava Bohu!
I think of the good news as: the kingdom of God is near; therefore we need to repent, change our direction and believe, agree with God.
I think you nailed it, Debbie, and did so about as succinctly as possible!
One thing I am absolutely sure of is that the “gospel” that Jesus preached was not what typical 21st-century Western Evangelicals usually have in mind — e.g., “The Four Spiritual Laws” or “The Bridge Illustration” — with the explanation that Jesus died for our sins and rose again and if we believe in him we go to heaven. Not that there is anything wrong with those presentations of the “gospel” — they are certainly good tools — but they can’t quite be what Jesus was preaching at that time. I say that because the notion of Jesus dying and rising again was completely lost on the disciples until after the Resurrection, yet they were likewise actively preaching the “gospel” during Christ’s earthly ministry. It would have been hard for them to preach what they were clueless about.