Jesus in Jerusalem, part 2

Read the previous section

In Luke's narrative, Jesus enters the temple immediately after his arrival in the city. There he turns his attention to the merchants who sit in its courts, driving out these "robbers" in the name of spiritual purity (19:45-46). Halvor Moxnes explains that the vendors in the temple were tied to the system of national sacrifices, tithes, and taxes, which involved central control over the resources of Israel.¹¹ A distinction between religious leadership and economic power did not necessarily exist. Indeed, Sean Freyne goes as far as to describe the temple as "a functioning mobilization exchange system, legitimated by shared religious values, but which could be both punitive and exploitative as far as the country people were concerned"; the inequities of this system were responsible for many of the revolutionary sentiments of the time.¹² The fact that the cleansing of the temple is Christ's first recorded act after his long-anticipated arrival in Jerusalem indicates that Luke attached great significance to it. Kingsbury argues that this act represents a confrontation not only with the sellers but also with the authorities who sanctioned them. By evicting these traders and establishing himself as a teacher in the same location, "he effectively takes possession of the temple."¹³

A subsequent temple challenge demonstrates that Jesus' appropriation of authority has political as well as economic implications—although the distinction between politics and economics is a modern one; as previously noted, first-century society viewed political and economic issues merely as a function of interpersonal relations, patronage, and honor.¹⁴ In the next chapter, spies sent from the scribes and chief priests challenge Jesus publicly, trying to maneuver him into making an inflammatory political statement. In order to discredit Jesus or bring him to the attention of the Romans, they pose a question in front of the crowds: "Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" (20:22). An affirmative answer could jeopardize Christ's favor with the people, but a negative answer could carry serious legal repercussions. In his riposte, Jesus refuses to attack the emperor's authority openly. He deftly responds in manner that seems ambiguous but might nevertheless leave a great impression on his Jewish audience. He asks to be shown a denarius. He asks the spies to state not only whose portrait adorns the coin, but also whose inscription it bears. The answer to both questions is "the emperor's." He recommends then that they "give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God’s." This riposte stuns his challengers to silence (vv. 24-26).

Modern readers usually take this as a renunciation of political concern on Jesus' part. As already mentioned, Bock interprets the pronouncement as a sign of indifference toward Rome. Kingsbury also takes it as a declaration that God and Caesar can be honored simultaneously.¹⁵ This interpretation has some validity, but it does not take into consideration the full social context of Jesus' remarks. The Roman emperor's claim to authority as the ultimate patron must be considered carefully. Malina and Rohrbaugh observe the coin inscription to which Jesus has referred: "Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, son of divine Augustus." The possession of such a blasphemous article shames the challengers in front of the people. Not only that, however, but the audacious claims of the imperial power are contradicted by Jesus' honoring of God as a higher patron. According to the Old Testament, the image of God is stamped upon humanity itself. Jesus forces a comparison between God and the emperor; no Jew would wonder which patron rules which.¹⁶ While not a call to a tax revolt, Jesus' words do constitute a challenge to Rome's perceived place in the affairs of humanity.

Within a short time of his advent in the city, therefore, Christ has challenged both the Jewish and Roman authorities. He has redefined the role of the temple and exposed the hubris of the emperor in a challenge framed against the religious, political, and economic power of the rulers.

~~~~~~~~~~

11. Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 70-71.

12. Sean Freyne, "Herodian Economics in Galilee: Searching for a Suitable Model," Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, ed. Philip F. Esler (New York: Routledge, 1995) 42-43.

13. Ibid. 59.

14. Moxnes 72.

15. Kingsbury 100.

16. Malina and Rohrbaugh 310.