Because the Gospel narratives always record Jesus teaching in the Temple, while he and his disciples were in Jerusalem, the mention of his teaching in a synagogue in Luke 13:10 seems to imply his visit to Jerusalem was over, and he was now in Galilee. It was the Sabbath day, and, while Jesus was teaching in the synagogue (Luke 13:11-12), he saw a woman who had a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years. Her back was bent, so that she couldn’t straighten up.
When Jesus saw the woman, he called her to come to him (Luke 13:12-13), and, when she did, he healed her. For the first time in eighteen years she was able to lift herself up. Suddenly, she could stand and could lift her back straight up, and she glorified God.
One might consider this great news, but the ruler of the synagogue spoke to the woman and the congregation, saying the Sabbath was not the time to come to be healed (Luke 13:14). It should be noted that he didn’t address Jesus directly, which is quite odd. Why wouldn’t he address Jesus? Certainly, the Jewish authorities weren’t shy about speaking with him on other occasions. Some even confronted him, when they didn’t agree with his behavior.
It may be that, after Jesus’ disagreement with the authorities in Jerusalem, that he had been put out of the synagogue (cf. John 9:22; 12:42). Therefore, the ruler of the synagogue didn’t address Jesus directly, because he was no longer recognized as a member of Jewish society. In such a case, he would have been ostracized in public gatherings, ignored as though he wasn’t present (cf. Luke 23:35). This is the last occasion where any of the Gospel writers record that Jesus visited a synagogue. The manner in which Luke records the event, i.e. the ruler ignoring Jesus, may imply that Jesus had been excommunicated from Jewish society (cf. Mark 13:9; John 15:20; 16:2), and may no longer have been considered a Jew by the Jewish authorities.
On the other hand, Jesus was not in the habit of ignoring anyone, and he addressed both the ruler of the synagogue and those Jewish leaders with him, referring to them as hypocrites (Luke 13:15). Jesus’ response to his enemies exposed their hypocrisy. He showed how on the Sabbath day, they excuse their own behavior of loosening the restraints on their animals, feeding them, and leading them to water. How could they excuse their own behavior that comforts mere animals, but be so unsympathetic toward a member of their own community, who had been held in bondage to a disability for eighteen years? How could they say she shouldn’t have been healed on the Sabbath day? Their priorities were biased and illogical. Their doctrines had no support in the word of God.
By being publicly brought into account for their merciless attitude toward the disabled woman, Jesus enemies were brought to shame (Luke 13:17). On the other hand, the people rejoiced and glorified God for what Jesus had done.
How the people responded in Luke 13:17 is quite different from what we saw in Luke 12. This seems to imply that it was a different crowd. The people in Luke 12 were pilgrims from all over the world, and their guarded response toward Jesus expressed their loyalty to or perhaps fear of the Jewish authorities, especially the Jewish priesthood at the Temple. Nevertheless, the people in Luke 13:17 seem very willing to take Jesus’ side. The implication is that these people had seen Jesus’ miracles before and were not as guarded in their attitude toward him when choosing between him and the authorities. While such an attitude didn’t place them solidly behind Jesus, it does show they were more apt to consider Jesus’ claims for themselves, and less apt to be intimidated by men who opposed Jesus.
Smoodock's Blog 
6 responses to “Was Jesus Excommunicated?”
Greetings Eddie!
I was wondering if you’d take a look at this by John Gill, regarding being “put out of the synagogue.” https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/john-9-22.html
A part that stands out particularly reads:
“he that was under “Cherem” might neither teach others, nor they teach him; but he might teach himself, that he might not forget his learning; and he might neither hire, nor be hired; and they did not trade with him, nor did they employ him in any business, unless in very little, just to keep him alive F20; yea, the goods which he was possessed of, were confiscated, and which they conclude should be done from F21 ( Ezra 10:8 ) , which may be compared with this passage; so that this greatly and chiefly affected them in the affairs of civil life, and which made it so terrible”
It is the story of the healing of the man born blind, where his parents won’t acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, and for the obvious reason that they would lose everything they had.
If we stand back and listen, it seems awfully similar to:
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
I am wondering if the parents had acknowledged Jesus and believed upon Him, would they have been given some mark or sign that they are no longer considered part of the congregation of Israel. Have you ever come across anything that would be the indicative mark or sign that someone had been “put out” of the congregation or synagogue?
Bill
p.s. Not sure if this sent more than once, or twice :). Please delete the excesses>
Greetings Bill, thank you for reading and for your question.
As I understand the reading, no visible mark was administered. to the man in John 9, nor would there be for the parents had they embraced Jesus. Jesus still possessed his worldly goods, but would have lost them once he was crucified, which is why he had the beloved disciple care for his mother.
Concerning the ‘mark’ of the beast. I don’t believe it would be a visible mark either. The idea (I believe) comes from Deuteronomy 6:6-8 & 11:18. There the word of God was supposed to be bound to one’s hand and mind–but not literally, if my understanding is correct. It meant that God’s people were to think about and discuss his word with one another and it was to be considered in all they did (right hand).
The mark of the beast would be similar. I believe it had to do with religious authority. People were, and still are “told” what to believe, and how to act. they think about and discuss only what is permitted, and they act or participate in only what is allowed. It is human authority taken to the extreme. Not very unlike the authority of the scribes and Pharisees. By their authority they kept people from entering the Kingdom of God. By their authority Jesus was rejected by the nation.
Hope this helps, and Lord bless you.
Thank you. As you wrote in the Acts study, there were those who had been put out of the system and needed the charity gathered from Paul’s missions. I wasn’t sure if there was a way they were “known” to the various synagogues or to those in the community who were instructed not to buy or sell with them. Perhaps the community was small enough to know who was put out, but it seems like Jerusalem was rather large in size. Just curious, I think.
Thanks for the feedback, Bill. I don’t remember putting the poor in that light in my Acts studies. I believe the gifts for the poor that Paul organized were for ALL the poor of the Jews, not just for believing Jews. The high priesthood was totally corrupt at this time. Josephus records that they stole the tithes given to the poorer priests, while they threshed out the grain. Some died of want, because the tithe was all thy had. Help was administered to Jews in need whether they believed in Jesus or not. At least that is what I see in the Scriptures. I am not aware of any marks placed on anyone’s body for the sake of identifying an unbeliever. Gill’s commentary is the first place I read that, and only since you referred him to me. I don’t remember reading anything like that in Josephus, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t done. All I’m saying is, I never read about it occurring.
Lord bless you Bill.
Although some versions of the Talmud say Jesus was excommunicated, according to the link Bill provided, it doesn’t seem to make sense to me, that it was this early. If all the communal ostracism happened as the Talmud suggests, would a Pharisee have asked Jesus to dinner in Ch. 14, even if they only were looking to find fault? And if excommunicated, could the Pharisees, Saducees and Chief Priests have addressed Him the last week of Passover, much less asked Him questions about the Kingdom of God (Lk 17:20) ? I know both the Gospels and the Talmud seem to indicate some public ruling had been made against Jesus, at least as early as the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7: 2, 11-13 and especially v.25-26 where the crowds both say that the authorities are trying to kill Jesus and seem confused by their lack of action against Jesus causing them to wonder if the authorities have concluded He is the Christ.) Yet I wonder if they would have had the courage to publicly excommunicate Him if they were so afraid of the people’s regard for Him.