The Sanhedrin, the high court of the Jews had sent an envoy to ask Jesus about his claim of authority (Luke 20:1-2). The men had power to arrest Jesus on the spot, so Jesus’ personal freedom was at stake and depended upon how he answered their question. Therefore, we need to step back and ask ourselves: how could we be sure that Jesus wasn’t simply a rebel, who had come to create unrest for the authorities in Jerusalem in particular and the Jewish nation in general? From the very beginning there were people who said that Jesus’ claims to be the Holy One of God (i.e. the Messiah) would eventually destroy the nation (cf. Luke 4:31-34). What can we say about these things?
As far as his casting out the money-changers and them who bought and sold is concerned, Jesus was only enforcing the laws of that day, and this was something every Jew had a right to do, i.e. to challenge law breakers, and even authorities who did not do so, to respect the laws that were in place for the peace of the nation. Although the Babylonian Talmud wasn’t written until many years after Jesus’ public ministry, it reflects customs of the Second Temple era. It states:
“One should avoid showing disrespect to the Eastern Gate because it is in direct line with the Holy of Holies. A man should not enter the Temple Mount with his staff or with his shoes on or with wallet or with his feet dust-stained; nor should he make it a shortcut [kappandaria], and spitting [on it is forbidden] a fortiori.” [Babylonian Talmud – Berachoth 54a]
Clearly, using the Temple court as a marketplace expressed only disrespect for God and was a distraction for anyone who had entered its courts to worship and pray. If these things had been done during the time of Moses, those very people would have been slain. Jesus expressed a great deal of restraint and mercy by merely casting them out. This not only answers to the theology supporting what Jesus did, but it also answers why he had disallowed the very things the Temple authorities permitted or at least tolerated.
As far as Jesus coming into Jerusalem each day hailed as the Messiah is concerned, he had been showing signs of his appointment by God throughout this ministry. Miracle after miracle was done, which proved his divine authority, so his claim to being the Messiah should have been impeccable. Nevertheless, the Jewish authorities simply refused to accept Jesus’ claims, showing that they were really fighting against God, himself (cf. Acts 5:34-39).
The point is: it is not a matter of how well something fits into one’s doctrine that is important. Rather, it is a matter of what God has done or has shown he intends to do. Years later, after Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, a very popular Jewish teacher and a recognized authority among the Jews, Rabbi Akiva, publicly supported a Jewish revolutionary who sprung up in his days. That man was Simon bar Koseva.
Simon bar Koseva led a Jewish revolt against Rome and ruled in Jerusalem as Nasi or Prince, cir. 132-135 AD. Indeed, many Jews of that day viewed Simon as the Messiah. Ravvi Akiva surnamed Simon “Bar Kokhba,” which means “Son of the Star” in Aramaic. The Bar Kokhba surname was read into Numbers 24:17. Coins were also minted commemorating the “freedom of Jerusalem” with Simon’s name and a rising star over the Temple on the reverse side. This was the Messiah the Jews looked for in Jesus’ day, but Simon was crushed in the revolt three years after it began, and the Jews were barred from Jerusalem as a result.
If God isn’t in a matter, it makes no difference how well the idea fits into man’s worldview, it won’t work. Jesus was God’s choice, and it behooves the enemies of God to cease their rebellion and yield to the one whom God has chosen, no matter what that might look like according to our logic (cf. John 11:48).
Smoodock's Blog 