Keep in mind that this is now the third time Jesus entered Jerusalem in four days (he spent the Sabbath at Bethany), and each time he did so he also entered the Temple compound and cast out the moneychangers and them that sold and bought animals for sacrifices. The first time was from Jericho (Matthew 21:12-13), second from Bethany (Mark 11:12-16) and now the third time was from the Mount of Olives, where he had been staying overnight (Luke 19:41, 45-46; cp. 21:37). No doubt, by the third cleansing the Jewish authorities could no longer contain themselves, and they approached him to question his authority for doing all these things (Mark 11:27-28).
However, it wasn’t difficult to understand by what authority Jesus cast out the moneychangers and those who did business in the Temple by selling animals for sacrifices. Even a child could understand that doing business for profit wasn’t something that should be done in a house of prayer (cp. Mark 11:17). The object of prayer is to draw near to God, but how could this be readily done amid the noise of a marketplace, or while enduring the stench of a stable? Such distractions should never occur in a place where intimacy is desired, where confessions are made, and where folks come to repent. Even a child could understand such things were improper for a place dedicated to God, and where men would come to meet with him. So, the question of the authorities stems from their greed for profit, not from a desire for order or to protect the legitimate work done in the House of God.
Jesus responded to the query of the authorities with a question of his own! Knowing their hypocrisy, he asked them to tell him by what authority John conducted his ministry of baptism, and, if they would forthrightly confess that John acted either on his own authority or by the authority of God, then Jesus would tell them by what authority he did what he did (Mark 11:29-30).
Thus were the tables turned against the authorities. The Jewish authorities thought to put Jesus in an uncomfortable position of admitting he was the Messiah, and his authority stemmed from that office. Thereby, he would place himself in trouble with the Roman authorities. Now, however, they found themselves between a rock and a hard place, in that, if they declared John’s ministry was conducted purely by human means, they feared the people would stone them, because the common folk believed John was a prophet of God. On the other hand, if the authorities admitted John’s ministry was commanded by God, not only would they have to tell Jesus and the multitude why they didn’t believe him (Mark 11:31-32; cp. Matthew 21:25-27), but they would have answered their own original question (Mark 11:31-32), because John pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. If John’s ministry was of God, and John pointed to Jesus as the Messiah, then the Messiah had supreme authority, and they should never have questioned his conduct within the Temple compound.
Therefore, the Jewish authorities told Jesus they couldn’t tell by what authority John conducted his ministry (Mark 11:33). Just like all workers of iniquity, they were very protective of their own positions of authority, whether or not they acted responsibly. So, Jesus replied to their original question in like manner. He refused to tell them by what authority he did what he did.
Smoodock's Blog 