Jesus Christ: Lawbreaker?

[fnr]

Here’s a very rough cut at history (apologies in advance for factual inaccuracies of a very bad amateur historian). I’m hoping that those who have studied this matter in greater detail can shed some light on the topic.

The political, religious, and economic systems of first-century Roman Palestine was hardly the same as today. The Temple and the elites heavily taxed the subsistence farmers of the rural regions. One major source of revenue for the Temple were the festivals. People from outside Jerusalem traded their meager wares for the money to buy sacrifices. Christ came and overturned those tables, kicking out the moneylenders.

Was Jesus violating the civil laws of the day by doing so? I know for certain that the civil code wasn’t so detailed as today, and I believe that there were religious obligations enforced by law, at least in the parts of the region ruled by Jewish rulers (e.g. 2 of the 4 tetrarchs). He certainly looked like a blasphemer to many, but would the governmental authorities of the time had grounds to treat him like a criminal?

Also, I would very much appreciate it if anyone had some good modern sources for 1st century history of Roman Palestine that they could recommend for me. Thanks! God bless!

 

[Pete_1]

Isn’t what he did like throwing theifs out of your own home?

 

[JRKH]

Here’s a very rough cut at history (apologies in advance for factual inaccuracies of a very bad amateur historian). I’m hoping that those who have studied this matter in greater detail can shed some light on the topic.

The political, religious, and economic systems of first-century Roman Palestine was hardly the same as today. The Temple and the elites heavily taxed the subsistence farmers of the rural regions. One major source of revenue for the Temple were the festivals. People from outside Jerusalem traded their meager wares for the money to buy sacrifices. Christ came and overturned those tables, kicking out the moneylenders.

Was Jesus violating the civil laws of the day by doing so? I know for certain that the civil code wasn’t so detailed as today, and I believe that there were religious obligations enforced by law, at least in the parts of the region ruled by Jewish rulers (e.g. 2 of the 4 tetrarchs). He certainly looked like a blasphemer to many, but would the governmental authorities of the time had grounds to treat him like a criminal?

Also, I would very much appreciate it if anyone had some good modern sources for 1st century history of Roman Palestine that they could recommend for me. Thanks! God bless!

Afraid I can’be of much help here, but shen Jesus was brought before Pilate, one of Pilate’s problems was he that Jesus hadn’t really broken any Roman Laws, other than for being a potential “rabble-rouser”.

James

 

[scottm]

The money-changers were inside the grounds of the Jewish Temple. I hardly think that there was a Roman law that covered what went on inside the grounds of the Jewish Temple.

Look at it this way: the Law of Moses required animal sacrifices and specified the animals. It also required a monetary offering of a particular coin. It also required that all adult males appear at the Temple three times a year for three special holidays, one of them being Passover. Not everyone lived in Jerusalem. Actually, a lot of people did not live in Jerusalem. Rather than hike cross-country with their animals, a lot of people would leave the animals at home and buy something when they arrived. Likewise, because they were coming from elsewhere they might not have the appropriate coin with them, and would have to exchange one currency for another.

Enter now greed. What those money-changers and merchants were doing was making a quick buck off of people who had the audacity to actually try to obey the Law of Moses. Imagine this – somebody actually wanted to do what God told him to do! It’s shocking, I know! Almost inconceivable! Someone actually was trying to obey the Word of God! And those money-changers and merchants were taking advantage of those peoples’ efforts to obey God. The money-changers and merchants were cheating religious people by charging unnecessarily high rates for animals and currency exchanges. And that is why Jesus got angry – he was angry at the businessmen who took advantage of the pious, obedient Jews daring to do what Moses commanded of them.

Even if there was a Roman law against overturning tables within the Temple grounds, there is not a fiber in my body that will believe God the Father took offense at his Son’s action. To the contrary, God the Father was pleased at his Son’s defense of defenseless obedient Jews.

Makes me wonder where the priests were. Why were the priests allowing this unfair trade on the very grounds of their Temple, huh?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If you read the text closely, he did no violence to any person, he chased them out of his temple. But, he did not hit a single person.

 

[pyropam]

We are commanded to follow the laws of the land…unless they interfer with the Law of GOD.

We have laws against things like this today… for example:

During the threat of a hurricane, it is illegal to raise the price of necessary items (ie…lumber, food, water, gasoline).

We should probably thank Jesus for setting these laws in place.

 

[fnr]

The money-changers were inside the grounds of the Jewish Temple. I hardly think that there was a Roman law that covered what went on inside the grounds of the Jewish Temple.

Thanks for your response, Scott!

One question I still have is on the taxation imposed by the temple itself… was the money-changing taking place on festivals part of the revenue stream of the temple? I know there are other references to taxation in the gospels (e.g. Mark 12: 8).

Even though Rome administered Jerusalem, I know that the arrangement of tetrarchies (e.g Philip, Herod Antipas) had jurisdiction over Galilee, Decapolis, and other areas. Since at least Herod Antipas was a Jewish tetrarch, did the “Law of Moses” also represent the temporal law of the time in those territories? If so, wasn’t Jesus preventing people from those tetrarchies from carrying out their religious responsibilities, enforced legally by the Jewish tetrarchs?

 

[scottm]

One question I still have is on the taxation imposed by the temple itself… was the money-changing taking place on festivals part of the revenue stream of the temple? I know there are other references to taxation in the gospels (e.g. Mark 12: 8).

Indirectly yes, because the Temple currency was the revenue. If the priests were getting any part of the profit (“den of thieves” makes me wonder) it was inappropriate. God set up their manner of income and provisions in the Leviticus and elsewhere, and this wasn’t part of it.

Since at least Herod Antipas was a Jewish tetrarch, did the “Law of Moses” also represent the temporal law of the time in those territories?

No. The Law of Moses is the first five books of the Bible. (The numerous books collectively called the “Prophets” are our commentaries on that Law.)