03-12-2022, 06:45 PM
We come to a rough patch in the chronology of events. There is really no reason to imagine that Jesus left Judea for another trip back to Galilee. However, He often disappeared into Bethany, up on the Mount of Olives. We know that Lazarus, Martha and Mary lived there and hosted Him and the Twelve often. Attempts to harmonize Luke 11 and 12 indicate that he throws in some scattered topics that better fit the context of events from earlier when compared with the other gospels.
However, one particular item unique to Luke's Gospel does seem to fit the mood of Jesus in the last few months of His life there in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Granted, the context seems a little confused, as Luke would naturally assume his readers would remember events now recorded nowhere else.
Luke tells us that some men came to Jesus to discuss an incident where a significant crowd of Galileans were slaughtered in the Temple courts by Pilate's soldiers while in the act of sacrificing animals. Keep in mind that Pilate had no jurisdiction over Galilee, but Herod Antipas did, and these two powerful men were sworn enemies right up until the time Jesus was put on trial. Also, this sounds like something Pilate would do, given his short temper with Jews in general.
In this case, the general rule about keeping Roman soldiers out of the Court of Women and Court of Israel did not apply because it was presumably a riot, right there under the gaze of the commanders in the tower of Fort Antonia, standing on the corner of the Temple Plaza. The soldiers were mostly Syrian conscripts and shared Pilate's spite for Jews, so they wouldn't hesitate to slaughter them for even a thin excuse. The contempt most Jewish leaders showed Romans was hard to ignore. On top of this, keep in mind that Jesus openly condemned the Galileans as idolatrous, and Roman imperial records found them frequently rebellious.
But this slaughter was a horrifying thing to Jewish leadership. So it's quite likely whomever was bringing this to Jesus' attention was a Pharisee soliciting some kind of political comment. On the one hand, the bloodshed was deeply disrespectful of the sacred Temple grounds. On the other hand, it was a bunch of despicable paganized Galileans. Most people would have mentioned how it was all so totally unexpected.
The obvious question: Were these rioting Galileans obeying Moses? Is there any valid claim to Covenant covering? Of course not. The fanatical rebellion festering there in Galilee over the past few decades under the leadership of one Judas of Galilee was notoriously conflicting with Moses and the Talmudic teachings, both.
God allowed the Roman soldiers to kill the rioting Galileans. The tenor of Jesus' comment was that the Pharisees were no better. The Pharisees were also out from under the Covenant covering. They, too, were in danger of political violence that would have no meaning in the context of God's divine favor.
Then Jesus mentioned another mysterious event in which a Tower of Siloam fell and crushed 18 people to death. Our best guess is that it was an earthquake. For all the speculation, we have only an archaeological discovery of what appears to be the foundation of a tower near the Pool of Siloam. But the context here indicates that Jesus referred to it as a random accident, very sad for there being no hint of justice. It's not so hard to understand the Galilean rebels being slaughtered, but why would God let such a thing happen to the guys at the Pool of Siloam?
Again: There was a presumption of Covenant covering that didn't exist. The nation as a whole had been led out from under the Covenant long ago, and the Pharisees were largely to blame at this point. The promises of shalom under Moses had been missing for a long time, and this was the reason for so many of Jesus' miracles. If the Pharisees did not repent, they would remain subject to random accidents like the men who died when the tower collapsed. They had no Covenant protection.
Jesus went on with a parable. He told the story of a fruitless fig tree. The fig tree was an old symbol for Israel, highlighting the peace and prosperity God had promised them. The expected fruit was the righteousness and shalom witness of the people committed to obeying the Covenant. God had come looking for fruit three years running now under the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. Jesus was the gardener pleading for just one more growing season.
Note that fig trees typically produced two or three crops yearly. When the Passover came around, it was about the time for the first crop. Thus, Jesus is suggesting that He is going to devote the coming winter months to giving one last shot at fertilizing this thing. By the time Passover comes, if the nation does not repent, it's time to end their place in the Covenant.
However, one particular item unique to Luke's Gospel does seem to fit the mood of Jesus in the last few months of His life there in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Granted, the context seems a little confused, as Luke would naturally assume his readers would remember events now recorded nowhere else.
Luke tells us that some men came to Jesus to discuss an incident where a significant crowd of Galileans were slaughtered in the Temple courts by Pilate's soldiers while in the act of sacrificing animals. Keep in mind that Pilate had no jurisdiction over Galilee, but Herod Antipas did, and these two powerful men were sworn enemies right up until the time Jesus was put on trial. Also, this sounds like something Pilate would do, given his short temper with Jews in general.
In this case, the general rule about keeping Roman soldiers out of the Court of Women and Court of Israel did not apply because it was presumably a riot, right there under the gaze of the commanders in the tower of Fort Antonia, standing on the corner of the Temple Plaza. The soldiers were mostly Syrian conscripts and shared Pilate's spite for Jews, so they wouldn't hesitate to slaughter them for even a thin excuse. The contempt most Jewish leaders showed Romans was hard to ignore. On top of this, keep in mind that Jesus openly condemned the Galileans as idolatrous, and Roman imperial records found them frequently rebellious.
But this slaughter was a horrifying thing to Jewish leadership. So it's quite likely whomever was bringing this to Jesus' attention was a Pharisee soliciting some kind of political comment. On the one hand, the bloodshed was deeply disrespectful of the sacred Temple grounds. On the other hand, it was a bunch of despicable paganized Galileans. Most people would have mentioned how it was all so totally unexpected.
The obvious question: Were these rioting Galileans obeying Moses? Is there any valid claim to Covenant covering? Of course not. The fanatical rebellion festering there in Galilee over the past few decades under the leadership of one Judas of Galilee was notoriously conflicting with Moses and the Talmudic teachings, both.
God allowed the Roman soldiers to kill the rioting Galileans. The tenor of Jesus' comment was that the Pharisees were no better. The Pharisees were also out from under the Covenant covering. They, too, were in danger of political violence that would have no meaning in the context of God's divine favor.
Then Jesus mentioned another mysterious event in which a Tower of Siloam fell and crushed 18 people to death. Our best guess is that it was an earthquake. For all the speculation, we have only an archaeological discovery of what appears to be the foundation of a tower near the Pool of Siloam. But the context here indicates that Jesus referred to it as a random accident, very sad for there being no hint of justice. It's not so hard to understand the Galilean rebels being slaughtered, but why would God let such a thing happen to the guys at the Pool of Siloam?
Again: There was a presumption of Covenant covering that didn't exist. The nation as a whole had been led out from under the Covenant long ago, and the Pharisees were largely to blame at this point. The promises of shalom under Moses had been missing for a long time, and this was the reason for so many of Jesus' miracles. If the Pharisees did not repent, they would remain subject to random accidents like the men who died when the tower collapsed. They had no Covenant protection.
Jesus went on with a parable. He told the story of a fruitless fig tree. The fig tree was an old symbol for Israel, highlighting the peace and prosperity God had promised them. The expected fruit was the righteousness and shalom witness of the people committed to obeying the Covenant. God had come looking for fruit three years running now under the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. Jesus was the gardener pleading for just one more growing season.
Note that fig trees typically produced two or three crops yearly. When the Passover came around, it was about the time for the first crop. Thus, Jesus is suggesting that He is going to devote the coming winter months to giving one last shot at fertilizing this thing. By the time Passover comes, if the nation does not repent, it's time to end their place in the Covenant.