There is nothing here that needs to suggest that God caused Judas’s action. Jesus is simply stating, based on his foreknowledge, something that Judas will chose to do of his own free will.
1 Like
I don’t even see foreknowledge coming into play here. Judas, by his own choice, made his plans with the priests before Jesus called him out (Matt 26:14-16). God obviously saw that and told Jesus.
1 Like
Yes, that could be.
1 Like
As far as I understand it, the entire OT was meant to point to Jesus. God certainly had no illusions about Israel’s kings, their temples, or their sacrifices bringing His kingdom to earth. All of that and more was meant for Jesus to fulfill. Jesus fulfilled the Torah. He will bring God’s kingdom to earth after Armageddon. Jesus will reign over the earth as God meant for Adam. Of course, Jesus will do a better job of it!
John 1:45,
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
John 5:39,
Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;
Luke 24:27,
And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
I think that all the Jewish scriptures were written mainly so that Jesus would have his marching orders. He was the only man after Adam’s boondoggle with a chance of following them to the letter. The seed from which he was born came from God (Matt 1:18), as opposed to the rest of us who were born from the seed of Adam. He was born as the lamb without blemish. Of course, he being like the rest of us (Deut 18:15 & 18) was certainly capable of going the same route as Adam (Heb 4:15). Lucky for us he always made the right choices, every jot and tittle. Thus he remained the lamb without blemish required for him to be the last and true Passover lamb.
1 Like
It’s interesting that a lot of the sacrifices/offering were for things that just happen from being human. At the moment I’m not sure what that means . . . maybe when I’m not so short on sleep!
1 Like
I’d say the primary point of the sacrificial system was that it taught Israel what the death of the Messiah would mean. I read something once – grad school class, maybe – about how Jesus didn’t just fulfill the Passover lamb sacrifice, He fulfilled every type of sacrifice. I suspect that western Christians miss a lot by focusing on just the one and thus getting the substitutionary atonement as the only thing Jesus achieved.
Or understanding why it was good news at all.
Though the Torah wasn’t meant as a way to “salvation”, it was meant to set the people apart from all the others around them. I think that was understood for a long time, and when the salvation idea started creeping in I don’t know.
Besides which, there weren’t two atonement strategies, just one; the efficaciousness of the OT sacrifices was founded on the Lamb of God’s sacrifice.
But more, perhaps, to show what the work of the Lamb of God was.
But it was God’s true plan, until the fullness of time had come.
1 Like
Actions can be metaphors.
And also to sacrifice when HE said to, and how HE said to. The difference can be seen in the confrontation between Samuel and Saul: Saul was operating on the standard ANE assumption that more sacrifices make the deity happier, and that whoever could make a sacrifice could decide when to do so. The whole Mosaic system, on the other hand, was all about doing what God directed when He directed it.
He was a libertarian: He got violent in defense of His House.
1 Like
Yes, I agree that many of the Levitical laws and types of sacrifice were not only about 'Atonement for sin" (there were sacrifices of thanksgiving, for example). But the sacrificial system per se was not unique to Israel, I’ve read that the framework was common to most ANE pagan neighbours at the time. A few details were tweaked to distinguish the Israelite system (most notably sacrifices were made only to Yahweh, and human sacrifice was forbidden, instead animals were to be used).
I don’t know what you mean when you say it “was God’s true plan” though. Knowing ANE history, it suggests to me that the sacrificial system was an accommodation by God for a period of time–God took a common pagan human practice that “everyone was already doing and insisted on doing” and nudged it in the direction of it being a teaching tool that was less damaging and pointed towards himself (and Jesus) in certain aspects. What I see in the Levitical Laws is a probable mishmash of common human ANE ideas of the time, and the instruction/inspiration of God breaking through to human minds “seeing through the glass darkly”.
We (apparently) hear directly from God through the later prophets that God in fact did not desire sacrifices per se, but obedience (loyalty in covenant relationship). This makes me think that blood sacrifices of animals were not his “plan A” (and indeed Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith despite being prior to the sacrificial system), but a temporary accommodation to human culture of the time.
I don’t disagree that Jesus had the right to clean his own house (an interesting side note that he never instructs his disciples to participate in this dramatic physical act, it is God’s right alone to establish justice by force). And interesting to note also that the physical “violence” was directed to inanimate objects and that there is no indication that Jesus spilled the blood of his “enemies” here.
1 Like
It may come to you when you get a good night’s sleep, but if not, it’ll surely come to you as soon as Jesus comes back! I know I’m counting on that to answer my many questions (including some of the things you’ve told me.) 
2 Likes
There is a really good book on that very thing: “Jesus Christ, Our Complete Offering” by David D. Burgey. It really opened my eyes on all the sacrifices. It’s fascinating. I think you’d like it.
I got it on Amazon
A big one that is often missed is that in the pagan system the worshipper could decide when to offer sacrifices; this is seen in the situation where Samuel rebukes Saul for saving all the unblemished animals from the Amalekites for the purpose of making sacrifices. For Israel that was changed: sacrifices were to be offered where and when YHWH-Elohim designated, and not otherwise.
2 Likes
I’m not sure I would call chasing out the money-changers, etc. from the Temple a matter of establishing justice so much as defending the proper use of family property. The disciples could, I suppose, have been invited to assist, but Jesus kept it in the family by driving away trespassers from His Dad’s House.
Spilled blood, no; “directed to inanimate objects”… I would say that one does not spend the time to weave/braid a whip from short cords of twine if one does not intend to use it to whip something. And while numerous commentators insist that it was only “inanimate objects” that our Savior targeted, that is silly because neither sheep nor cattle are going to get moving without serious prompting, which means at the very least whipping the animals – and when whipping animals to get them moving, it’s stretching credulity to claim that none of those animals’ minders got in the way and got whipped.
And if His whip did land on some people, so what? He was defending the very point of the existence of Israel, that they should be a blessing to the nations! That market was set up in the Court of the Gentiles, where “goyim” could come to share somewhat in the worship at the Temple, and the market was thus trespassing on the guest-room God had provided. Those ‘merchants’ deserved a whipping and more because they were keeping others from coming to worship.
1 Like
A bit pricey for me at the moment. I was hoping there was a Nook version since those tend to be half the paperback price, but no luck there.
No bruises or scrapes from tables being tipped over on them or while rushing to get out of the way?
Yes, I agree with your expanded theological explanation over the reason behind Jesus’s “temple tantrum”, I hadn’t intended to fully unpack the concept of “justice” in my own post.
I was defining violence as “inflicting physical harm on another”. So if you want to get technical… a whip can be used to crack in the air to make noise, to wave over ones head to get an animal to move, and to physically contact the flanks of an animal to herd it in an intended direction. Any such herding-actions as conducted by goat herds or shepherds are not viewed as “inflicting violence” on the animal, as there is no suggestion in the text that Jesus “violently beat” any animal. And the account in John which is the one that mentions the whip explicitly states it use was to evict all the animals. John says that he evicted the money changers with a verbal “Get out of my father’s house”.
At the end of the day, one can conclude that “no animals or humans were harmed in the making of this video” 
1 Like
So we can use whips of cords to protect and defend and show mercy to victims of street violence.
I don’t know, but you’d have to read it into the text. And if such occurred, these were clearly not life-threatening and not Jesus’s reasoned intent.