Jesus clearing the temple

[BornInMarch]

In the bible, specifically in John 2:14, Jesus finds that the temple of Jerusalem has been turned into a black market. Using a whip, he clears the people out of the temple.

What is significant about this scene in the bible?

 

[runningdude]

From a bible study, though I cannot remember which one, I was taught that it wasn’t so much a “black market”, as it was bankers who were charging unfair rates to exchange money for temple currency, used to purchase doves or animal for sacrifice. I am uncertain how reliable this theory is.

 

[Dorothy]

In the bible, specifically in John 2:14, Jesus finds that the temple of Jerusalem has been turned into a black market. Using a whip, he clears the people out of the temple.

What is significant about this scene in the bible?

When our Lord Jesus Christ did this, He told them His house is a house of prayer!

Also this…We are the temple of God, each individual,…Jesus wants to beat the money-changers out of us! (the sins and faults we have that detract us from Him.) Most of the time He does that with gentleness, but when He has to do so, he gets our attention…all because He loves us so much and wants our salvation.

 

[CyrilSebastian]

Jesus Cleanses the Temple is also in The Gospel According to Mark, Chapter 11 Verses 15-19.

 

[tower_of_babel]

i read that this event has a parallel in the book of Nehemiah. in which nehemiah also rids the temple of traders. (i believe it may have been on the sabbath too)

 

[kkollwitz]

“So when they heard Jesus say “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations” they knew right away he was quoting Isaiah. And when he said “den of thieves” they remembered Jeremiah had said it first. We covered both of these quotes a couple months ago during our prophet classes; let’s see what Jesus was telling the scribes, Pharisees, and other Temple staff.”

platytera.blogspot.com/2011/02/house-of-prayer-den-of-thieves.html

 

[Augustine3]

This area is also called the “Court of the Gentiles” and was the place designated for the teaching of the Gentile nations about the one true God.* It was the only place where Gentiles could offer prayer to God.

It was required by the Law of the Covenant that a Temple tax of a half-shekel was to be paid once a year.* Coins that bore the portraits of the Roman Emperors or other pagan portraits were not permitted to be used in paying the tax [Exodus 20:4] and so moneychangers, for a profit, exchanged these coins for legal Tyrian coinage which was not stamped with an imageHe is angry at the pollution of His Father’s house.*

The moneychangers and merchants are robbing Israel through their inflated exchange rates (the priests had a cut of these profits) and He is angry because the Gentiles are being robbed of the opportunity to worship, robbed of the opportunity to be instructed in the true faith.

Source: agapebiblestudy.com/john_gospel/Chapter%202.htm

 

[mikekle]

Ive always found it strange that in modern times, tax collectors seem to be accepted, but in biblical times, everyone hated them, they were all usually very corrupt, which Im sure many still are today. Have people just grown to accept them and accept corruption because they dont see any way to get rid of them?

 

[TimothyH]

Jesus calling the Temple “A house of prayer” is a reference to the words of the Prophet Isaiah.

And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,
to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD,
and to be his servants,
every one who keeps the sabbath, and does not profane it,
and holds fast my covenant –
these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.
(Isaiah 56:6-7)

When Jesus cleanses the temple he is making it so that all people can worship God, not just the Jews. Jesus is about to do what the prophets all foretold - he was about to bring non-Jews into God’s covenant family.

St. Mark’s version of the Temple cleansing makes this reference clear.

And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, `My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers." (Mark 11:17)

-Tim-

 

[patrick457]

In the bible, specifically in John 2:14, Jesus finds that the temple of Jerusalem has been turned into a black market. Using a whip, he clears the people out of the temple.

What is significant about this scene in the bible?

Let me just be clear. It wasn’t a ‘black market’ it was a place where people can buy sacrificial animals for worship and exchange currency. It was actually useful: the usual requirement for animal sacrifices is that the animal in question must have no blemish or defect. Transporting animals across long distances makes them susceptible to disease or injury (making them invalid for use as sacrifices), so in the long run it’s better just to buy a certified unblemished animal in or near the temple. Plus, the only acceptable currency for use in the Temple was the Tyrian shekel because of its high silver content (90% or more, compared to standard Roman currency, which was only 80% silver) and its consistency (while other coins were easily counterfeited or shaved around the edges, thus reducing their weight, Tyrian coins were difficult to imitate or shave), hence the need for moneychangers.

We often houses of prayer to be these quiet areas and so imagine Jesus getting angry because these moneychangers were making too much noise or something. But within that culture, temples and prayer were anything but quiet. Jerusalem in a sense is like any other temple in the ancient world: there’s a busy market, there’s loud praying, there’s the sound of animals. What could have angered Jesus is the way that market system works. The Tyrian shekel wasn’t really the best thing iconographically: it bore the images of the eagle of Tyre and the Phoenician god Melqart/Baal (identified with Hercules) - ‘graven images’, of pagan deities at that. And many 1st century Jews had a very strict interpretation of “Thou shalt not make any graven image” that they basically went up in arms when they saw one, especially within the precincts of the holy city. Not to mention that the temple priests - at least the higher-ups - got their cut of the profits.*

http://www.welcometohosanna.com/LIFE_OF_JESUS/JESUS_LIFE_PIX/tyrianSheck.gif

• That being said there’s really no evidence for the claims you often see in popular retellings like overpricing or unjustified charges for money-changing in the Temple. We only assume that because, hey, Jesus is the good guy - being Son of God and all - and these guys could very well be demons incarnate, right? So there’s a bias right there.

 

[patrick457]

His disruption, his protest, as the time of Passover is what leads to his arrest.

.

Only if you follow the synoptics. That thing right there is a whole issue in itself - whether the synoptic chronology (where Jesus’ actions at the temple happens the same Passover season as He was crucified and serves as the immediate reason for His arrest) or John’s chronology (where Jesus clears the temple at the beginnning of His ministry; it is Lazarus’ raising that was the catalyst for the authorities seizing Him) is historically more correct. Admittedly many scholars take the synoptic chronology for granted - but that’s mainly because they feel John’s gospel is too theological to be historical. But I actually think this is quite unfair - it’s throwing the baby with the bathwater. In fact, when compared to the other gospels, John actually shows more precision in chronological and geographical matters, and even has some more historically-plausible stuff than the other gospels; it is even said that it is easier to fit the synoptics into John’s narrative framework than it is to fit John’s to the synoptics.

Personally I think John’s scenario is not that implausible: Jesus shows up and causes a disturbance at the temple, which places His name on the map. The temple authorities keep close watch at Jesus from then on - but decide not to arrest Him yet due to a number of factors (Jesus’ association with the popular figure John the Baptist; Jesus’ own increasing popularity; Jesus being slippery - something John’s gospel shows from time to time). It was only when the time became ripe that they finally laid their hands on Jesus. Most scholars today assume that it was John who moved the temple cleansing to earlier in Jesus’ ministry for theological reasons; but then again it’s also equally likely that it was the synoptics who combined incidents that historically occurred in different Passovers into that final one.

 

[Cathoholic]

St. Jerome on the misuse of the Temple . . . .

ST. JEROME And he cast out all them that sold and bought. It should be known that in obedience to the Law, in the Temple of the Lord venerated throughout the whole world, and resorted to by Jews out of every quarter, innumerable victims were sacrificed, especially on festival days, bulls, rams, goats; the poor offering young pigeons and turtle-doves, that they might not omit all sacrifice. But it would happen that those who came from a distance would have no victim. The Priests therefore contrived a plan for making a gain out of the people, selling to such as had no victim the animals which they had need of for sacrifice, and themselves receiving them back again as soon as sold.

But this fraudulent practice was often defeated by the poverty of the visitors, who lacking means had neither victims, nor whence to purchase them. They therefore appointed bankers who might lend to them under a bond. But because the Law forbade usury, and money lent without interest was profitless, besides sometimes a loss of the principal, they bethought themselves of another scheme; instead of bankers they appointed collybistæ, a word for which the Latin has no equivalent. Sweetmeats and other trifling presents they called ‘collyba,’ such, for example, as parched pulse, raisins, and apples of divers sorts. As then they could not take usury, they accepted the value in kind, taking things that are bought with money, as if this was not what Ezekiel preached of, saying, You shall not receive usury nor increase. This kind of traffic, or cheating rather, the Lord seeing in is His Father’s house, and moved thereat with spiritual zeal, cast out of the Temple this great multitude of men.
— St. Jerome (Catena Aurea, p. 712-713)

Remember the whole reason the masses of people are going up to Jerusalem in the first place is to celebrate the Passover there. It was required. What is the essence of the Passover celebration? A celebration of the people released from bondage and slavery.

What is going on within the Temple precincts?

Theft through loans and selling of animals to be sacrificed in the Temple in “highway robbery” situations.

Why? Because not all people going up to Jerusalem for Passover could travel there with their animals to be sacrificed, many purchased the animals there in Jerusalem, then gave them to the priests for sacrifice. Overcharging was going on and dishonest loan practices as well. This is a form of dishonest trade and usury.

In other words, as the people were going up to Jerusalem to celebrate being freed from slavery and bondage, certain dishonest custodians of the Temple were financially enslaving the people and placing them in bondage!

 

[Cathoholic]

Another interesting point here too this one RE: Matthew 21 but may have application to the Temple cleansing in John’s Gospel too (some assert one Temple cleansing, others assert TWO Temple cleansings, but either way I thought the following was an interesting insight) . . . .

MATTHEW 21:9-13 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when he entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.” 12 And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you make it a den of robbers.”

(At least some of these “money changers” and “those who sold pigeons” are robbing the people coming to the Temple in some way)

Fr. Robert Altier* has discussed about how the sitting position is the rabbinic teaching position such as Jesus at 12 years old in the Temple. Years later Jesus sits on the hillside to teach the people. St. Peter and the Popes can teach from “the Chair” or ex-Cathedra, the Bishops may give homilies from the sitting position, etc. Moses had a teaching chair that was (ceremonially - not the actual chair of course) placed in synagogues.

When you hear “Jesus sat and taught them” this has theological significance. Jesus “sitting” on the donkey is even in a sense a teaching as Him as Messiah (see Zechariah 9:9 and to a lesser extent, possibly prefigured in 1st Maccabees 13:51).

The chief priests and scribes had minions running the money lending aspect of the temple and they are implied as . . . “Sitting!”

Verse 12 “And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.”

This would have theological implications, as they would be implicitly teaching the people to be avaricious, covetous, and dishonest by their illicit example.

Let’s listen again to St Jerome as he comments on this aspect.

ST. JEROME But, according to the plain sense, the doves were not in seats, but in cages; unless indeed the sellers of the doves were sitting in seats; but that were absurd, for the seat denotes the dignity of the teacher, which is brought down to nothing when it is mixed with covetousness. Mark also, that through the avarice of the Priests, the altars of God are called tables of money-changers. What we have spoken of Churches let each man understand of himself, for the Apostle says, You are the temple of God. Let there not be therefore in the abode of your breast the spirit of bargaining, nor the desire of gifts, lest Jesus, entering in anger and sternness, should purify His temple not without scourging, that from a den of thieves He should make it a house of prayers.
— St. Jerome (Catena Aurea, p. 714)

• (Q: Who is Fr. Robert Altier? A: The author of the Fundamentals of Catholicism audio series here)

 

[steve53]

Only if you follow the synoptics. That thing right there is a whole issue in itself - whether the synoptic chronology (where Jesus’ actions at the temple happens the same Passover season as He was crucified and serves as the immediate reason for His arrest) or John’s chronology (where Jesus clears the temple at the beginnning of His ministry; it is Lazarus’ raising that was the catalyst for the authorities seizing Him) is historically more correct. Admittedly many scholars take the synoptic chronology for granted - but that’s mainly because they feel John’s gospel is too theological to be historical. But I actually think this is quite unfair - it’s throwing the baby with the bathwater. In fact, when compared to the other gospels, John actually shows more precision in chronological and geographical matters, and even has some more historically-plausible stuff than the other gospels; it is even said that it is easier to fit the synoptics into John’s narrative framework than it is to fit John’s to the synoptics.

Personally I think John’s scenario is not that implausible: Jesus shows up and causes a disturbance at the temple, which places His name on the map. The temple authorities keep close watch at Jesus from then on - but decide not to arrest Him yet due to a number of factors (Jesus’ association with the popular figure John the Baptist; Jesus’ own increasing popularity; Jesus being slippery - something John’s gospel shows from time to time). It was only when the time became ripe that they finally laid their hands on Jesus. Most scholars today assume that it was John who moved the temple cleansing to earlier in Jesus’ ministry for theological reasons; but then again it’s also equally likely that it was the synoptics who combined incidents that historically occurred in different Passovers into that final one.

I would have to agree with gthe Gospel of John.

Even in Luke, Jesus’ adventures in the Second Temple, while written together, appear somewhat disjointed and separated by chapters, with the money-changers incident happening first.

Hagan (“Year of the Passover”) concludes that the Money changer affair happened in A.D. 34, with Jesus celebrating the Passover in the Galilee in A.D. 35 (being on the run after Herod Antipas’ execution of John the Baptist earlier in the year, and with A.D. 36 being the Passover of the crucifixion.

 

[zz912]

The scene teaches and reminds us that there is something called righteous anger/indignation. and acting upon such to protect the defenseless or to protect against sacriledge against God is not wrong. It can be holy.

 

[ProVobis]

Personally I think John’s scenario is not that implausible: Jesus shows up and causes a disturbance at the temple, which places His name on the map. The temple authorities keep close watch at Jesus from then on - but decide not to arrest Him yet due to a number of factors

According to a PBS documentary, this is about right. This one act stirred up many in Rome.

 

[ProVobis]

Let me just be clear. It wasn’t a ‘black market’ it was a place where people can buy sacrificial animals for worship and exchange currency. It was actually useful: the usual requirement for animal sacrifices is that the animal in question must have no blemish or defect. Transporting animals across long distances makes them susceptible to disease or injury (making them invalid for use as sacrifices), so in the long run it’s better just to buy a certified unblemished animal in or near the temple. Plus, the only acceptable currency for use in the Temple was the Tyrian shekel because of its high silver content (90% or more, compared to standard Roman currency, which was only 80% silver) and its consistency (while other coins were easily counterfeited or shaved around the edges, thus reducing their weight, Tyrian coins were difficult to imitate or shave), hence the need for moneychangers.

Today we have the Federal Reserve to do all that moneychanging. No one uses pre-65 silver coins for trade anymore.

 

[patrick457]

Another interesting point here too this one RE: Matthew 21 but may have application to the Temple cleansing in John’s Gospel too (some assert one Temple cleansing, others assert TWO Temple cleansings, but either way I thought the following was an interesting insight) . . . .

MATTHEW 21:9-13 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when he entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.” 12 And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you make it a den of robbers.”

(At least some of these “money changers” and “those who sold pigeons” are robbing the people coming to the Temple in some way)

I might add: the ‘den of robbers’ is an allusion to Jeremiah 7 (v. 8-11), a sermon Jeremiah delivered on the gates of Solomon’s temple.

Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the LORD. Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, declares the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of Ephraim.

In one interpretation, it is not so much the vendors themselves whom Jesus was targeting - it was the elite who run the temple and who were using the vendors for their gain. Just like Jeremiah, Jesus was indicting the Jerusalem elites (the “robbers”) for acting unjustly and then using the temple as their hideout - their “den” - to cover up their sins.

Then there’s also this line of interpretation - which is closer to the original spirit of Jeremiah’s sermon - which puts more emphasis on “den” than “robbers:” Jesus is not so much accusing the buyers and sellers of “robbery,” but of hypocrisy: here they are trying to acting religiously and fulfill their temple duties - they, who outside the temple were living immoral lives. They were using the temple as their refuge, their excuse so that they could continue living in sin outside it. The issue is not that of “den robbers” but of a “robber den:” Jesus was not so much calling the people ‘robbers’ as He was calling the temple a ‘den’. (After all, the hideout is where robbers hide after the robbery and share the loot - it is not the place where they steal.)

In other words, the people - the priests, the buyers and the sellers - were indicted for thinking that since they were fulfilling their religious duties in the sanctuary it is now okay for them to commit sin outside. To put it in a Catholic parlance, it’s like thinking that it’s okay to sin since you’re wearing the Brown Scapular and can go to confession and Mass and perform countless novenas anyway.

 

[BornInMarch]

The scene teaches and reminds us that there is something called righteous anger/indignation. and acting upon such to protect the defenseless or to protect against sacriledge against God is not wrong. It can be holy.

This is a very good point.

Notice how Jesus uses physical force to drive out the sinners, as apposed to shaming them with a speech. This means that using justified force against an enemy is not sinful but in fact is good.

 

[TimothyH]

This is a very good point.

Notice how Jesus uses physical force to drive out the sinners, as apposed to shaming them with a speech. This means that using justified force against an enemy is not sinful but in fact is good.

Using force against sinners is for God alone. Jesus is God. We are not God.

Jesus tells us to offer no resistance to one who is evil (Mt 5:39), to love and pray for our enemies (Mt 5:44) and that vengeance is God’s alone (Romans 12:19).

-Tim-