Money changers in the temple, help me understand

[patrick457]

Actually our priest addressed this in the homily. Let me see if I can explain.

The Temple was basically split into four parts. The first was the sanctuary. This place only the high priest could enter and only once a year. Then there was a section JUST for Jewish males. Then a section JUST for Jewish females and finally the last area was JUST for non-Jewish people.

The problem here was that all of the commerce was taking place in the final section of the Temple where the Gentiles SHOULD have been worshiping. The problem was that the ONLY place where the Gentiles could worship was being used, instead, as a place of commerce.This was not that sections purpose and it left those who wanted to worship with no place to worship!

Anyway, that’s how our priest explained it and this was why Jesus chased them all out. They were interfering with worship.

In the case of things that are sold in the Church foyer, those things are in no way impeding the people’s ability to worship so I would imagine they aren’t a problem. But can you imagine trying to worship with sheep, oxen, doves and money changers!!!

Well, here’s where the difference lies between us and the ancients. People today are so used to the idea of places of worship being silent, calm areas, but in the ancient world, hustle and bustle was the norm rather than the exception. After all, many ancient cultures (the Jews included) had the idea of worship as sacrifice: so you would have the noises of animals being slaughtered and the sounds of people praying, for a start.

 

[patrick457]

I, personally, just don’t see anger. I see intense passion (and yes, that is a more appropriate word I do believe) for purity but not necessarily anger.

I do not believe overturning the tables and chasing the oxen and sheep out with a whip = anger, necessarily. I just don’t.

There is actually the theory that Jesus’ actions in the Temple are more in lieu of a public demonstration (driven by zeal, of course) rather than a sort of unbridled angry outburst.

 

[steve53]

Come now, Patrick. You know what I meant. If they had a face on a Jewish coin in A.D. 42, then why not A.D. 36?

On this coin, the obverse looks like a Roman soldier exchanging gifts with a Jewish priest. Very curious indeed!

View attachment 13326

 

[patrick457]

Come now, Patrick. You know what I meant. If they had a face on a Jewish coin in A.D. 42, then why not A.D. 36?

On this coin, the obverse looks like a Roman soldier exchanging gifts with a Jewish priest. Very curious indeed!

Here’s what I am talking about:

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Tyrian_shekel.png/220px-Tyrian_shekel.png

They used the Tyrian shekel or tetradrachma (not half-shekel, sorry, though they are similar in size with the modern Israeli half-shekel), with its ‘idolatrous’ images, in the Temple for religious duties because it alone had enough silver content which was deemed acceptable by priests: 94% and above compared to the mere 80% of Roman currency. These coins with ‘graven images’ were actually minted in Israel, as the Romans had since shut down the mint in Tyre. According to one story, the coins were required to continue bearing the Tyrian images to prevent people from thinking that Jews had enough autonomy to mint their own currency. (Though the prefects and tetrarchs were usually mostly keen in respecting Jewish sensibilities when minting their coins.) A number of folks even think that this the silver Judas was paid with.

 

[patrick457]

Here’s a rather comprehensive description of the Temple precincts to give us some idea of what to see.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/images/ViewOuterCourts2_sm.jpg

Here’s a 3D simulation of the outer court, aka the Court of the Gentiles, looking south towards the so-called Royal Portico (which had four rows of columns, compared to the other porches in the eastern, northern and western sides, which had three). Presumably Jesus drove out the vendors and moneychangers somewhere in the court proper, or inside the porch. Just imagine this court to be filled with worshippers, tourists, priests, sellers, and animals - complete with the sounds of loud prayer, chanting (hey, public worship was a noisy affair after all - how else would you explain the development of chants and hymns among religions? ), animal noise, the cries of moneychangers, as well as general hubbub, and you’ll probably have a decent mental image.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/images/USRoyPort.jpg

 

[patrick457]

There is actually the theory that Jesus’ actions in the Temple are more in lieu of a public demonstration (driven by zeal, of course) rather than a sort of unbridled angry outburst.

Just to elaborate on this point:

Aside from the quite scandalous use of currency bearing images of foreign gods in a Jewish religious context, there is also the whole issue of the need to buy sacrifices. The Gospels note that Jesus targeted pigeon-sellers: pigeon of course was the cheapest animal offering there was, which meant that the poor who did not have enough luxury to buy larger and more animals tended to buy them (cf. Leviticus 12; Luke 2:24).

According to this scenario, Jesus was thus demonstrating a message: the people, who already have a hard enough time keeping themselves alive without having to participate in sacrifices (what with the countless taxes, tolls and whatnot), are being unjustly cheated and robbed by those in power. As another poster mentioned, Jesus’ words echo here that of Jeremiah: it is a warning against presumption that divine worship in the Temple could be divorced from divine distributive justice for the earth. How could the authorities “oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow” and then think of using the Temple of God as their “den” of refuge, their hideaway? How can they “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.” In effect, Jesus seems to be saying that the God who sees and rules the land will not allow this oppression to continue: sooner or later, justice will fall upon the guilty.

“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.”

 

[Loboto-Me]

And all this is why I love CAF! I continue to learn always! Thank you

 

[beehumble]

The Jeremiah “den of robbers” passage is telling. I believe the Temple incident has to do with the priests profiteering off of what should have been freely given. I think the priests had set up a system to make themselves wealthy instead of one that provided for Temple maintenance and a modest livelihood for themselves. It is known from archaeology that the priests of that day were very rich.

Imagine it thus: Our priests charging everybody $20 each time to enter the Church to pray - be it on Sunday, or a novena, or a Monday night benediction, whatever. And this in addition to the offering at Mass. And then we notice the priests driving around in top-of-the-line cars, and living in million dollar homes.

Jesus said ‘freely have you received, freely are you to give’. The sacraments of our day and of the first century Jews are not to be turned into a money-making scheme by the priest-servants of God.

Selling pancakes for a charity or some devotional items to help strengthen one’s faith after the Mass is not what Jesus was upset about. In a nutshell, He was upset about His priests selling and profiteering from the sacraments given freely by God for the purpose of restoring His people.

God bless you.

 

[steve53]

“Here’s a 3D simulation of the outer court, aka the Court of the Gentiles, looking south towards the so-called Royal Portico (which had four rows of columns, compared to the other porches in the eastern, northern and western sides, which had three).”

Great find.

But I think the other three porticos had two rows of columns, with the outer row blocked in to show a solid face to the outside. Think about it- with four rows of columns, the Royal portico on the south side could have three corridors- and the center roof was 10-15 feet higher than the adjoining two to let in light. This was where all the business was done, likely.

On the other three sides, there was only a single roof, so only two sets of columns was needed. And the extra space not needed for the main area of commerce was on the south- where the major public entrances were.

Jesus preached a lot in the shade of the eastern portico opposite the gates of the inner sanctuary complex. Called Solomon’s portico.

The fifteen acre walled inner complex was set in the middle of the rectangular 35 acre outer courtyard. So technically the clear outer courtyard was about 15 acres too.

 

[PJM]

=Loboto-Me;9063498]After Mass, my husband and I were discussing the readings, and I admitted that it brought up a question. I was waiting for our priest to explain further during his homily, but unfortunately, the homily didn’t “go there”.

My question was, how does the Chuch justify selling baked goods and little booklets within the Church building? When I told my husband this, surprisingly, he was wondering the same thing during Mass. That made me realize that if I was wondering about this, and my husband was as well, then that would mean this thought came to the mind of many other parishioners as well.

The thing is, Jesus was angry but really, the money changers were doing something pretty benign. They were changing money over into currency that was usable in that city, but also selling items that people could offer as sacrifice to God. Worshipers from all over that “world” were coming from far away, making it difficult to bring offerings that would stay unblemished on the long journey. So it was a service for the worshipers no? So if Jesus was angry at this, I have to wonder if He’s also angry that we also sell things within His Father’s House?

I’m looking forward to more insight, thanks my friends

Some of the “church building” is NOT reserved for WORSHIP ALONE. That is the thing you seem to be missing. Bake sales, dinners ect can’t normally take place with in the Worship space unless for JUST cause and pre approved by the Bishop. A Mission church with a temporary altar comes to mind. But they can be held for example in the basement or adjoining hall, spaces NOT normally reservered for Divine Worship.

“Money changers” at the time of Christ were a “necessary evil.” everyone who came to the Temple HAD TO PAY the “temple tax” allocated for its up keep and the sustenance for the priest [which explain WHY they were permitted within the temple gates].

Because the Jews were in “dispersion” and a conquered people many Jews had fled to different countries with different currencies and languages. MONEY changers were much like today’s [cash advance stores] where the handles charged a commission for their services OFTEN gouging those who had to have Jewish money for “the tax.”

It was a combination of the grave abuse of Charity as well as the mockery made of God’s House, that made Jesus so Justly angry.

God Bless,
hope this answers your question?

Pat

 

[57Bill]

From the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

2:14 In the temple: The Jerusalem Temple was divided into several courts. The outermost court, open to Gentile pilgrims was used for selling sacrificial animals and exchanging foreign currency for the appropriate coins needed to pay the annual Temple tax. Jesus is angry that the merchants are robbing Israel through inflated rates of exchange and robbing the Gentiles of the opportunity to worship and pray (CCC 583-84).

thank you.

 

[patrick457]

Some of the “church building” is NOT reserved for WORSHIP ALONE. That is the thing you seem to be missing. Bake sales, dinners ect can’t normally take place with in the Worship space unless for JUST cause and pre approved by the Bishop. A Mission church with a temporary altar comes to mind. But they can be held for example in the basement or adjoining hall, spaces NOT normally reservered for Divine Worship.

“Money changers” at the time of Christ were a “necessary evil.” everyone who came to the Temple HAD TO PAY the “temple tax” allocated for its up keep and the sustenance for the priest [which explain WHY they were permitted within the temple gates].

They actually charged the Temple tax (a half-shekel) every year, and one need not be in the Temple to pay it, since these were collected from every community and sent to Jerusalem anyway: payment of the tax was a requirement among Jewish men aged twenty or above. (Just because it was required doesn’t automatically mean everybody paid it though. )

 

[mskejj]

After Mass, my husband and I were discussing the readings, and I admitted that it brought up a question. I was waiting for our priest to explain further during his homily, but unfortunately, the homily didn’t “go there”.

My question was, how does the Chuch justify selling baked goods and little booklets within the Church building? When I told my husband this, surprisingly, he was wondering the same thing during Mass. That made me realize that if I was wondering about this, and my husband was as well, then that would mean this thought came to the mind of many other parishioners as well.

The thing is, Jesus was angry but really, the money changers were doing something pretty benign. They were changing money over into currency that was usable in that city, but also selling items that people could offer as sacrifice to God. Worshipers from all over that “world” were coming from far away, making it difficult to bring offerings that would stay unblemished on the long journey. So it was a service for the worshipers no? So if Jesus was angry at this, I have to wonder if He’s also angry that we also sell things within His Father’s House?

I’m looking forward to more insight, thanks my friends

This just popped up on my Facebook feed…great reflection on this reading
realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/03/13/cleansing_our_temples_of_fallen_gods.html

 

[wynnejj]

Secular Humanism is a STRANGE GOD in our Temples.

Secular Humanism and Moral Relativism are the strange gods in our temple today.

What is a strange god? The Old Testament is replete with exhortations against strange gods and idols which compete with the beliefs of the chosen people of the God of Isaac and Jacob. Big taboo on those man-made idols. But what is an idol but the visible symbol of an ideology and set of practices of the religion, some of which may be compatible with God’s true practices but others are a direct contradiction. It is a perversion of fidelity, and such a betrayal is deeply offensive to God precisely because it is so destructive to his people. In a Jewish society that does not separate Church from State, mixing religion & politics with the religion & politics of foreigners is forbidden. No multiculturalism in the temple. It always results in the chosen people being overtaken by foreigners as chastisement from God until his chosen people return to the pure faith.

Where am I coming from? The Pharisees and Scribes could cite chapter and verse of any Old Testament like any good “solo scriptura” Protestant today. They knew what Jesus was alluding to when He overturned the money-changers tables with the words:

“My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.
<refer to Isaiah 56,7>
But you have made it a DEN OF THIEVES.
<refer to Jeremiah 7,11>”

Chapter 56 of Isaiah is all about how all are welcome in the house of the Lord. How it is to be “inclusive” in modern parlance.

Chapter 7 of Jeremiah uses the term “den of thieves” and is all about when a temple of worship is not acceptable to the Lord and is liable to severe punishment (as at Shiloh). It is about the deceit of the faithful(?) who think that they will be saved because they put their faith in “This is a temple of the Lord! A temple of the Lord! A temple of the Lord!”, but their behavior as good as says “We are safe. We can do these abominations again.”.

It’s about mixing our currency - that is, mediums of exchange - and how it distorts God’s Truths in the very temple where people come to hear the Truth.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Pope Benedict in volume 2 of his book Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week, takes on this very issue. He points out that the Synoptics describe the money changers as thieves, but not St. John. He just says they were there. Just their very presence was odious.

I believe today’s church can use the appropriate sections of the building for its fund raisers etc, but not the worship space itself. I would even cringe at the “gathering space” being used for sales etc.

 

[beehumble]

As for my other post that summarizes it as the priests of God basically selling the ‘sacraments’ - animal sacrifices etc. - of that day, for self-enrichment,
nothing happened in any part of the Temple without the permission of the priests, who had an armed Temple guard for enforcement. They allowed the money changers to be there, and no doubt got a significant cut of the transactions.

It is telling that after Jesus drove out the money changers, thereby impacting the priests’ self-enrichment schemes via the Temple, the chief priests sought a way to kill Him:
Then he taught them saying, “Is it not written: ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples’? But you have made it a den of thieves.”

The chief priests and the scribes came to hear of it *[the cleansing of the Temple] * and were seeking a way to put him to death, yet they feared him because the whole crowd was astonished at his teaching. * (Mark 11:17-18)

God bless you.

 

[wynnejj]

My NAB (New American Bible - St Joseph’s Edition copyright 1970) notes:

Mark 11, 15-19: The expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the temple does not seem to be properly understood if regarded simply as an objection to the practice within the temple precincts, for it was fairly well controlled by the religious authorities. The key to an understanding of the incident is the citation of Is 56,7 and Jer 7,11. Both consistent with true conversion, Jesus’ action is a symbol of God’s judgment against the abuses of his temple, due to the priest’s failure to instruct the people in the meaning of temple worship.

Read Jeremiah chapter 7, and it is all about pagan values corrupting the Jewish faith, and a litany of social justice issues including the slaughter of the innocents.

 

[patrick457]

My NAB (New American Bible - St Joseph’s Edition copyright 1970) notes:

Read Jeremiah chapter 7, and it is all about pagan values corrupting the Jewish faith, and a litany of social justice issues including the slaughter of the innocents.

Exactly. Some people might think that the idea rather reeks of politics (Jesus protesting against social inequality), but that’s because politics and religion were, for most of history, closely intertwined (no separation of Church and State back then) - which explains things why kings in many cultures were considered to be either priests and/or gods (or at least, intimately connected with the divine in some fashion), and why an archaic Japanese word for ‘government’, matsurigoto, has the word matsuri (nowadays meaning ‘festival’ in general, but originally a religious feast) in it. After all, Jesus was up to now talking of the Kingdom of God (within the context of the ‘kingdom’ of Caesar, such talk could be subversive), where evil and injustice have no right to exist.

 

[LilyM]

I, personally, just don’t see anger. I see intense passion (and yes, that is a more appropriate word I do believe) for purity but not necessarily anger.

I do not believe overturning the tables and chasing the oxen and sheep out with a whip = anger, necessarily. I just don’t.

Well, it was incredibly violent - something he would be arrested and charged for in a heartbeat if it happened today. No-one can say the trashing of property and the beating of innocent animals is anything other than violent.

How often are people violent without being angry at something or someone? Unless they’re sadists who enjoy terrorizing others, or psychopaths who have no feelings for others at all, or something of the sort? I don’t think Jesus was disturbed mentally, which is the only alternative explanation foe his behaviour other than anger.

Anger against sin is not a bad thing, of course. We should be angry about sin.

 

[wynnejj]

There is actually the theory that Jesus’ actions in the Temple are more in lieu of a public demonstration (driven by zeal, of course) rather than a sort of unbridled angry outburst.

This is my take on it too. But I think that the demonstration was to have a timeless value because history repeats itself. Knowing full well that His life would be scrutinized for centuries to come, the demonstration of anger was a warning to priests and laity alike about coming to the temple to worship when there are serious impurities introduced that speak on behalf of a “new age” god, not the Rock of Ages. The demonstration with money changers, where money is measure of worldly value, is affecting the teaching principles and foundations of truth - and the very perception of God as one whose character is changing - like the exchange rate in the temple.