Money changers in the temple, help me understand

[patrick457]

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.

There’s that question: just how ‘violent’ Jesus’ actions got? One line of thinking theorizes that since the Temple guards (who were supposed to be security after all) did not bother to take any action against that ‘troublemaker’ right there and then it must not have been as rowdy as is commonly supposed, though one could argue that there were too many followers and sympathizers in the crowd for proper action to be taken.

 

[graciew]

A whip of cords is a carefully made whip that makes a noise to drive animals away.So no animal beating here.If you think of it,Jesus did not have an “outburst of anger”.He took his time for the animals,making this whip of cords plaiting together the strands that make it stronger.It did not take a minute to overturn the tables,scattering whwtever was on them,here is His zeal and determination,not his rage.In any of these he beat or touch people or animals,but things.This is how I see it.

 

[LilyM]

A whip of cords is a carefully made whip that makes a noise to drive animals away.So no animal beating here.If you think of it,Jesus did not have an “outburst of anger”.He took his time for the animals,making this whip of cords plaiting together the strands that make it stronger.It did not take a minute to overturn the tables,scattering whwtever was on them,here is His zeal and determination,not his rage.In any of these he beat or touch people or animals,but things.This is how I see it.

So if someone smashes up your car with a baseball bat or throws a plate at the wall next to your head (not meankng to actually hit you) somehow it cannot be violent or anger? Only if they hit you personally?

Try telling that to any expert on domestic violence - or violent crime - anywhere. Or experiencing any of it yourself. I would be highly terrified, terrorized and upset either way. So would any same person, which is why legally and pschologically violence against property and against people are lumped in similar boats if not the same.

 

[patrick457]

So if someone smashes up your car with a baseball bat or throws a plate at the wall next to your head (not meankng to actually hit you) somehow it cannot be violent or anger? Only if they hit you personally?

Try telling that to any expert on domestic violence - or violent crime - anywhere. Or experiencing any of it yourself. I would be highly terrified, terrorized and upset either way. So would any same person, which is why legally and pschologically violence against property and against people are lumped in similar boats if not the same.

From here:

There are a number of elements in the story that suggest that it is not as ‘violent’ as is sometimes visualized:

1. The fact that the Roman guards did not intervene–as they did with the riot over Paul in Acts 21–strongly suggests a “lower key” visualization.
2. The seats of the dove sellers and the counters of the moneychangers were simply parts of their merchant ‘stalls’. The money-tables would not have had much loose coinage on them–the coins would have been in bags behind the counter, and so the common image of many coins scattering everywhere is likely false. And it would not have taken but one example of ‘pouring out’ of a money bag to get everyone else’s ‘cooperation’ in leaving!
3. Jesus simply ordered the dove sellers out (and probably the merchants too, although they would have followed their larger animals out of the temple anyway), and the makeshift whip/lash was for the animals.
4. There was no indication that any human being was assaulted, hit, harmed, or hurt; and the “scourge” was hastily constructed of rushes/weeds pulled out of the cracks in the Courtyard floor/walls (not a whip of the sort He was scourged with).
5. Jesus forbade subsequent entry simply by his presence, to any non-worshipper who tried to enter.
6. The many OT/Tanach prophetic references are ample indication that Jesus was acting in prophetic confrontation/symbolic mode.
7. One should never confuse zeal, judgment, drama, prophetic symbolic action–or even forceful expulsion of destructive agents–with acts of unlawful physical aggression or ‘violence’ or ‘lashing out at enemies’.

Perhaps William’s assessment is the most realistic:

“First, then, back to the observation that it is reported as a “violent” act. Part of the reported action, blocking the way of traffic, perhaps involving the obtaining of animals for sacrifice, is more in the mode of nonviolent protest. Overturning the tables of the money changers may be viewed as “violent,” but it should be noted that the entire protest is of very short duration. It is not narrated as though there is any intent to harm anyone, to maintain a long occupation, or to assert Jesus’ power over the Temple and its dealings. It is clearly in the tradition of the prophets’ dramatic representations of Israel’s situation and God’s word of judgment. In a situation of oppression and a brewing mimetic crisis, it is impossible to avoid the taint of violence if one is to act decisively. The word decision itself, a “cutting off” or “cutting from,” already suggests that the harmonious reconciliation of all persons and elements in a situation will not take place. This is the human condition in the world of differences, especially when these differences no longer manage the mimetic desire and rivalry that are ever present and effective.” [BVS:228f]​

 

[patrick457]

For a little review, the accounts from all four Gospels:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thepassion/gallery/img/4.jpg

And Jesus entered into the temple and cast out all those selling and those buying in the temple, and the tables of the money-changers He overturned, and the seats of those selling the doves, and He says to them, “It is written, ‘My house a house of prayer shall be called’, but you are making it ‘a den of plunderers’.” And there came to HIm blind and lame men in the temple, and He cured them, but the chief priests and the scribes, having seen the wonders that He did and the children shouting in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” were indignant and said to Him, “Do you hear what they are saying?” And Jesus says to them, “Yes. Have you never read that ‘out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast prepared praise’?”

===

And they come to Jerusalem, and He, having gone into the temple, began to cast out those selling and those buying in the temple, and the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling the doves He overturned, and He would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple, and He was teaching, saying to them, “Has it not been written, ‘My house a house of prayer shall be called for all the nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of plunderers’.” And the chief priests and the scribes heard, and they were seeking how they might destroy Him (for they feared Him, because all the crowd was awestruck at His teaching); and when evening came, they were going off outside the city.

===

And having entered into the temple, He began casting out those selling, saying to them, “It is written, ‘And my house shall be a house of prayer’, but you made it ‘a den of plunderers’.” And He was teaching daily in the temple, but the chief priests and the scribes were seeking to destroy Him, and the first-men of the people; and they were not finding what they might do, for all the people were hanging on Him, hearing.

===

And near was the Passover of the Judaeans, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and He found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-brokers sitting, and having made something like] a whip of rush-withes, He cast all out from the temple, also the sheep, and the oxen; and of the money-brokers He scattered out the small changes, and the tables He overturned, and to those selling the doves He said, “Take them away from here! Do not make the house of my Father a house of merchants.” And His disciples remembered that it is written: ‘the zeal of thy house shall devour me.’ The Judaeans then answered and said to him, “What sign do you show us, since you are doing these?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this sanctuary and in three days I will raise it up.” The Judaeans therefore said, “Forty and six years has this sanctuary been under construction, and will you in three days raise it up?” (But He was speaking about the temple of His body; when, therefore, He was raised out of the dead, his disciples remembered that He said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had said.)

 

[steve53]

The feast of the Passover was famous for being a hotbed of Zealotry and unrest. It was THE big Jewish festival, and riffraff and troublemakers from all over the east would make it a point to be there, if possible. Insurrections and rebellions started there, and knowing this, Pilate made it a point to be there personally and likely “all leave was cancelled” for his Roman soldiers, and as many as possible were stationed in Rome, and a goodly number in the Tower of Antonia and the on the ramparts of the Temple-which had great vantage points into the Temple and surrounding city and countryside.

So Jesus causing a ruckus like that was a BIG deal. that is why EVERY gospel mentioned it. And he was smart to take off quickly in the confusion otherwise the probability was high he would have met an ignominious end buy getting clubbed in the head.

It certainly made his reputation, at least with the Zealot community. Not just a peace-loving JB type, Jesus gave word that he was physically ready to take on the High Priesthood.

Jesus didn’t dare return to the Temple for a couple years. Probably many were not excited about Jesus preaching the Second Temple in the year of his crucifixion, but these Priests were overruled.

 

[graciew]

So if someone smashes up your car with a baseball bat or throws a plate at the wall next to your head (not meankng to actually hit you) somehow it cannot be violent or anger? Only if they hit you personally?

Try telling that to any expert on domestic violence - or violent crime - anywhere. Or experiencing any of it yourself. I would be highly terrified, terrorized and upset either way. So would any same person, which is why legally and pschologically violence against property and against people are lumped in similar boats if not the same.

In Acts 17:6 they are remembered as “these who have come to turn the world upside down”. So figuratively,by overturning their are indeed putting things right.
I was trying to explain that it was not an “outburst”,and "rage"out of irrational impulse.
About highly terrified,we agree.A thief would be highly terrified to see the police face to face while robbing a house.

 

[LilyM]

In Acts 17:6 they are remembered as “these who have come to turn the world upside down”. So figuratively,by overturning their are indeed putting things right.
I was trying to explain that it was not an “outburst”,and "rage"out of irrational impulse.
About highly terrified,we agree.A thief would be highly terrified to see the police face to face while robbing a house.

I don’t know that anger or violence has to be irrational or a one-off outburst - wars are undoubtedly violent and some at least are rational and well-thought-out violence.

Yes a thief would be terrified - so, for the most part, would an innocent person unless they are the ones who called them. Once my flatmates’ parents were in an accident and two police officers were sent to where we lived to let her know. I was there alone when they knocked on the door and, even having done nothing wrong, I can tell you the unexpected sight of two big burly and well armed police officers in my doorway was intimidating.

So what if the bags of coins were elsewhere - he threw the tables and chairs around (‘overturning’ doesn’t mean he nicely and quietly picked them up and then gently put them down again upside down!).

And so what if the whip was not intended for use on humans - they didn’t know that when he had it in his hand (and it is nowhere indicated that he only started making it once already in the Temple)! And it must have been a quick event or they would’ve got
themselves and the animals out before needing to be ‘cast’ out.

Put it this way - someone pulls out a gun in my presence it doesn’t exactly reassure me to find out well after they do so that they only ever intended to shoot animals.

 

[graciew]

I don’t know that anger or violence has to be irrational or a one-off outburst -

wars are undoubtedly violent and some at least are rational and well-thought-out violence.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;9086199:

I don’t know that anger or violence has to be irrational or a one-off outburst -
Wars harm people.So this is not the case.
It takes self-control just to overturn the tables when there are thieves in your father´s house,I do not believe Jesus meant to "invite"them to leave.He did not ounch them on their faces either.
And as far as the fear the thieves could have experienced,evil in them is clearly and drastically addressed by Jesus.Awareness can be painfully terrifying,but necessary.

Again, the people in the Temple didn’t know that Jesus did not mean to harm them. All they knew was that He was throwing furniture around, and people could very easily be next. And we don’t know that He did not use that whip on people.

And no, to abuse someone’s property (eg furniture and/or animals) requires little if any self control, there’s very little difference between abusing someone’s property and abusing them personally. Psychologists and lawyers recognise this and treat both kinds of abuse similarly as a result.

True self-control is to do no damage, temporary or permanent, to persons or property at all.

 

[graciew]

graciew;9086646:

Again, the people in the Temple didn’t know that Jesus did not mean to harm them. All they knew was that He was throwing furniture around, and people could very easily be next. And we don’t know that He did not use that whip on people.

And no, to abuse someone’s property (eg furniture and/or animals) requires little if any self control, there’s very little difference between abusing someone’s property and abusing them personally. Psychologists and lawyers recognise this and treat both kinds of abuse similarly as a result.

True self-control is to do no damage, temporary or permanent, to persons or property at all.

I don´t get you…are you saying Jesus showed abusive behaviour?
So true self control would be equivalent to passivity for you?
In other words,they are plundering your house and you would prosecute the one that entered your house to protect you?Or better still,he should have watched from outside while this was happening and say"hey,guys! get out of here!"

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;9086693:

I don´t get you…are you saying Jesus showed abusive behaviour?
So true self control would be equivalent to passivity for you?
In other words,they are plundering your house and you would prosecute the one that entered your house to protect you?Or better still,he should have watched from outside while this was happening and say"hey,guys! get out of here!"

Not at all - abuse is when you exhibit violence or anger towards someone who doesn’t deserve it, or you do more to them than they deserve. Neither of which applies here.

I’m saying He exhibited what I have countless times heard referred to as ‘RIGHTEOUS anger’ - anger (and even violence) that is entirely justified and entirely proportionate. You all seem to want to pretend that He somehow wasn’t angry at all - perhaps He was throwing furniture around and brandishing a whip just for fun or something?

God many times in the Old Testament is described as being angry, and certainly does, and commands His people to do, things that are rightly called violent - wiping out whole enemy peoples women children and all for one thing.

People tend to pooh pooh these incidents, but why? God is the same yesterday today and forever, no? And the Bible is an inerrant record, no? So why would it be so miserably inaccurate in describing God as being angry if He really wasn’t at all? Or saying these massacres were ordained by Him when they really weren’t? The only sensible conclusion, really, is that He was indeed angry, and that these things really were commanded by Him.

What I’m saying is that no amount of justification for violence or anger stops the behaviour from being violent, or the perpetrator from being angry. Killing anyone is a violent act, whether they are an intruder about to shoot you or a totally innocent bystander. And anger is anger, whether you direct it at someone who you have every right to be angry at or someone who is completely innocent.

So yes, Jesus was both angry and violent, AND was entirely justified in being both. As you might be justified in getting angry at the fact that an intruder is in your house and is about to kill you, and shooting them.

Yet you all seem to think there’s something somehow inappropriate in labelling Jesus’ actions as either violent or angry. As if you’ve been so indoctrinated with the hippy-style Kum-ba-ya peace-love-and-mung beans image of Jesus that you cannot see this more fierce side of His character for what it actually is and have to whitewash it.

 

[graciew]

graciew;9086757:

Not at all - abuse is when you exhibit violence or anger towards someone who doesn’t deserve it, or you do more to them than they deserve. Neither of which applies here.

I’m saying He exhibited what I have countless times heard referred to as ‘RIGHTEOUS anger’ - anger (and even violence) that is entirely justified and entirely proportionate. You all seem to want to pretend that He somehow wasn’t angry at all - perhaps He was throwing furniture around and brandishing a whip just for fun or something?

God many times in the Old Testament is described as being angry, and certainly does, and commands His people to do, things that are rightly called violent - wiping out whole enemy peoples women children and all for one thing.

People tend to pooh pooh these incidents, but why? God is the same yesterday today and forever, no? And the Bible is an inerrant record, no? So why would it be so miserably inaccurate in describing God as being angry if He really wasn’t at all? Or saying these massacres were ordained by Him when they really weren’t? The only sensible conclusion, really, is that He was indeed angry, and that these things really were commanded by Him.

What I’m saying is that no amount of justification for violence or anger stops the behaviour from being violent, or the perpetrator from being angry. Killing anyone is a violent act, whether they are an intruder about to shoot you or a totally innocent bystander. And anger is anger, whether you direct it at someone who you have every right to be angry at or someone who is completely innocent.

So yes, Jesus was both angry and violent, AND was entirely justified in being both. As you might be in getting angry at an intruder who was about to kill you and shooting them.

Yet you all seem to think there’s something somehow inappropriate in labelling Jesus’ actions as either violent or angry. As if you’ve been so indoctrinated with the hippy-style Kum-ba-ya peace-love-and-mung beans image of Jesus that you cannot see this more fierce side of His character for what it actually is.

Thanks,LilyM. Now I get you…I wasn´t getting your point.

 

[fisherman_carl]

"a house of prayer: Merchants sold sacrificial animals in the Temple as a service to pilgrims celebrating Passover. However, rates of monetary exchange and inflated prices made the selling a profitable enterprise. By citing Is 56:7, Jesus indicts the merchants for profaning the Temple. The Temple is not a common marketplace but a sanctuary for worship.

In context (Is 56:3-8), Isaiah sees God gathering all nations to his Temple. No longer shall Gentiles be excluded from his covenant people; God will join them to himself. The prophecy looks endangered by the present circumstances—animals are being sold in the Temple’s outermost court, the court of the Gentiles. This prevents Gentiles from truly worshiping. Drawing from Isaiah, Jesus charges the establishment with obstructing God’s intentions.

a den of robbers: A citation from Jer 7:11. In context, Jeremiah delivered a sermon of judgment to Israelites in the Temple. They presumed that the Temple guaranteed the Israelites’ security and protection, despite their sinful living (Jer 7:4, 8-10). Because Israel disregarded Jeremiah, God destroyed Solomon’s Temple in 586 B.C. Jesus here recalls both the circumstances and outcome of Jeremiah’s prophecy: If Israel fails to repent, the Temple will again be destroyed (CCC 584)."

• Ignatius Catholic Study Bible

 

[fisherman_carl]

"Ver. 12. And cast out all. Since the Jews came to the temple from all parts of Judea, such as came from a distance did not bring with them their sacrifices, but purchased them at Jerusalem. The money-changers were persons who lent out money to the poor, that they might purchase the victims, &c. But as the law forbade usury, they received other fruits, grapes, &c. in return. These persons, beyond a doubt, beheld a more than human brightness darting from his eyes, otherwise they would not have suffered him to act thus. In the same manner, the servants of the high priest fell down when they came to apprehend Jesus, at these words, I am he. (Nicholas of Lyra.) — Into the temple. Into that part of it called the court of the Gentiles, where pigeons were to be sold for sacrifices, where there were tables of money-changers, &c. St. Jerome here admires this as one of the greatest of Christ’s miracles, that a poor man should be permitted to cast the buyers and sellers out of the temple, to overturn their stalls, their money-tables, &c. without any opposition. (Witham)

Ver. 13. My house shall. That man is a thief, and turns the temple of God into a den of thieves, who makes religion a cloak for his avarice. Of all the innumerable miracles which Jesus performed, none appear greater in my eyes than this: that one man, at that time so contemned and despised, who was afterwards nailed to the tree of the cross, should with his single power be able to expel from the temple that multitude of Scribes and Pharisees, who were so maliciously bent upon his destruction, and so greedy of gain. Something more than human appeared in his celestial countenance on this occasion, and the majesty of the divinity shewed itself in his looks and gestures. Igneum quiddam, atque sidereum radiabat ex oculis ejus, et divinitatis majestas lucebat in facie. (St. Jerome) — Hence it is not to be wondered at, if in the utmost fear and consternation they fled away. (Menochius)"

• Haydock

 

[fisherman_carl]

"584 Jesus went up to the Temple as the privileged place of encounter with God. For him, the Temple was the dwelling of his Father, a house of prayer, and he was angered that its outer court had become a place of commerce.353 He drove merchants out of it because of jealous love for his Father: "You shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade. His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for your house will consume me.’“354 After his Resurrection his apostles retained their reverence for the Temple.355”

• CCC 584

 

[fisherman_carl]

“My question was, how does the Chuch justify selling baked goods and little booklets within the Church building?”

It does not impede worship of God if it is done in a side area, outside of the worship area and the Mass. How else should they do it?