This was something I posted at my church blog on Monday that I've decided to post here, as well, since it touches on some common themes we discuss here...
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there.
He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves*, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
~Mark 11
*Doves - the offering specifically mentioned by Jesus - were the offering required to be paid by the poor folk, who'd often bring in their own doves, only to find out they were not "pure" enough for a sacrifice and thus, the poor were forced to pay more - that they couldn't afford - in order to be in God's Temple. Thus, the "den of robbers" charge, especially insofar as they were ripping off especially the poor, who could least afford it.
It is this action that was at least one of the final straws for the religious authorities that drove them to plan Jesus' execution by the state.
50 comments:
I like the idea of a day devoted to confronting wickedness in the Church as a formal liturgical tradition. There was no "Confrontation Monday" in any church with which I was affiliated.
I don't understand the connection between the preachy video and the story of Jesus and the money-changers. There appears to be none.
The Mark passage shows Jesus conducting an action of civil disobedience and confrontation in an effort to take a stand against the oppression of the poor and against greed in the house of God.
The "preachy" video (are the photos preachy, or is it the song that you don't like?) shows people taking a confrontative stand against injustice of various sorts.
Clearer now?
John:
"Confrontation Monday," as far as I know, is just what one of our beloved church members calls the first day of Holy Week. We have Fat Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, but Monday has no name. Since one thing that Jesus did on Monday was confront the economic and religious authorities, "Confrontation Monday" seems an entirely apt name.
I like it, anyway.
"Matt 26:3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him."
Mark 9:31 “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.”
Mark 10:33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
Mark 11:18 "The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching."
Mark 14:1 "Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were scheming to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him."
Luke 13:31 "At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.”
John 5:18 "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
John 7:1 "After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him."
John 11:45-49 "The Plot to Kill Jesus
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
Or maybe they were planning to kill Him prior to His violent rampage through the temple courts. Note, all of the above come prior to the event in question.
Or we could look at the larger context of the story where we find this.
Or we could look at the context.
Mark 11:18 "he chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, BECAUSE THE WHOLE CROWD WAS AMAZED AT HIS TEACHING."
So, if one was to look at the context it would seem that to suggest that Jesus was killed solely, (or even primarily) because of this one event would be a reach. As you state, it could have been "the final straw" but they already had more than enough without this. It is certainly possible that those in power knew that Jesus was going to engage in this act of civil disobedience before it happened, but I see nothing to support such a whimsical notion.
One could also glean something from the fact that when the powerful handed Him over the the empire, I'm pretty sure this wasn't one of the recorded complaints.
On a different note as I was looking at the story of Jesus entry in to Jerusalem last Sunday I was struck by how strongly the theme of judgment runs through the narrative. If I have time I will probably look at this in some more detail elsewhere.
Craig, I'm unsure of your point. You said...
Or maybe they were planning to kill Him prior to His violent rampage through the temple courts. Note, all of the above come prior to the event in question.
You will note that I said quite clearly:
Had you missed that part and were thinking I was saying this was the one and only reason given in the Bible for the religious power group to seek his execution?
Also, had you missed that I had said it was one of the "FINAL STRAWS?" That is, one of the last reasons needed by the Jewish leadership to seek his execution?
If that was your point, then rest assured, I am well familiar with the other places the plot to kill Jesus is mentioned, but thanks for listing them just the same.
Or, if that isn't your point, what is?
Craig...
Or maybe they were planning to kill Him prior to His violent rampage through the temple courts.
Yes, I'd say they were. We agree on that point, if that is your point.
Or we could look at the context.
Always. That was exactly my intent by pointing out the context of Jesus' mentioning specifically the dove sacrifice. There were other sacrifices offered - goats, sheep, whatever. But Jesus mentioned specifically the doves. The sacrifice offered by the poor.
In context, the hearers of these words would recognize the significance of this, I've read, and that makes sense to me.
Context is important.
Craig...
So, if one was to look at the context it would seem that to suggest that Jesus was killed solely, (or even primarily) because of this one event would be a reach.
Well, again, we agree. I did not say that this was only or primarily the reason. I said that it was "at least one of the final straws." And, as you noted, since these other plottings came earlier, a reader would be justified in drawing this conclusion, seems to me.
It is certainly possible that those in power knew that Jesus was going to engage in this act of civil disobedience before it happened, but I see nothing to support such a whimsical notion.
What "whimsical notion" are you speaking of? Since I did not say or suggest that this was the only reason, it almost sounds like you're being deliberately contentious. So, what are you trying to say here? I'm not clear of your point, unless it's just an attempt to be disagreeable.
I'm sure it's not that, though. So, I'm open to hearing what it is you're trying to say.
As to your quotes, it is interesting to look further at the context of what is happening when the Jewish leaders begin/continue plotting. You cite Matt 26...
Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him.
"THEN?" What came before "then?" The story of the sheep and the goats came directly before this quote. That and other parables where Jesus says that the ones embraced by God are not the religious ones with the right heritage, it is simply those who did for and with the least of these.
The context of the Mark 14 reference to plotting Jewish leadership is right after Jesus had spoken of tearing down the temple. I can imagine the leadership taking offense at that. Also this was shortly after Mark 12, where it says...
Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them.
The Luke 13 passage comes shortly after Jesus saying pointedly that many who are first will be last and the last shall be first.
John 11 seems to show the Pharisees fearing him simply for his growing popularity (but again, popular, why? Because of his populist message and tearing down of the rich and powerful and religious??)
As you can see in several of these instances, it is Jesus' message of economic restructuring and calling the Jewish leadership on their greed and compliance with the Roman powers that is so infuriating the Jewish leadership. Just as in the passage I've quoted.
So, there you go.
I thought I would point out that "civil disobedience" is almost exclusively used in terms of non-violence. It cannot be construed that what Jesus did in the Temple was non-violent.
There are different types of CD. Non-violent CD is usually referred to as that, to be clear. NVDA, in fact, is specified specifically when speaking of Non-violent Direct Action types of CD.
But certainly, today we often associate CD with NVCD. A good thing, seems to me.
We did have folk like William Ayers who engaged in violent CD, but that sort of CD was often not intended to actually kill people, although the risk was there.
As to Jesus' "violence," he made a whip out of cords - this wasn't a roman scourge, it doesn't sound like, it's a whip for chasing animals. Which is what he did.
Was there an element of violence or implied violence in his direct action? You could certainly look at it that way. You don't have to look at it that way, but you could.
It appears that no one died or was harmed, though, beyond their pride and purse.
Dan,
If you actualy look at the text it is fairly clear why they wanted to kill Him.
Mark 11:18 "The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching."
John 5:18 "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
Nowhere does the text indicate that anyone wanted to kill Jesus because of His teachings on the poor. It is certainly possible to read that into the text but the text certainly does not explicitly (or inplicitly) support this notion.
My point with this is simply to point out that it seems as though you are (to some degree or another) reading something into the text that doesn't seem to be there.
Craig...
If you actualy look at the text it is fairly clear why they wanted to kill Him.
I thought that is what I just did. Once again, the actual text:
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there.
He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves*, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this...
Heard WHAT? What he had just said: That the money changer system was robbing folk, specifically the poor folk. A DEN OF THIEVES.
...and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
They FEARED HIM. Why? BECAUSE THE WHOLE CROWD (the great masses, the poor folk and everyone else) was amazed, enrapt, caught up by his teachings about how THE SYSTEM was ROBBING PEOPLE.
So now, I've looked at the actual text. Again. What problem are you having with what I'm reading?
I guess, in looking at the actual text, I am seeking some understanding. So Jesus walks into church one day and suddenly goes psycho, chasing out people who were working, providing a needed service in its walls? What's up with that?
And Jesus tells us specifically what was wrong with that - not that they were merely selling stuff inside the sanctuary (which is often the take I have seen at least many evangelicals take on it), but that they were ROBBING folk inside the temple!
But robbing them how? That seems like the next reasonable question. Jesus mentions specifically the doves - the offering of the poor people. That seems to be a clue. I think we can reasonably guess that all the original listeners of this story would recognize right away - "he's speaking of how the moneychangers treat the poor."
Imagine if, today in a story, someone complained of the thieves who were selling gov't cheese - we'd know right away that this is a reference to food that the poor get. I think it's like that.
All this seems like at least one - and to me, the most likely - way to take all of that story. Who do you think is being robbed in the story? Why does Jesus refer to them as "thieves?"
Of course, this understanding/exegesis is not original to me. Other scholars have pointed it out. In Barnes' commentary, for instance, he notes:
These buyers and sellers imitated them. They made the temple a place of gain; they cheated and defrauded; they took advantage of the poor, and, by their being under a necessity of purchasing these articles for sacrifice, they "robbed" them by selling what they had at an enormous price.
source
"The Mark passage shows Jesus conducting an action of civil disobedience and confrontation in an effort to take a stand against the oppression of the poor and against greed in the house of God."
Actually it would probably be more accurate to say ecclesiastical disobedience since Rome was the civil authority and the temple was still governed by the Jewish Priesthood.
Yes.
"..and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was AMAZED AT HIS TEACHING."
So, they didn't kill Him because he rampaged through the temple, they killed Him because He taught with authority and the crowds were amazed. That is fairly incontrovertible. Where you lapse into speculation is what His teachings were and the composition of the crowds. Given the fact that this took place during Passover (a celebration of an event that didn't happen), and many folks traveled to Jerusalem for Passover it stands to reason that a certain number of the crowds were those who could afford to make the trip, not just the poor. So while there would have been some who were poor there, there is no indication from the text that the crowd was made up primarily of the poor or that he was specifically speaking to the poor.
Further, if one takes your invocation of Matt 25 as being primarily about how we treat the poor, (something that is not a given based on some fairly extensive study of this passage a few years ago), then why would we assume that His audience was also poor. Frankly it seems more plausible that he was speaking to an audience of the more well off and using their treatment of the poor as an object lesson.
Then we look at the trial by both Pilate and Herod, nowhere do we see the Jewish leaders accusing Jesus of trying to overturn the system for the benefit of the poor.
Finally, again to the text.
"John 5:18 "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
How is it possible to minimize this. You don't think that Jesus proclaiming Himself equal to God was a threat to "the system". This certainly threatens the Jewish religious system, but it also directly threatens the Roman system.
Finally you are assuming way too much about my position.
I have not said that selling things in the temple was fine. I have not agreed with the defrauding of anyone. I have suggested that your point of view has shaped how you interpret this passage in a way that either minimizes or ignores the rest of the text.
It is also interesting that if you look at the passage immediately" prior to the cleansing of the temple you find this.
"41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”
It seems strange that one could divorce this message of Judgment on Jerusalem (and by extension the Jewish religious establishment) from his actions in cleansing the temple.
Yes, it WOULD be strange to divorce the one passage from the other, should anyone do so.
"If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace"
Indeed.
So we can agree that we ought not divorce that passage.
Perhaps if you look at what I've written, we could agree, too, that...
* I have not speculated about the "composition of the crowds."
* That it DOES "stand to reason that a certain number of the crowds were those who could afford to make the trip, not just the poor."
* That "there is no indication from the text that the crowd was made up primarily of the poor or that he was specifically speaking to the poor."
* That we ought not "minimize" John 5, NOR should we minimize Mark 11 or Matt 25 or ANY of Jesus' teachings.
* That I have NOT "assumed way too much about your position."
* That we agree that you "have not said that selling things in the temple was fine."
So, since it seems we mostly agree on most of this, and your hunches about my comments have been wrong on just about every account (and are now corrected), may I wish you a Blessed Easter, brother.
If you wish to fight on this holy weekend, choose somewhere else to do so.
Better yet, just spend the time reflecting upon Jesus, the Prince of Peace who came teaching us salvation by grace, who taught us to look out for the least of these, that it is okay to confront institutions when they have engaged in greed or robbery, especially of the poor, but of anyone.
Reflect upon how the religious elite of his day did not like his messages about inclusivity, about the Sabbath being for humanity and not the other way around, who did not like being called on their hypocrisy and greed and power alliances with Rome.
Reflect upon the One who has taught us, NOT contentiousness, but love; NOT slander, but words of grace, that beautiful grace by which we are saved.
It's what I'm striving to do.
Craig, one other thought about this...
If you actualy look at the text it is fairly clear why they wanted to kill Him.
Mark 11:18 "The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching."
If you're saying that they wanted to kill him because of his popularity with the masses, I'd say you're right. But why was he popular with the masses? Wasn't it his teachings?
AND, if his teachings had been teachings the Pharisees were cool with, then they probably wouldn't have had a problem with his popularity. IF Jesus was toting the Pharisees party line, they would likely rejoice in his popularity.
You aren't suggesting that we ought to divorce the reason they wanted to kill him and his popularity from his teachings, are you?
Who were the civil authorities at the time? Would that be the Romans or the dudes conning money out of the poor at the temple?
We've been through this "civil disobedience" nonsense before. Jesus had little concern for civil law when he threw out the money-changers.
Dan,
Since I am trying neither to fight nor to slander, your plea seems to ring hollow. However if you wish I'll leave off for Easter.
To you last point/question I've posted this verse at least twice before and you seem to miss it, so once more.
"John 5:18 "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
It would seem that this particular teaching (given that this struck against the Romans also) was the bigger issue.
You have really not demonstrated that Jesus teaching was some sort of radical change in how to treat the poor. Nor have you demonstrated that those in power interpreted His teaching in that way.
Jesus certainly taught about the poor, He used the poor as examples, but He didn't seem to elevate them beyond any others.
My point in all of this is to suggest that your worldview is shaping your interpretation more than the text justifies. You disagree, great. You made 3 main points in your post.
1. The cleansing of the temple was a major (albeit final) reason why Jesus was to be killed. This is not borne out by the text.
2. The fact that the passage specifically mentions doves suggests some sort of hidden meaning. There is no compelling reason to accept this interpretation, yet no real reason to totally discount it either.
3. Jesus somehow was inciting the poor more than other groups and this poor rebellion somehow threatened those in power more than His claims of divinity. Again, there is nothing in the text that really supports this view, but nothing that denies it as a possibility either.
None of these opinions is particularly compelling in light of the context, yet you seem to be pretty attached to them.
They’re all yours.
Marshall...
Jesus had little concern for civil law when he threw out the money-changers.
Are you suggesting that it's your hunch that Jesus did not take a risk of violating laws and getting in trouble for chasing out businessmen from the synagogue?
If so, well, that's an okay hunch, if you want it. But do you have any reason to believe that's the case, other than it's the hunch you happen to have?
Marshall...
Who were the civil authorities at the time? Would that be the Romans or the dudes conning money out of the poor at the temple?
I'm unsure of your point/questions here. The Romans were the civil authorities at the time, as I'm sure you know. The money changers, so far as I know, were there with the blessing of the Jewish leaders of the temple (and if I'm not mistaken, were Jewish), providing a "service" with the blessing of both the Jewish leadership and Roman civil authorities.
The Romans valued an orderly society and expected people not to have uprisings or disruptions of trade. I don't think the Roman authorities would have approved of this behavior, and certainly the Jewish authorities wouldn't have.
Soooo, what's your point?
Craig...
To you last point/question I've posted this verse at least twice before and you seem to miss it, so once more.
I did not miss it. I have KEPT saying that this passage is ONE of the passages where the text specifically mentions the Jews plotting to kill Jesus. John 5 is ANOTHER one of those places.
John 5 says...
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Jesus violating their traditions and "working" on the sabbath by healing was ANOTHER of the reasons the Jewish leaders were angry with him. In response to them, Jesus made this statement and THAT ALSO made them want to kill him, because he was associating himself with God, as an equal.
So, I am gladly saying THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE BIBLE that the Jewish leadership was trying to kill him.
THIS PASSAGE I'm referencing today is ANOTHER REASON.
Are you suggesting that your John 5 passage is the one and only reason and any other passages don't matter? Or, do you agree with me that there are multiple reasons cited for trying to kill Jesus?
I think you agree with me that there are multiple reasons. So, we agree. What's your point?
You go on to say...
It would seem that this particular teaching (given that this struck against the Romans also) was the bigger issue.
And that's a fine hunch. From where I sit, it's ONE of the reasons given, but not the only one. Yes, for the Romans who viewed Caesar as a god, a Jew claiming to be a god could be problematic. AND, for the Romans, a Jew who was attracting a huge following, THAT could be a problem. AND, for the Romans, a Jew interrupting "legitimate" business, THAT could be a problem.
I say these are all reasons and see no biblical support to say that John 5 is the only or even the primary reason. It sounds, rather, like a contentious bit of nitpickiness and preening for no good reason that I can see.
Craig...
1. The cleansing of the temple was a major (albeit final) reason why Jesus was to be killed. This is not borne out by the text.
Jesus did this action and THEN his detractors said, "Let's look for a way to kill him." I don't see how in the world you could say that this action, followed by that statement, was not a reason for seeking his death. That IS the text.
Craig...
2. The fact that the passage specifically mentions doves suggests some sort of hidden meaning. There is no compelling reason to accept this interpretation, yet no real reason to totally discount it either.
Not "hidden." It would be obvious, it seems to me, to the original hearers of these words. You want to have a different hunch than mine (and the many theologians who've said the same thing), fine. But it's not hidden. It's right there, IF you are aware of context and have read the rest of the bible.
You ARE aware, aren't you, of the biblical text saying that turtledoves were the offering to be given by the poor?
Craig...
3. Jesus somehow was inciting the poor more than other groups and this poor rebellion somehow threatened those in power more than His claims of divinity...
1. I did not make any claims that Jesus was inciting the poor. Your words, not mine.
2. I did not say that Jesus' teaching here was "more" of a threat than his claims to divinity. I DO say that BOTH reasons are offered in the Bible and I believe BOTH.
Craig...
Again, there is nothing in the text that really supports this view, but nothing that denies it as a possibility either.
Since I did not make the claims that you say I make, then your last line is moot. Do you have any thoughts on what I HAVE said?
Dan,
"Are you suggesting that it's your hunch that Jesus did not take a risk of violating laws and getting in trouble for chasing out businessmen from the synagogue?"
Hardly a mere suggestion. Definitely no hunch. Hunches are yours in making your arguments here.
To take a risk means one recognizes a danger to self. There is no indication from the text that Jesus acted as if there was any risk to Himself whatsoever. He saw one group of people abusing their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of other people and doing it in God's house. He acted on that alone to put an end to it, with no thought to "risk" whatsoever that can be inferred from the text.
In the same way, there is no indication of any intention by Him to engage in "civil disobedience", which would suggest an overt act against the civil authority.
The Romans were not moved by another religious person leading hordes of people as long as that person was not trying to form a new religion or foment an uprising. They did not care about those who followed John the Baptist. They "grandfathered" in the Jewish religious traditions because it was too entrenched in the people for them to waste time and money trying to eradicate. They tolerated it to an extent, as they tolerated a degree of Jewish law amongst the Jews. None of it was a threat due to the superior Roman power. And little concerned them that didn't disrupt Roman life, law and routine, so a little rumble in the Temple would have been of little concern to them.
BTW, the money changers were in league with the oppressive and hypocritical Jewish religious authorities, likely working for them. They could not set up shop where they did, doing WHAT they did without the approval of the religious leaders. To say they were there with the "blessings" of the Jewish religious leaders understates the connection. What's more, it's doubtful the Romans cared one way or the other who was ripping off whom amongst the Jews.
There's nothing about the incident that is in any way analogous to your video.
"Jesus did this action and THEN his detractors said, "Let's look for a way to kill him."
Actually had you noticed the context of the quotes from my earlier posts you would have noticed that almost all of them came before this incident. That was actually the point, the religious leaders had been trying to kill Jesus for quite some time. At best, the temple cleansing was one more reason.
It is interesting that the authority under which Jesus is cleansing the temple is it is "His fathers house". So this is one more example where Jesus is equating Himself with God. As we have seen, this caused significant consternation from the Jewish establishment.
It seems as though John is the only one of the gospel writers who felt it important to specify what animals were being sold. He says the following.
"14 In the temple courts he found people selling CATTLE, SHEEP and DOVES, and OTHERS sitting at tables EXCHANGING MONEY. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both SHEEP and CATTLE; he scattered the COINS of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold DOVES he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
It would seem that Jesus was equally angry at the whole menagerie. He was also upset with the money changers. It seems reasonable that ALL of these folks were set up to bilk any and all who came through the door. Are you really suggesting that Jesus was OK with bilking the rich? The whole temple system was corrupt, and Jesus was the only one with any real authority in the situation.
Look, ultimately this is all just an amusing diversion. Jesus knew that when he came to Jerusalem he would die. He knew that He was the unblemished Passover lamb. He knew that the Jewish establishment wanted Him dead. Yet he still went, He still taught, He still dies, and He rose.
If it somehow gives you comfort to hold on to your hunches, then hold on. Just remember the bigger picture.
As you wish, no fighting from me on Easter.
Craig...
Actually had you noticed the context of the quotes from my earlier posts you would have noticed that almost all of them came before this incident. That was actually the point, the religious leaders had been trying to kill Jesus for quite some time. At best, the temple cleansing was one more reason.
This is just weird, Craig. I've stated repeatedly that there ARE other quotes about when the Pharisees started plotting Jesus' death. But, in THIS post, I'm speaking specifically about THIS passage. And IN THIS PASSAGE, the topic IS the temple cleansing as one more reason. That is what I'm speaking of and you keep making these posts suggesting all sorts of weird stuff I'm NOT talking about.
Again and again, YES, there were OTHER incidents in which the Pharisees plotted Jesus' death. In THIS passage, the topic that led to their repeating their desire to kill him was his driving out the money changers and the teaching surrounding that.
Do you have any comments on what I AM talking about? Anything at all?
Okay, in the rest of that comment, you decide to delve into John 2's account of a cleansing of the temple, as opposed to the passage I'm quoting here. THAT could be seen as on topic.
So, what do you think? John describes a similar (or the same?) incident where Jesus clears the temple of the money changers. Do you think this incident (which John places at the BEGINNING of Jesus' ministry) is the same incident described in the other three gospels at the END of Jesus' ministry?
The incident is described nearly identically, so I would be inclined to think that it is the same incident, with John just describing it outside of the actual chronology of Jesus' life. Do you think that's a mistake, or just a writing style common to the day, or something else?
Looking at what John wrote about this incident, you note...
It seems as though John is the only one of the gospel writers who felt it important to specify what animals were being sold.
John appears to have wanted to note ALL the animals being sold, while the synoptic Gospels just chose to mention the one - doves - that the poor folk had to buy.
You say...
It would seem that Jesus was equally angry at the whole menagerie. He was also upset with the money changers. It seems reasonable that ALL of these folks were set up to bilk any and all who came through the door. Are you really suggesting that Jesus was OK with bilking the rich?
1. Jesus did drive out the whole lot of animals, along with their owners.
2. Even in John, he specifically identifies the Dove sellers uniquely, apart from the sellers of cattle and sheep, saying specifically to them, "GET OUT!"
3. No, I am not suggesting that Jesus was okay with them bilking the rich. The way you can tell that is that I have not said that. You'd do best to stick to what I've said rather than guessing at my thoughts and motives, as you are WAY off on that front on each count.
4. But, in the synoptic gospels AND in John, Jesus specifically and separately identifies the dove sellers. This would be in keeping with the Gospel and Bible news that God has a special concern for the poor. Being especially concerned for the least of these is NOT to say there is no concern for those who are well off, just that there is special concern for the least of these. "For those who are not sick do not need a doctor."
Craig...
The whole temple system was corrupt, and Jesus was the only one with any real authority in the situation.
Yes, we agree.
Craig...
If it somehow gives you comfort to hold on to your hunches, then hold on. Just remember the bigger picture.
Yes, we'd all do well to do that.
Blessed Easter to you.
Marshall...
There is no indication from the text that Jesus acted as if there was any risk to Himself whatsoever.
? Um, he went to Jerusalem to die. Being told he would die. Knowing he'd die, as Craig notes.
So, I'm not sure what you mean that Jesus thought there was no risk. Is that really what you mean?
Marshall...
He saw one group of people abusing their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of other people and doing it in God's house. He acted on that alone to put an end to it, with no thought to "risk" whatsoever that can be inferred from the text
Jesus, being a good Jewish boy/man, went into the Temple/synagogues every week. EVERY WEEK, he saw the poor being cheated, the greed of the temple chiefs and money changers, the corruption. But he did not cleanse the temple every week. When he DID cleanse it, no doubt, the practice resumed the following week (or soon thereafter) - I don't really know that, just a guess.
And yes, he DID take an action to bring to light the corruption in the system. We agree on that. Again, knowing that he was going to town to be killed, I think he knew well what the risks were of his actions and he did them, anyway.
Jesus knew and confronted that risk and, AS THE TEXT SAYS, the powers that be once again confirmed that they were going to have to kill him, FOLLOWING what he did. As the text says.
So, I'm not sure where you're going with any of this.
Marshall...
The Romans were not moved by another religious person leading hordes of people as long as that person was not trying to form a new religion or foment an uprising. They did not care about those who followed John the Baptist.
Ummm, the Romans BEHEADED John the Baptist in order to disperse his followers. They CRUCIFIED Jesus for much the same reason. The early church as a whole had to go underground to try to avoid persecution.
The Romans had a record of very public capital punishments and torture for those who they considered to be a political threat, a threat to the peace of Rome, a threat of fomenting unrest.
Jesus and John both fell in that category. Do you think otherwise?
You and Craig both seem to be writing to comments and ideas that I have not expressed. Makes responding sort of difficult.
Craig, would you mind addressing these lines from earlier...
1. If you're saying that they wanted to kill him because of his popularity with the masses, I'd say you're right. But why was he popular with the masses?
2. Wasn't it his teachings that was making him popular with the masses?
3. AND, if his teachings had been teachings the Pharisees were cool with, then they probably wouldn't have had a problem with his popularity. IF Jesus was toting the Pharisees party line, they would likely rejoice in his popularity. Right?
4. You aren't suggesting that we ought to divorce the reason they wanted to kill him and his popularity from his teachings, are you?
Dan,
"So, I'm not sure what you mean that Jesus thought there was no risk."
There is no indication that he acted with any thought of risk to Himself, but to rid God's house of these people. I'm going by the text. You're inserting your whimsical hunches to further your "stickin' it to the man" civil disobedience meme. You seem to like the image of Jesus the social activist rebelling against authority and are using the story in this manner. I prefer the Jesus as God on earth preaching the Good News of salvation through His sacrifice and resurrection.
As to what He saw in the temples every week, we have no idea. This was a special time of the religious year, was it not? Perhaps it's more blatant during this time at the temple in Jerusalem. We can speculate all we like, but you wish to impose upon the story what the text itself does not provide. A far truer example of hunch and whimsy than anything I've ever shown.
What's more, Jesus did everything on HIS schedule. He did not want his first miracles announced. He did not allow Himself to be taken by the Jewish authorities when they tried earlier on. He was acting on a specific plan God had for Him. Thus, to NOT throw out money changers before this was in line with the master plan. Don't forget...He had to act in a manner that would fulfill many prophesies about His life. So He may have been wanting to do this since childhood, for all we know.
This also disrupts the whole idea of risk itself. If, as we know, He was working to complete His purpose as mandated by the Father, it is no longer a matter of risk, since there's no getting around His fate. It's not a risk, it's a certainty. If anything, He's getting the ball rolling with this action, not knowing risk, but inviting willfully His "demise". Concern for risk has nothing to do with it.
"Ummm, the Romans BEHEADED John the Baptist in order to disperse his followers."
Ummm, no. They didn't. The Romans allowed the Jews to live under their own laws and systems. Though direct attack on Rome was a different story, day to day issues, even including capital crimes within the Jewish community were handled by Jewish officials. It wasn't until after the later rebellion that Rome clamped down. Herod beheaded John and Flavius Josephus backs this up. He also presents several decrees of Roman emperors stating the policy of letting the Jews rule themselves as long as peace prevails. Though the Jewish leaders did answer to the Roman authorities.
This might seem to muddy the issue of who was the civil authority at the time, but it does not muddy any issue regarding Jesus "conducting an action of civil disobedience and confrontation in an effort to take a stand against the oppression of the poor". That is not anything the text suggests at all. It only presents Him kicking crooks out of God's house.
Dan,
I have repeatedly said that since the Jewish leaders were already plotting to kill Jesus, that this incident in the temple was one more reason they wanted to kill him. Not a special reason, not any more important that the other reasons, just one more. Had you stated earlier that you were excluding all previous passages where folks were plotting to kill Jesus, and just confining your contention that this incident was the precipitating cause in this particular passage, then I wouldn't have been under that misunderstanding that the previous instances were relevant. My bad, I apologize for missing that nuance.
Please feel free to read whatever you please into the text. I'm sure it will somehow make this Easter more meaningful to you.
Yes, Craig, trying to understand the great Good News in context of Jesus' day (as opposed to "reading into") DOES make it more meaningful to me.
Thanks.
Hallelujah, the great storm is over.
Lift up your wings and fly.
I'd still be interested in knowing, in a friendly "what do you think?" sort of way, what your answers to my questions would be. Also, what you think about John's placement of this story at the beginning of Jesus' ministry would be interesting.
Have a blessed and peaceful Easter.
Art, you are correct that Jesus did what he did without any thought of "risk", as he was acting out of obedience to the God he called Father, in the full understanding that being in Jerusalem meant his death. The "moneychangers" were, indeed, ripping folks off, exploiting the letter of the Law for personal gain. Roman coins bore the face of Caesar, and were not permitted to be given in the Temple as alms, and so they had to be exchanged for local currency, at a price. The sellers of animals for sacrifices were in all likelihood present all the time, as they were needed for rituals, such as when Mary had to sacrifice doves after Jesus' birth.
I think we over-determine this text when we ignore the basic theological background of Jesus' obedience to the mandate he had from the Father. I also think we over-determine the text if we "historicize" it too much. Depending upon which Gospel we read, this occurred either at the end (the Synoptics) or the beginning (the Fourth Gospel) of Jesus' ministry. Putting it at the beginning signifies the overturning of the Temple authorities has already begun with Jesus starting off his work. Putting it at the end - which, from any reading of the Gospel literature, seems to make much more sense chronologically - makes of this act a final challenge to those authorities against whom Jesus has been working his entire ministry.
At the same time, it is an act of civil disobedience of a kind. Any act which disrupts a law out of a sense of injustice is a kind of civil disobedience. The order at the moment, while hardly congenial for the Jews, was certainly livable. It was upstarts like Jesus, terrorists like the Zealots, and fundamentalists like the Pharisees who were causing trouble, upsetting the balance that threatened the presence of Jews in Jerusalem, Judea, Galilee, and the other regions of the old kingdoms.
Many blessings on this glorious Easter, one and all. May the light of the Risen Christ fill all your days with faith, hope, and love.
"...makes of this act a final challenge to those authorities against whom Jesus has been working his entire ministry."
This phrasing is an example of what I dispute. I can't recall an instance where Jesus intentionally seeks out any symbol of authority to confront. All episodes of Christ encoutering those who were plotting his demise were totally in response to their attempts to trip Him up, to make Him say or do something they could use against Him. His impact on their power was collateral in nature, as His work and purpose was to save souls alone, NOT to "stick it to the man" in any way.
Now, I would agree that His mission could not have been fulfilled had He not pissed certain people off. But His mission was not to piss people off. It simply did as a result of spreading His message and His clarification of God's Will which could not help but cramp the style of those whose status and power were dependent upon their corruption of the Law.
Marshall...
But His mission was not to piss people off. It simply did as a result of spreading His message and His clarification of God's Will which could not help but cramp the style of those whose status and power were dependent upon their corruption of the Law.
Hey, I agree with this.
Once again, I'd suggest that mostly, the complaints you and Craig have offered have been complaints against points I have not made. Contentiousness.
Re: your point about Herod and John - good call. My bad. Of course, the Herod who beheaded John was a Jewish leader under Roman auspices, not a Roman authority himself. Thanks for catching that mistake.
I don't know that it changes my point, though. Jesus' actions confronted authority. It was a direct action that challenged the powers that be.
Dan,
You contradict yourself.
"It was a direct action that challenged the powers that be."
This is evidence. There was no "challenge" in the sense of throwing down the gauntlet. The words you use, like "challenge the powers that be", "civil disobedience", etc, always suggest the desire to be confrontational on the part of Christ. If this was true in any sense, it was Christ confronting each listener's notion of God's Will and how they lived that out. But as I said, how it impacted the authorities of the time was accidental or could not be helped. It was not the aim of His mission despite that it needed to happen to fulfill it.
The distinction might be slim, but it is important. To seek a challenge as opposed to find one's self in conflict as a result of doing the right thing is two very different things. Using terms as you do suggests something that wasn't happening. And to view those events in that light distorts the message of His mission and how one might apply it. This is further evidenced by your using the story side by side with the "Confrontation Monday!" video. One is not an example of the other.
Ah, perhaps I see at least a little of where we're failing to communicate.
I'm using modern day language to describe what was done in an ancient culture. I'm quite sure Jesus did not call it or think of it as "Direct Action" or "Civil Disobedience," as we mean those terms today (since those terms today arrived precisely in part from Jesus' example).
But those terms today seem to me to be an apt descriptor of Jesus' de facto actions. He WAS engaging in civil disobedience. Do you think that Jesus' chasing livestock and their owners out of the Temple would be viewed positively by either the Jewish or Roman authorities? If you think that, I would suggest you have a poor understanding of the culture.
Marshall...
If this was true in any sense, it was Christ confronting each listener's notion of God's Will and how they lived that out. But as I said, how it impacted the authorities of the time was accidental or could not be helped.
Are you suggesting that Jesus was only concerned about individual lives and not how those lives were lived out in a greater community? I would say that would be a poor understanding not only of Jesus' teachings, but of the whole Bible.
Jesus' action in the temple was a strike against that whole system, not just against the actions of individuals. Do you suspect otherwise? If so, do you have any reason or is it just a hunch?
Marshall...
Using terms as you do suggests something that wasn't happening. And to view those events in that light distorts the message of His mission and how one might apply it.
You DON'T think Jesus was wanting to see a change in systemic behavior? You DON'T think Jesus' mission was, as He said, "Bring good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, healing for the sick, the Day of God's Good favor?" You DON'T think Jesus was teaching the ways of a NEW Kingdom that was a different way of living than the CURRENT kingdoms? You DON'T think that Jesus' mission included us living that Kingdom on earth, as it is in heaven?
If that's what your hunch is on these teachings of Jesus, I think you're missing something. But you tell me.
What I'm saying, Dan, is that YOUR understanding is no more than hunch. Actually, a bit more. It is injecting a preferred lesson over the lesson being taught.
"Are you suggesting that Jesus was only concerned about individual lives and not how those lives were lived out in a greater community?"
I saying (far more directly that mere suggestion) that Christ was concerned with the spiritual, not the wordly. If we have the proper understanding of God's Will, all those things over which you feel He was being the hippie activist would solve themselves. They would not be happening in the first place. The more people that turn to His Way and live a Christian life, the fewer people exist to do nasty things.
"Jesus' action in the temple was a strike against that whole system, not just against the actions of individuals. Do you suspect otherwise? If so, do you have any reason or is it just a hunch?"
Again, yours is the hunch here. There is nothing in the text that describes any more than Christ driving out those who turned the Temple into a "den of thieves", a direct assault on a house of God. There is no follow up in the text that details the results of Christ's actions on the money changers and the practice of chumping people out of their money in that manner.
"You DON'T think Jesus' mission was, as He said, "Bring good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, healing for the sick, the Day of God's Good favor?"
Jesus's mission was to liberate us from sin. That's what the Good News is. Apparently you're missing THAT.
"Do you think that Jesus' chasing livestock and their owners out of the Temple would be viewed positively by either the Jewish or Roman authorities?"
If the Romans were getting a piece of the scam, then I doubt they'd be happy. But we don't know if that was the case. As I said, for the most part, the Romans didn't concern themselves with internal squabbles of the Jews. Those Jewish religious leaders who were doing the scamming certainly were pissed. But my point is that the text doesn't support the notion that pissing them off was His purpose in driving them off. It was only to clear the house of God of scumbags ripping off the people.
I said...
You DON'T think Jesus' mission was, as He said, "Bring good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, healing for the sick, the Day of God's Good favor?"
Marshall responded...
Jesus's mission was to liberate us from sin. That's what the Good News is. Apparently you're missing THAT.
1. I have not said that "liberating us from sin" is not part of Jesus' mission, have I? It IS, so I have not missed that at all, have I?
2. AND YET, I also agree with Jesus' own testimony that his mission was to bring good news to the poor, etc. Do you think Jesus got it wrong?
Marshall...
I saying (far more directly that mere suggestion) that Christ was concerned with the spiritual, not the wordly
Do you realize what an astounding suggestion that is, Marshall? That Jesus was NOT concerned about the worldly?
Do you realize that by suggesting that, you are suggesting ignoring or writing off the great majority of Jesus' teachings?
I have come to preach good news to the poor, healing for the sick, liberty for the captive? Forget it, that's not spiritual.
Do unto the least of these? Forget it, it's not spiritual.
Thy kingdom come ON EARTH as it is in heaven? Naw, not that important.
Turn the other cheek, do unto others, give your cloak, give a cup of water, love your neighbor as yourself, feed the hungry, minister to the sick, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, give to the one who asks...
Are we to forget all of these REAL WORLD teachings in favor of ONLY the more ethereal, spiritual teachings or of only the more spiritual-ized takes on the above teachings?
And looking at it from the other way:
Do you think that giving a cup of cold water to the thirsty is NOT a spiritual act? Do you think that caring for the least of these is NOT a spiritual act?
What are you suggesting, Marshall, when you say that Jesus was not concerned about the "worldly," because it sounds nearly heretical - a pushing away of Jesus' vital teachings - and surely that's not what you mean?
Ah, gotta love this sort of blatant heresy:
"I saying (far more directly that mere suggestion) that Christ was concerned with the spiritual, not the wordly."
The gnostics are alive and well and living in MA's head.
It's all spiritual, Dan. The Good News is salvation. It's Jesus as our means to it. He intercedes, He is the Truth and the Way and the Life. His entire mission was to save us from ourselves, to free us from sin so that we may have eternity with God. It isn't "part" of His mission. It IS His mission.
When you look at what you consider to be His teachings that for you constitute "the rest" of His purpose, they are manifestations of our belief in Him. If we are truly learning His message, our understanding manifests in charity toward our fellow man.
But you put it backwards, saying that He is teaching works. He isn't. The works are what belief in Him looks like.
Those do not include "sticking it to the man". They require bringing others to the faith so that change comes about by virtue of their own belief.
So, no. He is not concerned with the worldly, but the world is impacted by belief is what is spiritual. He never said, "Go stop injustice!" He said, "Go spread the Gospel." Even "the least of these" comes from His reminder that what we do TO the least of these, we do unto Him. THAT is spiritual. THAT is considering what we do in spiritual terms, the consequences of our actions are more important on the spiritual level than any consequence we might experience while we live. Or do you consider the eternal to be no big deal?
Funny enough, I was with Art right up until the whole "it's not worldly, it's spiritual!" stuff. See, here's the thing, Art. That whole worldly-spiritual divide you're talking about? It's not only heretical, as Alan points out. It's phony. It isn't supported by the text. Even trying to lasso the remark before Pilate in St. John's Gospel - "My kingdom is not of this world" - doesn't work.
Either the resurrection means we are inaugurated in to the New Creation, as St. Paul insists over and over (and as the Gospels carry on about at length, using different language), or we aren't. Either the resurrection changes everything, or it changes nothing. This is one of those rare instances where there is just no wiggle room, no space one can find between the choices.
As you are a marvelous example of the species, doesn't the resurrection mean that one's attitude toward the moral life need to change? Not because the moral law always existed, but because with the resurrection of Jesus that moral law is now part of the New Creation, setting aside those called to and baptized in the death and resurrection of Jesus, a new creation.
"Forgiveness of sins" is not a "spiritual" matter, as St. Paul took pains in 1 Corinthians 15 to make clear. It effects our whole selves, our bodies, our lives. Everything. What we will be, we do not know, as the same tent maker insists; that we will be changed, well, that is beyond doubt.
In Marshall's defense, I don't think he's really heretical, I think he's just expressing himself poorly.
But maybe we could get some more clarity?
Marshall...
His entire mission was to save us from ourselves, to free us from sin so that we may have eternity with God.
Okay. You could certainly put it that way and I have no problem with that. Save us from sin, though, not for some pie in the sky by and by, but HERE and NOW. God's will be done ON EARTH, TODAY, as it is in heaven.
Fair enough?
Marshall...
But you put it backwards, saying that He is teaching works. He isn't.
Except that I have not said that. I simply haven't. I don't think we are saved by works, but by God's grace. As I have always said.
As I've noted several times in this thread, you and Craig seem to be trying to find disagreement where there is none, and making it up where you can't find it.
Marshall...
Those do not include "sticking it to the man".
Again, YOUR words, not mine. Do you have anything to say about any of MY actual points?
Marshall...
He never said, "Go stop injustice!" He said, "Go spread the Gospel."
All I'm actually saying is that I see no difference between the two. Preaching good news to the poor, working for justice, working to end oppression, hunger, etc, this IS spreading the Gospel. Do you disagree with my actual point, or are you just disagreeing with some strawman?
My actual point would be, "Spreading the Gospel entails working for justice, doing unto the least of these, working against oppression." Do you disagree with that actual point?
"In Marshall's defense, I don't think he's really heretical, I think he's just expressing himself poorly."
Perhaps, but the whole spiritual vs physical Greek dualistic heresy is hardly rare (I'd guess it is, actually, the majority opinion in American Christianity.) It ain't for nothing that they sing the hymn, "This world is not my own, I'm just a-passin' through."
It ain't for nothing that they sing the hymn, "This world is not my own, I'm just a-passin' through."
But I might sing those words, too, but not for reasons of gnosticism. More of as an expression of weariness and longing for the Realm of God. And yet, I certainly believe and agree with Jesus when He taught us to pray, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..."
I would compare it to the more aggressive of psalms, ("Lord, wipe out my enemies!") While that is not a sentiment that we, who are taught to love our enemies, can rightly claim as a solid Christian principle, sometimes you just need to express that weariness.
I know during the Bush years, I often prayed, "This world is not my home, I'm just a-passing through..."
And then woke up the next day, refreshed and working here and now to walk in the steps of the one who came to preach good news to the poor and freedom for the captive, giving a cup of cold water, etc.
I think Marshall is just trying to express his emphasis on Spiritual Truths, while not denying the real-world implications of those Truths (that we ARE to work for justice, assist the poor, etc, here and now in the real world). I think it's just a matter of his cultural upbringing and political worldview makes him wary of expressing such notions too strongly, lest someone think he's a communist.
Of course, Marshall's a big boy, he can answer for himself. Just my two-bit diagnoses of what he's said and perhaps what he means.
That's big "man" to you, but not so big as I recently have been. Down almost thirty pounds from my worst weight.
As to "spiritual/wordly", I consistently forget with whom I am conversing and should know I can't just type my thoughts quickly without weighing the words. You guys read into my words what wasn't meant. Quite the stark difference between us.
As I stated, Christ was concerned about our souls and bringing to us the Good News that there was indeed a way to find everlasting life, that our sins can be forgiven and paid for in a manner neither animal sacrifices nor adherence to the Law could. THAT was His mission and purpose. How we should live was already known, though perverted by some Jewish leaders. One would have to believe that no one at the time led a "Christian" life before Christ. This is illogical. But begin imperfect beings, nothing could get it done for us before Christ Himself died and rose again.
So when I speak of Jesus' concern, it was to save us from God's wrath. Of course He would teach how faith in God (and Him) would look, how a believer would act. But again, not as a primary reason for His coming, but as a byproduct of it.
As to "duality", I believe Christ is fully man and fully God. I believe He appeared to many after His death and resurrection as flesh and blood, just like any of us (minus the perfection). So I don't understand the petty accusations of heresy.
As to fear of being called communist, that couldn't be legitimately applied to me. I give to charities, I don't seek to force charity from others through taxation. I treat people like I wish to be treated, and I work to act justly with my fellow man. I don't do any more but "preach" Christian values to others and I vote according to those values. As I said, the more people who understand Christian teachings, the fewer injustices one will find (and the fewer laws will be necessary).
Finally, I want to reiterate the problem with laying one's own preferred meaning on text that doesn't itself teach that meaning.
One more thing, you don't have to use the words "stick it to the man" to mean the same thing. I believe this would be an example of "not in so many words". It is the conclusion drawn from actual words used.
Post a Comment