Magdalenbrother
December 28th 2004, 04:38 AM
The Temple Incident is one of the most puzzling episodes of the Gospel. It may also hold the key to understanding who Jesus really was. In this post I want to explore some of the issues raised by what could be seen as a terrorist attack in the very heart of Judaism.
Synoptics and John differ in their assesment and chronology
For the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' coup in the Court of the Nations seems to have been the final straw that broke the sensitive back of the Jewish establishment. For John, the incident had no consequences whatsoever: what really panicked the priests was Lazarus' resurrection. The chronologies are also vastly different: for the Synoptists, the Temple Incident occurred at the end of Jesus' career, for "John" it happened at the very beginning of it.
Why the anger?
All Evangelists say that the Master's fury was kindled by the money-lending, money-changing and animal-selling activities that were taking place in the Temple. And most Christians are content with this explanation.
But wait, why should Jesus object to things that were absolutely indispensable if the Temple was to function according to the (God-prescribed) rules? It may be true that some money-changers earned more money than was justified but that surely didn't make the whole business ungodly. The fact is that Jews from the Dispersion needed to change their idolatrous coins into more acceptable money (Syrian coins without any offensive images on them) to pay the Temple tax of a half shekel and buy the animals that were to be sacrificed. How did Jesus expect the Temple authorities to solve that very real problem? I note that he didn't suggest any solution: he just raved against the supposed robbery. That animals were to be sacrificed was something laid down in the Torah and Jesus is supposed to have endorsed the Torah. So he cannot have objected to that either.
Did Jesus object to money being handled in the Temple because he considered all money to be bad, awfully bad and corrupt? IOW, would Jesus have been happy with the money-changers if they had set up their tables somewhere else? My objection is that it is much better to have financial transactions happen in a sacred space than in a profane one, just as it is much better to have sex in temples than in brothels. But Jesus may have had a different opinion. If one studies his attitude to money in the Gospels without any ideological blinkers, one soon realizes that he was fiercely both anti-rich and anti-money.
Another possibility is that the Gospel authors misunderstood or didn't want their Gentile readers to know the real reason for Jesus' anger. That Jesus considered the Temple as polluted is certain but was the pollution merely financial?
Considering that his brother James was regarded by many as the sole legitimate high priest, I suspect that Jesus' main problem with the Temple is that it was managed by a class of corrupt priests appointed by a foreign power.
A one-man show?
How could Jesus overturn the money-changers' tables and drive out the sellers of animals with their living merchandise out of the court of the Gentiles all by himself? How come the people whom he attacked didn't overpower him and beat him? How come he didn't get arrested? The Gospel description doesn't sound real at all unless we suppose that Jesus' followers turned up en masse to help their teacher clean up the Temple. Could this incident be "the insurrection" (with a definite article!) Mark alludes to in his description of Barabbas?
Et la charité là-dedans?
How does Jesus' violent behavior harmonize with his teachings and the image we have of him as a compassionate teacher eager to heal the sick in body and spirit? Did his Mister Clean zeal suddenly make "Turn the other cheek", "Love your enemy" and "Don't resist evil" irrelevant? Surely, not all money-changers were corrupt and even if they had been, how come Jesus chose violence as the only argument to change their attitude?
"The zeal of your house burns me"
Many Christians consider the Temple incident as the best proof that Jesus was against the Temple, but there is no indication in his own words that he was opposed to the Temple as an institution. How could he? After all, the Temple was an institution created by God himself ! To deny the sacredness of the Temple would be to deny the validity and sacredness of God's revelation to the Jewish people. That he was opposed to something that was happening in the Herodian Temple is beyond doubt, but we have no reason to say that he wanted to do away with it altogether.
In fact, if "John", paradoxically the Gospel author who is the most explicit about Jesus' desire to replace the Temple by something else, is right in applying the Biblical quote "the zeal of your house burns me " to his master, we must affirm the opposite of the orthodox position! Jesus was a Temple zealot who was offended by the corruption that had been brought about by the people who were supposed to serve it. He didn't want to destroy the Temple, he wanted a clean Temple.
The difference is considerable.
Synoptics and John differ in their assesment and chronology
For the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' coup in the Court of the Nations seems to have been the final straw that broke the sensitive back of the Jewish establishment. For John, the incident had no consequences whatsoever: what really panicked the priests was Lazarus' resurrection. The chronologies are also vastly different: for the Synoptists, the Temple Incident occurred at the end of Jesus' career, for "John" it happened at the very beginning of it.
Why the anger?
All Evangelists say that the Master's fury was kindled by the money-lending, money-changing and animal-selling activities that were taking place in the Temple. And most Christians are content with this explanation.
But wait, why should Jesus object to things that were absolutely indispensable if the Temple was to function according to the (God-prescribed) rules? It may be true that some money-changers earned more money than was justified but that surely didn't make the whole business ungodly. The fact is that Jews from the Dispersion needed to change their idolatrous coins into more acceptable money (Syrian coins without any offensive images on them) to pay the Temple tax of a half shekel and buy the animals that were to be sacrificed. How did Jesus expect the Temple authorities to solve that very real problem? I note that he didn't suggest any solution: he just raved against the supposed robbery. That animals were to be sacrificed was something laid down in the Torah and Jesus is supposed to have endorsed the Torah. So he cannot have objected to that either.
Did Jesus object to money being handled in the Temple because he considered all money to be bad, awfully bad and corrupt? IOW, would Jesus have been happy with the money-changers if they had set up their tables somewhere else? My objection is that it is much better to have financial transactions happen in a sacred space than in a profane one, just as it is much better to have sex in temples than in brothels. But Jesus may have had a different opinion. If one studies his attitude to money in the Gospels without any ideological blinkers, one soon realizes that he was fiercely both anti-rich and anti-money.
Another possibility is that the Gospel authors misunderstood or didn't want their Gentile readers to know the real reason for Jesus' anger. That Jesus considered the Temple as polluted is certain but was the pollution merely financial?
Considering that his brother James was regarded by many as the sole legitimate high priest, I suspect that Jesus' main problem with the Temple is that it was managed by a class of corrupt priests appointed by a foreign power.
A one-man show?
How could Jesus overturn the money-changers' tables and drive out the sellers of animals with their living merchandise out of the court of the Gentiles all by himself? How come the people whom he attacked didn't overpower him and beat him? How come he didn't get arrested? The Gospel description doesn't sound real at all unless we suppose that Jesus' followers turned up en masse to help their teacher clean up the Temple. Could this incident be "the insurrection" (with a definite article!) Mark alludes to in his description of Barabbas?
Et la charité là-dedans?
How does Jesus' violent behavior harmonize with his teachings and the image we have of him as a compassionate teacher eager to heal the sick in body and spirit? Did his Mister Clean zeal suddenly make "Turn the other cheek", "Love your enemy" and "Don't resist evil" irrelevant? Surely, not all money-changers were corrupt and even if they had been, how come Jesus chose violence as the only argument to change their attitude?
"The zeal of your house burns me"
Many Christians consider the Temple incident as the best proof that Jesus was against the Temple, but there is no indication in his own words that he was opposed to the Temple as an institution. How could he? After all, the Temple was an institution created by God himself ! To deny the sacredness of the Temple would be to deny the validity and sacredness of God's revelation to the Jewish people. That he was opposed to something that was happening in the Herodian Temple is beyond doubt, but we have no reason to say that he wanted to do away with it altogether.
In fact, if "John", paradoxically the Gospel author who is the most explicit about Jesus' desire to replace the Temple by something else, is right in applying the Biblical quote "the zeal of your house burns me " to his master, we must affirm the opposite of the orthodox position! Jesus was a Temple zealot who was offended by the corruption that had been brought about by the people who were supposed to serve it. He didn't want to destroy the Temple, he wanted a clean Temple.
The difference is considerable.