Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
12. cast out all them that sold, &c.] It is probable that a look of divine authority, the enthusiasm of His Galilan followers, and the consciousness of wrongdoing on the part of the traders, rather than any special exercise of miraculous power, effected this triumph of Jesus in His Father’s House.
them that sold and bought in the temple ] The traffic consisted in the sale of oxen and sheep, and such requisites for sacrifice as wine, salt, and oil. This merchandise took place in the Court of the Gentiles.
the tables of the moneychangers ] The Greek word signifies those who took a small coin (Hebr. Kolbon, Grk. , perhaps a Phnician word) as a fee for exchanging the money of the worshippers, who were required to pay in Hebrew coin. This exaction of the fee was itself unlawful (Lightfoot). And probably other dishonest practices were rife.
that sold doves ] See Luk 2:24.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
12 14. The Second Cleansing of the Temple
Mar 11:15-18; Luk 19:45-46.
It is clear from the other Synoptists that the Cleansing of the Temple took place on Nisan 10, not on the day of the entry. St Mark says (Mat 11:11) that “when he had looked round about on all things there, the eventide being come he went back to Bethany.” In point of time “the cursing of the fig-tree” should precede the “Cleansing of the Temple.” St Mark adds to this account “would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.” St Matthew alone mentions the healing of the lame and the blind, and omits the incident of “the widow’s mite,” recorded by the other Synoptists. The first “Cleansing of the Temple,” at the commencement of our Lord’s ministry, is recorded Joh 2:13-17.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This paragraph contains the account of the barren fig-tree, and of the cleansing of the temple. See also Mar 11:12-19; Luk 19:45-48.
Mat 21:12
And Jesus went into the temple of God … – From Mar 11:11-15, it is probable that this cleansing of the temple did not take place on the day that he entered Jerusalem in triumph, but on the day following.
He came and looked round upon all things, Mark says, and went out to Bethany with the twelve. On the day following, returning from Bethany, he saw the fig-tree. Entering into the temple, he purified it on that day; or perhaps he finished the work of purifying it on that day, which he commenced the day before. Matthew has mentioned the purifying of the temple, which was performed, probably, on two successive days, or has stated the fact, without being particular as to the order of events. Mark has stated the order more particularly, and has divided what Matthew mentions together.
The temple of God, that is, the temple dedicated and devoted to the service of God, was built on Mount Moriah. The first temple was built by Solomon, about 1005 years before Christ, 1 Kings 6, He took seven years to build it, according to 1Ki 6:38. David, his father, had contemplated the design of building it, and had prepared many materials for it, but was prevented because he had been a man of war, 1Ch 22:1-9; 1Ki 5:5. This temple, erected with great magnificence, remained until it was destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, 584 years before Christ, 2Ch 36:6-7, 2Ch 36:19.
After the Babylonian captivity the temple was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, but with vastly inferior and diminished splendor. The aged people wept when they compared it with the glory of the former temple, Ezr 3:8, Ezr 3:12. This was called the second temple. This temple was often defiled in the wars before the time of Christ. It had become much decayed and impaired Herod the Great, being exceedingly unpopular among the Jews on account of his cruelties (see the notes at Matt. 2), was desirous of doing something to obtain the favor of the people, and accordingly, about 16 years before Christ, and in the 18th year of his reign, he commenced the work of repairing it. This he did, not by taking it down entirely at once, but by removing one part after another, until it had become, in fact, a new temple, greatly surpassing the former in magnificence. It was still called by the Jews the second temple; and by Christs coming to this temple thus repaired, was fulfilled the prophecy in Hag 2:9. On this building Herod employed 18,000 men, and completed it so as to be suitable for use in 9 years, or about 8 years before Christ. But additions continued to be made to it, and it continued increasing in splendor and magnificence until 64 a.d. John says Joh 2:20, forty and six years was this temple in building. Christ was then 30 years of age, which, added to the 16 years occupied in repairing it before his birth, makes 46 years.
The word temple was given not merely to the sacred edifice or house itself, but to all the numerous chambers, courts, and rooms connected with it on the top of Mount Moriah. The temple itself was a small edifice, and was surrounded by courts and chambers half a mile in circumference. Into the sacred edifice itself our Saviour never went. The high priest only went into the holy of holies, and that but once a year, and none but priests were permitted to enter the holy place. Our Saviour was neither. He was of the tribe of Judah, and he consequently was allowed to enter no further than the other Israelites into the temple. The works that he is said to have performed in the temple, therefore, are to be understood as having been performed in the courts surrounding the sacred edifice. These courts will now be described. The temple was erected on Mount Moriah. The space on the summit of the mount was not, however, large enough for the buildings necessary to be erected. It was therefore enlarged by building high walls from the valley below and filling up the space within. One of these walls was 600 feet in height. The ascent to the temple was by high flights of steps. The entrance to the temple, or to the courts on the top of the mount, was by nine gates, all of them extremely splendid. On every side they were thickly coated with gold and silver. But there was one gate of special magnificence: this was called the Beautiful Gate, Act 3:2. It was on the east side, and was made of Corinthian brass, one of the most precious metals in ancient times. See the Introduction to 1 Corinthians, section 1. This gate was 50 cubits, or 75 feet, in height.
The whole temple, with all its courts, was surrounded by a wall about 25 feet in height. This was built on the wall raised from the base to the top of the mountain, so that from the top of it to the bottom, in a perpendicular descent, was in some places not far from 600 feet. This was particularly the case on the southeast corner; and it was here, probably, that Satan wished our Saviour to cast himself down. See the notes at Mat 4:6.
On the inside of this wall, between the gates, were piazzas or covered porches. On the eastern, northern, and western sides there were two rows of these porches; on the south, three. These porches were covered walks, about 20 feet in width, paved with marble of different colors, with a flat roof of costly cedar, which was supported by pillars of solid marble, so large that three men could scarcely stretch their arms so as to meet around them. These walks or porches afforded a grateful shade and protection to the people in hot or stormy weather. The one on the east side was distinguished for its beauty, and was called Solomons porch, Joh 10:23; Act 3:11. It stood over the vast terrace or wall which he had raised from the valley beneath, and which was the only thing of his work that remained in the second temple.
When a person entered any of the gates into this space within the wall he saw the temple rising before him with great magnificence; but the space was not clear all the way up to it. Going forward, he came to another wall, enclosing considerable ground, considered more holy than the rest of the hill. The space between this first and second wall was called the court of the Gentiles. It was so called because Gentiles might come into it, but they could proceed no further. On the second wall and on the gates were inscriptions in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, forbidding any Gentile or unclean person from proceeding further on pain of death. This court was not of equal dimensions all the way round the temple. On the east, north, and west it was quite narrow. On the south it was wide, occupying nearly half of the whole surface of the hill. In this court the Gentiles might come. Here was the place where much secular business was transacted. This was the place occupied by the buyers and sellers, and by the money-changers, and which Jesus purified by casting them out.
The enclosure within the second wall was nearly twice as long from east to west as from north to south. This enclosure was also divided. The eastern part of it was called the court of the women; so called because women might advance thus far, but no farther. This court was square. It was entered by three gates; one on the north, one on the east directly opposite to the Beautiful gate, and one on the south. In passing from the court of the Gentiles to that of the women, it was necessary to ascend about 9 feet by steps. This court of the women was enclosed with a double wall, with a space between the walls about 15 feet in width, paved with marble. The inner of these two walls was much higher than the one outside. The court of the women was paved with marble. In the corners of that court were different structures for the various uses of the temple. It was in this court that the Jews commonly worshipped. Here, probably, Peter and John, with others, went up to pray, Act 3:1. Here, too, the Pharisee and publican prayed – the Pharisee near the gate that led forward to the temple; the publican standing far off, on the other side of the court, Luk 18:9-14. Paul also was seized here, and charged with defiling the temple by bringing the Gentiles into that holy place, Act 21:26-30.
A high wall on the west side of the court of the women divided it from the court of the Israelites, so called because all the males of the Jews might advance there. To this court there was an ascent of fifteen steps. These steps were in the form of a half circle. The great gate to which these steps led was called the gate Nicanor. Besides this, there were three gates on each side, leading from the court of the women to the court of the Israelites.
Within the court of the Israelites was the court of the priests, separated by a wall about 1 1/2 foot in height. Within that court was the altar of burnt-offering and the laver standing in front of it. Here the priests performed the daily service of the temple. In this place, also, were accommodations for the priests when not engaged in conducting the service of the temple, and for the Levites who conducted the music of the sanctuary.
The temple, properly so called, stood within this court. It surpassed in splendor all the other buildings of the holy city; perhaps in magnificence it was unequalled in the world. It fronted the east, looking down through the gates Nicanor and the Beautiful Gate, and onward to the Mount of Olives. From the Mount of Olives on the east there was a beautiful and commanding view of the whole sacred edifice. It was there that our Saviour sat when the disciples directed his attention to the goodly stones with which the temple was built, Mar 13:1. The entrance into the temple itself was from the court of the priests, by an ascent of twelve steps. The porch in front of the temple was 150 feet high and as many broad. The open space in this perch through which the temple was entered was 115 feet high and 37 broad, without doors of any sort, The appearance of this, built, as it was, with white marble, and decorated with plates of silver, from the Mount of Olives was exceedingly dazzling and splendid. Josephus says that in the rising of the sun it reflected so strong and dazzling an effulgence that the eye of the spectator was obliged to turn away. To strangers at a distance, it appeared like a mountain covered with snow, for where it was not decorated with plates of gold it was extremely white and glistening.
The temple itself was divided into two parts. The first, called the sanctuary or holy place; was 60 feet in length 60 feet in height, and 30 feet in width. In this was the golden candlestick, the table of showbread, and the altar of incense. The holy of holies or the most holy place, was 30 feet each way. In the first temple this contained the ark of the covenant, the tables of the law, and over the ark was the mercy-seat and the cherubim. Into this place no person entered but the high priest, and he but once in the year. These two apartments were separated only by a vail, very costly and curiously performed. It was this vail which was rent from the top to the bottom when the Saviour died, Mat 27:51. Around the walls of the temple, properly so called, was a structure three stories high, containing chambers for the use of the officers of the temple. The temple was wholly leveled to the ground by the Romans under Titus and Vespasian, and was effectually destroyed, according to the predictions of the Saviour. See the notes at Mat 24:2. The site of it was made like a plowed field. Julian the apostate attempted to rebuild it, but the workmen, according to his own historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, were prevented by balls of fire breaking out from the ground. See Warburtons Divine Legation of Moses. Its site is now occupied by the Mosque of Omar, one of the most splendid specimens of Saracenic architecture in the world.
And cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple – The place where this was done was not the temple itself, but the outer court or the court of the Gentiles. This was esteemed the least sacred part of the temple; and the Jews, it seems, did not consider it profanation to appropriate this to any business in any way connected with the temple service. The things which they bought and sold were at first those pertaining. to the sacrifices. It is not improbable, however, that the traffic afterward extended to all kinds of merchandise. It gave rise to much confusion, noise, contention, and fraud, and was exceedingly improper in the temple of the Lord.
The tables of the money-changers – Judea was subject to the Romans. The money in current use was Roman coin; yet the Jewish law required that every man should pay a tribute to the service of the sanctuary of half a shekel, Exo 30:11-16. This was a Jewish coin, and the tribute was required to be paid in that coin. It became, therefore, a matter of convenience to have a place where the Roman coin might be exchanged for the Jewish half shekel. This was the professed business of these men. Of course, they would demand a small sum for the exchange; and, among so many thousands as came up to the great feasts, it would be a very profitable employment, and one easily giving rise to much fraud and oppression.
The seats of them that sold doves – Doves were required to be offered in sacrifice – Lev 14:22; Luk 2:24 – yet it was difficult to bring them from the distant parts of Judea. It was found much easier to purchase them in Jerusalem. Hence, it became a business to keep them to sell to those who were required to offer them.
Mark adds Mar 11:16 that he would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. That is, probably, any of the vessels or implements connected with the traffic in oil, incense, wine, etc., that were kept for sale in the temple.
Mat 21:13
And said It is written … – This is written in Isa 56:7. The first part of this verse only is quoted from Isaiah. The rest – but ye have made it a den of thieves – was added by Jesus, denoting their abuse of the temple. Thieves and robbers live in dens and caves. Judea was then much infested with them. In their dens thieves devise and practice iniquity. 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.
The following reasons may be given why this company of buyers and sellers obeyed Christ:
- They were overawed by his authority, and struck with the consciousness that he had a right to command,
- Their own consciences reproved them; they knew they were guilty, and they dared make no resistance.
- The people generally were then on the side of Jesus, believing him to be the Messiah.
- It had always been the belief of the Jews that a prophet had a right to change, regulate, and order the various affairs relating to external worship. They supposed Jesus to be such, and they did not dare to resist him.
Mark and Luke add, that in consequence of this, the scribes and chief priests attempted to put him to death, Mar 11:18-19; Luk 19:47-48. This they did from envy, Mat 27:18. He drew off the people from them, and they envied and hated him. They were restrained, then, for the fear of the people; and this was the reason why they plotted secretly to put him to death, and why they afterward so gladly heard the proposals of the traitor, Mat 26:14-15.
Mat 21:15, Mat 21:16
When the chief priests … – The chief men of the nation were envious of his popularity.
They could not prevent it; but, being determined to find fault, they took occasion to do so from the shouts of the children. People often are offended that children have anything to do with religion, and deem it very improper that they should rejoice that the Saviour has come. Our Lord Jesus viewed this subject differently. He saw that it was proper that they should rejoice. they are interested in the concerns of religion, and before evil principles get fast hold of their minds is a proper time for them to love and obey him. The Lord Jesus silenced those who made the objection by appealing to a text of their own Scriptures. This text is found in Psa 8:2. The quotation is not made directly from the Hebrew. but from the Greek translation. This, however, should create no difficulty. The point of the quotation was to prove that children might offer praise to God. This is expressed in both the Hebrew and the Greek.
Mat 21:17
Bethany – See the notes at Mat 21:1.
Mat 21:19
And when he saw a fig-tree in the way … – This tree was standing in the public road.
It was therefore common property and anyone might lawfully use its fruit. Mark says Mar 11:13, Seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, he came, etc. Not far off from the road, but at a considerable distance from the place where he was. Having loaves, and appearing healthy and luxuriant, they presumed that there would be fruit on it. Mark says Mar 11:13, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon. That is, judging from the appearance of the tree, it was probable that there would be fruit on it. We are not to suppose that our Lord was ignorant of the true condition of the tree, but he acted according to the appearance of things; being a man as well as divine, he acted, of course, as people do act in such circumstances.
And found nothing thereon but leaves only – Mark Mar 11:13 gives as a reason for this that the time of figs was not yet. That is, the time of gathering the figs was not yet, or had not passed. It was a time when figs were ripe or suitable to eat, or he would not have gone to it, expecting to find them; but the time of gathering them had not passed, and it was to be presumed that they were still on the tree. This took place on the week of the Passover, or in the beginning of April. Figs, in Palestine, are commonly ripe at the Passover. The summer in Palestine begins in March, and it is no uncommon thing that figs should be eatable in April. It is said that they sometimes produce fruit the year round.
Mark Mar 11:12-13 says that this took place on the morning of the day on which he purified the temple. Matthew would lead us to suppose that it was on the day following. Matthew records briefly what Mark records more fully. Matthew states the fact that the fig-tree was barren and withered away, without regarding minutely the order or the circumstances in which the event took place. There is no contradiction, because Matthew does not affirm that this took place on the morning after the temple was cleansed, though he places it in that order; nor does he say that a day did not elapse after the fig-tree was cursed before the disciples discovered that it was withered, though he does not affirm that it was so. Such circumstantial variations, where there is no positive contradiction, go greatly to confirm the truth of a narrative. They show that the writers were honest men, and did not conspire to deceive the world.
And said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee … – Mark calls this cursing the tree Mar 11:21. The word curse, as used by him, does not imply anger, or disappointment, or malice. It means only devoting it to destruction, or causing it to wither away. All the curse that was pronounced was in the words that no fruit should grow on it. The Jews used the word curse not as always implying wrath or anger, but to devote to death, or to any kind of destruction, Heb 6:8. It has been commonly thought that the Saviour performed this miracle to denote the sudden withering away or destruction of the Jewish people. They, like the fig-tree, promised fair. That was full of leaves, and they full of professions. Yet both were equally barren; and as that was destroyed, so they were soon to be. It was certain that this would be a good illustration of the destruction of the Jewish people, but there is no evidence that Jesus intended it as such, and without such evidence we have no right to say that was its meaning. And presently the fig-tree withered away. That is, before another day. See Mark. It is probable that they were passing directly onward, and did not stop then to consider it. Matthew does not affirm that it withered away in their presence, and Mark affirms that they made the discovery on the morning after it was cursed.
Mat 21:20
And when the disciples saw it – That is, on the morning following that on which it was cursed, Mar 11:20.
They marveled, saying … – Peter said this, Mar 11:21 Matthew means only to say that this was said to him; Mark tells us which one of them said it.
Mat 21:21
Jesus answered and said … – Jesus took occasion from this to establish their faith in God, Mar 11:22
He told them that any difficulty could be overcome by faith. To remove a mountain denotes the power of surmounting or removing any difficulty. The phrase was so used by the Jews. There is no doubt that this was literally true – that if they had the faith of miracles, they could remove the mountain before them – the Mount of Olives – for this was as easy for God to do by them as to heal the sick or raise the dead. But the Saviour rather referred, probably, to the difficulties and trials which they would be called to endure in preaching the gospel.
Mat 21:22
And all things … – He adds an encouragement for them to pray, assuring them that they should have all things which they asked.
This promise was evidently a special one, given to them in regard to working miracles. To them it was true, but it is manifest that we have no right to apply this promise to ourselves. It was desired especially for the apostles; nor have we a right to turn it from its original meaning. There are other promises in, abundance on which we may rely in prayer, with confident assurance that our prayers will be heard. Compare the notes at Mat 7:7-11.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mat 21:12-14
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold.
The purification of the temple
I. This act shows the mind of Jesus concerning the reverence which is due to the house of God. He regarded it not so much as the temple of the Jews as the temple of God; He revered it more than they did. Their reverence was formal, pompous, selfish; His was spiritual, looking with solemn eyes on the meaning of its name, and the holiness of its purpose. It was sacred to the holiest hopes of man. The place where human souls held communion with the Father cannot be common.
II. The purification of the temple seems to be a striking intimation of the great purpose of His ministry, to purify Gods worship everywhere, in the outward and inward temple, in the house, the heart, the life.
III. We may behold in this act of our Saviour one of the primary expressions of the universal and impartial philanthropy of His gospel; that noble principle which, regardless of prejudice or artificial distinction, gathers in the whole family into one equal brotherhood, one worshipping assembly, under the roof of one undivided sanctuary. The desecrated portion was the court of the Gentiles. All is holy. The rights of Gentiles are to Jesus as sacred as those of the Jews. The temple was His Fathers house. (F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D.)
Thieves in the temple
What is that which we must labour to destroy? What weeds be those which we must endeavour to root out? We read here, that our Saviour did cast buyers and sellers out of the temple, terming them thieves. For although to buy and sell be actions in themselves lawful and honest, yet the time and place, with other circumstances, may so change their quality, that he which buyeth shall be as one that robbeth, and he that selleth as one that stealeth. They bought and sold in the temple; this Christ condemneth. Yet behold what a beautiful colour they had set upon their wicked practices, to make them seem allowable before men! For of the judgment of God they made no account. It is written in the law (Deu 14:23-26). Under the pretence of providing that, according to this law, men which dwelt far off might always, at their coming to the temple, have sacrifices there, and offerings in a readiness to present before the Lord; their covetous humour fed itself upon the people without all fear of God, without any reverence at all of His sanctuary. May they not justly be termed thieves, who, pretending thus to serve the Lord in His sacrifices, robbed and spoiled Him in His saints? No doubt Jerusalem, had she known the things which belonged to her peace, would have blessed the hour wherein the Lord of the house came to ease that holy place of so intolerable burthens, to rid His temple of so noisome filth. (Archbishop Sandys.)
Den of thieves
An expression that was probably used by our Lord in allusion to the rocky caves and dens in the mountainous parts of Judaea, which were often the receptacles of thieves and robbers. (C. Bulkley.)
The temple of God
The relation we have by the Evangelist of the way in which the Lord came outwardly to His temple may suggest to us His coming to the temple of the human heart; for we are told the soul of every Christian is a temple. The stones of the temple on Mount Moriah were common stones till they were consecrated for Gods house and service. So the talents, the capabilities, the powers, and, above all, the affections, become by conversion and regeneration a dwelling-place for Jesus. He refines and purifies them, and the figure of the legal consecration becomes in the gospel scheme a real and vital holiness. Let us recollect that the sheep and oxen, the doves, and the tables of the money-changers, were all in themselves needful and right. It was bringing these things even into the outer court of the temple that defiled it. So it is with the temple of the heart. How does selfishness, how do selfish schemes gradually creep into Christian hearts-nay, how do they sometimes at last find a footing in the inmost shrine! The Christian whose heart has once been purged from his old sins is not in a position of absolute security because he is in Christ, but only if he abide in Christ, and is bringing forth really good fruit. The Lords choicest earthly blessings misused become, if not idols, yet like the doves, not occupying the right place. And our Lords action warns those who, on whatever pretext, use His outward visible Church for unholy purposes. (R. Barclay.)
Cherished evils
I recollect when in Pompeii I saw, in what two thousand years ago was a large and splendid house, a shrine or temple where the Lares and Penates were placed; and its shape and form are still in existence, in professedly Christian lands, under a Christian guise. Is there not sometimes something which has a resemblance to this in Christian hearts, or in Christian families-relics of the old nature, things not quite sanctioned by our conscience, dispositions of mind not quite in accordance with the mind that was in Christ Jesus, which have nevertheless been entertained until we are almost unconscious of our danger? (R. Barclay.)
Christ cleansing the temple
We have a similar record to this in each of the four Gospels.
I. The place at which this event occurred. Jesus went into the temple of God.
1. The appliances and construction of the temple in our Lords time indicated a process of development in the system of Judaism.
2. It was into the capacious court of the Gentiles that our Lord entered, and in which He found these desecrations. That the Jew should have done this, marked a want of reverence and a proper spiritual feeling with regard to Gods worship that was most strange when contrasted with all the holy traditions of that sacred place.
II. The time and the significance of this occurrence. The chronology of the first three Gospels differ considerably from that of the fourth. I have no hesitation in saying that this act was done twice-that it did occur at the beginning and at the end of His ministry. I can see a considerable difference in the circumstances at each period. We may interpret the first doing of this act, as recorded by John, as done almost exclusively, certainly pre-eminently, as Jesus the prophet-as a reformer, as one belonging to the old dispensation, and speaking -in the spirit of it. But at the end of His ministry the act had a deeper significance and a wider meaning: My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. That which is polluted and degenerate, let it pass away. Let a new age come. Let a new dispensation be established, and let all the nations of the earth be welcomed, etc. He did this second action more emphatically in His character as Messiah. In each separate act there was a deep significance, and both teach their peculiar lessons.
III. Some of the general lessons of instruction which we may gather from them. (T. Binney.)
The cleansing of the temple
Jesus Christ
(1) did not connive at abuses for the sake of securing popular favour;
(2) did not allow abuses to be continued on the ground that the circumstances were temporary; He knew the temple would soon be destroyed;
(3) showed that mans convenience was to be subordinated to Gods right;
(4) showed in this, as in all other cases, that the right one is morally stronger than the wicked many. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Varied worshippers
The temple itself is full of vacant worship. It resounds with rash vows and babbling voices. It is the house of God; but man has made it a nest of triflers, a fair of vanity, a den of thieves. Some come to it as reckless and irreverent as if they were stepping into a neighbours house. Some come to it, and feel as if they had laid the Most High under obligation, because they bring a sheaf of corn or a pair of pigeons; whilst they never listen to Gods word, nor strive after that obedience which is better than sacrifice. Some come and rattle over empty forms of devotions, as if they would be heard because of their much speaking. And some, in a fit of fervour, utter vows which they forget to pay; and, when reminded of their promise, they protest that there must be some mistake; they repudiate the vow, and say it was an error. (Dr. J. Hamilton.)
A worshipping spirit
It was said of Sir William Cecil, sometime Lord Treasurer of England, that when he went to bed he would throw off his gown and say, Lie there, Lord Treasurer, as bidding adieu to all State affairs, that he might the more quietly repose himself: so when we go to any religious duty, we should say, Lie by, world; lie by, all secular cares, all household affairs, all pleasures, all traffic, all thoughts of gain; lie by all; adieu all!
The blind and the lame;-physical infirmities typical of moral defects
It demands but little acquaintance with Holy Scripture to be aware that either of these two forms of bodily ailment is the common, as well as the obvious emblem of a corresponding moral defect (Isa 42:7; Isa 9:2; Isa 35:6). To these two classes of cures Christ Himself refers as evidence of His Messiahship (Mat 11:4-5). A subject is thus set before us in which we find our place without difficulty. We are reminded of our own great spiritual infirmities; of our need of His Almighty aid who poured the light of day on sightless eyes, and gave those ankle-bones strength which before were powerless in Israel.
I. For surely the life of many of us-Our own life, in too many respects, is the life of the blind. We grope our way in self-reliance, and we often lose it. We stumble and fall. We feel after, and we find not; we reach forth, and we grasp not.
1. We read Gods Holy Word, yet we see nothing, or very little, of the many wonders which it contains. The veil is upon our hearts while we read.
2. We look abroad on the Miracles of Love which surround our dwelling; we look within, on the mystery of Divine goodness in which we live and move and have our being; yet we recognize little or nothing of the hand of God either within or without us.
II. Who, again, does not see in the helplessness of the lame a lively type of his own condition which, so far from running in the way of Gods commandments, knows not how to walk with God for a single hour?
1. Reluctant to begin what we know to be holy.
2. Unwilling to persevere in good courses begun.
3. Sluggish in spiritual growth.
4. Remiss in prayer, regarding it as a task instead of a recreation. (J. W. Burgon, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 12. Jesus went into the temple of God, c.] “Avarice,” says one, “covered with the veil of religion, is one of those things on which Christ looks with the greatest indignation in his Church. Merchandize of holy things, simoniacal presentations, fraudulent exchanges, a mercenary spirit in sacred functions ecclesiastical employments obtained by flattery, service, or attendance, or by any thing which is instead of money; collations, nominations, and elections made through any other motive than the glory of God; these are all fatal and damnable profanations, of which those in the temple were only a shadow.” QUESNEL.
Money-changers] Persons who furnished the Jews and proselytes who came from other countries, with the current coin of Judea, in exchange for their own.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This piece of the history is related by two of the other evangelists, but with great difference. Luke before this mentions a discourse upon the way, upon our Saviours first sight of the city, and his prophecy of the destruction of it; but no other evangelist mentioning it, I shall pass it over till I come to his history. Mark hath this part of the history thus, Mar 11:11-19, And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry. (Then he relates our Saviours cursing the barren fig tree, which I leave till I come to it in order). And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers and the seats of them that sold doves: and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. And when the even was come, he went out of the city, Mat 21:19. Luke saith, Luk 19:45-47, And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and those that bought; saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. And he taught daily in the temple. It is plain by all the evangelists, that our Saviour, coming to Jerusalem five days before the passover, went every night to Bethany, about two miles off, and returned in the morning to the temple, where Luke saith that he taught daily. The first day it should seem, by Mark, that he only came into the temple, looked round about upon all things, and with the twelve went out to lodge at Bethany. By his going into the temple, we must understand only the outward court, for the priests and Levites only might enter into the inner court, and the holy place; and the high priest only might enter into the holiest of all. Though Mark mentions not his driving out the buyers and sellers the first day, but recites it as if it had been done the second day of his coming, yet the best interpreters think that it was done the first day, as Matthew and Luke seem to hint; nor is any thing more usual, than for the evangelists to set down things out of the order of time in which they were done. Some learned authors in the Hebrew learning tell us, that in the outward court was a daily market of such things as the Jews used for sacrifices, wine salt, oil, oxen, and sheep; but it being but three or four days before the passover, the market was much greater, because of the great multitude of lambs then to be used. By the law, Exo 30:12,15, every one also was to bring a half shekel. For this purpose there were tables of moneychangers, men that were furnished with half Shekels to change with the people, that every one might have his half shekel; and those that so changed allowed some little profit to those that changed their money, which gain was called ; thence the changers were called , money changers. Those that sold doves were there, to furnish the women that came up to their purification with their offerings, according to the law, Lev 12:6. This was the reason of that great market which our Lord found in the outward court of the temple; and it is not likely that our Lord should see these abuses the first day and take no notice of them, but come the next day and correct them, which makes interpreters think Mark in this relation postponed this part of the history. Here arise two questions:
1. Whether it was unlawful for them to sell these things in that part of the temple.
2. Admit it were, By what authority did our Saviour do this?
To the first it must be said, That had it not been unlawful, our Saviour would not have reproved them for turning his Fathers house, and the house of prayer, into a place of merchandise; nor would he have driven them out in such a zeal, overturning the tables, &c., which he had done also once before, Joh 2:15. The temple was built by Gods direction, not only dedicated by men, but Gods acceptation of it was testified. It appeareth by Joh 2:19, it was a type of Christs body. We know there were special promises made to those that did pray toward it. God saith he had hallowed it, 1Ki 9:3; that is, separated it from common use to his service, amongst other things for a house of prayer, Isa 56:7. Now though we read of no other things sold there but what were useful for sacrifices, yet this was a civil use, and a profanation of that holy place, because there were market places in Jerusalem, in which these things might have been done. It had been against decency, if the temple had not been hallowed in this manner, if such things had been done in the synagogues, being places set apart and commonly used for Gods worship; but to use the temple in this manner, so specially hallowed, was doubtless a great profanation of that holy place. As to the second question, By what authority our Lord, being no public magistrate, did these things, I am not so posed to determine that, he being the eternal Son of God, and now in the exercise of his regal power, as I am to give an account how it came to pass that the priests, and scribes, and Pharisees never questioned him for what he did; for if any will say, that we presently shall read of their taking counsel against him, I reply, But we read of nothing relating to this laid to his charge. Nor do we read of their questioning him when he did the same things before, an account of which we have in Joh 2:13-25. For though I know some say that our Saviour did this Jure zelotarum: that the Jews had a law, that any might punish even to death such as profaned the worship or holy things of God; which they justify from Deu 13:9, and the examples of Phinehas killing Zimri and Cozbi, Num 25:6-8, and Mattaniahs killing the Jew sacrificing to idols at Modin, and the kings commissioner, of which we read in 2Ma 2:24,25: yet this doth no way give me any satisfaction: for as, on the one side, I should not have known how to have defended the act of Phinehas if God had not by and by justified him, nor do I think that the law in Deu 13:9 is to be expounded of private persons; so, on the other side, if the priests, and scribes, and Pharisees had not known of some law that justified our Saviour in this act, I can hardly conceive they would have so quietly put it up, especially considering that probably their profit was concerned, if they had for gain licensed those traders to a place within the compass of the temple, as is very probable. Being therefore fully satisfied that our Saviour, who was Lord of the temple, and to whom the Spirit was given without measure, did no more than he might lawfully do, I am willingly ignorant how it came to pass that he met with no opposition in it, because God hath not pleased in his word to inform us. It is certain that he did the thing, and that it was a thing fit to be done, and that he, as the Son of God, had authority to do it; what made them take it so quietly I cannot tell, nor is it necessary for us to know, nor of any great advantage.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Jesus went into the temple of God,…. At Jerusalem, which was built by his order, and dedicated to his worship, and where the Shechaniah, or the divine presence was. Christ went not to the tower of David, the strong hold of Zion, the palace of his father David; for he entered not as a temporal king; but he went to the house of his heavenly Father, as the lord and proprietor of it, to preach in it, and purge it; whereby the glory of the latter house became greater than that of the former; and so several prophecies had their accomplishment, particularly Hag 2:7 though this was not the first time by many, of Christ’s being in the temple; yet this his entrance was the most public and magnificent of any: after, he had alighted from the colt, and sent back that and the ass to their proper owners, as is very probable, he went by the eastern gate, called the king’s gate, 1Ch 9:18 into the temple;
and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple: not in the holy of holies, nor in the holy place, nor in the court of the priests, nor in the court of the Israelites, but in the court of the Gentiles, and in the mountain of the house, in which were shops, where various things were sold, relating to sacrifices. What these persons bought and sold, whom Christ cast out, is not said, but may be collected from Joh 2:14 where besides “doves”, of which hereafter, mention is made, of “sheep” and “oxen”; which were brought to be sold, on account of the passover, for it was then near their time of passover as now; for besides the lambs and kids, which were here also sold and bought for the passover supper, sheep and oxen were here also killed and sold for the Chagiga, or feast p, which was the day following: here likewise the drink offerings were bought and sold, of which take the following account.
“There were fifteen presidents , “in the sanctuary”: Jochanan ben Phinehas was over the tickets, and Ahijah over the drink offerings, c.–He that inquired for drink offerings, went to Jochanan, who was appointed over the tickets: he gave him the money, and took a ticket he then went to Ahijah, that was appointed over the drink offerings, and gave him the ticket, and received from him the drink offerings; and in the evening they came together, and Ahijah produced the tickets, and took for them the money q.”
This was one way of buying and selling in the temple;
and overthrew the tables of the money changers; of which sort were they, who sat in the temple at certain times, to receive the half shekel, and change the money of such, who wanted one, by which they gained something, to themselves. It was a custom in our Lord’s time, for every Israelite, once a year, to pay half a shekel towards the temple charge and service, which was founded upon the orders given by God to Moses in the wilderness; that upon his numbering the people, to take of everyone that was twenty years of age and upwards, rich or poor, half a shekel, Ex 30:13 though this does not seem to be designed as a perpetual rule. However, it now obtained, and was annually paid:
“On the first day of Adar (which answers to our February) they proclaimed concerning the shekels r.”
That is, they gave public notice, in all the cities in Israel, that the time of paying the half shekel was near at hand, that they might get their money ready, for everyone was obliged to pay it: the Jews s say,
“it is an affirmative command of the law, that every man in Israel should pay the half shekel every year; even though a poor man that is maintained by alms, he is obliged to it, and must beg it of others, or sell his coat upon his back and pay it, as it is said, Ex 30:15. The rich shall not give more, c.–All are bound to give it, priests, Levites, and Israelites, and strangers, and servants, that are made free but not women, nor servants, nor children.”
Notice being thus given t,
“on the fifteenth day (of the same month), , “tables” were placed in the province, or city (which Bartenora u interprets of Jerusalem; but Maimonides w says, the word used is the name of all the cities in the land of Israel, excepting Jerusalem), and on the twenty fifth they sit,
, “in the sanctuary”.”
The same is related by Maimonides x, after this manner:
“On the first of Adar they proclaim concerning the shekels, that every man may prepare his half shekel, and be ready to give it on the fifteenth; , “the exchangers” sit in every province or city, and mildly ask it; everyone that gives them it, they take it of them; and he that does not give, they do not compel him to give: on the twenty fifth, they sit in the sanctuary to collect it; and henceforward they urge him that does not give, until he gives; and everyone that does not give, they oblige him to give pledge, and they, take his pledge, whether he will or not, and even his coat.”
This gives us a plain account of these money changers; of their tables, and of their sitting at them in the temple, and on what account. Now these exchangers had a profit in every shekel they changed y.
“When a man went to an exchanger, and changed a shekel for two half shekels, he gave him an addition to the shekel; and the addition is called , “Kolbon”; wherefore, when two men gave a shekel for them both, they were both obliged to pay the “Kolbon”.”
Would you know what this “Kolbon”, whence these exchangers are called,
, “Collybistae”, in this text, or the gain which these men had, take this question and answer in their own words z.
“How much is the “Kolbon?” A silver “meah”, according to. R. Meir; but the wise men say, half an one.”
Or as it is elsewhere expressed a,
“what is the value of the “Kolbon?” At that time they gave two pence for the half shekel, the “Kolbon” was half a “meah”, which is the twelfth part of a penny; and since, “Kolbon” less than that is not given.”
Now a “meah” was the half of a sixth part of the half shekel, and the twenty fourth part of a shekel, and weighed sixteen barley corns: half a “meah” was the forty eighth part of a shekel, and weighed eight barley b corns; a “meah” was, of our money, the value of somewhat more than a penny, and half an one more than a halfpenny. This was their gain, which in so large a number that paid, must amount to a great deal of money. There seems to be nothing lie against these men being the very persons, whose tables Christ overturned, unless it should be objected, that this was not the time of their sitting; for it was now within a few days of the passover, which was in the month Nisan; whereas it was in the month Adar, that the half shekel was paid: but it should be observed, according to the above account, that they did not begin to sit in the temple to receive this money, until the twenty fifth of Adar; and it was now but the tenth of Nisan, when Christ entered the temple and found them there: so that there was but fifteen days: between the one and the other; and considering the large numbers that were obliged to pay, and the backwardness and poverty of many, they may reasonably be thought to be still sitting on that account: and what Maimonides before relates deserves notice, and will strengthen this supposition; that on the twenty fifth: of Adar, they sat in the temple to collect this money; and that henceforward they urged and compelled persons to pay it. Moreover, these men had other business, in a way of exchange, than this to do; and especially at such a time as the passover, when persons came from different parts to attend it; and who, might want to have their foreign money changed for current coin; or bills of return, to be changed for money: add to all this the following account, which will show the large and perpetual business of these men c.
“In the sanctuary there were before them, , “continually”, or “daily”, thirteen chests (and there were as many tables d); every chest was in the form of a trumpet: the first was for the shekels of the present year, the second for the shekels of the year past; the third for everyone that had a “Korban”, or vow upon him to offer two turtledoves, or two young pigeons; the one a burnt offering, the other a sin offering: their price was, cast into this chest: the fourth for everyone that had the burnt offering of a fowl only on him, the price of that was cast into this chest. The fifth was for him, who freely gave money to buy wood, to be laid in order on the altar; the sixth, for him that freely gave money for the incense; the seventh, for him that freely gave gold for the mercy seat; the eighth, for the remainder of the sin offering; as when he separated the money for his sin offering, and took the sin offering, and there remained of the money, the rest he cast into this chest; the ninth, for the remainder of the trespass offering; the tenth, for the remainder of the doves for men and women in fluxes, and women after childbirth; the eleventh, for the remainder of the offerings of the Nazarite; the twelfth, for the remainder of the trespass offering of the leper: the thirteenth, for him that freely gave money for the burnt offering of a beast.”
And the seats of them that sold doves, which were the offerings of the poor sort after child bearing, and on account of running issues: which cases were very frequent, and sometimes raised the price of doves very high, of which what follows is an instance e.
“It happened at a certain time, that doves were sold in Jerusalem for a golden penny each; said Rabban ben Simeon Gamaliel, by this habitation (or temple which he swore by) I will not lodge (or lie down) this night, until they are sold for a silver penny each: he went into the council house and taught, that if a woman had five certain births, or five certain issues, she should bring one offering, and eat of the sacrifices, nor should there remain any debt upon her; and doves were sold that day for two fourths.”
That is, for a silver penny; now a golden penny was the value of twenty five silver pence f; so that the price, by this means, was sunk very much: but not only doves were sold in the markets in Jerusalem, but in the temple itself g.
“There was a president over the doves, which was he with whom they agreed, who sold doves for the offerings, so and so by the shekel; and everyone that was obliged to bring a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons, brought the price of them, , “to the sanctuary”; and the president gave the doves to the masters of the offerings, and made up the account with the treasurers.”
Now at a feast time as this was, there was a greater demand for doves than usual; for women who had lain in, and such as had fluxes, whether men or women, who lived in distant parts, reserved their offerings till they came up to the feast h; and which in consequence must occasion a greater call for these creatures, and furnishes out a reason, why there should be so many sitting at this time in the temple to sell doves. Some have thought, that those persons are here meant, which are often mentioned by the Jewish doctors i, as an infamous sort of men, who are not admitted as witnesses in any case; and are reckoned among thieves, robbers, usurers, and players at dice; who , “teach doves to fly”, either to decoy other doves from their dove houses, or to out fly others for money, or to fight one against another; and these sat in the temple to sell this sort of doves, which was still more heinous; but the other sense is more agreeable.
p Vid. R. Sol. Jarchi, in Deut. xvi. 2. q Misn. Shekalim, c. 5. sect. 4. Maimon. Cele Hamikdash, c. 7. sect, 10, 11, 12. r Misn. Shekalim, c. 1. sect. 1. s Maimon. Hilch. Shekalim, c. 1. sect. 1. 7. t Misn. Shekalim, c. 1. sect. 3. u In ib. w In ib. x Hilch. Shekalim, c, 1. sect. 9. y Ib c. 3. sect. 1. z Misn. Shekalim, c. 1. sect. 7. a Maimon. Hilch. Shekalim, c. 3. sect. 7. b Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Shekalim, c. 1, sect. 7. & Cholin, c. 1. sect. 7. c Maimon. Hilch. Shckalim, c. 2. sect. 2. d Misn. Shekalim, c. 6. sect 1. e Misn. Cerithot, c. 1. sect. 7. f Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. g Maimon. Hilch. Cele Hamikdash, c. 7. sect. 9. h Gloss. in T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 11. 1. i T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 82. 1. T. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 2. & Gloss. in ib. Misn. Sanhedrin. c. 3. sect. 3. Maimon Bartenora, & Ez. Chayim in lb. & Edayot, c. 2. 7. & Bartenora in ib. Maimon. Hilch. Gazela veabada, c. 6. sect. 7. Toen unitan, c. 2. sect. 2. & Eduth, c. 10. sect. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Profaners of the Temple Punished. |
| |
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. 15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, 16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? 17 And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
When Christ came into Jerusalem, he did not go up to the court or the palace, though he came in as a King, but into the temple; for his kingdom is spiritual, and not of this world; it is in holy things that he rules, in the temple of God that he exercises authority. Now, what did he do there?
I. Thence he drove the buyers and sellers. Abuses must first be purged out, and the plants not of God’s planting be plucked up, before that which is right can be established. The great Redeemer appear as a great Reformer, that turns away ungodliness, Rom. xi. 26. Here we are told,
1. What he did (v. 12); He cast out all them that sold and bought; he had done this once before (Joh 2:14; Joh 2:15), but there was occasion to do it again. Note, Buyers and sellers driven out of the temple, will return and nestle there again, if there be not a continual care and oversight to prevent it, and if the blow be not followed, and often repeated.
(1.) The abuse was, buying and selling, and changing money, in the temple. Note, Lawful things, ill timed and ill placed, may become sinful things. That which was decent enough in another place, and not only lawful, but laudable, on another day, defiles the sanctuary, and profanes the sabbath. This buying and selling, and changing money, though secular employments, yet had the pretence of being in ordine ad spiritualia–for spiritual purposes. They sold beasts for sacrifice, for the convenience of those that could more easily bring their money with them than their beast; and they changed money for those that wanted the half shekel, which was their yearly poll, or redemption-money; or, upon the bills of return; so that this might pass for the outward business of the house of God; and yet Christ will not allow of it. Note, Great corruptions and abuses come into the church by the practices of those whose gain is godliness, that is, who make worldly gain the end of their godliness, and counterfeit godliness their way to worldly gain (1 Tim. vi. 5); from such withdraw thyself.
(2.) The purging out of this abuse. Christ cast them out that sold. He did it before with a scourge of small cords (John ii. 15); now he did it with a look, with a frown, with a word of command. Some reckon this none of the least of Christ’s miracles, that he should himself thus clear the temple, and not be opposed in it by them who by this craft got their living, and were backed in it by the priests and elders. It is an instance of his power over the spirits of men, and the hold he has of them by their own consciences. This was the only act of regal authority and coercive power that Christ did in the days of his flesh; he began with it, John ii. and here ended with it. Tradition says, that his face shone, and beams of light darted from his blessed eyes, which astonished these market-people, and compelled them to yield to his command; if so, the scripture was fulfilled, Prov. xx. 8, A King that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes. He overthrew the tables of the money-changers; he did not take the money to himself, but scattered it, threw it to the ground, the fittest place for it. The Jews, in Esther’s time, on the spoil laid not their hand, Esther ix. 10.
2. What he said, to justify himself, and to convict them (v. 13); It is written. Note, In the reformation of the church, the eye must be upon the scripture, and that must be adhered to as the rule, the pattern in the mount; and we must go no further than we can justify ourselves with, It is written. Reformation is then right, when corrupted ordinances are reduced to their primitive institution.
(1.) He shows, from a scripture prophecy, what the temple should be, and was designed to be; My house shall be called the house of prayer; which is quoted from Isa. lvi. 7. Note, All the ceremonial institutions were intended to be subservient to moral duties; the house of sacrifices was to be a house of prayer, for that was the substance and soul of all those services; the temple was in a special manner sanctified to be a house of prayer, for it was not only the place of that worship, but the medium of it, so that the prayers made in or toward that house had a particular promise of acceptance (2 Chron. vi. 21), as it was a type of Christ; therefore Daniel looked that way in prayer; and in this sense no house or place is now, or can be, a house of prayer, for Christ is our Temple; yet in some sense the appointed places of our religious assemblies may be so called, as places where prayer is wont to be made, Acts xvi. 13.
(2.) He shows, from a scripture reproof, how they had abused the temple, and perverted the intention of it; Ye have made it a den of thieves. This is quoted from Jer. vii. 11, Is this house become a den of robbers in your eyes? When dissembled piety is made the cloak and cover of iniquity, it may be said that the house of prayer is become a den of thieves, in which they lurk, and shelter themselves. Markets are too often dens of thieves, so many are the corrupt and cheating practices in buying and selling; but markets in the temple are certainly so, for they rob God of his honour, the worst of thieves, Mal. iii. 8. The priests lived, and lived plentifully, upon the altar; but, not content with that, they found other ways and means to squeeze money out of the people; and therefore Christ here calls them thieves, for they exacted that which did not belong to them.
II. There, in the temple, he healed the blind and the lame, v. 14. When he had driven the buyers and sellers out of the temple, he invited the blind and lame into it; for he fills the hungry with good things, but the rich he sends empty away. Christ, in the temple, by his word there preached, and in answer to the prayers there made, heals those that are spiritually blind and lame. It is good coming to the temple, when Christ is there, who, as he shows himself jealous for the honour of his temple, in expelling those who profane it, so he shows himself gracious to those who humbly seek him. The blind and the lame were debarred David’s palace (2 Sam. v. 8), but were admitted into God’s house; for the state and honour of his temple lie not in those things wherein the magnificence of princes’ palaces is supposed to consist; from them blind and lame must keep their distance, but from God’s temple only the wicked and profane. The temple was profane and abused when it was made a market-place, but it was graced and honoured when it was made an hospital; to be doing good in God’s, is more honourable, and better becomes it, than to be getting money there. Christ’s healing was a real answer to that question, Who is this? His works testified of him more than the hosannas; and his healing in the temple was the fulfilling of the promise, that the glory of the latter house should be greater than the glory of the former.
There also he silenced the offence which the chief priests and scribes took at the acclamations with which he was attended, Mat 21:15; Mat 21:16. They that should have been most forward to give him honour, were his worst enemies.
1. They were inwardly vexed at the wonderful things that he did; they could not deny them to be true miracles, and therefore were cut to the heart with indignation at them, as Act 4:16; Act 5:33. The works that Christ did, recommended themselves to every man’s conscience. If they had any sense, they could not but own the miracle of them; and if any good nature, could not but be in love with the mercy of them: yet, because they were resolved to oppose him, for these they envied him, and bore him a grudge.
2. They openly quarrelled at the children’s hosannas; they thought that hereby an honour was given him, which did not belong to him, and that it looked like ostentation. Proud men cannot bear that honour should be done to any but to themselves, and are uneasy at nothing more than at the just praises of deserving men. Thus Saul envied David the women’s songs; and “Who can stand before envy?” When Christ is most honoured, his enemies are most displeased.
Just now we had Christ preferring the blind and the lame before the buyers and sellers; now here we have him (v. 16), taking part with the children against priests and scribes.
Observe, (1.) The children were in the temple, perhaps playing there; no wonder, when the rulers make it a market-place, that the children make it a place of pastime; but we are willing to hope that many of them were worshipping there. Note, It is good to bring children betimes to the house of prayer, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Let children be taught to keep up the form of godliness, it will help to lead them to the power of it. Christ has a tenderness for the lambs of his flock.
(2.) They were there crying Hosanna to the Son of David. This they learned from those that were grown up. Little children say and do as they hear others say, and see others do; so easily do they imitate; and therefore great care must be taken to set them good examples, and no bad ones. Maxima debetur puero reverentia–Our intercourse with the young should be conducted with the most scrupulous care. Children will learn of those that are with them, either to curse and swear, or to pray and praise. The Jews did betimes teach their children to carry branches at the feast of tabernacles, and to cry Hosanna; but God taught them here to apply it to Christ. Note, Hosanna to the Son of David well becomes the mouths of little children, who should learn young the language of Canaan.
(3.) Our Lord Jesus not only allowed it, but was very well pleased with it, and quoted a scripture which was fulfilled in it (Ps. viii. 2), or, at least, may be accommodated to it; Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise; which, some think, refers to the children’s joining in the acclamations of the people, and the women’s songs with which David was honoured when he returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, and therefore is very fitly applied here to the hosannas with which the Son of David was saluted, now that he was entering upon his conflict with Satan, that Goliath. Note, [1.] Christ is so far from being ashamed of the services of little children, that he takes particular notice of them (and children love to be taken notice of), and is well pleased with them. If God may be honoured by babes and sucklings, who are made to hope at the best, much more by children who are grown up to maturity and some capacity. [2.] Praise is perfected out of the mouth of such; it has a peculiar tendency to the honour and glory of God for little children to join in his praises; the praise would be accounted defective and imperfect, if they had not their share in it; which is an encouragement for children to be good betimes, and to parents to teach them to be so; the labour neither of the one nor of the other shall be in vain. In the psalm it is, Thou hast ordained strength. Note, God perfecteth praise, by ordaining strength out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. When great things are brought about by weak and unlikely instruments, God is thereby much honoured, for his strength is perfected in weakness, and the infirmities of the babes and sucklings serve for a foil to the divine power. That which follows in the psalm, That thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger, was very applicable to the priests and scribes; but Christ did not apply it to them, but left it to them to apply it.
Lastly, Christ, having thus silenced them, forsook them, v. 17. He left them, in prudence, lest they should now have seized him before his hour was come; in justice, because they had forfeited the favour of his presence. By repining at Christ’s praises we drive him from us. He left them as incorrigible, and he went out of the city to Bethany, which was a more quiet retired place; not so much that he might sleep undisturbed as that he might pray undisturbed. Bethany was but two little miles from Jerusalem; thither he went on foot, to show that, when he rode, it was only to fulfil the scripture. He was not lifted up with the hosannas of the people; but, as having forgot them, soon returned to his mean and toilsome way of travelling.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Cast out (). Drove out, assumed authority over “the temple of God” (probably correct text with , though only example of the phrase). John (Joh 2:14) has a similar incident at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. It is not impossible that he should repeat it at the close after three years with the same abuses in existence again. It is amazing how short a time the work of reformers lasts. The traffic went on in the court of the Gentiles and to a certain extent was necessary. Here the tables of
the money-changers ( , from , a small coin) were overturned. See on 17:24 for the need of the change for the temple tax. The doves were the poor man’s offering.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The money – changers [] . From kollubov, the rate of exchange. These changers sat in the temple, in the court of the Gentiles, to change the foreign coins of pilgrims into the shekel of the sanctuary for payment of the annual tribute. See on Mt 17:24.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
12. And Jesus entered into the temple. Though Christ frequently ascended into the temple, and though this abuse continually met his eye, twice only did he stretch out his hand to correct it; once, at the commencement of his embassy, (13) and now again, when he was near the end of his course. But though disgraceful and ungodly confusion reigned throughout, and though the temple, with its sacrifices, was devoted to destruction, Christ reckoned it enough to administer twice an open reproof of the profanation of it. Accordingly, when he made himself known as a Teacher and Prophet sent by God, he took upon himself the office of purifying the temple, in order to arouse the Jews, and make them more attentive; and this first narrative is given by John only in the second chapter of his Gospel. But now, towards the end of his course, claiming again for himself the same power, he warns the Jews of the pollutions of the temple, and at the same time points out that a new restoration is at hand.
And yet there is no reason to doubt that he declared himself to be both King and High Priest, who presided over the temple and the worship of God. This ought to be observed, lest any private individual should think himself entitled to act in the same manner. That zeal, indeed, by which Christ was animated to do this, ought to be held in common by all the godly; but lest any one, under the pretense of imitation, should rush forward without authority, we ought to see what our calling demands, and how far we may proceed according to the commandment of God. If the Church of God have contracted any pollutions, all the children of God ought to burn with grief; but as God has not put arms into the hands of all, let private individuals groan, till God bring the remedy. I do acknowledge that they are worse than stupid who are not displeased at the pollution of the temple of God, and that it is not enough for them to be inwardly distressed, if they do not avoid the contagion, and testify with their mouth, whenever an opportunity presents itself, that they desire to see a change for the better. But let those who do not possess public authority oppose by their tongue, which they have at liberty, those vices which they cannot remedy with their hands.
But it is asked, Since Christ saw the temple filled with gross superstitions, why did he only correct one that was light, or, at least, more tolerable than others? I reply, Christ did not intend to restore to the ancient custom all the sacred rites, and did not select greater or smaller abuses for correction, but had only this object in view, to show by one visible token, that God had committed to him the office of purifying the temple, and, at the same time, to point out that the worship of God had been corrupted by a disgraceful and manifest abuse. Pretexts, indeed, were not wanting for that custom of keeping a market, which relieved the people from trouble, that they might not have far to go to find sacrifices; and next, that they might have at hand those pieces of money which any man might choose to offer. Nor was it within the holy place that the money-changers sat, or that animals intended for sacrifice were exposed to sale, but only within the court, to which the designation of the temple is sometimes applied; but as nothing was more at variance with the majesty of the temple, than that a market should be erected there for selling goods, or that bankers should sit there for matters connected with exchange, this profanation was not to be endured. And Christ inveighed against it the more sharply, because it was well known that this custom had been introduced by the avarice of the priests for the sake of dishonest gain. For as one who enters a market well-stocked with various kinds of merchandise, though he does not intend to make a purchase, yet, in consequence of being attracted by what he sees, changes his mind, so the priests spread nets in order to obtain offerings, that they might trick every person out of some gain.
(13) “ Quand il commença à exercr son office d’ambassadeur;” — “when he began to discharge his office as ambassador.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat. 21:12. Cast out.Apparently a second cleansing of the temple. See Joh. 2:15-17. Them that sold and bought in the temple.The first person to introduce this sacrilegious custom was, according to the Talmud, one Babha Ben Buta, who brought three thousand sheep of the flocks of Kedar into the Mountain of the House, i.e. into the court of the Gentiles, and so within the consecrated precincts. The practice grew out of the desire to meet the convenience of the foreign Jews, who visited the Holy City at the feasts, and were glad to purchase, close at hand, the beasts they desired to offer in sacrifice, and to exchange their foreign money for the orthodox Jewish shekel (Tuck).
Mat. 21:17. Bethany.A village standing in a shallow ravine on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, to the south-east of the central summit (Thrupps Ancient Jerusalem). It is now called El-Aziryeh, from El-Azir, the Arabic form of the name Lazarus.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 21:12-17
Visitatorial action.As the Saviour did on His entering into Jerusalem, so He began to do when inside it. The same remarkable combination of authority and meeknessthe same clear vindication of His rights and position, and the same manifest forbearance in making use of themare still to be seen in His conduct. In two ways, especially, may this combination be seen at this time, viz., in noticing first, what he beheld; and secondly, what He heard, when coming now to the temple of God.
I. What the Saviour beheld.Its nature, on the one hand. A great scandal! A crying offence! Apparently, the court of the Gentiles was the scene of this evil. Originally meant for their accommodation when admitted to worship, it had been encroached on for the transaction of business connected with the worship of God. Animals for sacrifice were brought there for sale. Changers of money had established themselves in it. And all this, it is thought with great reason, with the interested connivance of the temple authorities themselves. The scandal was one, therefore, which affected all classes alike, and that in away which was peculiarly offensive because of its connection with the worship of God (1Sa. 2:17). Its results, on the other hand. Very deliberate, very thorough, and very faithful was the Saviours consequent action. Very deliberate (see Mar. 11:11). Very thoroughall who had trespassed there being made to go out (Mat. 21:12); others who wished to do so being debarred from entering (Mar. 11:16). Very faithfulthe action being accompanied by language which expressed its meaning in full (Mat. 21:13). And yet, at the same time, being unaccompanied by much that might have been justly done in such case. The dealers, for example, are cast out, but their goods are not otherwise touched. The offence is stopped and the offenders rebuked, but they are not punished because of it. Not the sword of the judge, indeed, but the touch of the healer (Mat. 21:14), is what we read of instead. That polluted court, by such works of mercy, is as it were, re-consecrated to God. In every way, therefore, the previously existing offence is witnessed against and rebuked. But nothing more than this, by this kingly Visitor is done at this time. As before and as we shall see afterwards, there was the hiding of His power (Hab. 3:4).
II. What the Saviour heard.Its nature and purport, on the one hand. A cry of worship! A shout of praise! All that the multitude had previously acknowledged (Mat. 21:9), of His royal lineage and more than royal mission is here repeated again (Mat. 21:15). Repeated (apparently) with greater fervour than ever after seeing His works (ibid.). Repeated by those who are, perhaps, the last of all to be reached by such things. Fame is fame indeed, when it has penetrated to the cradles of the land. Its reception on the other. Its reception first, in the way of silence. Exactly contrary to what was expected by someby some who doubted in consequence, whether the Saviour could have truly noted the language He heardall this worship was listened to by Him without a word of rebukeas though not only in His judgment a matter of right, but a matter of course, as it were (cf. Luk. 19:40). Its reception, next, in the way of defence. To His tacit acquiescence in, He adds express approval of, the homage now paid. Far from being a blameworthy thing, only those are so who would condemn it as such. Had they known more, as they ought to have knownhad they remembered what they had read in the writings they professed to teach and reverethey would have called to mind what justified fully all that was now being done. God is never more praised than when He is praised by the lips of sucklings and babes (Mat. 21:16). Even such praise, therefore, is the full right of Him who has come to that house as its King. Its reception, finally, in the way of forbearance. Forbearance in drawing the line at this necessary word of rebuke. The Saviour defends His friends. He confutes His adversaries. He does both effectually. But, having so done, He stops short. He does not now visit for sin. What an unexpected sequel, from this point of view, is the close of this passage! See all He does, now, with that den of thievesthat nest of conspiratorswhich He has just exposed and denounced (Mat. 21:17). Where, in all this, was the rod of His power?
It is to be noticed, in conclusion, that even this combination did not tell on these men.
1. This display of authority did not tell on their wills.They heard and feared Him, but went on as before (Mar. 11:18; see Ecc. 8:11).
2. This display of mercy did not tell on their hearts.All they did in return was to seek to destroy Him (Mar. 11:18, again; see also Isa. 26:10).
3. This double failure abundantly explained and so justified the subsequent punishment of that people (Jer. 9:9).
4. And is, therefore, to be looked upon as a double warning to all.How are we dealing with the mingled mercy and judgment (Psa. 101:1) of God?
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat. 21:12-15. The righteousness, peace, and joy of the kingdom.The casting out of the traders illustrated the righteousness of the kingdom, the healing of the blind and lame its peace, and the shouts of the children which followed, its joy.J. M. Gibson, D.D.
Mat. 21:12-14. The ancient prophecy fulfilled.What the King did on entering the temple admirably illustrates the prophecy. For what saith the prophet? Behold thy King cometh unto thee; He is just and having salvation. He is justtherefore He will not tolerate the unholy traffic in the temple, but cast out all them that sold and bought etc.; and having salvationaccordingly, when He sees the blind and the lame in the temple He does not turn them out, He does not turn away from them, He healed them.Ibid.
Mat. 21:12-13. Cleansing the temple.This cleansing reminds us:
I. Of the holiness which the temple had in Christs eyes.
II. Of the guilt of all who desecrate Gods house and day.
III. Of our duly to do all we can to maintain their sanctity.Heubner.
Mat. 21:12. The King purifying the temple.
1. It is the work of King Jesus to take notice of religion, and to purge it where He mindeth to reign; therefore He went into the temple of God, to purge it.
2. Horrible abuses may creep into the place of Gods service, while men, under pretence of furthering religion, do follow courses for their own gain; as here, merchandise and money-getting are set up in the place where religion only was to be exercised.
3. In this extraordinary way of reformation of His temple, He showeth Himself to be God, able to compass the most difficult works, by what means He pleaseth, and to terrify His adversaries.
4. Outward abuses, albeit not so great as inward, yet may they be begun at in reformation, as here Christ doth.David Dickson.
The majesty and authority of Jesus.The silent submission of these buyers and vendors, who by their physical force might easily have overpowered Jesus, conclusively proves the sublime moral majesty and power with which our Saviour performed this act, and silences the objection of some modern sceptics, who see in it an outbreak of violent passion, which is always a sign of weakness. It was a judicial act of a religious reformer, vindicating in just and holy zeal the honour of the Lord of the temple, and revealed the presence of a superhuman authority and dignity, which filled even these profane traffickers with awe, and made them yield without a murmur. Jerome regards this expulsion of a multitude by one individual as the most wonderful of the miracles, and supposes that a flame and starry ray darted from the eyes of the Saviour, and that the majesty of the Godhead was radiant in His countenance.P. Schaff, D.D.
The desecration of Gods house.The history of Christian churches has not been altogether without parallels that may help us to understand how such a desecration came to be permitted. Those who remember the state of the great cathedral of London, as painted in the literature of Elizabeth and James, when mules and horses laden with market produce were led through St. Pauls as a matter of every-day occurrence, and bargains were struck there, and burglaries planned, and servants hired, and profligate assignations made and kept, will feel that even Christian and Protestant England has hardly the right to cast a stone at the priests and people of Jerusalem.E. H. Plumptre, D.D.
Mat. 21:13. The house of prayer.
1. Reformation of religion is to be done according to Scripture, by reducing abused ordinances unto their first institution.
2. All the ceremonial service appointed at the temple was subservient to the moral and spiritual duties; for it is said, My house shall be called a house of prayer.
3. All the worship of God may be comprised in prayer, as it comprehendeth praises and thanksgiving, because the end of the ordinances is to make men know how to carry themselves towards God in praises and prayer.
4. Vilest sins seek shelter under the pretext of religion, and there think to work; therefore this is the challenge, Ye have made My house a den of thieves.David Dickson.
Mat. 21:14-16. A picture of the temple as it should be.
I. Christ the centre of attraction in the temple.
II. The spiritually infirm seeking Him in the temple, and not the preacher, or the mere form of worship.
III. The spiritually infirm healed by Christ in the temple.J. C. Gray.
Mat. 21:15-16. The children in the temple (Palm Sunday).Let us consider this remarkable incident with respect to the three principal classes of persons concerned in it:
I. The conduct of the children.When all others were silent, why did children alone sing their Hosannas to Jesus as the Son of David?
1. They were unprejudiced.
2. They were especially attracted to Christ.
3. They were inspired by the enthusiasm of youth.
II. The complaint of the scribes and priests.
1. As offenders themselves they wore enraged at the rebuke they had just received from Christ.
2. As officials they were horrified at the indecorum of the children.
3. As men of rank and dignity they were disgusted at the freedom of the childrens utterances.
4. As unbelievers they were indignant at the public recognition of the Messianic claims of Jesus.
III. The reply of our Lord.
1. He approved of childrens worship.
2. He admitted the truth of the childrens testimony.
3. He accepted personal adoration offered to Himself.W. F. Adeney, M.A.
Mat. 21:17. Jesus withdrawing.
1. He had His own intended work in Bethany, yet by His leaving His adversaries, He teacheth us to cease from contention before it grow hot, and to cut short with our enemies, using as few speeches as may be; therefore it is said, He left them.
2. In that by His going off the town, occasion of tumults and uproars was eschewed, we learn to eschew needless dangers, and to reserve ourselves unto the time wherein God calleth us to glorify Him by suffering. David Dickson.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
SECTION 55
JESUS CLEANSES THE TEMPLE A LAST TIME AND RECEIVES WORSHIP OF CHILDREN
(Parallels: Mar. 11:15-19; Luk. 19:45-48)
TEXT: 21:1217
12
And. Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 13 and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.
14
And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were moved with indignation, 16 and said unto him, Hearest thou what these are saying?
And Jesus saith unto them, Yea: did ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
17
And he left them, and went forth out of the city to Bethany, and lodged there.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
In your opinion, why should Jesus have felt it necessary to purify the temple at this historic moment and in this particular way?
b.
Matthew, Mark and Luke record this purification at the end of Jesus ministry, while John records a similar cleansing at the very beginning (Joh. 2:13-22), Do you think these are separate events, and if so, on what basis do you think so? If not, why not?
c.
If you believe that John and the Synoptics record two separate cleansings, what reason would you assign to Jesus desire to cleanse the temple both at the beginning and at the end of His ministry? If, as we learn from John, He attended a number of feasts in Jerusalem at which people would be changing money and sacrificing, and the merchants would presumably be needed for the same reasons as before and probably in the same places, is it likely that Jesus could have said or done nothing about their presence every time He came? Or is it simpler to assume that the merchants did not return until His last Passover?
d.
Why were the merchants in the Temple anyway? What was so wrong with what they were doing?
e.
Why should the chief priests and scribes have been so disturbed when Jesus purified the Temple? Should not they have been in agreement with Him that such a purification needed to be done?
f.
In your opinion, does not this rather violent demonstration of the spirit of Jesus compromise and sacrifice the spiritual character of His mission?
g.
In what sense are the miracles Jesus worked after the temple cleansing especially appropriate? Or is there any moral connection between the two events?
h.
Matthew does not cite the entire prophecy, as does Mark: My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations (Mar. 11:17). Why do you think Matthew left out this latter part which places a definite emphasis on Gentiles?
i.
To what, specifically, does Jesus apply the words den of robbers?
j.
If Jesus objects to mens use of the temple of God as a market, on what basis can He justify His turning it into a HOSPITAL? What, if any, is the difference between what the merchants did to the temple, and what Jesus did to it by healing people there? Is there any principle illustrated here which Jesus had taught earlier what people can do on the sabbath? If so, what is it?
k.
How do you account for the fact that the children shout Hosanna! the day AFTER the Messianic Entry into Jerusalem?
l.
Why do you think the scribes and chief priests did not scold the children directly for their shouting Messianic slogans in the temple? Why bother Jesus about it?
m.
In what sense is Jesus justification of the childrens praise a tacit affirmation of His deity?
n.
Why would Jesus leave the city of Jerusalem to go to Bethany to spend the night?
o.
How do you think a sensitive Jewish reader would have understood this event, especially if he lived to see the fall of Jerusalem, the desecration and destruction of the Temple during the first century? Do you think he would have tended to see in Jesus actions a symbol of the judgment that later came upon that nation, city and temple?
p.
Do you see any connection between this story and using the name of God and the Church to promote financial causes or programs? If so, what connection? If not, why not? Does anything Jesus said or did here touch on the problem of Christian stewardship or financing the Kingdom of God? If so, how, or if not, why not?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
Jesus and the disciples arrived in Jerusalem from Bethany. When He entered the court of Gods temple, He began to drive out all the merchants and their customers, He overturned the tables of the money-changers and the benches of the dove merchants. Nor would He allow anyone to use the temple courts as a shortcut for transporting goods.
As He taught them, He said, The Bible says, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. But you have reduced it to a den of robbers! Now the chief priests and theologians heard all He said, because everyday He taught at the temple. So the blind people and the lame approached Him there, and He healed them. But when the hierarchy and theologians witnessed the wonderful things He did and the children chanting in the temple courts, Glory to the Son of David! they were furious and reproached Him, Can you not hear what these children are saying?
Of course, Jesus replied. And have you perhaps never read, Out of the mouth of children and babes in arms, You have procured for yourself perfect praise?
At this the chief priests and theologians and leading citizens sought a method to eliminate Him, because they feared Him. Yet they were frustrated, not finding any way to do it, since the vast majority of people was swayed by His teaching. They listened to His words with eager attention.
So when evening came, He left them and went out of the city to Bethany where He spent the night,
SUMMARY
After spending His first night in the Jerusalem area at Bethany, Jesus crossed the Mount of Olives to the city and cursed the fig tree. Then, upon entering the temple court, He cleared out the moneychangers and the merchants of animals as well as their customers, refusing to permit anyone to use the Temple as a shortcut or for anything but worship. His vigorous protests did not hinder, but apparently encouraged needy people to approach Him for healing and the children to praise Him. Incensed, the hierarchy objected to His apparent acceptance of Messianic ascriptions of praise. He parried their protests with Scripture. This only fueled their wrath to the point of desiring His elimination, but their efforts to excogitate a workable scheme ended in failure, since the common people eagerly accepted His teaching. At days end, Jesus left the people in the temple and Jerusalem to return to Bethany for the night.
NOTES
I. RELIGIOUS RACKETEERING
Mat. 21:12 And Jesus entered into the temple of God. For fuller notes on the chronological sequence of these events, see before Mat. 21:1; Matthews Method. The temple consisted of a series of courtyards within courtyards in the innermost of which (the court of the priests) stood the sanctuary proper (nas). Each successive courtyard was accessible only to designated persons, i.e. Hebrews, women and Gentiles respectively, but all courtyards were considered part of the temple of God (hiern to theo). The outermost courtyard, into which Jesus would first enter, was the place specified where Gentiles could worship. On the south side of the temple square, this court measured 70 square meters (750 sq. ft.) and was paved with marble (Edersheim, Temple, 45). Into this latter enclosure a market had been introduced, according to the Talmud (Jerus, Chagiga 78a), by a certain Baba Ben Buta, who brought 3000 sheep of the flocks of Kedar into the Mount of the House, i.e. into the court of the Gentiles, and so within the consecrated precincts (P.H.C., XXII, 483). Although not the first to do this, he doubtless did so to meet the needs of the poor. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, I, 370ff.) His motive was above question, but in caring for the Jewish poor, he trampled on the rights of the poor Gentiles! His Jewish sectarianism blinded his own eyes and that of others to Gentiles right of access to God, and paved the way for shekel-minded profiteers to seize upon this innovation as an excuse to perpetuate this right-minded convenience for all foreign Jews who desired to purchase their sacrifices close at hand.
Jesus . . . cast out all them that sold. That this represents a second cleansing of the Temple is seen from the following comparison:
FIRST CLEANSING (John 2)
SECOND CLEANSING (Synoptics)
1.
Occurred at the first Passover of Jesus ministry (Joh. 2:13).
1.
Occurred just prior to last Passover of Jesus life (Mat. 26:2).
2.
Animals mentioned particularly: cattle, sheep, doves (Joh. 2:14).
2.
Only doves specially mentioned (Mat. 21:12).
3.
Jesus used scourge on animals (Joh. 2:15).
3.
No scourge mentioned.
4.
Money-changers tables overturned.
4.
Money-changers tables overturned.
5.
Dove-sellers ordered to transport wares out of temple (Joh. 2:16).
5.
No similar order cited.
6.
Make not my Fathers house a house of merchandise (Mat. 2:16).
6.
Quotation of Isa. 56:7 and Jer. 7:11; House of prayer now a den of thieves.
7.
Disciples reaction indicated (Joh. 2:17).
7.
No disciples reaction indicated.
8.
Jews challenged Jesus right (Joh. 2:18).
8.
Chief rulers challenge Jesus sense of propriety (Mat. 21:16).
9.
Jesus answered with prophetic sign of resurrection (Joh. 2:19-22).
9.
Jesus answered with Scripture(Psa. 8:2). Prophetic sign not cited but known (Mat. 26:61; Mar. 14:58).
10.
Jesus worked miracles (Joh. 2:23).
10.
Jesus worked miracles (Mat. 21:14).
11.
Disciples believed Scriptures and Jesus (Joh. 2:22).
11.
Children praise Him (Mat. 21:15).
12.
Jesus prophetic ministry largely yet future and its outcome not yet decided by events.
12.
The outcome of Jesus prophetic ministry already decided.
The Synoptics did not record the first cleansing, since they omitted the early Judean ministry completely (cf. Joh. 2:13 to Joh. 4:4). John, conversely, could safely bypass the second purification of the temple, because its message is virtually included in the former and could be omitted, since the Synoptics had already recounted it.
Still, why should a second cleansing be thought necessary?
1.
Because Jesus was not so respected in the capital, that one purification would have permanently stamped out the scandalous market. Rather, the power bloc in Jerusalem would have been more than eager to regard with public contempt His pretended right to purify the temple.
2.
Because persistent graft would have driven the selfish to reinstate what brought them such profits, repeated show-downs would be unavoidable. Consistency would dictate its cleansing every time the abuse repeated itself. But, had they reinstalled the market in the interval between the first and last Passovers of Jesus ministry, would He have let them get away with it? He may, rather, have ignored its presence, intending to hit it one more timehardthis last week in connection with the final crisis.
3.
Because those driven out the first time had finally found courage to return. It may have taken two or three years for the hierarchy, whose personal profit was most menaced by the markets removal, to re-establish their pet project within the holy precincts. If they were letting the flames cool which Jesus had ignited at the first cleansing, they perhaps thought it politically expedient to wait a year or so before re-inaugurating the temple bazaar.
All them that sold in the temple . . . money-changers . . . them that sold doves. These merchants were needed in Jerusalem to sell sacrificial animals to worshippers who had travelled distances too great to transport their animals with them. Even God Himself had foreseen this need (Deu. 14:24 ff.). The money exchange was thought necessary to convert foreign coins, brought in by the pilgrims from outside Palestine, into the shekel of the sanctuary for the payment of the temple tax (cf. Exo. 30:13; Mat. 17:24 notes), other free-will offerings and purifications. (Cf. Shekalim Mat. 1:1-3; Act. 21:24; see bBerakoth 47b; Bekhoroth Mat. 8:7.) Doves, or pigeons, were essential for ritual purifications (cf. Joh. 11:55; Lev. 15:14; Lev. 15:29), but mainly for the sacrifices of the poor (Lev. 5:7; Lev. 5:11; Lev. 12:8; Lev. 14:22; Luk. 2:22-24). These latter were sold in four shops (Jer. Taan. Mat. 4:8). Further, sacrificial animals had to be inspected for suitability (Lev. 3:6; Lev. 4:3; Lev. 4:23; Lev. 4:28; Lev. 4:32 : without defect). Even these inspectors could charge a certain amount for their approval. (Bekhor Mat. 4:5). Although Sanhedrin regulations governed the charges that could be made for money exchange and inspection services (see Edersheim, Temple, 72), the presence of the Temple market would psychologically lead people to argue, Better get the right money from authorized changers, than haggle with unauthorized dealers! If our animal purchase from others elsewhere risks being disqualified on a technicality by temple inspectors, better buy them from the priests themselves, than lose money on unqualified animals! This thinking leads to a practical monopoly on the entire sacrificial procedure. However, God had not indicated WHERE or FROM WHOM worshippers should purchase things necessary for the feasts (Joh. 13:29).
But if profit-taking from foreign exchange transactions is an old, respected, professional institution, what was their crime? The abuse consisted in the following facts:
1.
The market did not need to stand in the very court of the temple where Gentiles were granted the freedom to worship God. Even if no money were involved, the alien peoples were being robbed, not of their wealth, but of their right to worship. The suspicion that this stockyard stood in the larger court is justified by the fact that its noise and dirt would not have been tolerated in the courts nearest the actual sacrificing and worship of the Hebrew men and women. Thoughtfulness on the part of the markets planners should have dictated that the bazaar be located elsewhere, even just outside the temples walls. But thoughtfulness or consideration of Gentiles rights was not their strong point. If Caiaphas and company were to protect their monopoly, it had to be kept inside the temple.
2.
The unbridled graft of the merchants and money-changers is implied in Jesus accusation that they had turned Gods house into a den of robbers. Josephus, too, charges Annas, son of Anna, of greed (Ant. XX, 8, 8; Mat. 9:2). Greed had replaced reverence in the temple.
Edersheim (Life, I, 367ff.) furnishes the following devastating evidence of this. The markets were called the Bazaars of the sons of Annas. An aroused, angry population rose and eliminated these bazaars in 67 A.D., decidedly due to the shameful grasping that marked that business (Siphr on Deut. sec. 105; Jer. Peah. Mat. 1:6). Profits from the sale of sacrifices were funneled into the temple treasury for the priests use. The money changers, too, likely had to buy from leading temple officials their right to pocket a percentage of their profits.
3.
Another reason for Jesus unhesitating hostility to these banking tables is undoubtedly their location, because, for the unwary visiting Hebrews, the location in the temple communicated an unmistakable aura of sanctity to the services these bankers offered, If they preferred not to deal with unauthorized exchanges elsewhere, they could surely trust these operating within the jurisdiction of Gods house. Not subject to competitive tensions of a free market and shielded by the name of God, these moneychangers and animal sellers dishonored God by their monopoly profits.
4.
Not only were the merchants at fault, but other thoughtless people, quite unconnected with the market, desecrated the holy place by their noisy passage through its courts as a convenient shortcut to another part of the city (Mar. 11:16). This thoughtless disregard for the uniquely sacred purpose for which God ordered the temple built, stole the Gentiles right to pray unhinderedly. This made those who did it THIEVES in the sight of God whose House it was.
It was into such a temple that the Son of its Owner strode that morning. No wonder He cast them all out! Detractors join His original critics to accuse Him of an unworthy outburst of violent anger, indicator of human weakness that vitiates His sinlessness.
1.
Far from being a sign of human weakness, this judicial act, expressed Jesus moral power, in that He vindicated the high honor of God and His House. It would have been a trait of human weakness, had He NOT done so! This means that ANY JEW, filled with a holy zeal for God, should have cleansed the temple long before now. That the whole nation yielded without a serious objection to the interested connivance of their hierarchy, should forever prove who REALLY was compromised by human weakness. (Remember Gods blessing on Phinehas! Num. 25:7-13; Psa. 106:30 f. And Jesus did not even use a spear!)
2.
Rather than exemplify a gross lack of tact or bare iconoclasm, Jesus attack on crass commercialism in the name of God appealed directly to what ideally was at the heart of every true Hebrews consciousness of God; respect for the temple of Jahweh. From this point of view, Jesus proceeding against the abuses is the most profoundly conservative Jewish act, (Godet citing Beyschlag, John, 370) and true Hebrew patriotism.
3.
The responsibility for the war rests with those who break the peace. Jesus did not disturb the peace: the guilt for that lay squarely on the shoulders of a corrupt high-priesthood. He simply restored the original peace, because of His merciful, sympathetic concern for people in danger of missing God in that temple.
4.
There is here no inconsistency with Jesus healing the sick in the temple after kicking out the merchants. Ever the Good Shepherd, He drives away the wolves, hirelings and thieves, while at the same time calling His sheep around Him. It is the same spirit that motivates Him, on the one hand, to purify Gods House of its polluters or that stimulates Him to help those impeded by human wickedness, on the other. They are just two sides of the same coin.
And for those who criticize Jesus for ignoring many other abuses crying for the attention of the social reformer, by striding into the temple to clean house, let it be said that He was not blind to the former. Rather, He simply recognized that the best way to deal with the blatantly iniquitous social conditions through which He walked was to bring judgment to the House of God first (Eze. 9:6; 1Pe. 4:17). As long as the temple and people of God were opposed to the purposes of God, society could not be cured. But the contrary is also true: while the ruin of the people is the fault of its priests, the people faithful to God should also demand better priests! (Jer. 5:31). Jesus is no shallow social reformer easily satisfied-with surface changes. He strode right to the heart of societys ills: a perverted and avaricious priesthood and a polluted temple.
He cast them all out. It is mistaken to suppose that the vendors and buyers said absolutely nothing, or that Jesus turned on them a superhuman gaze or divine radiance that stunned them into automatic submission. Although He certainly COULD have done so, is it necessary to the accomplishment of His task as this is seen in the Synoptics or even in Joh. 2:12 ff.? The submission of those who surrendered, when they were numerous enough and physically strong enough easily to have overpowered Jesus, may otherwise be accounted for:
1.
There was moral power in Christs sinlessness that made cowards of these materialists. His voice, ringing with zeal for God and hard as steel because He demanded truth and righteousness, pierced their long-sleeping conscience, accusing them of violating their own professed principles. So He had on His side the conscience, not only of the onlookers, but of the merchants themselves.
2.
That Jesus could so single-handedly break up the priests monopoly without any significant opposition may have been due not only to the majestic fury He expressed, but also to the popular support of thousands of pilgrims, resentful of the many years these greedy merchants had taken advantage of them. Although their own boldness was not ready to join Him in His attack, their heart could definitely recognize the rightness of His deed. It was not unlikely that this very corruption of the temple drove the pious among the Essenes to consider this sanctuary off limits and justify themselves in offering sacrifices of their own elsewhere (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, 1, 5). Lack of any public support for the merchants further weakened their will to resist.
3.
He succeeded in doing what it would have taken a troop of soldiers to do, because He had the element of surprise in His favor and pressed His advantage without let-up until reaching His objective.
This majestic roughness is, rather, the sort of thing to be expected, if the Lord ever came suddenly to His temple (Mal. 3:1) to purify the Levites (Mal. 3:2-3) and to begin the terrible judgment of God at the sanctuary (Eze. 9:6), even if the temple cleansing does not exhaust all the meaning of these great prophecies.
II. ROYAL REVERENCE
Mat. 21:13 And he saith unto them. Jesus action was no merely dramatic symbol left for others to interpret. His rationale must be clearly expressed in propositional revelation. It is written: from the form of Jesus rhetorical question (as quoted by Mar. 11:17, Is it not written . . .?) which expected an affirmative answer, it is clear that the Lord hereby intended to defend His course of action on the basis of Biblical texts well-known and unquestionably accepted by His challengers. He depended upon the truthful, valid revelations of Old Testament Scriptures.
A. WHAT GODS HOUSE SHOULD BE
My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations (Isa. 56:7).
Although throughout his Gospel Matthew has laid such obvious stress on the place of Gentiles in plan of God (see Special Study: The Participation of Gentiles at the end of this volume), it is surprising that he should have omitted what Mark quotes: for all nations. This would perhaps have been an excellent opportunity to underscore the fact that God loved the Gentiles enough to accept their burnt offerings and sacrifices on His altar and give them joy in His house of prayer (Isa. 56:7 a, b). This omission cannot but draw attention to Jesus true emphasis on the temple abuses which practically obstructed all Gentile attempts to worship God through prayer.
However, it could be fairly argued that Matthew did not HAVE to cite the missing phrase in order to make this point:
1.
Because anyone who knew where the market was located, knew that the abuse to be corrected was hindering Gentiles, not Jewish, efforts to worship.
2.
Because anyone who knew Isa. 56:7 could automatically complete anything Matthew omitted, especially from their own familiarity with Isaiahs context that so clearly pictured universal religion beyond any racial, cultural or geographic discrimination. Access to God was not to be controlled nor hindered by sordid business interests of a bio-geographic elite. Rather, access to the God of Israel must remain universal, open to all, not blocked by the shameful comportment of this religions representatives and custodians. On the other hand, the restoration of the rights of Gentiles in the temple courts may not have been emphasized by Matthew, because the early readers might have wrongly deduced that mere restoration of those rights would have sufficed, whereas God intended a totally new temple! (Eph. 2:11-22).
Nothing could sting the holders of religious power more than this public accusation that exposed them as flagrant violators of the very Word of God of which they claimed to be the only authorized defenders and interpreters. Worse yet, even outsidersthe non-Jewsknew that this area of the temple had been designed by God as a quiet, orderly place for their prayers, but that it had been sabotaged! (Study 1Ki. 8:29 f., 1Ki. 8:33, esp. 1Ki. 8:41-43; Psa. 27:4; Psa. 65:4.) The avaricious and corrupt high priestly family stood before God and man as guilty of gross violation of Gods original intent behind the temples original function.
B. WHAT GODS HOUSE HAD BECOME
But you make it a den of robbers (Jer. 7:11). In Jeremiahs day the temple was frequented by people who, while loudly professing their awareness that the Jerusalem sanctuary was really the Temple of the Lord, nevertheless dealt unjustly with each other, oppressed the alien, the fatherless and the widow, shed innocent blood and followed other gods, stole, murdered, committed adultery and perjury. Incredibly, they added insult to their injury of God by supposing that this manner of life could continue on indefinitely, precisely because of Gods house in their midst AS A GOOD-LUCK CHARM against any possible future misfortunes. But God considered it really a den of robbers.
The objection, that a robbers den is not used for robbing but as a refuge for robbers, misses the point, because, if anyone stumbled unawares into a den of robbers (= refuge, hiding place, home, etc.), he would as surely be robbed there as anywhere else. A Gentile who discovered God and His house and thinking it is a true temple, would be as surely robbed of his newfound faith and piety there by the temples own custodians, as he would by being waylaid by the desecrations of the same people elsewhere (cf. Rom. 2:17-24!).
You make it a den of robbers. The glaring contrast between house of prayer and den of robbers places Jesus in diametric opposition to the priesthoods administration of the temple sanctioned by the elders. Thus He is charging this high body with profanity and is attacking an exceedingly powerful private interest. But the religion of the God of Israel must not be turned into a lucrative source of profit for anyone! Here once again we see the paradoxical converging of (1) the religious pride of the elect people of God and (2) the shame-lessness of their immorality. Just as Isaiah and Jeremiah had done in their day, so now Jesus blasts Israels religious pride and self-seeking, mercenary activities. A den of robbers was a verdict right out of their own Bible! Rather than offer the grace of God freely and generously to all people, the shepherds of Israel only grudgingly opened Gods temple to non-Israelites, and so pampered Jewish national pride. They used God and temple for their own advantage, taking advantage of the weakness and ignorance of poor, innocent people. Exploiting people by charging exorbitant prices for sacrifices is no less the sin of stealing than is robbery.
Further, if Jesus is right in judging the temple to be governed by conditions also prevailing in Jeremiahs day, conditions that demanded divine vengeance, just as He had done earlier at Shilohs tabernacle with identical justification (Jer. 7:12-15), would not these same conditions demand that God destroy the temple again? This judgment by Jesus should alert us to expect Him to prophesy the temples destruction. In this way He prepares the readers mind for Mat. 23:38; Mat. 24:2. In fact, a few decades later the temple actually became even more literally a cave of murderers, as the Assassins turned it into a theater for their atrocities. (See Josephus, Wars, IV, 3, 7; 10, 12; IV, 6, 3.) Yet, even Jeremiah offered mercy to those who repent (Jer. 7:5; Jer. 7:7). Does Jesus citation of Jeremiahs ominous phrase imply that repentance is their only hope of saving their lives, their temple and their nation?
III. RIGHT RESPONSE
Mat. 21:14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple. This quiet sentence silences all who put down Jesus temple cleansing to a reprehensible outburst of violent anger. The Lords ringing condemnation of the unholy treatment of Gods house and merciless exposure of its administrators certainly did not deter the needy from approaching this same Lord to seek merciful help. In the midst of Jesus overturning of tables, scattering coins and knocking down benches, His roughness with the vendors, sellers and the indifferent traipsing through the temple and despite His wrath against all that defiled, these needy people were unable to discern any pettishness or rejection in His words or manner. Rather, in the marvelous compassion He was displaying toward the Gentiles as He cleared the market out of the courtyard designated for their worship, the troubled Hebrews could sense a kindness that invited them too.
WHY THESE MIRACLES IN THE TEMPLE?
By what right does the Nazarene turn Gods House from a market into a HOSPITAL?! How would His miracles be conducive to prayer, when His own protest implied that the market distracted the mind from God? Would not the amazed witnesses exclamations be as fully distracting to Gentiles as would the bawling of cattle merchants and the clink of the money-changers coins? How could He justify that?
1.
These unfortunates may have approached Jesus, not immediately after the temple cleansing, but while he was teaching daily in the temple (Luk. 19:47 a). In fact, healing and instruction probably continued all the rest of that day. (See Mat. 21:17 f.; Mar. 11:12; Mar. 11:19.) If so, while Matthews repeated expression, in the temple (Mat. 21:12; Mat. 21:14-15) seems to imply immediate connection with the cleansing, he does not offer us tight time connections. Jesus may have healed them after the stated hours for prayer or in some temple area other than in the Court of the Gentiles.
2.
On the other hand, if He did these miracles right in the still untidy court before the dust had settled on the debris, even as the last hawker scrambled to collect his scattered shekels, Jesus desired to show how a righteous anger that eliminates what is wrong, is perfectly harmonious with doing what is positively right. Merciful healing for the sightless and crippled is motivated not only by compassionate love but also by a deep and holy anger at what left them helpless, anger enough to do the thing needed to eliminate that evil from their lives. (Cf. Joh. 11:33; Joh. 11:35; Joh. 11:38; Mar. 3:5; see my comments on Mat. 5:22.)
3.
If the Qumran Rule of Congregation (1 QM Mat. 2:5-22) excluded the lame, blind, deaf and dumb from the congregation and from the Messianic banquet, and if the Mishnah excluded them from appearing before the Lord in the temple (cf. Chagigah 1:1), then, Jesus, the Lord of the temple, not only encouraged their approach, but also qualified them to worship by eliminating their disability and consequent disqualification.
4.
If the temple is a house of prayer, then should not these, who believe Jesus to be the direct channel for the power of God, address their petitions to Him in His Fathers house? This was converted by Jesus into no mere hospital, where the infirm may convalesce slowly, but into a veritable door of Heaven where men were made perfectly and instantly whole by the power of Him whose House it was. If the temple IS Gods house, as Jesus declares, cannot He do anything He wants to in His own house?!
5.
The exalted authority, that our Lord had claimed to exercise, required evidence of His right so to act. The miracles became His credentials to support His implied right. It is clear that God approved, since no man could do these things unless God were with him! (Joh. 3:2; Joh. 10:37 f; Joh. 14:10 f.; Act. 10:38).
6.
Further, if the temples purpose was to turn Gentiles attention to the true, living God who answers prayers and really helps men on earth, then Jesus miracles, which tended to produce this very effect (Mat. 15:31), harmonized perfectly with the temples intended use.
And he healed them, not in some obscure village or distant desert where none could test the reality of His power to cure. Rather, He did it in the capital city, right in its temple under the skeptical scrutiny of His severest critics. And because all was so public, the multitudes of eye-witnesses, awed by His miracles and amazed by His teaching (Mar. 11:18; Luk. 19:48), proved to be a psychologically impassible barrier around Jesus, stymying His foes plot to suppress Him. Nothing could stop Him from doing good, whether on the Sabbath (Mat. 12:1-14) or in the temple! In short, He practiced His own principle that God wants mercifulness and not merely sacrifice. (See notes on Mat. 12:7.)
IV. RAGING REACTIONARIES
Mat. 21:15 The chief priests were Sadducees (Act. 5:17; Josephus, Ant., XX, 9, 1). These Sadducean high priests were dedicated, among other things, to these points:
1.
A purely materialistic world-view that all but denied Gods right to be present in and act within His own creation. (Cf. Mat. 22:23; Act. 23:8.)
2.
A liberal view of the Old Testament canon that left little room for conscientious service to God that tried to go by ALL the Book.
Jesus dramatic protest and His appeal to Scripture instantly drew fire from the aristocracy, because He threatened the security of their hold on a lucrative source of income. Until the Last Week, objections to Jesus had come from the Pharisees. Now, however, He has just touched the nerve-center of the high priests, the temple. Consequently, these elitists will figure even more prominently among Jesus opponents until they all finally collaborate to perpetrate His judicial murder. (They are mentioned 19 times: Mat. 21:15; Mat. 21:23; Mat. 21:45; Mat. 26:3; Mat. 26:14; Mat. 26:47; Mat. 26:57; Mat. 26:59; Mat. 26:62-63; Mat. 26:65; Mat. 27:1; Mat. 27:3; Mat. 27:6; Mat. 27:12; Mat. 27:20; Mat. 27:41; Mat. 27:62; Mat. 28:11.)
When the chief priests and the scribes saw, they became first-hand witnesses, therefore qualified to give authoritative testimony to the reality of His marvelous deeds. What did they see?
1.
The wonderful things that He did.
a.
His proper display of orthodox zeal for the holiness of the temple, backed by Scripture they could not publicly deny.
(1)
Although Sadducees neglected the prophets (Edersehim, Life, II, 397), the Lord did not hesitate to cite them as Gods Word, because of their thoroughly adequate attestation as spokesmen for God and because of their place in the more widely recognized Jewish canon.
(2)
Sadducean rejection of the prophets would be exposed even further, if they had publicly objected to His citations from Isaiah and Jeremiah, for all men held them to be prophets of God too. (Cf. Authors Matthew, III, 434f.)
b.
They must have stood speechless in the presence of Jesus undeniable miracles (Mat. 21:14), because they were unquestionable evidence of real, supernatural power operative through Jesus in the realm of the real, testable, material world. This they could not oppose without denying what they themselves had personally witnessed nor without reverting to the already discredited Pharisean contention that His power was really that of the devil (Mat. 12:24 ff.).
2.
and the children that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David. We see here:
a.
The joyous enthusiasm of children attracted to Jesus because they knew He loved them. He was no ogre whose supposedly vicious attack in the temple should have frightened children. Rather, they approach Him, shouting His praise shortly after the temple cleansing and in psychologically direct connection with the Messianic demonstration the day before during the triumphal entry (Mar. 11:1; Mar. 11:12; Mar. 11:15). The temple cleansing rekindled their enthusiasm and set them to chanting His Messianic glory. He really wanted the little children to come to Him (cf. Mat. 19:13-15 notes) and they could sense this even without artificial invitations or prompting.
b.
The unprejudiced sincerity of these children is obvious in their evident lack of that self-protecting prudence so characteristic of their elders who could better grasp something of the deadly struggle taking place between Jesus and authorities.
c.
The manifest rightness of these childrens confession is vindicated by no less an authority than Jesus Himself. However little they understood the issues at stake, what they uttered was TRUTH, and, as far as it went, that TRUTH must be defended and believed and acted upon, even if spoken by children.
But, having witnessed all this evidence of the Lords glory, rather than submitting their souls to His leadership, the chief priests and scribes . . . were indignant! Godet (John, 364) notes:
We meet here a fact, which will repeat itself at every manifestation of the Lords glory; a twofold impression is produced, according to the moral predisposition of the witnesses; some find in the act of Jesus nourishment for their faith; for others the same act becomes a subject of offense. It is the pre-existing moral sympathy or antipathy that determines the impression.
The Sadducean temple priests are deeply threatened by Jesus, because, far from keeping His particular claims or teaching to Himself, He insisted on asserting His understanding of God right in Jerusalem and even in the temple precincts themselves! Unpopular with the majority, the priestly power had no refuge other than the temple, and the Galilean Prophet publicly threatened not only the impending end of their monopoly on the temple but also of the power they derived therefrom (Luk. 13:35; cf. Mat. 23:38; Joh. 2:20 with Mat. 26:61). Many reasons serve to explain the hierarchys outrage:
1.
They were the offenders, enraged at Christs rebuking them by exposing their gross, wanton unfaithfulness to their God-given duty, in the presence of those whose opinion of their piety they had cultivated with great care.
2.
They were pompous officials, men of rank and dignity, annoyed by the boldness and naughtiness of the children in their holy temple.
3.
Because they were unbelievers, they expressed impotent rage at any form of public recognition given to Jesus claims to Christhood, thinking it childish blasphemy, while totally blind to the blasphemy of their own lives. Hosanna to the Son of David: because this shout is the basis of the priests objection to Jesus tacit permission of the childrens praise, it forever proves how Jewish authorities of Jesus day understood this title. Now, none can argue, as some modern Jewish scholars try, that these words do not convey the concept of a personal Messiah promised to Israel who would actually be born of Davids family. Rather, to any objection that those children were only singing innocent Psalms, whereas silence was called for, the authorities of Israel then present silence these quibbles by practically shouting, Do you not hear what they are saying?! These understood,
4.
Because they were fearful, they may have been maddened by their own ineptness in dealing with a problem that rightly lay within their responsibility to solve.
a.
They lacked courage to act in their proper official capacity as the guarantors of orthodoxy. (Contrast Saul of Tarsus!)
b.
They feared His popular influence. Their concern would be for national security, their own position and nation (Joh. 11:48). They clearly grasped the universality of His appeal, as representative groups from the entire nation (ho las gr hpas) sympathized with Him.
c.
Or did they fear the tremendous firepower at His disposal, which had not yet been unleashed against them? Did they fear Him as a powerful magician in the service of Satan? (Cf. Joh. 18:4-8 with Mat. 26:53.)
d.
While we cannot absolutely discount a supernatural manifestation of the majesty of His deity only slightly dimmed by human flesh, is it likely that Jesus had to awe them with this glory to hold them at bay until their hour had struck? (Study Luk. 22:52 f.)
e.
They feared the people whose applause for Jesus heralded Him as their Hero. They could foresee that, if they touched so much as a hair of Jesus head, an aroused citizenry would begin to clamor for their expulsion. Could they ride out the furious firestorm that must insue?
Mat. 21:16. These politicians, who socialized with those who could promote their interests and used the little people for their own ends, were aghast that the Galilean dared to defend the cause of the downtrodden, the foreigner, and diseased and the juveniles. So, frustrated by their own lack of arguments against His miracles, afraid to object to the multitudes joyous demonstrations of religious enthusiasm, and cornered by their own confusion, they can only object weakly to the unsought praise given Jesus by little children! Helplessly, they ask, Do you hear what these are saying?
Should it appear unlikely that there were crowds of excited children in the temple courts, since surely the temple police would have quickly and capably stopped them, had they really been shouting what Matthew reports, notice that:
1.
Jesus critics hold Him responsible to attend to the children, implying that HE must shut them up, as if such police did not have that responsibility.
2.
Is it unthinkable that, during the great feasts, when the whole nation was gathered together, the children should have organized themselves for games during their free time, or even for just such praise and dancing as seems evident here? Let Matthews critics go study children!
3.
The question uppermost with the priests is not noise per se, but WHAT the boys were shouting.
4.
Further, THIS day was like no other upon which modern critics should base their judgment, since, as Barclay (Matthew, II, 274) says:
Things were happening that day in the Temple Court which had never happened before. It was not every day that the traders and the money-changers were sent packing, and . . . the blind and the lame were healed. Maybe ordinarily it would have been impossible for the children to shout like this, but then this was no ordinary day.
Their complaint is as ironic as the whole scene is natural:
1.
They who for so long had promoted the noisy market in the temple, with its stinking animals and dusty, haggling merchants, because there was money in it for them, now sanctimoniously declare themselves to be scandalized by the singing of innocent lads who thus desecrate the sacred temple of the Lord!
2.
Worse, they are now as wrong in demanding the crushing of the boys enthusiasm, as they had earlier been mistaken in not abolishing the temple bazaar themselves!
Since Jesus could have quieted the children, but had not done so, the priests lay the blame on Him for allowing the shameful situation to continue. In this implied rebuke, these Sadducees echo the Pharisees bitter jealousy, Master, rebuke thy disciples! (Luk. 19:39). Perhaps they expect this provincial prophet to back down, mumble an apology or perhaps sneak out of town. Instead, He meets their challenge with quiet defiance.
V. A REFINED REMINDER
Mat. 21:16 And Jesus said to them, Yes. In fact, could He have FAILED to notice language the content of which cried out for notice? He calmly goes about His work as Messiah, mirroring the ancient adage: Let anothers mouth praise you. Without explicitly affirming His Messiahship, He deliberately permitted the boys to chant the truth that He longed to impress upon people by His deeds and teaching.
The fuming authorities ask, Do you not HEAR? to which Jesus demands, Have YOU never READ? Had they known their Bibleas they above all Hebrews should have known ithad they recalled those very Scriptures they claimed to honor and teach, they could have remembered that text which completely vindicated everything to which they had just now objected!
In order better to appreciate Jesus highly condensed rebuttal, we must comprehend the objection that provoked it. In fact, both the objection and Jesus answer are highly compressed, implying several unstated propositions. We might attempt to express the detractors unstated logic as follows:
1.
The children call you Son of David, a title equivalent to Messiah, our national Hebrew Ideal Man, God Anointed sent to bless Israel.
2.
But you, Jesus, are but a common man like any other and your program is a bad representation of the great Messianic Kingdom of Davids Son.
3.
Therefore, you could not be the Messiah, Gods Ideal Man, Son of David.
4.
Therefore, honesty should compel you to silence the childrens ignorant and misdirected praise. Consistency would demand that your anxiety to remove what you term disorder in Gods House should also eliminate these urchins unjustifiable outbursts.
Their fundamental objection is thus based on what appears to them to be His painfully evident common humanness. They suppose that His ordinariness disqualifies Him for Messiahship. So, how does Jesus answer the dignitaries? He simply quoted Psa. 8:2.
Mat. 21:16
HEBREW ORIGINAL OF Psa. 8:2
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings
Out of the mouth of children and sucklings because of your adversaries, You have created a power to still Your enemy and the revengeful.
You have perfected praise.
Many correctly affirm that Psalms 8 is not Messianic in the usual sense of explicitly predicting some phase of Christs ministry, person or work. Nevertheless, that Psalms 8 is definitely Christological (= Messianic) is forever established by Jesus who used it to defend, not merely little children, but specifically to vindicate what they are saying, i.e. praise to Jesus as Messiah. So the CONTENT of the boys praise finds its defense, according to the Lord, in Psalms 8 too. We may expect, then, that this Psalm describe, even indirectly, what Messiah must be or do. In fact, is there any reason, inherent in the Psalm or in Jesus situation, why the connection Jesus draws between what the children are saying and the Psalm itself, should not be weighed into a proper exegesis of this text?
Because Jesus recorded answer consists in a brief citation of one portion of a verse from Psalms 8, the question arises:
1.
Did He intend to refer exclusively to the verse cited?
a.
If so, is He merely making some logical argument, as, for example, from the smaller to the greater? That is, If infants can speak truly when praising God, as Psalms 8 shows, why complain, if larger children speak truly about me? Deal with the infants in Psalms 8 first, then come complain about these bigger children here!
b.
Or, is He leading these priestly scholars into the deeper meaning of the verse cited? And would not that meaning be rooted in its context? But this conducts us to the following possibility:
2.
Is He not, rather, alluding to the entire Psalm in which the verse cited not only finds its context and significance, but of which it is also the capsulized summation?
If accepted, this latter view includes the former and would reveal Jesus interpretation of the Psalms true meaning and, at the same time, would reveal the smashing brilliance of His defense.
So, if we have correctly surmised that Jesus intends to establish the correctness of the childrens words by citing this Psalm, we must also correctly intuit the logical steps by which He does this. Jesus highly condensed argument may be expressed in the following equations:
Gods Ideal Man = Messiah = Davids Son = Little Baby = Man at his weakest = Gods normal means to silence His enemies, rule the earth and glorify Himself. Therefore, a fully human, apparently feeble Messiah is not unthinkable, but even highly probable. Therefore, my genuine humanness is no disqualification for Messiahship, but rather an extremely appropriate qualification and an invitation to examine my other credentials. Consider each step individually:
I.
GODS IDEAL MAN TO RULE THE EARTH IS THE MESSIAH
A.
This proposition is only apparently extraneous to the general discussion, but is really fundamental to it and most appropriate.
1.
In fact, the Hebrew officials could not discern in Jesus that exquisite combination of qualities they should have associated with the Ideal Man whom God would anoint to be Messiah.
2.
Further, by pointing His detractors to Psalms 8, the Lord instantly raises the issue of what sort of Ideal Man God has in mind to be His Anointed One.
B.
Thus, if then-contemporary Judaism thought of their Ideal Man as a Jewish Superman, their concept must be modified to match Gods promises concerning the true nature of the Anointed One.
C.
Gods Ideal Man, the fitting Leader of mankind, is Messiah, a fact implicitly recognized by the Biblical Judaism of the centuries preceding Jesus appearance on earth. (Many precious prophecies laid the groundwork for this concept, e.g.: Gen. 3:15; Deu. 18:15-18; 2Sa. 7:11-16; Psalms 2; Psa. 110:1-4; Isa. 7:14; Isa. 8:13 f; Isa. 9:2-7; Isa. 11:1 ff; Isa. 40:3-11; Isa. 42:1-7; Isa. 52:13 to Isa. 53:12; Isa. 61:1 ff.; Zec. 9:9; Mal. 3:1, etc.)
D.
It would be a temptation for Judaism to make the mistake of assuming that Messiah would suddenly appear in His glory, fully endowed with supernatural power, however bearing no really radical connection with the misery and humiliation involved in the human condition. Such a view, however, must be corrected by the observation that, since the Christ is a true Son of David, He must be thought of as a real, human baby born of real Davidic ancestry. (See Prop. III below.)
II.
THE MESSIAH IS THE SON OF DAVID
A.
No right-minded Hebrew would dare debate this proposition in Jesus day (Mat. 22:41 ff.). Then-current Judaism, in fact, expected a personal Messiah to be born in a given town and of a prophetically indicated parentage (Mat. 23:6; Joh. 7:41 f.).
B.
Can the sure oath of God to David fail to establish one of his descendants upon the throne (2Sa. 7:11-16; Psa. 132:11-18)?
III.
THE SON OF DAVID WILL BE A LITERAL BABY
A.
If the Christ must be born of the lineage of David, how could this occur, unless He were a perfectly normal, human BABY, although he be the royal child? Does Messiahship, or birth in to Davids family, somehow exempt the Son of David from being someones little boy? Whatever else may be affirmed of Him, should not Messiah of all people, be authentically HUMAN, born of human parentage? Could anyone doubt that the Child born to us to reign on Davids throne (Isa. 9:6 f.), the son of the virgin (Isa. 7:14), must be genuinely MAN, i.e. fully human?
B.
And if He must be the Ideal Man, should He not be born a common Baby, so as to identify perfectly with His people of whom He would be the true, typical representative?
IV.
BUT A BABY IS MAN AT HIS WEAKEST
A.
Even though He be the Son of David and future Messiah, how could ( = why should) this baby be exempt from all the usual, negative aspects of the human condition? If Jewish theologians cannot conceive of the great Son of David as appearing on earth in so inglorious a form as that of a little baby, they must be taught that, despite the striking insignificance of Man, God entrust to HIM the gigantic task of administration, of the world to come. (This concept is developed by Paul; Heb. 2:6 ff.; 1Co. 15:27; Eph. 1:22). If mans common humanness be construed as a stumbling block and a cause for the disgrace of disqualification for Gods great work, let it be remembered that man IN HIM SELF is nothing.
B.
Here, then, is Davids original understanding expressed in Psalms 8. The Psalms theme is: Gods Glory Revealed in His Glorification of Man, a theme developed in three steps:
1.
Mans comparative frailty is evident in his microscopic insignificance in contrast to the magnitude of Gods heavens (Psa. 8:3-4).
2.
Mans conferred dignity is evidence that any greatness he enjoys has been granted him by God (Psa. 8:5).
a,
God made man just lower than Heavenly Beings.
b.
God crowned man with glory and honor.
3.
Mans constituted authority, as seen in his influence over the rest of earths creatures, is also Gods gift (Psa. 8:6-8).
C.
Therefore, Gods glorification of Man forever proves that any dignity and importance we attribute to man is contingent, not absolute; conferred, not earned. For the Psalmist, if there is anything great about man, it is because God graciously conferred it on him. There is nothing inherent in maneither in his native or his acquired abilities or in his personal or group achievementsthat qualifies him for such an exalted position. Mans greatness is the unmerited gift from GOD. Human dignity has no reality or meaning, except as it finds these in Gods gracious purpose for delegating it to him.
D.
Therefore, if the Son of David must be a little baby, man at his weakest, it is not unthinkable that Messianic royalty should be conferred upon him, despite his apparent weaknesses and lack of qualification in the judgment of the great of earth.
E.
If this proposition seems threatening, because babyhood is the nadir experience of human weakness, the tension is resolved by the glorious truth of the proposition which follows:
V.
BUT MAN AT HIS WEAKEST IS GODS NORMAL INSTRUMENT (Psalms 8)
A.
The theme of Psalms 8 is introduced by a principle that explains why God should choose to elevate man to such exceptional dignity: although our Lord possesses all majesty in heaven and on earth, He has chosen to deal with His opposers and enemies, not by some personal feat of heavenly might, but by using MAN to do it (Psa. 8:1 f.). To rule the world and still His enemies, our God needs only that power available in His effective use of what all would deem to be absurdly inadequate means, e.g. human beings. (Cf. the voices of children versus Gods mighty enemies, Psa. 8:2; puny man versus the total creation, Psa. 8:3-8.) And, because this Psalm essentially summarizes Genesis 1, 2, we understand that this concept is Gods typical procedure, not the exception. God glorifies His name and humiliates His enemies and He utilizes firepower no more formidable than the spontaneous praise of those who are little better than BABES
B.
The Psalm establishes Gods normal procedure: He delights to display His greatness by making skillful use of absurdly feeble instruments to produce incredible effective results. Therefore, human depreciation of any of Gods servants or means, based on what proud mortals may eventually think of His servants apparent unworthiness, insignificance or obscurity, is absolutely no indication of their usefulness or worth to God. Whom God qualifies for His service is qualified, whether haughty sinners admit it or not! And God can enable him to succeed mightily at the task to which He sets him.
C. From the foregoing premises, it is now possible to see the point of Jesus implied conclusion:
VI.
THEREFORE, A FULLY HUMAN, APPARENTLY FEEBLE MESSIAH IS NOT INCONCEIVABLE, BUT EVEN HIGHLY PROBABLE, BECAUSE FULLY VINDICATED BY SCRIPTURE (Psalms 8).
A.
The stumbling block for the theologians was not the humanness of the Messiah but that God could have sent so glorious a Christ in so inglorious a form! Because Psalms 8 speaks of the high irony of Gods planning, should not Jesus objectors reread it to understand that God has always used what is insignificant in mans eyes to bring Himself glory? (A not unknown principle: 1Co. 1:18-31; Mat. 11:25; 2Co. 12:7-10. Remember Davids defeat of Goliath.)
B.
By citing Psalms 8, Jesus dispatched the priests implied arguments by teaching them to see Gods normative use of common MEN, not supermen or angels, to praise Him and rule the earth. If the philosophical anti-supernaturalism of the Sadducean chief priests keeps them from accepting Jesus claims to be Gods Son, therefore, in some sense, deity, then let them consider Him as a MAN! But let them do this in the light of Gods purpose for Man as this is revealed in Scripture!
C.
By citing Psalms 8 in defense of the childrens ascription of Messiahship to Him, Jesus implies that the long-awaited Christ, Davids Son, must be fully MAN, even man at his weakest, a little baby. Because of these leaders preconceptions as to what Gods Kingdom and Messiah must be, they had lost their ability to look objectively at ANY man to wonder how God could use that man to glorify Himself. Had they looked at Jesus in this light, they would have been able to see those supernatural credentials which indisputably signaled Gods stamp of approval upon Him as true Son of David. By thinking that common humanness is unimportant as a proper condition of Messiahship, they also missed seeing the glorious condescension of God who, in the mortal clay of Jesus, prepared to conquer the Evil One. So, His very obvious humanness and lack of qualification in the eyes of His critics, should have been an argument for joining the children in praising God for giving such authority to MEN! (Cf. Mat. 9:8.) This is why the objection that, because Jesus seemed to them but a mere man He could not qualify to be Son of David, is itself inappropriate. After all, could the Word of God (Psalms 8) be thought to have failed in its promise that, somehow, some MAN would bring to completion Gods plan?
D.
By quoting Psalms 8, Jesus directed His questioners to check out His other qualifications, since David taught that whomever God elevates to high dignity is thereby qualified by His sovereign grace, and all previous estimates of THAT mans unworthiness must be revised! Let the chief priests quietly reflect upon His works, His character and His results. Even if they choked on His claims, upon reflection they might yet see how truly all that He did praised God.
From this standpoint, then, Psalms 8 contains no direct or unique reference either to the Messiah or to the little childrens praising Him. Rather, it contained the principle: Gods glory is revealed in His glorification of Man, a principle most appropriately applicable to Jesus as Messiah. In fact, mans highest dignity and actual universal dominion over the earth would be realized only in Him (Heb. 2:6 ff.; 1Co. 15:27; Eph. 1:22). From this perspective, Jesus Himself was one such little child, whose natural weakness God would turn into sufficient strength to defeat His enemies and silence the revengeful, rule the earth and glorify God. (Cf. Rev. 12:5; Rev. 17:14 as pictorial representation of this same truth: it is the Lamb, not the great dragon or the beasts, that conquers!)
Because Psalms 8 is not strictly Messianic, it is of much wider application. In fact, the short-sighted chief priests, by despising the childrens praise, failed to understand that those feeble adorers of God, whose childlike affirmations of faith in Gods Christ were real, were even then effectively defeating Gods adversaries. How did they do this?
1.
God was proving to sceptics that humble, teachable people can actually see what is objectively there, i.e. Jesus true Messiahship. These children, untrammeled by prejudice and tradition, let themselves be completely convinced by the impression Jesus produced on their minds, whereas the Sadducean high priests minds were bogged down in rationalizations and biased misjudgments. However keen their intellect, these men of corrupt heart could look upon the Son of David in person and yet not discern His true identity nor glorify God for it! But their numerous doubts and cynical criticisms were devastated by the guileless, spontaneous confession of love and trust by these children. The unfeigned purity of feeling expressed in the chanting of these children warmed Jesus, and proved that ALL men COULD HAVE recognized and praised Him as did they. At the same time it condemned (silenced Psa. 8:2) those who not only would not worship Him, but, worse, began to plot His murder.
2.
The little children concept in Scripture is Gods normal procedure. Therefore, the scribes estimations of what is required to establish the great Messianic Kingdom are all miscalculations. If God can take what appears to be a common Galilean, Jesus of Nazareth, and utilize Him to do all that is involved in being the Son of David, if one day God will vindicate the rightness of the little childrens praise over against the established conclusions of theological scholarship of that day, if He can transform simple fishermen and tax collectors, farmers and housewives into frontline troops to bring about the subjugation of the earth, then God is acting as He always has and His Kingdom is right on course! (1Co. 1:18-31).
a.
The Messiahs Kingdom, for its advancement, needs no more formidable weaponry than that strength wielded by common believers so despised by worldlings enamored with the usual arms of manly warfare. (Cf. 2Co. 3:4-6; 2Co. 4:7; 2Co. 10:3-5; 2Co. 12:8.)
b.
Gods choice of adults, who are hardly better than little children, to promote the progress of His Kingdom, is ample proof of His real control over it. (Study notes on Mat. 11:25 f; Mat. 18:3 f.) To defeat the awful power of evil, God maneuvers only the awesome might of the meek! (Mat. 21:5, the Messianic King; Mat. 11:29),
3.
Jesus own program for world conquest is also in Psalms 8, as He too had already made the little children concept His own. He knew that the best kind of praise and service to God is that which comes from simple, sincere people who can receive from God without judging Him or having to tell Him what He can or cannot do. Since ordinary people, who did not count for much on the social scale, recognized and praised Jesus at a time when their great ones refused to do so, in Gods eyes they condemned the angry arrogance of His opposition. Those who glorify human accomplishments, who seek and give human praise, and who continue to reject our Lord Jesus Christ, do not deserve to be made citizens of Gods Kingdom. And they shall not have it! (Luk. 12:32). In short, the followers of Jesus, the CHURCH, is really the sort of Messianic program that God has always had in mind. The great God of heavenly armies would perfect His praise, not by some dazzling display of divine power nor by the eloquence of great, wise or learned men of earthas men expect Him to, but by the effective use of sincere, humble people who can speak His truth taught them by Jesus! According to Jesus, as the old hymn has it,
Not with swords loud clashing
Nor roll of stirring drums
With deeds of love and mercy
The heavenly Kingdom comes.
4.
To recognize and praise Gods Christ is to recognize and praise God Himself (Joh. 5:22 f.; Mat. 10:40; Luk. 10:16). The enthusiasm of the children who praised Jesus, in essence, said that God had marvelously succeeded in bringing His Anointed into the world. So God received glory as truly from these irrepressible little boys as from choirs of angels around His throne, and should not Jesus defend them? And should not the most fitting setting for it be Gods House?
5.
Even if someone noticed that Psalms 8 spoke directly of childrens praising the LORD, whereas Jesus cited it to defend childrens praising Himself, His citation is legitimate, because, in a very true sense, Jesus is really Jahweh come to earth as a genuine human being to subject all things to Himself (Mat. 1:23; Php. 2:5-7; Joh. 1:1; Joh. 1:14; Joh. 1:18). Since Jesus had already furnished ample proof that His claims to deity are all true, the burden of proof to the contrary lay on those who denied it. (For His claims, see notes on Mat. 11:27; for His proofs, think of Joh. 10:37 f; Joh. 14:10 f; Joh. 3:2.)
VI. A RETREAT FOR REFLECTION AND REST
Mat. 21:17 And he left them and went forth out of the city to Bethany and lodged there. Because Matthew used a participle (katalipn, here rendered left), which may just as easily be a circumstantial temporal participle subordinate to the main verb (exlthen, went forth), it may be rendered when He left them, He went forth. There is therefore no contradiction with Marks information that the Lord actually left the temple much later that day (Mar. 11:19). Yet, katalipn has something of the flavor of to abandon, leave to ones destiny, (Rocci, 989). So it is not mistaken to see the Lord as having verbally silenced His critics with a deft parry from Scripture, then turning on His heel, leaving them to ponder His words (cf. Mat. 16:4 b). Although he left the chief priests and scribes fuming, the crowds stayed right with Him, because the rest of that day was given over to teaching on such a popular level that literally hundreds of people crowded around Him to absorb His lessons (Mar. 11:18; Luk. 19:48).
He went forth out of the city for several possible reasons:
1.
The city of Jerusalem, during Passover week, teemed with pilgrims, as the entire Jewish nation gathered for the feast, bringing in tourists from all over the Mediterranean world. Edersheim (Temple, 31), citing Tacitus, affirmed that within the city dwelt a population of 600,000 people, but which, according to Josephus, swelled to a figure between two and three million at feast time. The conditions in the crowded metropolis pushed rabbis to declare that, during the feastsexcept on the first nightthe people might camp outside the city, however within the limits of a sabbth-days journey. Hence, hospitality outside the crowded, noisy city would bring welcome rest to the Savior.
2.
Further, he went forth . . . to Bethany and lodged there, not unlikely because His three friends of Bethany, who had hosted Him on many other occasions, would perhaps insist that He lodge with them again (cf. Luk. 10:38 ff.; Joh. 11:2 f; Joh. 12:1-8; Mat. 26:6-13). Bethany, in fact, being just over the Mount of Olives 3 km (under 2 mi.) to the east of the city (Joh. 11:18), on the eastern slope of the mount (cf. Luk. 24:50 wth Act. 1:12), furnished a handy base to and from which He could commute everyday to Jerusalem, returning each evening (Luk. 21:37 f.; Mar. 11:11-12; Mar. 11:15; Mar. 11:19-20; Mar. 11:27).
3.
Another possible reason for spending the nights outside Jerusalem was Jesus own use of proper caution. Even though He was perfectly confident that none could really arrest Him until the hour assigned for it by God, He prudently avoided their clutches by staying just out of their immediate reach.
WHY DID JESUS PURIFY THE TEMPLE?
This is Phase II of the Messianic Offensive. Jesus assault on Jerusalem began with the Messianic triumphal entry. This is proved by Matthews direct connection drawn between the temple-cleansing with the bold Messianic declaration made during the entry. Jesus recognized that the real enemy of Israel was not Rome. His strategy, therefore, lay not in political or military power struggles, but in making men pure before God; He attacked the real enemy, Satan, not the apparent foe, the State. Israel, He sees, must be freed, not from occupation to soldiers, but from preoccupation with sin.
1.
Was Jesus purpose merely to criticize the hypocritical worship of the temples custodians, who, on the excuse of honoring God, turned it into a source of financial advantage for themselves? This certainly harmonizes with the position occupied by the ancient prophets. In fact, Jesus stands impressively and solidly in the great prophetic tradition and fully supports all that His predecessors had decried. He would therefore need no further vindication of His actions.
To those who question the permanent good done by His mechanical purification of the temple if He cleansed not their hearts, thus stopping the external abuse while leaving their wicked mentality, let it be answered that He justified His deed by appeal to the Law and the Prophets. If people could be made sensitive to the divine authority of these, perhaps they could also be led to acknowledge their need for repentance and be brought all the way to confess Him whom God sent.
2.
Is there DEITY implied here? Since Jesus had connected the ministry of John the Baptist with the prophecy of Malachi 3 (Mat. 11:10; Mat. 11:14), and since John was the messenger to appear just before the Lord Himself should suddenly appear in His temple to purify, should not the whole, complex event of Jesus arrival in Jerusalem, and particularly in the temple to cleanse it, be seen as a fulfilment of Malachis prophecy? But would the reader have drawn this conclusion from such distant premises? Nevertheless, Matthews deliberate connection of the temple cleansing with the Messianic Entry of Israels divine King (cf. Mat. 21:4 f. and Zec. 9:9) intends to interpret this temple cleansing in terms of Jesus divine dignity. In light of Zec. 9:9, Jesus acted out the Messianic symbolism. He expressed His justice by refusing to tolerate the profaning of Gods House. He showed His meekness and victory by healing the blind and lame and by accepting the evidence of how deeply His influence had penetrated the masses of Israel by justifying the praise of those who are often last of all to be affected by intellectual choices, the children. While He did not defend His actions as evidence of His essential Sonship (as in the case of the first cleansing, Joh. 2:16 : my Fathers house), His deeds are not inconsistent with it. Rather, they are what we might expect of One fully conscious of His Sonship. His felt consciousness of deity and sovereignty over the temple did not have to be stated as the basis of His actions. This could be amply demonstrated in His own place for teaching and healing. Nevertheless, because we have already seen that in Jesus Christ we have something greater than the temple (Mat. 12:6), we are already prepared psychologically to see it as part of Jesus Messianic symbolism to claim Lordship over the temple by restoring it to its right use.
3.
Or is this gesture a visual announcement that God is about to abandon the temple, leaving it and its hypocritical worshippers to the natural consequences of His abandoning their house which they so flagrantly abused and polluted (Mat. 23:38)? From this standpoint, His gesture is more than merely symbolic Messianism. It is the sentence of a holy God who cleanses His own House one last time in vigorous protest against its repulsive sordidness, to show His justification for abandoning it altogether later.
The judgment that occurred symbolically in the condemnation of the leafy, but unfruitful, fig tree, is repeated even more clearly in the judgment upon the nations authorities. Like the barren fig tree, the important question and sole justification for the temples continued existence, was its real usefulness. It is NOW performing the task for which it was created? If not, it must be cleansed or pruned a year or so, and then eliminated (cf. Luk. 13:6-9).
4.
His act is concretely practical. Like a snowplow laboring to reach isolated communities starving for essential provisions for life, Jesus was bull-dozing aside all that hindered needy Gentiles from reaching the life-giving God of Israel. All that blocked access to God must be ruthlessly removed, regardless of the apparent validity of the rationalizations used to justify it.
Could there be any connection between this cleansing of the temple and the fact that various religious groups, notably the Essene community, were out of fellowship with the temple and refused it because of the corrupt priesthood and the profaned worship that took place there? (Cf. Maggioni, Luca, 247.) They affirmed that the true temple was the community, especially theirs, and that true worship was a godly life and observance of the law (without temple observances, of course). For these Hebrew monks, however, the temple had to be replaced by a pure community, because the former had been profaned. But Jesus shows the Essenes to be mistaken, because, so long as the Jerusalem temple stood, it was the true route of access to God and might not be substituted until Gods purposes for its existence had been realized. Rather than substitute something else for it, He cleansed it.
Jesus desired to prepare Gods House once more for use as a TEMPLE, where silence and orderliness facilitated reverent worship or teaching. The uproar of the market made prayer impossible, so the people of God effectually robbed the humble, seeking Gentiles of their opportunity to satisfy the haunting longing of their soul by prayer in a suitable atmosphere conducive to access to the living God. Was it likely that the prayer of Psalms 67 could be prayed or answered?
5.
Why cleanse the temple? Because it was Passover! If there ever were a time when preparation for the Feast of Unleavened Bread should include the elimination of the old leaven, it was now. Jesus must sweep away all the old leaven of human selfishness, the meaningless external observances and the private interest linked with money and power, all flourishing at the expense of zeal for Gods House (cf. 1Co. 5:6-8).
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
According to Mark, from where were Jesus and His disciples coming when they entered the temple?
2.
Whom did Jesus find in the temple that should not have been there?
3.
In precisely what part of the temple was the abuse taking place? How do you know?
4.
Why were these people there? Did they supply a need for the worshippers? If so, what?
5.
What was so wrong about what was done by the people Jesus drove out of the temple?
6.
Name some Old Testament heroes who had taken similar vigorous action to protect the holiness of God and that which had been dedicated to Him?
7.
According to Mark, Jesus took the offensive not only against the sellers and moneychangers, but also against others. Who were these and why did Jesus attack them too?
8.
What two passages of Scripture did Jesus cite to justify His actions?
9.
What are the similarities and differences between Johns account of the temple cleansing and those of Matthew, Mark and Luke (cf. Joh. 2:13-25)?
10.
What effect did the temple cleansing have upon the chief priests and scribes?
11.
What effect did it have upon the simple, common people?
12.
After the cleansing of the temple, who approached Jesus to be helped by Him? What sort of help did they seek?
13.
Who continued to keep up the popular enthusiasm expressed during the triumphal entry the day before? What slogans were being shouted? What did the words mean?
14.
What was the basis of the objections the religious authorities raised to the cries of the children?
15.
What answer did Jesus give to justify what the children were saying? Where did He get His answer? What did He mean to communicate by it?
16.
Where did Jesus go after the cleansing of the temple?
17.
How did Jesus busy Himself for the rest of the day in the temple after cleansing it (Luk. 19:47 f.; Mar. 11:18).
18.
According to Mark and Luke, how did the rulers of the people react to Jesus bold defense of His cleansing the temple?
19.
According to Mark and Luke, how did the common people react to Jesus?
20.
Where did Jesus go to spend the night? Who else lived there? When had He been there before? What else took place there connected with the life of Jesus?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(12) And Jesus went into the temple.Here, again, there is a gap to be filled up from another Gospel. St. Mark (Mar. 11:11) says definitely that on the day of His solemn entry He went into the Temple, looked round about on all things there,i.e., on the scene of traffic and disorder described in this verseand then, the evening-tide being come (or, the hour being now late), went back to Bethany, and did what is here narrated on the following day. So, with a like difference of order, St. Mark places the sentence on the barren fig-tree on the next morning, and before the cleansing of the Temple. (Comp. Note on Mat. 21:17.) St. John (Joh. 2:13-25) records an act of like nature as occurring at the commencement of our Lords ministry, on the first visit to Jerusalem after His baptism. Critics who have started with the assumption that the repetition of such an act was impossible, have inferred accordingly that the narrative has been misplaced either by the Three or by St. John, some holding with the latter and some with the former, on grounds more or less arbitrary. From the purest human historical point of view, we may, I believe, accept both narratives as true. If Jesus of Nazareth had been only a patriot Jew, filled with an intense enthusiasm for the holiness of the Temple, what more likely than that He should commence His work with a protest against its desecration? If the evils against which He thus protested, after being suppressed for a time, reappeared in all their enormity, what more probable than that He should renew the protest at this stage of His work, backed as He now was by the equal enthusiasm of the people? What more natural, again, than that the second cleansing should revive the memory of the first, and call up with it the words which are recorded by St. John, and not by the Three, and which served as the basis of the charge that He had threatened to destroy the Temple (Joh. 2:20-21; Mat. 26:61; Mar. 14:58). There isit cannot be concealeda real difficulty in the omission of the earlier cleansing by the Three, and in the absence of any reference to the later cleansing by the Fourth; but the fact in either case is only one of many like facts incident to the structure of the Gospels. The Three knew nothingor rather, they record nothingas to our Lords ministry in Jerusalem prior to this last entry. The Fourth, writing a Gospel supplementary either to the Three or to the current oral teaching which they embodied, systematically passes over, with one or two notable exceptions, what they had recorded, and confines his work to reporting, with marvellous vividness and fulness, specially selected incidents.
Cast out them that sold and bought in the temple.The apparent strangeness of the permission of what seems to us so manifest a desecration, was obviously not felt by the Jews as we feel it. Pilgrims came from all parts of the world to keep the Passover, to offer their sacrifices, sin-offerings, or thank-offerings, according to the circumstances of each case. They did not bring the victims with them. What plan, it might seem, could be more convenient than that they should find a market where they could buy them as near as possible to the place where the sacrifice was to be offered? One of the courts of the Temple was therefore assigned for the purpose, and probably the priests found their profit in the arrangement by charging a fee or rent of some kind for the privilege of holding stalls. There is no trace of the practice prior to the Captivity, but the dispersion of the Jews afterwards naturally led men to feel the want of such accommodation more keenly. But this permission brought with it another as its inevitable sequel. The pilgrims brought with them the coinage of their own countrySyrian, Egyptian, Greek, as the case might beand their money was either not current in Palestine, or, as being stamped with the symbols of heathen worship, could not be received into the Corban, or treasury of the Temple. For their convenience, therefore, money-changers were wanted, who, of course, made the usual agio, or profit, on each transaction. We must picture to ourselves, in addition to all the stir and bustle inseparable from such traffic, the wrangling and bitter words and reckless oaths which necessarily grew out of it with such a people as the Jews. The history of Christian churches has not been altogether without parallels that may help us to understand how such a desecration came to be permitted. Those who remember the state of the great cathedral of London, as painted in the literature of Elizabeth and James, when mules and horses laden with market produce, were led through St. Pauls as a matter of every-day occurrence, and bargains were struck there, and burglaries planned, and servants hired, and profligate assignations made and kept, will feel that even Christian and Protestant England has hardly the right to cast a stone at the priests and people of Jerusalem.
And the seats of them that sold doves.The Greek has the articlethe doves, that were so familiar an object in the Temple courts. There is a characteristic feature in this incident as compared with the earlier cleansing. Then, as taking into account, apparently, the less glaringly offensive nature of the traffic, our Lord had simply bidden the dealers in doves to depart, with their stalls and bird-cages (Joh. 2:16). Now, as if indignant at their return to the desecrating work which He had then forbidden, He places them also in the same condemnation as the others.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. Jesus went into the temple of God Historically, there was a FIRST TEMPLE and a SECOND.
The First, or Solomon’s Temple, was the proper successor of the tabernacle built by Moses in the wilderness, (see note on Mat 17:4,) being to it as a palace compared with a most humble cot, but upon the same model. It was indeed intended to be the house of God, the palace of Jehovah, God and King of the Jews. The temple or house proper was an oblong in form, and divided into two rooms; the interior one being the holy of holies, the exterior or front one the holy place. In the former was the ark containing the law, the lid of which was the mercy-seat, upon which rested the Shekinah, or cloud of the visible Divine Presence. Over this mercy-seat two cherubim bent face to face; whence God dwelt between the cherubim. As Jehovah here dwelt, so the forward room contained his furniture, namely, the golden candlestick, the table of presence-bread, (show-bread,) the altar of incense or perfumery. The priests and Levites were his royal servants. Before the door of the temple stood the great brazen altar, upon which were sacrificed (as the royal food) the offered beasts.
Around the temple building were the temple courts or enclosures. The first was the court of the priests, into which none but the priestly order might enter. Enclosing this was the court of Israel, into which all male Jews might enter; and fronting these the court of women. Gentiles were admitted only to the outermost court, enclosing the whole. Each inner court rose, as in terraces, higher than the outer; so that the temple building mounted conspicuous above the whole.
The Second Temple, built upon the same site and model, after the captivity, and rebuilt by Herod the Great, was that in which our Saviour now entered. The entire temple area was a square, with an eighth of a mile to each side. It was entered by nine magnificent gates. The inside of the outermost wall was lined with covered promenades, called porches or porticoes, with cedar roofs, supported by marble columns and with floors of smooth solid variegated marble. These porches were thirty cubits wide, and the south-side one was thrice as wide. There was a synagogue room, in the south porch, which was the place where religious services were performed. In this synagogue it was that the doctors discoursed, that Christ taught, and the disciples daily assembled with one accord. (Act 2:6.) Hither resorted for recreation or converse Jew or Gentile. From the summit of the wall the perpendicular descent was unbroken to the bottom of the Kedron. At the southwest corner was the lofty pinnacle where the Saviour was tempted of Satan to leap into the awful chasm below.
1 Stone for censer. 2 Show bread bakery. 3 Guard room. 4 Treasure room. 5 Single cloister. 6 Golden table. 7 Golden incense. 8 Golden Candelabrum. 9 Stone steps. 10 Ascent to altar. 11 Gate of Nicanor. 12 Apartments for the deposit of sacrificial wine and oil. 13 Rooms for the ceremony of cleansing lepers. 14 Galleried cloister. 15 Treasure chests. 16 Room for the ceremony of release from a Nazarite vow. 17 Chambers for the deposit of wood.
18 Beautiful Gate. 19 Porch. 20 Marble table for fresh show bread. 21 Golden table for stale show bread. *Steps.
Near the northern wall stood the Tower of ANTONIA, overtopping the temple, in which the Roman garrison was placed to maintain order. It was a square building, with a side of three hundred feet. A subterranean passage led from the tower to the court of the Gentiles, so that the Roman soldiery could enter at any time to suppress tumult. Besides this, the Jews had a small body of men, under a captain, to keep order about the temple grounds.
The walls of the temple were built of hard white stone, of stupendous size. From Mount Olivet the spectacle was truly magnificent. But the Jews held that these five ancient endowments were wanting to the second temple, namely, the Ark, the Urim and Thummim, the Fire from Heaven, the Shekinah, and the spirit of Prophecy. Yet in glorious fulfilment of the prophecy of Haggai, (ii, 9,) by the presence of Jesus the glory of the latter house has surpassed all the endowments of the temple of Solomon.
Jesus entered the Court of the Gentiles, for there it was that these abuses existed. As if to show their contempt of the Gentiles, the Jews had allowed this part to be filled with all the tumult of traffic. This was in direct contradiction to the prophecy quoted by our Lord, that God’s house should be “a house of prayer for all people.” Isa 56:7. Our Lord hereby indicates that under his dispensation the privileges of the Gentiles would be amply maintained.
Sold bought Animals for temple sacrifice and other commodities. Money changers The Jewish money being alone accepted for the sacred treasure, brokers were always at hand to furnish it in exchange for the foreign coin. Doves Used in sacrifice by the poor.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all those who sold and bought in the temple, and he overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those who sold the doves,’
The road led to the Temple, the centre of Jewish worship and a focal point at Passover time, where daily prayer would be heard. But no one in the Court of the Gentiles was taking much notice of that for the purveyors of sacrificial animals continued to buy and sell, the money changers continued to change the money of visitors into the right coinage for the payment of the Temple Tax (in reliable Tyrian coinage) and those who sold doves for sacrifice continued to do a roaring trade. Little thought was paid to any Gentiles who might have come into that outer court to pray.
When Jesus had been a young prophet with little experience He had entered the Temple courts and had been angered at the trading in the Temple which had seemed to demean it, and had sought to turn out those involved with the cry, ‘Do not make My Father’s House into a marketplace’ (Joh 2:13-16). It had been a seven day wonder, but soon forgotten, probably being written off as the activity of a young hothead, and endured because the people had approved. (There are so many obvious differences in a short space between John’s account and the Synoptics that they were clearly different events). However, since then He had visited Jerusalem a number of times and there had been no trouble. Thus none was probably expected at this Passover. Jesus had, however, by this time discovered more about what went on in the Temple, and He knew that His tome had come.
So history now repeated itself. Jesus strode ‘into the temple of God, and cast out all those who sold and bought in the temple, and He overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those who sold the doves.’ This time it was a deliberate and thought out action, and not just a reaction against His Father’s house being treated like a marketplace. Having entered Jerusalem as its King He was demonstrating His authority by emptying the Temple of commerce, and exposing the fraudulence and corruption that was taking place in the Temple. He was seeking to turn it into what it should have been for all people, a house of prayer and worship. It was an indication that He had come to purge out evil in all its forms. In the words of Hos 9:15, ‘Because of the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of My House.’ The Lord had suddenly come to His Temple in order to seek to purify it (Mal 3:1-4).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Pharisees Reject their King ( Mar 11:15-19 , Luk 19:45-48 , Joh 2:13-22 ) In Mat 21:12-17 Jesus cleanses the Temple immediately upon entering the city. Jesus did not come to take over the government imposed upon Israel by the Roman Empire. Instead, He came to take over the Temple service so that God the Father could be exalted and Israel would in turn be lifted out of the dust of oppression. The Temple must serve as a house of prayer if Israel is to be exalted by God, as in the days of David and Solomon. Unfortunately, the Jewis leaders were offended at Jesus and demanded to know why He felt He had the authority to change the secular customs of the Temple. Jesus then heals the sick, only to be rejected by the Pharisees. Note that Jesus cleansed the Temple before He began to minister healing to the sick.
The Chronological Placement of Jesus Cleansing the Temple Scholars have noted for centuries that the four Evangelists did not record all of the events of Jesus’ public ministry in the same order. While the Synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus at the end of His ministry, John puts this event at the beginning of his Gospel. Although scholars today debate as to the original order of this event, it is not a new concern. For example, Isho’dad of Merv (c. A.D. 850), the Syriac bishop of Hadatha, comments on the efforts of the apostle John to set in order the events of Jesus’ public ministry because the Synoptic Gospels had recorded some events out of chronological order.
“On account of this reason therefore, he [John the apostle] took special care also about the orders and sequences of the things that were done. This none of these Evangelists took care to do; but they wrote many things that were done first after those that were done last; and many things last, that were spoken and done before the former things; so therefore John did not [do this], but took care to put first the things that were at the first, and after them those that were afterwards; and yet in the middle he left many things out, those that had been related by those others.” [521]
[521] Margaret Dunlop Gibson, ed. and trans., The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv Bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.) in Syriac and English, vol. 1, in Horae Semiticae, no. 5 (Cambridge: The University Press, 1911), 211-212.
In support of this testimony, Eusebius cites Papias (A.D. 60-130), bishop of Hierapolis, who stated that Mark did not always put the events of his Gospel in chronological order.
“It is in the following words: ‘This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.’ These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15)
The Examples of Josiah and Nehemiah Josiah cleansed the temple during his reign as king of Judah (2Ki 22:1-20). Nehemiah also cleansed the Temple in his time:
Neh 13:7-9, “And I came to Jerusalem, and understood of the evil that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber. Then I commanded, and they cleansed the chambers: and thither brought I again the vessels of the house of God, with the meat offering and the frankincense.”
Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:12
[522] Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, in The New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 314.
Mat 21:12 “all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves” – Comments Many of the Jewish pilgrims needed to change coins because they brought foreign curreny. They also needed to purchase animals for temple worship (see Deu 14:24-29). While those with adequate funds purchased sheep for ritual sacrifice, the poor would substitute doves in the place of sheep.
Deu 14:24-29, “And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee. At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.”
Mat 21:13 Comments The restoration of Temple worship was the priority of Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem immediately before His passion. Before a nation can be blessed by God and restored, the people’s heart must be made right before God. The outward condition of the Temple always represents the inward condition of the heart. Thus, the Temple must be set in order before the people were able to follow God and receive His blessings. In a similar manner, Ezekiel prophecies of the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem (Eze 40:1 to Eze 46:24) prior to the restoration of the land of Israel (Eze 47:1 to Eze 48:35).
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Mat 21:13
“but ye have made it a den of thieves” – Comments Jesus then uses the phrase “den of thieves,’ which clearly echos to Jer 7:11, “Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.” The phrase “den of thieves” means that these money changers were overcharging the people, who were required by the Law to purchase their Temple sacrifices. It was very likely that the chief priests received kickbacks for allowing these merchants into the Temple.
Mat 21:14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
Mat 21:14
Mat 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
Mat 21:15
Just as James and John faced the opposition of the other ten disciples when they petitioned Jesus for exaltation in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat 20:24), and just as the twl blind men faced the opposition of the crowds (Mat 20:31), so do the people face the opposition of the Jewish leaders then they truly worship the Lord. The Jewish leaders did not believe the multitudes had the knowledge and understanding to worship the Lord without their role as intercessory priests. How could these multitudes have direct access to God? We must understand that prayers can be hindered by opposition, but we must press in and be determined to receive from God. Such determination is an indication of our faith in Him.
Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Mat 21:16
“ .” [523]
[523] Septuaginta: With morphology, ed. Alfred Rahlfs (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, c1979, 1996), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), Psalms 8:3.
Brenton reads, “ Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger.”
Mat 21:17 And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
Mat 21:17
Scholars popularly assume Jesus lodged with Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, according to Joh 12:1-2, “Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Christ Visits the Temple.
v. 12. And Jesus went into the Temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the Temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
v. 13. and said unto them, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. During the first days of this, His last week in lowliness on earth, Jesus made Bethany His headquarters, spending the days in the city and returning to His friends overnight. It was on Monday of Holy Week that Jesus was most grievously hurt and offended by the state of affairs in the Temple, as once before, Joh 2:13-17. Originally, every person that wanted to bring a sacrifice to the Temple took the animal from his own herd or flock. But in the course of time there was a change made, chiefly due to the various restrictions as to the fitness of the various animals. The Jewish officials in Jerusalem took advantage of the situation by starting a market right at the Temple-gates and in the Temple-courts. There were the various sacrificial animals, such as bullocks, sheep, goats, doves, and others, all guaranteed to measure up to the standard of Levitical purity. And since this business involved a good deal of money-changing, a formal bank business had developed within a stone’s throw of the holy place. A strange scene: The lowing of the cattle, the bleating of the sheep and lambs, the cooing of the doves, the cry of the venders, the clink of money, all this in the place which was sacred to the name of God. Add to this the fact that the priests were often deriving benefit from this arrangement by drawing down a nice percentage for the concession, as Luther says, and we have a picture of commercialism in the Church such as can hardly be duplicated, although it has more than once been equaled in the Church. “Avarice covered with the veil of religion is one of those things on which Christ looks with the greatest indignation in His Church. Merchandise of holy things, simoniacal presentations, fraudulent exchanges, a mercenary spirit in sacred functions; ecclesiastical employments obtained by flattery, service, or attendance, or by anything which is instead of money; collations, nominations, and elections made through any other motive than the glory of God; these are all fatal and damnable profanations, of which those in the Temple were only a shadow. ” A holy indignation took hold upon Jesus at the sight of this blasphemous spirit and its evidence. With the authority and dignity of the outraged Son of God He strode into the court. Roughly He pushed aside and cast out the merchants, impatiently He knocked down the tables of the petty bankers and of the dove-sellers, incidentally reminding the people of the words of the prophets. Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11. As a house of prayer the Temple of Solomon had been built for all nations, 1Ki 8:1-66, and a house of prayer the present structure was to be as well. But they, by their mercenary spirit and practices, had made it a den of thieves, in which cheating and overreaching was the order of the day.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 21:12. And Jesus went into the temple See the notes on Joh 2:14; Joh 2:25.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 21:12 . Different from Mar 11:11 ; Mar 11:15 , where the narrative is more precise; comp. Weiss’ note on Mark.
In the court of the Gentiles were the tabernae , , where animals, incense, oil, wine, and other requisites for sacrifice were exposed for sale. Lightfoot on this passage.
The money-changers ( ., see Phrynichus, p. 440) exchanged on commission ( , Maimonides, Shekal. 3) ordinary money for the two drachmae pieces which were used in paying the temple tribute (see note on Mat 17:24 ).
This cleansing of the temple is, with Chrysostom, Paulus, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Olshausen, Kern, Ebrard, Baumgarten
Crusius, Schleiermacher, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, to be regarded as the second that took place, the first being that recorded in Joh 2:13 ff., and which occurred on the occasion of the first visit to Jerusalem. The abuse having been repeated, there is no reason why Jesus should not have repeated this purifying process, and that (in answer to Hofmann, Luthardt, Hengstenberg) without any essential difference. The absence, in the synoptical account, of any allusion to a previous occasion, is sufficiently explicable from the length of time that intervened, and from the fact that the Synoptists take no notice generally of what took place during the earlier visit to Judea. The similarity of the accompanying circumstances may be accounted for from the similarity of the incidents themselves; whereas the supposition that the cleansing took place only on one occasion would necessarily involve a chronological derangement extending to almost the whole period of Christ’s ministry, a derangement which can neither be fairly imputed to the synoptical narrative nor even conceived of as far as John is concerned, whose testimony is that of an eye-witness. This is not “wishy-washy criticism” (Keim), but it is based upon the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, as well as upon the weighty and unanimous testimony of the synoptical writers, to sacrifice whose authority for the sake of John would be both one-sided and violent. This, however, is what Wetstein, Lcke, Neander, de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Weizscker have done. Others, again, have rejected the fourth evangelist’s account, so far as its chronology is concerned, in favour of that of the Synoptists (Ziegler, Theile, Strauss, Baur, Weisse, Hilgenfeld, Schenkel, Keim). Comp., further, the remarks under Joh 2:17 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
FIFTH SECTION
THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE AND ABODE IN IT AS ITS KING
Mat 21:12-22
A. The House of Prayer and Mercy, in contrast with the Den of Thieves. Mat 21:12-14.
(Mar 11:11-17; Luk 19:45-46.)
12And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew [overturned, ] the tables of the money changers, 13and the seats of them that sold [of sellers of] doves,17 And [he]18 said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the [a] house of prayer (Isa 56:7); but ye have made [make]19 it a den of thieves [robbers, , Jer 7:11];20 14And the blind and the lame21 came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mat 21:12. And He went into the temple of God, and cast out.Marks account is here the more exact. On the evening of Palm Sunday Jesus went into the temple, and looked round,without, however, doing anything then. He thereupon returned with the disciples to Bethany, which may be regarded as the Lords resting-place during the festival. Returning next day to the temple, the fig-tree was cursed. Then followed the cleansing of the temple.
The temple. , , Here comes into view the history of the templeits construction, and form, and meaning. The Jewish temple was the mysterious centre of Israel: hence its history is the history of the people down to the destruction of Jerusalem. We may distinguish, 1. The period of the patriarchal altar; 2. that of the tabernacle (travelling; moveable, and at last resting on Zion); 3. the temple of Solomon; 4. the temple of Zerubbabel; 5. the temple of Herod. At the destruction of Jerusalem the temple disappeared, its meaning being absorbed in the Church of Christ; that is the type gave place, or was lost in the antitype. The temple-vision of Ezekiel has only an ideal, symbolical meaning. The attempt of Julian to rebuild the temple only served to demonstrate the continuance of its doom; and the temple of the Egyptian Jews at Leontopolis was only a transitory imitation. As the temple, in the narrower sense, had three historical periods, so the sanctuary of the temple had three divisionsthe Forecourt, the Sanctuary, and the Holiest or Holy of Holies. See Winer, art. Tempel [also the valuable article Temple, illustrated with plates, in W. Smiths Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii., pp. 14501464]. As to the signification of the temple, compare the various treatises of Bhr, Kurtz, Sartorius, Hengstenberg, and others, upon the Mosaic Cultus, but especially Friederich: Symbolik der Mosaischen Stiftshutte, Leipz., 1841, and Bhr: Der Salomonische Tempel, Karlsruhe, 1848. The following are some of the views taken: 1. The temple was a figure of the universe (Philo, Josephus); 2. a symbol of the dwelling-place of God after the analogy of human dwellings (Hoffmann); 3. a figure of the human form and nature (intimated by Philo, Luther, Friederich); 4. a symbol of heaven (Bhr); 5. the symbol of the kingdom of God under the Old Covenant (Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Lisco, etc.).So far as the temple of God was a symbol, it was a figure of the theocracyof the kingdom of heaven which comes down to earth; but bo far as it was a typethat is, a figure of something to come22it was a figure of the body of Christ (according to John 2), and of His Church as the real house of God. And thus, as the Holiest of all was the most essential thing in the type, it will find its final and consummate realization in the kingdom of glory (comp. Heb 9:24; Rev 21:22).
And cast out.The locality of this scene was the Court of the Gentiles. The history of this court is obscure, but it is a very important element in the history of the temple; it is connected with the development of the hierarchy on the one hand, and with the advancement of proselytism on the other. The changes which this court underwent, reflected precisely the course of these relations. The tabernacle had only one forecourt, the court of the altar of burnt-offering (Exo 27:1-8). The only hint of a distinction between the place of the people and the place of the priests, is the circumstance that the laver of brass for the priests washing (Exo 38:8) stood nearer the sanctuary than the altar of burnt-offering. In the temple of Solomon the court of the priests (the inner court) was distinguished from the great court (2Ch 4:9). Probably, also, it was a few steps higher; and the altar of burnt-offering belonged to the court of the priests. In the temple of Zerubbabel, Alexander Jannus (b. c. 106) separated the court of the priests by a wooden trellis from the external court of the temple (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 3, 5). This wooden trellis gave way in the temple of Herod to one of stone, of the height of an ell (Joseph. Bell. Judges 6, 6, 5); and in this temple also the court of the Gentiles assumed a definite character. The temple itself was surrounded by terraces, which formed the several courts in gradation. The outermost space (in the Talmud: mountain of the house; 1Ma 13:53 : mountain of the sanctuary) went round the whole temple, and had several gates. It was laid with colored stones, and begirt with beautiful halls. A few steps higher a stone lattice, three ells high, ran all the way round, with here and there Greek and Latin inscriptions, that forbade all who were not Jews to proceed any farther toward the sanctuary (on pain of death, Bell. Jdg 6:2; Jdg 6:4). Hence the space of the temple mountain as far as this limit has been called by Christian archologists the Court of the Gentiles. (See Winer, sub Tempel, 2. p. 581.) Through this court was reached the court proper, which in its breadth was divided into the courts of the men and the women (the former lower than the latter), but in its depth was divided into the court of the people and that of the priests. The Court of the Gentiles grew in importance in proportion as the distinction between proselytes of the gate and of righteousness came to prevail,23 and it became customary for even devout Gentiles to bring gifts to the temple.
Those that sold and bought.In the court of the Gentiles was the so-called temple-market tabern, where sacrificial animals, incense, oil, wine, and other things necessary for the service and sacrifice, were to be obtained. Lightfoot.The table of the money-changers.They changed, at a certain premium, the common money, which was accounted protane, for the double drachmas which served for the temple-tribute. Thus the agents who had to collect the temple-tribute from the various districts resorted generally to these money-changers. According to Lundius, these collectors themselves took charge of the exchange in the temple. It is highly probable that many of those who came up from the country paid at this time the tribute which fell due in the month of Adar. And possibly other business connected with money-changing by degrees had crept in. Meyer.
The Cleansing of the Temple.According to Pearce, Wetstein, Lcke, and others, this act was identical with the cleansing mentioned in Joh 2:13, which belonged to the first visit of Jesus to the Passover after His entrance on His ministry; according to Chrysostom and most modern commentators, the account of the Synoptists is a repetition of that earlier one. It is obvious that they omitted the earlier action of the same kind, because they record, generally, only the last of Christs visits to the feast.24 But for Johns point of view, the former cleansing was a decisive crisis, and was recorded by him as such. There is no difficulty in assuming, as the distinct narratives require, that the act was performed twice. And although it might be possible that the two records mutually influenced each other (as Neander, Leben Jesu, 388, assumes), it is plain that the later has its own advance in meaning. According to Mark, Jesus did not suffer that any man should carry vessels through the temple ( Mat 11:16); and, while in John we read, Make not My Fathers house a house of merchandize, in the last accounts we read of the house of prayer for all nations being turned into a den of robbers. As to the Lords warrant for attacking the existing irregularities, which had become regular by practice, various explanations have been given. Selden (de Jure nat. et gent. Mat 4:6) and others found upon the act of Phinehas (Num 25:11) the supposition of an Israelite zealot-right; that is, the right of at once and violently assaulting and abolishing any crying offence in the theocracy. Lcke (Com. on Joh 2:15-16) thinks that zealotism as a right can not be proven, yet he gathers from the history of the people and the writings of the Rabbins that the reforming vocation in the Jewish church, if it really existed, stood higher than the external right. Of course, it is not necessary to assume that this right was invested with legal sanctions. The real question is, whether there ever was an acknowledgment of a right to interfere, under divine impulse or as a prophet, with existing abuses. And of that there can be no doubt; indeed, the sad prelude of this zealotism was the violence of the brothers Simeon and Levi (Gen 34:25), and the last perversion of it was the conduct of the Zealots during the siege of the city. Between these extremes, however, there are many, illustrious instances of zealotism; and, in its pure fundamental idea, it continues permanently in the discipline of the Christian church.25 That, at His first cleansing of the temple, Jesus acted from the impulse of prophetic zeal, and according to zealot-right, is plain from the consideration that He had not yet publicly announced Himself under the name of the Messiah; and the Evangelist significantly refers to the saying, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up (Joh 2:11). We may, therefore, thus distinguish; On the first occasion Christ attacked the abuses of the temple in the authority of prophetic zealotism; on the second occasion, in the authority of the Messiah. But we must not overlook the fact, that the former authority forms the true Old Testament basis for the latter; and that the Messiah, as a reformer, was the consummation and glorification of the prophetic zealotism. Much has been said about the assent of the people. Origen and Jerome regarded this as a specific miracle. Doubtless, the fact is explained by the miraculous influence of the prophetic majesty of Christ on the one hand, and of the evil conscience of the Jews on the other.
[The silent submission of these buyers and venders, who by their physical force might easily have overpowered Jesus, conclusively proves the sublime moral majesty and power with which our Saviour performed this act, and silences the objection of some modern skeptics, who see in it an outbreak of violent passion, which is always a sign of weakness. It was a judicial act of a religious reformer, vindicating in just and holy zeal the honor of the Lord of the temple, and revealed the presence of a superhuman authority and dignity, which filled even these profane traffickers with awe, and made them yield without a murmur. Jerome regards this expulsion of a multitude by one humble individual as the most Wonderful of the miracles, and supposes that a flame and starry ray darted from the eyes of the Saviour, and that the majesty of the Godhead was radiant in His countenance.P. S.]
Mat 21:13. And He said unto them.Isa 56:7 : For My house shall be called the house of prayer for all nations. Jer 7:11 : Is then this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? The two passages are quoted freely, and joined together according to their Old Testament meaning.In what sense a den of robbers? 1. Theophylact: . 2. Fritzsche: Ye gather together here money and animals, as robbers collect their booty in their den. 3. Rauschenbusch (Leben Jesu, 309): By these abominations the Gentiles, for whose prayer this house was designed, are kept back from Gods service. Assuredly, the fact that the place of prayer for the Gentiles was made a market for beasts, was a robbery inflicted on the rights of the Gentiles. Humanity was outraged by the false churchliness or bigotry of the Jewish odium generis humani.
Mat 21:14. And blind and lame persons came to Him.And then He turned the desecrated temple again from a den of robbers into a house of mercy.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The prophet Malachi predicted the coming of the Messiah with these words: The Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye desire, saith the Lord of hosts (Mal 3:1). These words had their manifold fulfilment in the whole course of Christs first advent; and will again be fulfilled at His second glorious coming. Once, however, they were fulfilled in their most literal sense then, namely, when Jesus, amidst the greeting of His people, made His festal entry into the temple. But in the cleansing of the temple Christ exhibited Himself as the eternal Purifier and Reformer of the theocracy, of the human heart, and of the whole Church.
2. Only one full day did Jesus dwell and rule personally in the templethe Monday of the Passion-week. This theocratical residence of one day had, however, an eternal significance. It re-established for ever the spiritual destination of the temple, and spiritually confounded and silenced in the temple itself all the false ministers and watchmen of the temple. Thus was the word of Haggai fulfilled, not only in its spirit, but also in its letter: The last glory of this house shall be greater than the first ( Mat 2:9). But, if we include the entrance on the Sunday evening (the looking round, the visitation), and the solemn departure from the temple on Tuesday (its abandonment to judgment), then the one day must be extended to three.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Jesus and the temple in Jerusalem. 1. How related in the Spirit of God: The temple the type of His body and of His Church; Christ the realization and the glory of the temple. 2. Separated through the guilt of the world: Christ crucified through false temple-service; the temple desolated through the death of Christ, and abandoned to the fire. 3. Still inseparable in the spiritual sense: all pious worship is in a Zion which the Lord will glorify. Christ visits His temple in all the world.The predictions of the prophets have all been fulfilled on the temple (Haggai, Malachi).The sanctification of the temple perfected by Christ: 1. Its purifying (negative sanctification); 2. its consecration (positiveby the healing of the blind and lame).The Lord cleanses His temple: 1. the Church; 2. the hearts of His people.The twofold change passed upon the temple: Its change from a house of prayer for all nations into a den of robbersunder the semblance of higher holiness; the change of the desecrated den of robbers into a house of prayer and of mercy.That kind of worship which outrages charity to man, may transform the house of prayer into a den of robbers.Christian consecration of the church: 1. It separates the church from the market-place; 2. it unites prayer and mercy (the hospital and the prayer-hall, htel-dieu).The great day of Christs abode in the temple: 1. Its being a strange occurrence was a sign how soon the temple might be a spiritual desert; 2. but it was also a proof that the Lord will manifest Himself to His people in His temple.The three temples on Mount Zion, and the three consecrations (1 Kings 8; Ezra 6; and this section).The zeal of the holy Son for the honor of His Fathers house.The temple itself became at last the witness of the miracles of Jesus.
Starke:Hedinger: Foul blasphemers require severe dealing: the fear of man, flattery, and gentleness, will not drive them outCramer: As everything has its time, so everything has also its place.All reform must proceed according to the rules of Holy Writ: thus Christ is the Founder of all scriptural reformation.Canstein: Churches are exclusively for divine worship.He who would spiritually walk and see, must come to Christ in the temple.
Lisco:The cleansing of the temple had a symbolical reference to the cleansing of the Church of God.
Heubner:The Lords sacred anger at the desecration of Gods house.This cleansing reminds us, 1. of the holiness which the temple had in Christs eyes; 2. of the guilt of all who desecrate Gods house and day; and 3. of our duty to do all we can to maintain their sanctity.Lavater says, that His being able to do this was the proof that He ought to do it.
[Matthew Henry:Abuses must first be purged out and plucked up before that which is right can be established.Buyers and sellers driven out before (Joh 2:14-15), will return to the temple and nestle there again, if there be no continual care and oversight, and if the blow be not often repeatThat which is lawful and laudable (as buying and selling and changing money) in another place and on another day, defiles the sanctuary and profane the sabbath.This cleansing of the temple was the only act of regal authority and coercive power of Christ in the days of His humiliation; He began with it (John 2), and He ended with it.In the reformation of the Church we must go back to the authority of the Scripture as the supreme rule and pattern, and not go further than we can justify by a final: It is written ( Mat 21:13).The blind and the lame were debarred from Davids palace (2Sa 5:8), but were admitted into Gods house, from which only the wicked and profane are excluded.The temple was profaned and abused when it was turned into a market-place, but it was graced and honored when it was made a hospital.Christs healing was the real answer to the question: Who is this? and His healing in the temple was the fulfilling of the promise, that the glory of the latter house should be greater than the glory of the former.W. Nast:By cleansing the temple Jesus symbolically sets forth the purity of heart which He requires of His church in general and of each individual belie Matthew 21 :1Co 3:16-17; 2Co 6:16.P. S.]
Footnotes:
[17] Mat 21:12. Lang and other German Versions: Taubenhdler; Luther: Taubenkrmer; sellers of doves. Doves were offered to the Lord by the poor as a substitute for a lamb, Lev 5:7; Lev 12:8; Luk 2:24.P. S.]
[18] Mat 21:13.[A new sentence ought to commence with Mat 21:13, and hence the He inserted. So also Lange.P. S.]
[19] Mat 21:13 Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Tregelles, Alford], read: , ye make, with Codd. B., L., [Cod. Sinait], and other ancient authorities, instead of of the Recepta (from Luke).
[20] Mat 21:13.[Comp. the Authorized Version in Jer 7:11, from which this passage is quoted. robber, plunderer, is stronger than , The Authorized Version, however, generally renders it thief (in 11 passages of the N. T.). except in Joh 10:1; Joh 10:8; Joh 18:40; 2Co 11:26. The difference appears plainly in Joh 10:8 : thieves and robbers. But Luthers Mrdergrube, which Lange retains, is too strong; although the verse quoted from Jeremiah stands in connection with the charge of murder and the shedding of innocent blood. Better: Ruberhhle, spelunca latronum.P. S.]
[21] Mat 21:14.Cod. C. reverses the order: . [In the English Version the definite article is required, or else the addition of the word persons.P. S.]
[22][A circumlocution of the German: Werdebild, for which I know of no precise equivalent in English.P. S.]
[23][The Edinb. transl. here, as often, reverses the sense of the original, and reads: as the distinction….was [illegible] (in German: hervortrut). The rabbinical distinction between and or far from being done away with, appeared just in the later history of Judaism, and was in full force at the time of the aposties. In the N. T. the proselytes of the gate are called (or ). Act 10:2; Act 13:50; Act 16:14; Act 17:4; Act 17:17; Act 18:7 (comp Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 7. 2); they were more susceptible for the gospel than he Jews, and Gentiles, and generally formed the nucleus of the Gentile-Christian congregations.P. S.]
[24][So also Alford. The omission of the first cleansing in the Synoptists is in remarkable consistency with the fact that their narrative is exclusively Galilan until this last journey to Jerusalem. It is impossible that either the Synoptisis or John should have made such a gross error in chronology, as the hypothesis of the identity of the two narratives assumes.P. S.]
[25][I took the liberty of substituting this idea for the Polisei des christlichen Staates in the original, which Implies the union of church and state, and is hardly applicable to our country P. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, (13) And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. (14) And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.”
I pray the Reader to pause over this account of his adorable Lord, According to my view of things, perhaps there is not, among the miracles of Christ, hardly an higher proof of his Godhead. I wish the Reader to notice it, as it deserves. To behold Jesus in the humble dress of a poor Jew, whipping the drove of cattle, with all the buyers and sellers, out of the temple, and overthrowing before him the counters of money, and the seats of the dove-sellers, and with such art holy countenance of zeal as none dared to oppose; surely it carried, with it an invincible proof of his mighty power and authority! And I beg the Reader, upon this, and many similar occasions which have occurred, to observe how plainly he mingled with his human appearance, tokens of his divine. The blind and the lame coming to him for healing, afforded an additional testimony to his divine person arid character.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Ver. 12. And cast out all them that sold ] The zeal of God’s house did ever eat him up. And (as revenge follows zeal, 2Co 7:11 ) he mars their markets, and drives them out of the temple with Procul o procul este profani. a And this deed of our Saviour’s was altogether divine; while as another Samson, he lays “heaps upon heaps” (yet without bloodshed) with the jawbone of an ass. St Jerome extolleth this miracle above the raising of Lazarus, restoring the blind to their sight, the lame to their limbs, &c., and adds this mystical sense of the text, Quotidie Iesus ingreditur templum Patris, et eiecit omnes tam episcopos et presbyteros, quam laicos et universam turbam de ecclesia sua, et unius criminis habet, vendentes pariter et ementes. Christ is every day casting out of his Church all these money merchants, these sacrilegious simonists, both ministers and others, that make sale of holy things, which the very heathens abhorred, and others long since complained that benefices were bestowed non ubi optime, sed ubi quaestuosissime, as if a man should bestow so much bread on his ass because he is to ride on him.
The tables of the money changers ] This he did also at his first entrance into the ministry, Joh 2:14-15 . See my notes on that text. The reformation of religion was Christ’s chief care, and so it shall be ours. And although little was done by his first attempt, Joh 2:13-17 , yet he tries again: so should we, contributing what we can to the work continually, by our prayers and utmost endeavours; wishing at least, as Ferus did, that we had some Moses to take away the evils in Church and State. Non enim unum tantum vitulum, sed multos habemus, saith he, for we abound with idols and evils, Exo 32:20 .
a In Graecorum sacris sacerdos exclamabat , quis hic? Respondebant qui aderant, . Eras. praefat, in Adag.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
12. ] Compare the notes on Joh 2:13-18 . The cleansing related in our text is totally distinct from that related there. It is impossible to suppose that St. Matthew and St. John, or any one but moderately acquainted with the events which he undertook to relate, should have made such a gross error in chronology, as must be laid to the charge of one or other of them, if these two occurrences were the same . I rather view the omission of the first in the synoptic accounts as in remarkable consistency with what we otherwise gather from the three Gospels that their narrative is exclusively Galilan [with one exception, Luk 4:44 in our text] until this last journey to Jerusalem , and consequently the first cleansing is passed over by them (see Prolegomena, circa init.). On the difference from Mark, see note on Mat 21:1 . Both comings of Jehovah to His temple were partial fulfilments of Mal 3:1-3 , which shall not receive its final accomplishment till His great and decisive visit at the latter day. The here spoken of was the court of the Gentiles .
We have no traces of this market in the O.T. It appears to have first arisen after the captivity, when many would come from foreign lands to Jerusalem. This would also account for the money-changers , as it was unlawful (from Exo 30:13 ) to bring foreign money for the offering of atonement. , (nummum) , Theophylact.
. ] The poor were allowed to offer these instead of the lambs for a trespass-offering, Lev 5:7 ; also for the purification of women, Lev 12:8 ; Luk 2:24 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 21:12-17 . Jesus visits the Temple (Mar 11:11 ; Mar 11:15-19 , Luk 19:45-48 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 21:12 . , etc. He entered the Temple. When? Nothing to show that it was not the same day ( vide Mk.). . The fourth Gospel (Mat 2:14 f.) reports a similar clearing at the beginning of Christ’s ministry. Two questions have been much discussed. Were there one or two acts of this kind? and if only one was it at the beginning or at the end as reported by the Synop.? However these questions may be decided, it may be regarded as one of the historic certainties that Jesus did once at least and at some time sweep the Temple clear of the unholy traffic carried on there. The evangelists fittingly connect the act with the first visit of Jesus to Jer. they report protest at first sight! . .: the article not repeated after . Sellers and buyers viewed as one company kindred in spirit, to be cleared out wholesale. , etc.: these tables were in the court of the Gentiles, in the booths ( tabernae ) where all things needed for sacrifice were sold, and the money changers sat ready to give to all comers the didrachma for the temple tax in exchange for ordinary money at a small profit. , from , a small coin, change money, hence agio ; hence our word to denote those who traded in exchange, condemned by Phryn., p. 440, while approving . Theophy. says: , ( vide Hesychius and Suicer). , doves, the poor man’s offering. The traffic was necessary, and might have been innocent; but the trading spirit soon develops abuses which were doubtless rampant at that period, making passover time a Jewish “Holy Fair,” a grotesque and offensive combination of religion with shady morality.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 21:12-13
12And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’den.”
Mat 21:12 “and Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves” This was the second cleansing of the Temple (cf. Joh 2:15). The High Priest and his family were the owners of these particular booths. They purchased the right from the Roman authorities. They originally had been set up to aid those pilgrims from foreign lands who were unable to bring sacrificial animals and the right type of money (shekel) that the temple required. These booths charged outrageous prices. If a man did bring his own animal, the priestly inspectors would find some defect in it so that they had to purchase an animal from the booth operator for a highly inflated price.
The Temple only accepted shekels (cf. Exo 30:13). There were no longer any Jewish shekels available, but there were Tyrian ones. Pilgrims were charged exorbitant prices for exchanging into this coinage. The doves were available for the poorest people so that they could make a sacrifice (cf. Lev 1:14; Lev 5:7; Lev 5:11; Lev 12:8; Lev 14:22; Luk 2:24), but the High Priests were charging exorbitant prices even for them.
This is an example of Jesus’ anger at the religious exploitation by the Jewish leaders of His day. If anger is a sin, Jesus would have sinned (cf. Eph 4:26).
Mat 21:13 “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer'” All of this buying and selling was taking place in the Court of the Gentiles, which was meant to be a place to attract the nations to the worship of YHWH. Jesus quoted Isa 56:7 and made an allusion to Jer 7:11. In Mark’s parallel (cf. Mat 11:17), he adds the phrase, ‘shall be a house of prayer for all nations.’Matthew, writing to Jews, left out this universal emphasis while Mark, writing to Romans, included it.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
the temple. Greek. hieron, the temple courts. Not the naos. See note on Mat 23:16.
the moneychangers. The half-shekel had to be paid on the 15th of the month Adar, by every Israelite (even the poorest). In every city collectors sat to receive it. On the 25th day (18 or 19 days before the Passover) they began to sit in the temple; and then they distrained if not paid. Change was given at a profit for the moneychangers. (So Maimonides, quoted by Lightfoot, vol. iii, p. 45, Pitman’s edn.)
doves. Required for the Temple offerings.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
12.] Compare the notes on Joh 2:13-18. The cleansing related in our text is totally distinct from that related there. It is impossible to suppose that St. Matthew and St. John, or any one but moderately acquainted with the events which he undertook to relate, should have made such a gross error in chronology, as must be laid to the charge of one or other of them, if these two occurrences were the same. I rather view the omission of the first in the synoptic accounts as in remarkable consistency with what we otherwise gather from the three Gospels-that their narrative is exclusively Galilan [with one exception, Luk 4:44 in our text] until this last journey to Jerusalem, and consequently the first cleansing is passed over by them (see Prolegomena, circa init.). On the difference from Mark, see note on Mat 21:1. Both comings of Jehovah to His temple were partial fulfilments of Mal 3:1-3,-which shall not receive its final accomplishment till His great and decisive visit at the latter day. The here spoken of was the court of the Gentiles.
We have no traces of this market in the O.T. It appears to have first arisen after the captivity, when many would come from foreign lands to Jerusalem. This would also account for the money-changers, as it was unlawful (from Exo 30:13) to bring foreign money for the offering of atonement. , (nummum) , Theophylact.
.] The poor were allowed to offer these instead of the lambs for a trespass-offering, Lev 5:7; also for the purification of women, Lev 12:8; Luk 2:24.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 21:12. , cast out)[916] though He was meek, and had been just called so in Mat 21:5. In the early part of His ministry, our Lord had purified the temple; see Joh 2:14. Those who profaned it had, however, returned; and now, when near the end of His course, He purifies it once more, though it was soon to be destroyed; see ch. Mat 23:38.-, all) A great miracle. Even a large body of soldiers would not have ventured to attempt it.- , …, those who sold, etc.) They had wished to offer every accommodation for public worship, especially at the time of the Passover; but by degrees they appear to have pushed their licence further.- ,[917] in the temple) and indeed in its uttermost part, the court of the Gentiles; where the Gentiles [or nations] were wont to pray. See Mar 11:17.
[916] This casting out did not occur on that very day, a day so full of grace and joy; but when men refused to obey the intimation conveyed by His eyes and look (of which Mark, ch. Mat 11:11, makes mention: [in the eventide of the same day Jesus entered the temple, and looked round about upon all things, and not until the morrow He began to cast out them that sold.-ED.]), the Lord on the following day exhibited more severe specimens of His most just indignation. Comp. with this, Mar 11:15.-Harm., p. 447.
[917] The fuller reading, , which the larger Ed. had pronounced to be an inferior reading, is regarded as almost equal in authority to that of the text by the margin of the Ed. 2 and the Germ. Vers.-E. B.
There is no primary authority for the fuller reading here. , omitting in the beginning of the sentence, is read by Lachm., with BLb Orig. Hilar. 713, Memph. and Theb. Versions. Dac Vulg. and Rec. Text add .-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Chapter 60
The House of Prayer
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there. Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
(Mat 21:12-22)
This passage of Holy Scripture sets before us two of the most remarkable events in our Lords earthly life and ministry. They are remarkable in that they are displays of the wrath and judgment of almighty God. Judgment is Gods strange work. Therefore, our Lords works primarily display the love, mercy, grace and goodness of God toward sinners. But judgment is as truly the work of God as redemption. Christ came both to redeem and save his people and to establish judgment in the earth (Isa 42:4) Usually, we see him displaying works and miracles of mercy. But here we see him displaying wrath and judgment. Both in driving the money changers out of the temple and in cursing the fruitless fig-tree, our Savior shows his willingness and his power to execute judgment.
Both of these acts of judgment are emblems of spiritual things. Both were eminently figurative and typical. Beneath the surface of each lie lessons of solemn instruction. (J.C. Ryle). Yet, in the midst of wrath, our Lord remembers mercy. How like him that is! He drove out the moneychangers; but he healed the needy. He refused the services of the priests, but accepted the praises of children. He left the caviling scribes, but went to his friends in Bethany. He who is our God and Savior is both furious in wrath and glorious in goodness.
As we go through these verses together, I want you to see seven things here recorded by divine inspiration for our comfort, learning, and edification.
The Cleansing of the Temple
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves (Mat 21:12-13).
We saw our Lord do a similar thing in the beginning of his ministry (Joh 2:14-15). During those days the temple of God, the priesthood, and all the ordinances of divine worship had degenerated into nothing but a sham, a show, a pretense. Religion was nothing but an outward service. Religious leaders were money-grubbing, self-serving professionals who, like most religious leaders today, made a business out of doing what men called the work of the ministry, the work of God.
When our Lord came into the temple, he found that house built in Gods name, the place where Gods glory was once revealed, the place of sacrifice, the place where the law of God was read, expounded, and displayed, was disgracefully profaned. Everything was out of order. Our Lord saw it all with utter indignation. In fury, he drove out the religious merchandisers, anxious to make a profit on God.
This is a vivid display of our Saviors holy sovereignty and power in judgment. Among all the miracles our Lord performed, this must be viewed as one of the clearest displays of his eternal Godhead. Here is a man, the most humble man who ever lived, casting out those who bought and sold in the temple, overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of them that sold doves. He did this with such authority and zeal that no one dared oppose him. When he publicly announced that he had done this as God, publicly claiming that he was himself God, calling the temple; My house, no one raised a voice of objection. What an invincible proof this is of his divinity! No one resisted him or his claim. So it shall be in the day of judgment. When the Son of God comes to judge the wicked, none shall be able to resist him (Mal 3:2).
There is a day coming when the Son of God will purge and cleanse his church and temple thoroughly. He shall thoroughly purge his floor. In that day, all chaff shall be burned. All the wood, hay, and stubble of mans works shall be utterly consumed with the fire of his holy wrath.
The Church of God, the assembly of Gods saints in public worship is a place of worship, the house of prayer (Isa 56:7). Prayer is the worship of God. And in the worship of God, small things matter (1Ch 15:13). It is an act of abomination to make it anything else. The assembly of men and women in the name of Christ, every true local church is the house of God (1Ti 3:15). This is the place where Christ meets his people (Mat 18:20). This is the place of worship. There is no room in the house of God for anything except the worship of God. That involves the preaching of the gospel, prayer and praise, the reading of his Word, the attentive hearing of his Word, and the observance of gospel ordinances, believers baptism and the Lords Supper. Anything else is out of place in Gods house.
The Compassion of our Savior
And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them (Mat 21:14). It is ever the character of our God that in wrath he remembers mercy. When the blind and the lame came to him for healing, he healed them. Do not imagine that our Savior is not merciful because he is just and true. He has no tolerance for religious con-men and hucksters; but he is full of compassion to needy souls. Never did anyone come to him for mercy, while he walked on this earth, who did not obtain the mercy sought. And he has not changed. All who seek mercy from him obtain mercy.
The place of mercy is still the temple of God, the divinely appointed place of worship, the church and house of God. I once came into Gods house as a blind, lame, helpless soul. There, in the house of worship, the Son of God healed me. In that place where his word is preached, I obtained mercy from him, and left the house seeing and hearing, leaping and dancing, and praising God my Savior. If you want mercy, put yourself in the place where mercy is found. If you are interested in others obtaining mercy, get them to the place where Christ dispenses mercy.
The Childrens Confession
And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased (Mat 21:15). This is another remarkable display of our Saviors divinity. When our Lord Jesus received worship from these children in the house of God, his reception of their praise was an open claim that he is God. He, as well as those in the temple, knew that this cry, Hosanna to the Son of David, was praise reserved for no one but the Messiah.
When the priests and scribes heard the praise of these children, and saw the Saviors wonderful works of mercy, they were infuriated. Nothing that glorifies the Lord Jesus escapes the eyes of religious legalists and ritualists. Wherever Christ is honored as Savior alone, religionists are soon enraged Ecclesiastical pretenders are enraged by the simple preaching of Christ crucified, which is the constant exaltation of Christ in his house.
How can the praise of these children be accounted for, except by the fact that their minds were seized and ruled by divine power, and sweetly forced to bear testimony to our Savior? This singular, unified act of adoration and praise from the children of those men our Lord had just thrown out of the temple, and of the scribes, chief priests, and Pharisees standing before him, cannot be accounted for any other way. They did not learn what they heard confessed from their parents. They learned who Christ was and how to praise him, being taught of God himself (Joh 6:45).
Religionists Confused
And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? (Mat 21:16). The chief priests and scribes were amazed, as well as angered by the fact that our Lord accepted the simple sincere praise of children, and showed utter contempt for their ornate, gaudy, well prepared services. They were confused because they understood nothing concerning the things of God. They did not understand that worship is spiritual, a matter of the heart (Isa 1:10; Php 3:3; Luk 16:15).
True religion is not man centered, but Christ centered. True religion is not ceremonial, but spiritual. True religion is not a matter of creed, but of conviction. True religion is not outward, but inward. For we are the circumcision. We are Gods true, covenant people, the Israel of God, Abrahams true children, who worship God in the Spirit. We worship God as he is revealed in the Scriptures, by the power of his Holy Spirit, in our spirits, and in a spiritual manner. True worship is spiritual worship, not carnal, ceremonial ritualism (Joh 4:23-24). And rejoice in Christ Jesus. We trust the Lord Jesus Christ alone, placing all our confidence in him as our Savior, with joy. We are complete in him (1Co 1:30-31; Col 2:9-10). And have no confidence in the flesh. We place absolutely no confidence in our flesh, the experiences, emotions, or (imaginary) excellencies of our flesh. The privileges of the flesh, the feelings of the flesh, and the works of the flesh are no basis of confidence before God. Christ alone is our confidence and joy. To lost religionists, that is utterly infuriating and confusing.
The Contrast
And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there (Mat 21:17). What a contrast there is here! The Lord Jesus left these caviling religionists to themselves, and went to Bethany. No greater judgment can befall human beings on this earth than for the Lord of Glory to leave them to themselves! But, there is always a remnant, according to the election of grace, to whom he ever comes in mercy. You remember who lived in Bethany. He went to the home of Mary and Martha, and their brother Lazarus. Because he loved them, he went to lodge with them. What a blessing!
Our Master despised the company of quibbling religionists. He knew that debate with them was useless. So he left them to themselves. We would be wise to follow his example. In Bethany, in the home of his friends, the Friend of sinners was at home. Spurgeon wrote, A day of excitement was followed by an evening of retirement in a country home. He spent the night of that most eventful day with his faithful friends. What a contrast between his entry into Jerusalem and his visit to his friends at Bethany! Lord, lodge with me! Make my house thine abode. Let us pray the same.
The Fig Tree Cursed
Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! (Mat 21:18-20).
The fig tree is an unusual fruit tree. It first bears fruit and then puts forth its leaves. Most fruit trees put forth their leaves and then their fruit. So when the Savior came, he saw leaves on the tree, a sign that it had put forth fruit early, but there was none. Having shown us clear displays of his deity, our Savior here shows us his real humanity. He hungered.
The Saviors curse upon this barren fig tree is a picture of Gods coming judgment upon all who have a form of godliness but no substance of life, no fruit of grace. It was, no doubt, as Robert Hawker wrote, our Saviors intention in this miracle to preach by it to the people. The leaves of a mere profession, without fruit in, and from Christ, will stand in no stead in the day of enquiry. Nothing short of union with Christs person, can bring up after it communion and interest in what belongs to Christ. He cursed the fig tree, and it withered. Is your religion all leaves?
Prayer and Faith
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive (Mat 21:21-22).
Clearly, these words had specific reference to those men to whom our Lord Jesus gave the power to perform miracles in that apostolic age. There are none who have such gifts in this age. Yet, the Lords instruction here is for us. In these two verses our Savior teaches us great lessons about prayer. Prayer involves faith in Christ, confidence in him, and confidence in Gods revelation of his will. And prayer involves submission to and seeking the will of God (Joh 14:13-14; Jas 4:3; 1Jn 5:14).
I do not pretend to understand all that our Lord teaches us here. However, I am confident that his instructions in these two verses are to be understood in connection with everything we have seen in this passage, and have a particular connection to the withered fig tree. Believing him, his church shall see the barren systems of false religion wither away. Babylon shall fall before us. The gates of hell shall never prevail against us. The obstructing mountains of difficulty shall be removed, and cast into the sea. How often we have seen it; and we shall yet see it! Those who do not know and trust our Savior consider his words here unbelievable. Those who know him, to whom he has given, as Mark puts it, faith in God, they are words filled with hope, and inspiring expectation (Rev 18:2; Rev 19:1-7).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
The King Cleanses the Temple
Mat 21:12-13. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tulles of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Jesus went into the temple of God again, as he did at the beginning of his ministry. Then the reforming Prophet intimated what was needed, and now the King proceeds to carry it out. A temple dedicated to God must not become a place of merchandize and robbery. Jesus…. cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple. The sellers were the more permanently obstructive, the more constantly offensive, so they were driven out first; but as there would have been no sellers if there had not been buyers, they must be cast out also. Those who kept the tables of the moneychangers might have pleaded that they were there for the public convenience, since they supplied shekels and other moneys of the sanctuary in lieu of Roman coin. The seats of them that sold doves seemed licensed, since they dealt in young pigeons and turtle doves for the sacrifices. But these traders were not in this serving God, but making profit for themselves, and therefore our Lord overthrew all their arrangements, and cleared the holy place.
What an awe must have surrounded this one Man, that the whole tribe of traffickers should flee before him while they endured the overturning of their tables and their seats! Neither the temple guard, nor the Roman soldiers appear to have interfered in any way. When Jesus takes to himself power, opposition ceases. What a prophecy this incident affords of the ease with which, in his Second Advent, he will purge his floor with the fan in his hand!
Our Lord, while lie drives out the profaners of the temple, vindicates his holy violence by saying, “It is written.” Whether he was contending with the arch-enemy, or with wicked men, he used but one weapon, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word-of God.” In this, as in everything else, let us follow his example. Isaiah had penned those words (Isa 56:7), “Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.” This prophecy had a special relation to the Court of the Gentiles, which was being so grossly desecrated by these dealers. Our Saviour likened his Father’s house, when occupied by these buyers and sellers, to those caves in the mountains where robbers were wont to lurk in his day: “Ye have made it a den of thieves.” The words spoken by the King were strong, but not more so than the case before him required. It is a king’s business to break up the hiding-places of bandits, and Jesus did so. He could not bear to see his Father’s house of prayer made into a haunt of robbers.
Mat 21:14. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
The coming into the temple of blind mendicants and limping beggars was no defilement to the holy place. The blind and the lame came to him: to whom else should they come? “Was he not the good Physician? They came to him in the temple: where else should they come? Was it not the house of mercy? Jesus, in his Father’s name, welcomed the motley band, and healed them. Some people seem to think that, if the very poor come into places of worship, they are out of place; but this is the vain notion of a wicked pride. The poorest and the most sinful may come to Jesus. “We, too, came into the assembly of the saints at one time, spiritually blind and lame; but Jesus opened our eyes, and healed us of our lameness. If he sees anything amiss with us now, we are sure he will not drive us away from his courts, but he will heal us at once. Let all the blind and lame come to him now.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom
cast
See, Luk 19:45; Mar 11:15-18. Cf. Joh 2:13-25 which introduced, as this cleansing closed, the offer of Christ to Israel as King.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
went: Mal 3:1, Mal 3:2, Mar 11:11
and cast: Mar 11:15, Luk 19:45, Luk 19:46, Joh 2:14-17
moneychangers: Deu 14:24-26
doves: Lev 1:14, Lev 5:7, Lev 5:11, Lev 12:6, Lev 12:8, Lev 14:22, Lev 14:30, Lev 15:14, Lev 15:29, Luk 2:24
Reciprocal: Deu 14:26 – bestow 2Ch 29:5 – sanctify the house 2Ch 29:16 – all the uncleanness Ezr 7:17 – buy speedily Neh 13:7 – in preparing Jer 23:11 – in Zec 11:5 – sell Zec 14:21 – no more Luk 2:49 – my Luk 22:53 – I was Joh 7:14 – the temple
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:12
The reader should see my comments on Deu 14:24-26 in Volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. It was right to sell doves and other creatures to be used in the services at the altar, and it was necessary to have an exchange table to trade local money for the foreign, because the money brought in by foreigners was not good in the markets of Judea. But it was wrong to transact that business in the temple because it was intended for the religious services only. They having committed an outrage against the sacred temple, it was proper for Jesus to treat them as outlaws and force them out of the place they were desecrating.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
[He cast out all them that sold and bought in the Temple.] I. There was always a constant market in the Temple in that place which was called the shops; where every day was sold wine, salt, oil, and other requisites to sacrifices; as also oxen and sheep, in the spacious Court of the Gentiles.
II. The nearness of the Passover had made the market greater; for innumerable beasts being requisite to this solemnity, they were brought hither to be sold. This brings to mind a story of Bava Ben Buta: “He coming one day into the court found it quite empty of beasts. ‘Let their houses,’ said he, ‘be laid waste, who have laid waste the house of our God.’ He sent for three thousand of the sheep of Kedar; and having examined whether they were without spot, brought them into the Mountain of the House”; that is, into the Court of the Gentiles.
[Overthrew the tables of the moneychangers.] Who those moneychangers were, may be learned very well from the Talmud, and Maimonides in the treatise Shekalim; —
“It is an affirmative precept of the law, that every Israelite should give half a shekel yearly: even the poor, who live by alms, are obliged to this; and must either beg the money of others, or sell their clothes to pay half a shekel; as it is said, ‘The rich shall give no more, and the poor shall give no less.’ ”
“In the first day of the month Adar, they made a public proclamation concerning these shekels, that every one should provide his half shekel, and be ready to pay it. Therefore, on the fifteenth day of the same month, the exchangers sat in every city, civilly requiring this money: they received it of those that gave it, and compelled those that did not. On the five-and-twentieth day of the same month they sat in the Temple; and then compelled them to give; and from him that did not give they forced a pledge, even his very coat.”
“They sat in the cities, with two chests before them; in one of which they laid up the money of the present year, and in the other the money of the year past. They sat in the Temple with thirteen chests before them; the first was for the money of the present year; the second, for the year past; the third, for the money that was offered to buy pigeons,” etc. They called these chests trumpets; because, like trumpets; they had a narrow mouth, and a wide belly.
“It is necessary that every one should have half a shekel to pay for himself. Therefore, when he comes to the exchanger to change a shekel for two half shekels, he is obliged to allow him some gain, which is called kolbon. And when two pay one shekel [between them], each of them is obliged to allow the same gain or fee.”
And not much after, “How much is that gain? At that time when they paid pence for the half shekel, a kolbon [or the fee that was paid to the moneychanger] was half a mea; that is, the twelfth part of a penny, and never less. But the kolbons were not like the half shekel; but the exchangers laid them by themselves till the holy treasury were paid out of them.” You see what these moneychangers were, and whence they had their name. You see that Christ did not overturn the chests in which the holy money was laid up, but the tables on which they trafficked for this unholy gain.
[Of those that sold doves] Sellers of doves. See the Talmudic treatise of that title. “Doves were at one time sold at Jerusalem for pence of gold. Whereupon Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, By this temple I will not lie down this night, unless they be sold for pence of silver, etc. Going into the council-house, he thus decreed, A woman of five undoubted labours, or of five undoubted fluxes, shall be bound only to make one offering; whereby doves were sold that very day for two farthings.” The offering for women after childbirth, and fluxes, for their purification, were pigeons, etc. But now, when they went up to Jerusalem with their offerings at the feasts only, there was at that time a greater number of beasts, pigeons, and turtles, etc. requisite. See what we have said at the fifth chapter, and the three-and-twentieth verse.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 21:12. And Jesus went into the temple of God. On the day of His entry, He had entered it and looked round (Mar 11:11), as if to take formal possession of it. This entrance was on Monday to purify it; on Tuesday He took final leave of it (chap. Mat 24:1). This was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Haggai (Mat 2:9): The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former.
Cast out, from the court of the Gentiles.
Gold and bought. A market was held there, for the sale of animals and those things necessary for the temple service. Not the less a desecration because so great a convenience.
Money changers. The temple tribute must be paid in Jewish coin (Exo 30:13), while Roman money was at that time the currency of Palestine. The agents for collecting this tribute (chap. Mat 17:24) probably found it more convenient to exchange money at Jerusalem, and may have themselves been the money changers.
The seats, or stands.
The doves. Needed for offerings by the poor and at the purification of women.No resistance seems to have been offered. The traffickers were doubtless awed by the superhuman authority and dignity of our Lord.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our blessed Saviour having entered Jerusalem, Observe, his first walk was not to the palace, but to the temple, and his work there was to purge and reform: all reformation of manners must begin first at the house of God. Our Lord’s business was to reform the temple, not to ruin it. Places dedicated to the service of God, if profaned and polluted, ought to be purged from their abuses, not pulled down and destroyed, because they have been abused.
But what was the profanation of the temple, which so offended our Saviour?
Answer, Within the third or outward court of the temple, there was a public mart or market held, where were sold oxen, sheep, and doves, and such things as were needful for sacrifice: many of the Jews coming an hundred miles to the temple, it was burdensome to bring their sacrifices so far with them; wherefore order was taken by the priests, that sheep and oxen, meal and oil, and all other requisites for sacrifice should be had for money close by the altar, to the great ease of the offerer. Nothing could be more plausible than this plea. But the fairest pretences cannot bear out a sin with God; therefore our blessed Saviour, in indignation at so foul an abuse, whips out these chapmen, casts down their tables, and vindicates the honour and reputation of his Father’s house.
Learn thence, That there is a reverence due to God’s house, for the owner’s sake, and for the service sake. Nothing but holiness can become that place, where God is worshipped in the beauty of holiness.
Observe lastly, The reason which our Saviour gives for this act of his; for, says he, It is written, My house shall be called an house of prayer. Where by prayer is to be understood, the whole worship and sevice of Almighty God, of which prayer is an eminent and principal part. That which gives denomination to an house, is certainly the chief work to be done in that house.
Now God’s house being called an house of prayer, certainly implies, that prayer is the chief and principal work to be performed in his house; yet must we take heed that we set not the ordinances of God at variance one with another; we must not idolize one ordinance, and villify another; but pay an awful respect and regard to all the institutions of our Maker.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 21:12-14. And Jesus went into the temple He did not go up to the court, or to the palace, though he came in as a king; but to the temple; for his kingdom is spiritual, and not of this world. It is in holy things that he rules, and in the temple of God that he exercises authority. And cast out them that sold and bought Namely, doves and oxen for sacrifice. He had cast them out three years before, (Joh 2:14,) bidding them not make that house a house of merchandise: upon the repetition of the offence, he uses sharper words; In the temple That is, in the outer court of it, where the Gentiles used to worship. The money-changers The exchangers of foreign money into current coin, which those who came from distant parts might want to offer for the service of the temple. And said unto them As he turned them out, It is written Namely, Isa 56:7, My house shall be called a house of prayer To all nations, Mar 11:17. That is, a place to which they shall resort for the performance of religious worship: but ye have made it a den of thieves A harbour of wicked men; a place where traffic is carried on by persons of the most infamous character, who live by deceit and oppression, and practise the vilest extortion, even in the house of the most righteous and blessed God. Let it be observed, that the word rendered temple here, is , not . By the latter word was meant properly the house, including only the vestibule, the holy place or sanctuary, and the most holy. Whereas the former comprehended all the courts. It was in the outermost court that this sort of traffic was exercised. For want of a name, in European languages, peculiar to each, these two are confounded in most modern translations. To the , or temple, strictly so called, none of those people had access, not even our Lord himself, because not of the posterity of Aaron. Campbell. And the blind and lame Having heard of his arrival in the city, and requested their friends to lead them to the place where he was; came to him in the temple, and he healed them In the presence of all the people. Many such afflicted persons would, no doubt, be waiting in the several avenues of the temple to ask alms, at a time when there would be such a vast concourse of people: and there seems a peculiar propriety in our Lords multiplying these astonishing miracles, both to vindicate the extraordinary act of authority he had just been performing, and to make this his last visit to Jerusalem as convincing as possible, that those who would not submit to him might be left so much the more inexcusable. Doddridge.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
CVI.
BARREN FIG-TREE. TEMPLE CLEANSED.
(Road from Bethany and Jerusalem. Monday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
aMATT. XXI. 18, 19, 12, 13; bMARK XI. 12-18; cLUKE XIX. 45-48.
b12 And a18 Now bon the morrow [on the Monday following the triumphal entry], ain the morning bwhen they were come out from Bethany, aas he returned to the city [Jerusalem], he hungered. [Breakfast with the Jews came late in the forenoon, and these closing days of our Lord’s ministry were full of activity that did not have time to tarry at Bethany for it. Our Lord’s hunger implies that of the disciples also.] 19 And seeing a fig tree by the way side, bafar off having leaves, ahe came to it, bif haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, [580] he afound nothing but leaves only; bfor it was not the season of figs. [Two varieties of figs are common in Palestine. The bicura or boccore, an early fig with large green leaves and with fruit which ripens in May or June, and sometimes earlier near Jerusalem. Thomson found ripe fruit of this variety as early as May in the mountains of Lebanon, a hundred fifty miles north of Jerusalem, and Professor Post, of Beyrut, states that fig-trees there have fruit formed as early as February, which is fully ripe in April. The second variety is the summer fig or kermus. This ripens its main crop in August, but its later fruitage often hangs on all winter when the weather is mild, dropping off when the new spring leaves come. As the fruit usually appears before the leaves, the leaves were a promise that fruit might be found, and the fruit, though not perfectly ripe, is considered edible when the leaves are developed. Though it was too early for fruit, it was also too early for leaves. The tree evidently had an unusually favorable position. It seemed to vaunt itself by being in advance of the other trees, and to challenge the wayfarer to come and refresh himself.] 14 And he answered and said {asaith} unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. bNo man eat fruit of thee henceforward for ever. And his disciples heard it. aAnd immediately the fig tree withered away. [The disciples did not pause to watch the effect of Christ’s words upon the tree. But from the degree to which it had shriveled when they saw it next day it became evident to them that it had begun to wither as soon as Christ had finished uttering its sentence. Our Lord here performed a miracle of judgment unlike any other of his wonderful works. The reader can hardly fail to note how perfectly this fig-tree, in its separation from the other trees, its showy pretensions, its barrenness of results and its judgment typifies the Jewish people. In fact, Christ’s treatment of it appears in some respects to be a visible and practical application of the principles which he had formerly set forth in a parable ( Luk 13:6-9). But we must not too confidently make such an application of the parable since Jesus himself gave [581] no hint that he intended us so to apply it.] b15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out aall them that sold band them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold the doves [three years before, Jesus had thus cleansed the temple at the first passover of his ministry, for an account of which see Mat 12:29, Luk 17:31. The LXX. uses it as equivalent to “instruments of war” at Deu 1:41, and to “vestments” at Deu 22:5.] 17 And he taught, and said {asaith} c46 Saying unto them, It is written [the prophecy cited is a combination of Isa 56:7, Jer 7:11], {bIs it not written,} cAnd my house shall be {bshall be called} a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye have made {aye make} it a den of robbers. [The caves in certain sections of Palestine have been immemorially infested with robbers, and Jesus, because of the injustice of extortion practiced by the merchants, likens the polluted temple to such a den. The dickering and chafing and market talk were probably not unlike the grumbling and quarreling of thieves as they divide the booty.] b18 And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, c47 And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to destroy him: 48 and they could not find what they might do; for the people all hung upon him, listening bfor all the people was astonished at his teaching. [Overawed by the magnitude [582] of the popular demonstration made on Sunday, the Jewish rulers feared to attempt any violent measures in dealing with Jesus. But they neglected no opportunity by appeals to Jesus himself, by treacherous questions, etc., to divert the popular favor from the Lord that they might put him to death.]
[FFG 580-583]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE
Mat 21:12-13; Luk 19:45-48; Mar 11:15-19. And they came into Jerusalem; and Jesus, coming into the temple, began to cast out the buyers and sellers in the temple, and He overturned the tables of the money changers, and the seats of those selling doves; and He did not suffer that any one may carry a vessel through the temple. And He was teaching, saying unto them, Has it not been written that My house shall be called the house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves. And the scribes and the chief priests heard, and they were seeking how they shall destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the multitude were delighted with His teaching. And when it was evening, He departed out of the city. Luk 19:48 : And they did not find what they can do; for all the people hung on Him, hearing Him. Our Saviors ministry embraced four Passovers, beginning with one by purifying the temple, verifying the prophecy, in reference to the Messiah, that on arrival He would come suddenly to the temple and purify it; two Passovers transpiring in the interim of His ministry and this one, at the conclusion, so eminently commemorated by His arrest, prosecution, condemnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, rendering it the most celebrated of all the Passovers since that memorable night when Egypt was visited by the destroying angel, slaying the first-born in every house in all the land, but passing over the tenements occupied by the children of Israel, because, pursuant to the commandment of Moses, they had sprinkled on their door-posts and lintels the blood of the slain lamb, that vivid type of the bleeding Lamb of Calvary which was perpetuated at the great Passover festival, through all the intervening ages, down to this momentous culmination, when they not only slay the innocent typical lamb, but the Great Antitype, who, symbolized by countless millions of bleeding victims through the fugitive ages, now Himself bleeds and dies. Our Lord having purified the temple when inaugurating His ministry, now performs the same responsible and significant office in the conclusion. He will also, when He comes in His glory, give it a complete and final purgation, as it will be polluted no more, Satan having been east out. This traffic in beasts and birds was for the accommodation of multitudes, coming from afar, who desired to purchase a sacrifice, the birds being kept on hand for the especial accommodation of the poor. While in this you might see a degree of plausibility, doubtless much fraudulent dealing for the sake of filthy lucre had crept in among them, as we see plainly indicated by the Savior calling them thieves. All cheating and defrauding are theft in the sight of God, however honorable in the estimation of men. The temple was the house of God upon the earth in a sense vastly more preeminent than any other sanctuary in all the world, the great end in view being the rendezvous of Gods saints, that they might prevail in prayer for all the nations of the earth. It is very sad to contemplate the fairs, festivals, frolics, and fandangoes now so frequently held in church edifices, to the grief of the Holy Spirit and the profanation of Gods temple. Every, preacher should walk in the footprints of Jesus in this and every other respect, making a specialty of purifying the Church in the inauguration and the conclusion of His ministry. No one has a right to hold a pastoral charge in the ministry of Christ unless he exemplified Him in all his ministration. This bold procedure was very offensive to the hierarchy, who looked upon Him as an intruder and a usurper, and would have interfered if they had not feared the people, who were so delighted with His preaching that they hung on Him spellbound.
Luk 21:37-38. And He was teaching in the temple during the days, and at night, going out, He was lodging in the mount called Olivet. And all the people were assembled unto Him in the temple to hear Him. Tuesday night and Wednesday night He lodged in some of the villages on Mount Olivet, having spent the two preceding nights in Bethany; Thursday night He was arrested, and Friday night He was in the sepulcher. Jerusalem was this week thronged with vast multitudes, not only those having come to the Passover, but the whole country was on tiptoe with excitement about Jesus, a tremendous popular sensation breaking out three years previously, when John so powerfully preached Him to the multitudes attending his ministry, and increasing through the three successive years, having spread abroad into all nations, so that now the world is aroused and waiting spellbound to witness the issue impending, they know not what.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 21:12-17. The Cleansing of the Temple (Mar 11:15-19*, Luk 19:45-48, Joh 2:13-16).Mt. here omits the first part of Mk.s divided account of the figtree, and links the Temple incident with the entry. It is the temple of God (Mat 21:12), and the phrase for all nations (Mat 21:13) is omitted, though, as Lk. also omits, this need not be pressed as an indication of Mt.s exclusiveness.
Mat 21:14-16. Mt. only; he is fond of healings (cf. Mat 14:14, Mat 19:2). The acclamation of the boys (not children) is an unexpected and agreeable touch, more than atoning for the omission of Mar 11:16 (cf. Luk 19:39 f.). These ebullitions shocked the authorities much more than the trading had done. In his answer Jesus indirectly admits His claim to be the Messiah.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 12
The temple. This was an edifice of great extent as well as magnificence, and one of its outer courts had gradually become a mart for buying and selling such articles as were used for sacrifices and other services of the place.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
3. Jesus’ entrance into the temple 21:12-17 (cf. Mar 11:11 b, Mar 11:15-18; Luk 19:45-48)
Matthew stressed Jesus’ cleansing of the temple as the work of David’s Son (Mat 21:9; Mat 21:15). This activity had great messianic significance. [Note: See the diagrams of Jerusalem and Herod’s Temple at the end of these notes.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Mosaic Law required that the Jews pay a half-shekel temple tax, which they paid in temple coinage (cf. Mat 17:24-27). To accommodate out of town pilgrims, the religious leaders set up currency exchange tables in the large temple courtyard. There people with Greek and Roman money could obtain the required Tyrian currency. The religious leaders also accommodated worshippers by selling animals used in the offerings of Judaism there. Thus the temple courtyard had come to resemble an outdoor market. Probably greedy merchants cheated their buyers if they could, especially during the feasts when pilgrims from far away crowded the temple area. However it was that Sadducean priests permitted merchants to conduct business in the Court of the Gentiles rather than how the merchants conducted their business that provoked Jesus’ wrath.
"If one bought his animals here, had his money exchanged here, these would be accepted; otherwise he might have trouble on that score." [Note: Lenski, p. 813.]
Jesus entered the temple area (Gr. hieron) and proceeded to destroy the market (cf. Zec 14:21).