Several aspects of Jesus’s actions in the temple – the so-called “Cleansing of the Temple” – have long puzzled scholars.

As I indicated in the previous post, in all four Gospels – with some important differences among them – Jesus enters the temple compound, is angered by what he sees, overturns the tables of those who are changing Roman currency for temple currency to allow people to purchase sacrificial animals, drives out those who are selling (and even buying) the animals, prevents (in one account) anyone from carrying anything needed for the sacrifices though the temple, and forcefully declares that the temple is to be “a house of prayer for all the nations” but that “you have made it a den of robbers” (quoting Isaiah 56:7).

Most critical scholars agree that this cannot be construed as an attack on Judaism per se, since Jesus was thoroughly Jewish and stood in the line of Hebrew prophets who opposed the activities of the temple.  But that’s where the puzzlement begins to arise.  The temple was built on the order of God himself, originally under Solomon nearly 1000 years earlier, and then rebuilt after the Babylonian exile, again on the authority of God.   And the sacrifices that were performed there were explicitly demanded in the law of Moses.

So how can Jesus be opposed to it?

One might think he wasn’t opposed to the temple and the sacrifices per se, but to the business enterprises of monetary exchange and the selling of sacrificial animals.  That certainly can make sense.  On the other hand, if God ordered sacrifices to be performed, how could that happen without these commercial activities?

It is important to recall the situation on the ground.  As I indicated, these commercial activities were being carried out not in the holier inner areas of the temple, but in the “Court of the Gentiles,” where not only Jews but also interested visitors could come to observe and probably gape in awe at the splendid temple compound, with its enormous walls, giant gates, white stone, gold facades, all spread over something like 38 acres.  This court was large and spacious –distant from the Holy of Holies where God dwelt within the sanctuary itself and from the place of sacrifice where not even Jews could go if they were not Priests or their assistants, the Levites.

The court of the Gentiles would have been a thriving kind of place – kind of like Jerusalem in modern times with the busy-ness of tour groups flocking through.  Crowds of people, talking, looking around, enjoying the sites, marveling at the construction.

In this space there were people exchanging money and purchasing sacrificial animals.  And how could it be otherwise?  The law of Moses, written in stages by different authors at different times, presupposes that Israel was a relatively small nation; that Jerusalem was a relatively small city; that the temple was a relatively small place, and the worshipers in the temple were a relatively small number.

Now, centuries later, Jews have been scattered throughout the world from Babylon to Spain, from North Africa to what we would call Southern Europe.  Those who could attend the Passover festival would of course come from areas nearby such as the Judean countryside, Galilee, or further north up in Syria etc.  But they would also come from Egypt, Asia Minor, and Rome.  They were coming to commemorate their ancient faith, thousands of them, many (possibly most) for the one time in their lives.  They were coming to perform the sacrifices to God set forth in their sacred scriptures.  And how, practically, were they supposed to do that?

Someone taking a caravan up from Egypt, or walking down from Antioch, or getting there by land or sea from Ephesus could not very well load up their sacrificial animals and bring (carry?) them to the holy city.  One of the major points of going was to sacrifice, but the sacrifices had to be available.  And so the temple could scarcely function for Jewish visitors without the buying and selling of animals.  And purchases certainly could not be made with sacrilegious currency of, say, the Romans, with the image of a divine being stamped on it.

The activities that Jesus appears to be objecting to were completely sensible and even necessary for these Jewish pilgrims to practice the religious rituals prescribed by God himself in the Scripture.  So what is his point?

That’s a thorny issue that scholars have long wrestled with.

• The age-old Christian view is that Jesus hated Judaism and wanted to get rid of it; he came to die for the sins of the world in order to save Jews (as well as non-Jews) from the false religious practices that had led them astray. As I’ve argued that is almost certainly wrong.
• Another common view, as I’ve suggested, is that Jesus thought the entire thing had become a money-making racket and was incensed at it. I do think that may be part of the issue.  For those who don’t see how he could think so, since these practices were necessary for the sacrificial system to work, I’d suggest that a lower-class rural peasant may well have been taken aback by what was going on in the name of religion, just as many Protestant Christians I know are deeply disturbed at what they find in the Vatican or in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.  For others, it all makes sense.  There are and always have been lots of forceful protests against institutions that have grown up out of perceived necessity and make perfect sense to others.
• A new view of the matter was put forth in by one of the great New Testament scholars of the end of the 20^th century, E. P. Sanders, in his now classic study, Jesus and Judaism (Fortress Press, 1985).  Sanders agreed that the temple event was historical, even if the Gospel accounts hugely exaggerated it.  But Jesus did create some kind of ruckus in the temple.  It was not, however, to push for reform.  Jesus was not pushing for a social revolution – for example, by making sacrificial animals free for anyone who needed one, or to move the commercial activities outside the temple compounds.  He was performing a symbolic act completely commensurate with his mission and message.

Jesus believed a day of judgment was coming.  A divine figure he called the Son of Man would soon arrive from heaven.  The enemies of God would be destroyed – including) leaders of the Jews, along with their beloved temple.  Jesus was enacting a parable of the coming destruction.

The idea of an “enacted parable” is that an action can instruct just as well as story.  An activity can demonstrate and reinforce a message.  You can verbally condemn a political leader but you can also burn him in effigy.  You can verbally malign the racist founder of your community or you can pull down his statue.  Or both.

It is worth nothing that the prophets of Scripture often enacted their messages.  And so, for example, Isaiah was the first “streaker” of the Bible (Isaiah 20) (the more famous one among Christians is the naked young man of Mark 14); a particularly odd military figure was Ezekiel, who laid siege to a brick (Ezekiel 4).

I agree with Sanders: this is probably the sort of thing Jesus was doing.  Throughout the Gospels (see for example Mark 13:2; 14:58; 15:29) Jesus repeatedly indicates the temple would be destroyed in the coming judgment.  His violent action is a symbolic act that illustrates his message.

Here again Jesus is not promoting social reform, political change, or military action.  He is anticipating what is soon to happen on the coming day of judgment.  To the chagrin of many of his followers then and now, Jesus did not believe in trying to change the system.  He believed the system would be overthrown in a cosmic act of God.