In Mark on Monday of Passion Week, Jesus drives out of the temple those buying and selling there, as well as the tables of the money changers. Why did he do this?
Jesus says that the sellers and moneychangers had made the place into a den of thieves (11:17). The quote alludes to Jeremiah 7:11.
Here are some of the suggestions for what was going on here?
1. Coincidence--Jesus died as a part of a Roman sweep through the crowd.
2. Jesus showing us that you could be angry (even righteously indignant) and yet not sin (even be entirely sanctified and throw tables over!).
3. Jesus was showing us how much he didn't like religion. He didn't come to start a religion and hates religion as much as you do.
P.S. Question: Do I think the hyper-individualist "Revolutions" crowd is the church of the future? Answer: No. They don't believe in churches so they will melt away into the world never to be seen again. The church of the future will be, well, the church of the future. Don't fear the anti-church wing of the emergent church--either they'll follow their philosophy until they evaporate away, or one day they'll finish doing their therapy and find a local church.
4. Jesus opposed the buying and selling that was going on in the temple, maybe where in the temple it was going on. You shouldn't sell merchandise within the church's walls.
5. Jesus is predicting the coming destruction of the temple, even symbolically acting it out.
6. By evoking Jeremiah, Jesus is indicting the priorities of the temple leadership. They neglect the social justice of the prophets--taking care of the poor, widows, orphans--and instead make a profit off of the people.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hi,
I want to comment primarily on your thoughts on the emerging church. In this holy week, it is important to remember that Jesus came to establish his kingdom on earth, and this kingdom is primarily the church. I have said again and again on my blog that those members of emergent, if divorced from the local church, will have nothing but a bunch of blogs and a nice philosophy. I know that they mean well, and they do have many good things to say, but I would argue that if they say them independently of the church, they are in trouble.
DISCLAIMER: I was reading Tom Wright this summer.
My understanding was that the merchants were selling in the court of the gentiles, so that the designated holy place for the gentiles was desecrated. In Mark 11:17 he says, "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'". Maybe that's someone's hypothesis trying to make sense of it, presuming certain details we don't have. Not sure where I heard it.
Jesus is coming to Jerusalem, not only to die, but to teach and preach there. He is welcomed by the crowd, and goes directly to the temple. In some respect Jesus was taking his rightful place as the shepherd-king/prophet/priest of Israel by cleansing and teaching in the temple. I am not sure how that worked in his head, though, since he soon predicted Jerusalem's destruction. He seemed to have some understanding of the temple's provisional role. As soon as the leaders witness Jesus superceding their authority, and winning the favor of the people, they find a way to kill him.
The reason for the Church is the individual. For the Church is only made of individuals. That does not mean that the individual is to revolutionize the Church, but should seek to understand faith within the context of the Church.
Faith is an individual matter and must be allowed free reign in the individual's choice of service and the shaping of one's understanding. This is "tradition"s strength, but still falls short if it does not include those who are not in one's own traditional understanding.
On the other hand, the individual's faith is to be experienced within the Church's walls, which means an inclusive atmosphere...
I believe you recommended a book entitled "Moral Vision", which I bought. I had understood the Church to be an inclusive community,and had tried to "act" as if I was a part of community (a family) holding liberty and faith to be the eptiome of maturity...but, have come to understand that it is only the "laws" or "rules" that one's community holds dear that really matter, which is based again on "tradition". This brings me to the revelation that what I had understood to be "faith" was based on a metaphorical understanding of Scripture. Now, I am trying to process my faith based on a practical realism, which seems to dissolve the boundaries of my faith to nothing other than humanitarinism, which I "see" is in many non-religious and non-Christian contexts ....So, it is not really about Christianity, but faith.
Dan, I didn't want to imply that all emergent/emerging are this way. I think some of their emphases can really enrich the church, if they'll play with us.
Angie, I'm sure you know the Enlightenment stream you're swimming in. Your position almost assumes that Christianity isn't actually true other than as a personal meaning system.
Scott, maybe someone can help us track down once and for all who has suggested that idea about where they were buying and selling. The gospels don't say, as you mention. What I find funny is the fact that I presume my grandparents' generation built a tradition of not selling things inside the church on this passage, at least in John's version of it.
Scott, do you think that the buying and selling in the court of the gentiles was injustice to the gentiles, as to their place of worship? Would the Jews think of themselves as sanctified in their selling by giving gentiles an entrance into the temple in the first place (through their "sacrificial rites")? And was Jesus anger at the arrogance as well as the injustice done in the name of religion, (the Jews had not understood faith)?
Ken, I cannot believe that faith is unreasonable. But, that does not mean that it has to be rationalism. That is my quandary; faith by definition has no boundaries. Boundaries define and faith by definition does not define but trusts. Trust is built on trustworthiness, which is based upon character. If one's character is not trustworthy then, there is no basis for trust and that is the issue in human leadership. My personal "issue" with trust in an unseen and unknowable God is what I have shared before in my own personal experience. I cannot adhere to a supernaturalism that does not take into account human leadership, even though I believe that Jesus illustrates trust in God above human leadership. I believe we are responsible and accountable for our own lives and those that we are entrusted with in our realm of influence. Community is there to support, encourage and exhort, but not to judge, take advantage, disregard, or diminish. Unfortunately, when we have "rules", "laws" we live by that are too stringently defined, then we can't help but judge....Then, we are only left with social organizations that are limited by human fallibility...which hinders understanding faith's multidemsionality....
I've always gone with #6 with a tinge of righteous indignation, but I think the latter part is the result of trying to "apply" Scripture too easily without introspection and imagination. But the people need a "take home," so we go with "it's ok to be angry about some things, after all, Jesus was."
I was just reading Brant Pitre's "Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile" and his basic take on it is that Jesus was enacting the destruction of the Temple, because it had failed to do what it was supposed to: bring about the end of the Jewish Exile and the accompanying ingathering of Gentiles (Pitre then quotes Isaiah 56 and Zechariah 14:21, noting their links to the return from Exile).
Whoo. Long sentence. Well, this book is Pitre's PhD dissertation at Notre Dame under David Aune. It's a really good read.
does angie get paid to comment?
I disagree with you Angie in the notion of the Church being "for the individual." I am of the mind that faith is more communal than it is individual, due to the fact that when we come to faith in Christ we really "lose" our identity. I am not using identity here in the notion of psychological disposition, likes/dislikes, self-conscious embodied mind/soul etc., but in the sense of spiritual identity. When we are redeemed our identity become's that of Christ, and the purpose of the Church is for all of us that have been transformed in His likeness to be one entity for a common purpose. It is for this reason that we should not divorce ourselves from the Church community. In my view getting to heaven in individual isolation isn't all that difficult, but "being a Christian" in isolation is impossible. The Church is not a compaction of individuals that exists for the pragmatic purposes of the individual, but the Church is an entity in and of itself--I might even go so far as to say a metaphysical reality! The Church may have individuals within it, but the entity is much greater than the sum of its parts. I am by no means a biblical scholar, and I could very well be trying to be a good Anglican, but I don't see much Enlightenment individualism within the text itself.
Athada,
I hope I am not "speaking too much"...am I? Wesley believed that you must pray for every limited number of times one speaks...but, I believe that we grow through dialogue, that is, if we are listening to one another and being reflective...in seeking wisdom, get understanding...
Jon, your point is well-taken.
I have had no problem with understanding the metaphysical (spiritual) dimension of identification...that is how we are even understood as Christians...and that is a Reformed viewpoint...
but understanding even "this" is contextually understood, depending on one's "tradition" in Scripture(interpretation of Israel and the Church...the law and grace)...and the implications of the "real" of the political and cultural contexts of the authors of Scripture, AS WELL AS the "experiential world of the Christian"...
there is really "no supernatural" in that sense (the sense of inspiration) because human instruments are what are useful...
community should not over-ride another's understanding of faith and the resulting response of service...but should seek to inform, or educate...
So, the "real" world of faith is about how we live our lives within our cultural contexts...which means that the issues will vary, but character will not or should I say should not?! What God are we representing? Jesus model, as well as Paul's was one of inclusion...because the law's fulfillment was in fullfilling the "law of Christ", which is love of neighbor...justice, as well as mercy...we must understand these aspects of "love" in understanding what is really "real"....and seek to "do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God"...because most of all the community of God should be a just one...and justice is done (or not done) to individuals within and without the community...
Post a Comment