Last Sunday was Palm Sunday. For the Sunday morning sermon, rather than look at the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, I decided to preach on the story which follows immediately after in Matthew’s Gospel – the cleansing of the Temple. It’s a fascinating story which conjures up wonderful pictures in the mind’s eye. In trying to understand why the money changers and the traders should ‘up sticks’ and flee – despite the obvious earner that their racketeering was generating, I commented, ‘there must have been an aura of power and authority surrounding Jesus – or why else would they have responded as they did’?
It is always encouraging when people comment on your sermon. Whether in agreement, encouragement or disagreement, it at least suggests the message made someone think. Doug dropped me a line later in the day to say that this passage has long stimulated his thinking – especially when set alongside the report provided by John in his gospel (2: 13-25). Doug’s thoughts are very helpful (they certainlyt made me think) – and he’s kindly allowed me to share some of them on this blog. For him, John dispels any concept of ‘Gentle Jesus, meek and mild’:
Jesus made a whip. This was pre meditated ‘violence’ - a dramatic, spectacular and violent protest! Jesus took decisive action - he didn't talk or reason or negotiate the traders out of the temple. He overturned the money-changers tables, drove sheep and cattle out into the Jerusalem streets and stopped anyone carrying merchandise from entering. Why was Jesus so violent? The answer must be because he was so angry. Angry with the traders - and with the hypocrisy of those who called themselves God’s people; who professed to love God and yet were living a contrary life-style.
As children and even adults we are always taught that being angry and using force is wrong. But is that correct? Imagine Jesus getting anywhere by going up to the moneylenders and saying: “Look I’m not being funny or anything, but this just isn’t on, Gods house isn’t supposed to be a market and you’re supposed to be on the side of the people you should be offering these sacrifices at a discount not a premium. Would you please leave now?” He would have been laughed out of court. It clearly needed firmer action. Jesus was NOT out of control but the moneychangers needed firm encouragement to leave. They were working for the priests of the temple and the temple had their own guard that were affiliated to the Roman garrison. They would have worn the same uniform and carried the same weapons. In other words the traders had their own minders!
Jesus needed a lot of courage to take on the traders because in so doing he knew he was directly taking on the priests themselves. Jesus knew what he’d done. I’m sure his statement to them when he said, ‘you can tear down the temple but I will rebuild it in 3 days’, was saying ‘you can kill me but I’ll come back to life in 3 days’. Jesus' action was both considered and proportionate to the offence. He didn’t come with the latest Roman sword designed for use in battle. He had a whip of cords that would hurt a lot but wouldn’t leave you scarred or too damaged; enough to get the traders moving and no more.
He made the whip himself, indicating he did not act impulsively. Jesus gave himself time to think what he was going to do. He did not lose his self-control. Jesus drove the cattle and sheep out of the temple where they might later be retrieved. The fallen coins could be picked up. It’s interesting that Jesus did not release the doves but told their owners to remove them ("Get them out of here." v16) presumably because you’d never be able to catch them again? There has to be a time to stand up and be counted. Jesus stood up to the Temple authorities and it eventually cost him his life.
Doug concludes with a thought based on personal conjecture and born out of observation of human nature and group psychology: Jesus had his disciples around him, presumably at any one time more than just the soon to be partakers of the last supper. At the moment of the temple incident he was at his peak of popularity having just ridden in on Palm Sunday! He would have had a lot of willing and eager ‘assistants’ - who knows how many.Jesus travelled around the countryside during his ministry, it was a place of violence and often lawlessness, The Jewish equivalent to highway men and gang warfare would have been prevalent. Jesus himself alludes to this in his Good Samaritan parable. Yet we have no record of him and his disciples ever being set upon, one imagines a bunch of big fit working men who knew how to handle themselves would have been an effective deterrent. They were, at least at times, suitably armed. Was it not Peter who drew his sword and chopped off one of those priestly guards ears in the Garden of Gethsemane? They carried weapons so presumably were prepared (as Peter did) to use them if they had too. Jesus wasn’t too perturbed by Peter cutting someone’s ear off either, he just put it back on and told Peter to behave himself! Would these devoted companions of Jesus have let him go into the temple (where the guards would have been on duty and ‘vested interest’ at its peak) all alone and with no back up? Jesus took the lead, and therefore the blame and the credit, but surely this was a disciple backed movement and another (significant) reason why the money lenders and their minders all ended up on the street and Gods temple restored and Jesus preaching inside. It was a popular movement albeit (like the British electorate) a fickle one that was soon to turn with the use of spin and political acumen of the priests. So that’s Doug’s thoughts on the passage.
Interestingly, when I discussed this with Lyn this morning she suggested that there may have been many worshippers who were greatly frustrated with the traders and the way their own worship experience was being hampered. They may have felt really aggrieved but too fearful to do anything about it. Perhaps when Jesus took the lead they received courage to ‘stand up and be counted’ too.
So a few very helpful thoughts to add to those we considered in the sermon. But what do you think? What does this say to us about standing up and being counted? How should we respond to injustice and hypocrisy? Please feel free to add your own comments.
It is always encouraging when people comment on your sermon. Whether in agreement, encouragement or disagreement, it at least suggests the message made someone think. Doug dropped me a line later in the day to say that this passage has long stimulated his thinking – especially when set alongside the report provided by John in his gospel (2: 13-25). Doug’s thoughts are very helpful (they certainlyt made me think) – and he’s kindly allowed me to share some of them on this blog. For him, John dispels any concept of ‘Gentle Jesus, meek and mild’:
Jesus made a whip. This was pre meditated ‘violence’ - a dramatic, spectacular and violent protest! Jesus took decisive action - he didn't talk or reason or negotiate the traders out of the temple. He overturned the money-changers tables, drove sheep and cattle out into the Jerusalem streets and stopped anyone carrying merchandise from entering. Why was Jesus so violent? The answer must be because he was so angry. Angry with the traders - and with the hypocrisy of those who called themselves God’s people; who professed to love God and yet were living a contrary life-style.
As children and even adults we are always taught that being angry and using force is wrong. But is that correct? Imagine Jesus getting anywhere by going up to the moneylenders and saying: “Look I’m not being funny or anything, but this just isn’t on, Gods house isn’t supposed to be a market and you’re supposed to be on the side of the people you should be offering these sacrifices at a discount not a premium. Would you please leave now?” He would have been laughed out of court. It clearly needed firmer action. Jesus was NOT out of control but the moneychangers needed firm encouragement to leave. They were working for the priests of the temple and the temple had their own guard that were affiliated to the Roman garrison. They would have worn the same uniform and carried the same weapons. In other words the traders had their own minders!
Jesus needed a lot of courage to take on the traders because in so doing he knew he was directly taking on the priests themselves. Jesus knew what he’d done. I’m sure his statement to them when he said, ‘you can tear down the temple but I will rebuild it in 3 days’, was saying ‘you can kill me but I’ll come back to life in 3 days’. Jesus' action was both considered and proportionate to the offence. He didn’t come with the latest Roman sword designed for use in battle. He had a whip of cords that would hurt a lot but wouldn’t leave you scarred or too damaged; enough to get the traders moving and no more.
He made the whip himself, indicating he did not act impulsively. Jesus gave himself time to think what he was going to do. He did not lose his self-control. Jesus drove the cattle and sheep out of the temple where they might later be retrieved. The fallen coins could be picked up. It’s interesting that Jesus did not release the doves but told their owners to remove them ("Get them out of here." v16) presumably because you’d never be able to catch them again? There has to be a time to stand up and be counted. Jesus stood up to the Temple authorities and it eventually cost him his life.
Doug concludes with a thought based on personal conjecture and born out of observation of human nature and group psychology: Jesus had his disciples around him, presumably at any one time more than just the soon to be partakers of the last supper. At the moment of the temple incident he was at his peak of popularity having just ridden in on Palm Sunday! He would have had a lot of willing and eager ‘assistants’ - who knows how many.Jesus travelled around the countryside during his ministry, it was a place of violence and often lawlessness, The Jewish equivalent to highway men and gang warfare would have been prevalent. Jesus himself alludes to this in his Good Samaritan parable. Yet we have no record of him and his disciples ever being set upon, one imagines a bunch of big fit working men who knew how to handle themselves would have been an effective deterrent. They were, at least at times, suitably armed. Was it not Peter who drew his sword and chopped off one of those priestly guards ears in the Garden of Gethsemane? They carried weapons so presumably were prepared (as Peter did) to use them if they had too. Jesus wasn’t too perturbed by Peter cutting someone’s ear off either, he just put it back on and told Peter to behave himself! Would these devoted companions of Jesus have let him go into the temple (where the guards would have been on duty and ‘vested interest’ at its peak) all alone and with no back up? Jesus took the lead, and therefore the blame and the credit, but surely this was a disciple backed movement and another (significant) reason why the money lenders and their minders all ended up on the street and Gods temple restored and Jesus preaching inside. It was a popular movement albeit (like the British electorate) a fickle one that was soon to turn with the use of spin and political acumen of the priests. So that’s Doug’s thoughts on the passage.
Interestingly, when I discussed this with Lyn this morning she suggested that there may have been many worshippers who were greatly frustrated with the traders and the way their own worship experience was being hampered. They may have felt really aggrieved but too fearful to do anything about it. Perhaps when Jesus took the lead they received courage to ‘stand up and be counted’ too.
So a few very helpful thoughts to add to those we considered in the sermon. But what do you think? What does this say to us about standing up and being counted? How should we respond to injustice and hypocrisy? Please feel free to add your own comments.
