A time to protest

The ‘cleansing of the Temple’ maybe should be termed the ‘protest of protests’, being a major protest against the twin powers of religion and mammon, or perhaps the three-fold cord that is not easily broken of religion, mammon and politics.

A few things probably need to be clarified as we look at the passage(s).

• The temple: not a big ‘church’ or ‘cathedral’ but something much more than that. If we do not grasp what the temple was then we might think Jesus was simply seeking to maintain some sacred space where prayer could be made and commercial trade was kept separate. A certain level of money exchanging took place to enable the sacrifices and Temple tax to be maintained so the exchange of money per se was not Jesus’ focus.
• Jesus did not create a whip to attack anyone, indeed only one Gospel (John) says he created a whip and that (almost certainly) was used to drive the animals out of the temple. The driving out was far more than an explosion of anger against people – he was pushing against something far deeper.
• [An incidental third aspect is that John puts the cleansing right at the outset of Jesus’ ministry leading some to suggest that there were two cleansings, however it is far easier to suggest that John puts it early on, immediately following the water to wine miracle for theological reasons. The one cleansing follows Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem and that context is important.]

The Temple

The temple and the buildings that were associated with it (‘in my Father’s house are many rooms’, storehouses etc.) occupied something like 20-25% of the area of the city. Jerusalem was not a city with a large ‘cathedral’ in it, rather the Temple was more or less the city. The high priestly family were one of the richest families in town, the temple was an economic institution as much as it was a religious one. It governed much of the politics, with a mutually beneficial relationship between the Roman powers and the Jewish powers (the Sanhedrin met in the Temple).

The economic power of the Temple meant that they could offer loans to those who farmed the land, thus keeping the poor oppressed; this coupled with the taxation system imposed from Rome meant there were many who lived at a subsistence level. (‘Blessed are the poor’; the despising of the ‘tax-collectors’ make a lot of sense in that culture.)

There is one aspect that is highlighted in three of the Gospels – ‘those who were selling doves’ (Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15; John 2:16). Only John mentions other animals (cattle and sheep) but he focuses on those who were selling doves. Matthew and Mark do not specify other animals and only mention ‘those who sold doves’; Luke does not specify what was being sold. The economic system as a whole is the broad focus while the sharp focus was on those who sold doves. Why? Doves were allowed for sacrifice for those who could not afford something bigger, it was the sacrifice made by the poor of the land (and one that Jesus’ family made after his birth, the stipulated ‘sin offering'(!!) after the birth of a child – thus indicating their economic status and also that the translation ‘sin offering’ is not appropriate – another subject, another time).

The system in place was essentially one that not only maintained the status quo but actively perpetuated inequalities, and all in the name of ‘God’. Little wonder John puts the cleansing right after the water into wine miracle; the water jars for ritual cleansing become the containers for celebration, indeed the text is somewhat offensive for when it says that the guests were already intoxicated (μεθύω John 2:10) when Jesus turned the water into wine. The contrast of the old religion and what was on offer from Jesus is very stark. It is then, in John, we read of the cleansing of the Temple and the identification of Jesus as the eschatological Temple.

The protest is not about ‘sacred space’ but goes much further into societal restoration. Given that the historical context is that of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew, Mark and Luke give us this context) I will in the next post tun my attention to that context.