Many years ago, I saw a painting of Christ cleansing the Temple from the merchants and moneylenders.
Jesus was standing on the Temple steps, with a menagerie of animals around Him.
His face was furious, and His arm was cocked back with a massive whip about to come crashing down upon the terrified and pleading merchants who were on their knees before Him, hands outstretched for mercy.
I have never forgotten that image.
This biblical story gets used to support a number of arguments:
- It means it is OK for men to be angry, since Jesus got angry in this scene.
- We, too, are allowed to “flip tables” and make a dramatic scene at times, since Jesus did.
- Some argue that Christ’s use of the whip on the people means that violence (at least in certain circumstances) is justified.
- Defying the “powers that be” is permissible, and men can take action (including destructive action) to that end.
- The house of God needs a good “cleansing” once in a while.
And no doubt, there are others as well.
Men use this scene to justify many things, and the phrase “flipping the tables” has come to mean taking dramatic action against perceived injustice. Christians of various political opinions have used it to back everything from BLM rallies to COVID protests to supporting #MeToo to standing against whatever political power one is opposed to.
But is this justified?
The cleansing of the Temple is one of the few stories that appear in all four Gospels. The text is brief. Here is precisely what the Word says in each Gospel account, in its entirety:
Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’” (Matthew 25:12-13 NIV)
Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve…On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.'” (Mark 11:11; v.15-17 NIV)
When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” (Luke 19:45-46 NIV)
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” (John 2:13-17)
And that is all the Bible has to say.
I suggest that many of the conclusions listed earlier involve reading things into the Scripture that simply aren’t there or aren’t clear, including:
1. The text never actually says that Jesus is angry. Anger itself is not a sin (Ephesians 4.26), and there is no problem in thinking that Jesus was furious, as anger can undoubtedly be a godly emotion at times. And it is certainly a reasonable possibility that He was angry. But the text never says it—it never speaks to His emotional state at all (except for His “zeal” in John’s version). What if this scene were more like a polite but firm cop calmly clearing a crowd: “Move along, folks, break it up, nothing to see here…”? Now that idea, of course, is also reading into the text something that isn’t there. But it’s possible, even if unstated, just as Jesus’ anger was possible, but not clearly stated. We should always be wary of making conclusions about things Scripture is silent about.
2. Jesus makes a scene, so it must indeed be OK for Christ-followers to do so in certain contexts. However, it is also worth noting that Christ never invites His disciples to participate in this scene, nor does He ever command them to act thusly elsewhere. It is possible that Christ is the only One allowed to cleanse His Father’s own house in this particular way, as His Son.
We should always be wary of making conclusions about things Scripture is silent about.
3. The verse about the whip in John 2:13 makes clear that the whip was to drive out the sheep and the cattle, and not to bring crashing down on the heads of people. Sorry to the artist of that painting I saw, but you got that part wrong!
4. Jesus does indeed make a mess in defiance of the sin He saw happening. The text doesn’t even make it explicitly clear why, other than that what was happening was something He likened to thievery in God’s house. The general presumption has typically been that the moneylenders and merchants were financially taking advantage of the worshippers through exorbitant pricing–but again, even that is reading more into the text than what is there. Somehow, the house of God was being turned into a marketplace, “a den of robbers.” The specifics of how or why are not given. At any rate, Jesus comes to the defense of His Father’s house as well as those being “robbed,” and men can certainly do the same.
5. This is clearly a religious cleansing, not a political one. This story regularly gets used to speak of political disobedience against political rulers, but there is nothing in the story to that end. Jesus is not flipping tables in Pilate’s office, Herod’s house, or Caesar’s palace. He is specifically fixing a mess in His Father’s house. Do we get to just copy and paste this story into political situations that we don’t like? Not if we are being faithful to the text. There may indeed be a time and place for the Christ-follower to peacefully disobey political rulers (Acts 5:29), but this scene is not the biblical justification for it.
6. Jesus was defending God’s honor, as well as the people being “robbed.” Like Him, men should always revere the Name of the Lord and be aware and ready to stand against those who would take advantage of God’s people for their own gain. This problem has not gone away since this event.
I find that this story stands as a good example for men for another reason as well:
Let’s be careful not to make assumptions about a biblical text, not to read things that aren’t there, and make every effort to remove our biases as we absorb God’s Word.
In so doing, we are faithful to the Scripture, the God who breathed it, and the Savior whose ways we follow.
About
