Cating Out the Sellers and the Buyers From The Temple

January 27, 2015

When Jesus returns in glory, the unsaved will cry out to the mountains and rocks to fall on them, and to hide them (to cover them) from His face. (Rev 6:16)

On that day the people would much rather die than face Him. They will see death as their only hiding place – their only 'refuge'.

I suggest that many years ago, when Jesus stood in the Temple courtyard, a flash of that same Divine glory came from His face. That very same glory which brings terror to the hearts of men at the Second Coming of Jesus, was manifest in the Temple courtyard during His first advent.

Many Temple guards were on duty that day, and many able-bodied men were present, and yet none of them stood up to this one unarmed Man. They ALL ran. But there was something very different about this event. The mechanics of the event may not be fully understood... Things were happening which were outside of human reckoning. And yet I do not believe that Jesus literally took hold of the tables etc. and turned them over (this is what man's anger would do). But when the glory flashed from Jesus' face, the people fled in a panic.

Yes, Jesus "did it" – He turned over the tables etc. – but not in the way that we naturally imagine. The sudden reaction was "hide me from the face of Him that stands among us!" In the rush to escape the condemnation of His presence, the people do not even think to gather up their money. It is because of Him that they flee. It is because of Him that the tables are overturned. It is because of Him that the money is “poured out”. And yet His hand did not take hold of a single table, nor the scourge in His hand strike a single person. The buyers, and the sellers, and the animals – their own physical forms – these are the agents that literally enact the havoc throughout that broad Courtyard scene.

"When divinity flashed through humanity, not only did they see indignation on Christ's countenance; they realized the import of His words. They felt as if before the throne of the eternal Judge, with their sentence passed on them for time and for eternity." (Desire of Ages p.162)

On that day the people were able to flee -- they were able to escape that terrible feeling -- but the day is coming when there will be no-where to go.

Additional Thoughts.

* In John's account we find something that is not specifically mentioned by the other writers. Jesus said to “them that sold Doves, Take these things hence; make not My Father's house an house of merchandise.” (Jn 2:16) It strikes me Jesus addressed those words to the Dove sellers. These sellers were the ones that targeted the poorest classes of people; those that were least able to afford a “proper” offering.

* “And His disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten Me up.” (Jn 2:17) For some people it may be difficult to differentiate between “zeal” and “passion”, but I love the words that say, “His zeal never led Him to become passionate.” (Evangelism p.636) Zeal for God's house ate Him up – it “consumed” Him, and yet I am confident that the casting out of the sellers and buyers was NOT a passionate act. And again, we have it – “His zeal never degenerated into passion.” (In Heavenly Places p.54)

January 27, 2015

You might be right that he didn't actually turn the tables over himself. But just wondering if, since we as sinful human beings don't really understand true righteous indignation, if maybe it could turn over the tables, but not with a temper, of course.

Interesting point you brought out about him talking to the sellers of doves, and yes, he would especially be offended at those who were taking advantage of the poor.

January 27, 2015

"... But just wondering if, since we as sinful human beings don't really understand true righteous indignation, if maybe it could turn over the tables, but not with a temper, of course."

Thx4mercy, I think I would have to yield, and allow that it could turn over tables. But like you, I would have to say, "not with a temper, of course."

__________________

"...the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. " (James 1:20)

The "anger" that we are familiar with does not incline us to keep the law of God. It's general tendency is to make us break it.

The anger that we are familiar with leads us do things that we can regret for the rest of our lives.

And I don't think it's just a matter of "who" does it. I mean, if Jesus manifested "normal" indignation or wrath, it was not righteous simply because He was the one that did it. The worst thing anyone can bring into any dispute, is "anger".

Passionate actions [or outbursts] do not, cannot, produce the righteousness that God is looking for in us.

January 27, 2015

Excellent insight; others have noticed this as well. Jim Fleming does not talk about the divinity flashing through humanity in those words but hints at it on how it was something about Jesus that caused the money changers to run, but that it would not have scared the animals so the whip was to make the sound to scare the animals out.

Then Graham Maxwell has pointed out that when this happened, you did not only have the money changers and animals running out, but that the flash caused people to run in two directions. The money changers running away and children and the sick and poor running with joy TO Jesus. How many children run to an angry man holding a whip? Yet there was something about Jesus' anger and that flash of divinity that made the children and others want to be with him!

January 27, 2015

Interesting thoughts Kevin.

I wonder about Mr. Fleming's idea that "the whip was to make the sound to scare the animals out."

The description seems to imply something less substantial.

"... when He had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables". (Jn 2:15)

The scourge was made of "small cords", and I feel doubtful that it would have 'cracked' like a whip. (The term "small cords" seems to be derived from the idea of 'rushlets' -- small bulrushes, perhaps 2 or 3 feet long.) Personally, I doubt that the "scourge" served any practical purpose in Jesus' hand, or was even intended (or employed) as a physical threat.

I'm thinking too that the people constituted a "vast throng", and the logistics of a man driving out people and animals in any "normal" sense (even if he were wielding an 8 or 10 foot leather whip,) does not really sit well with me.

I do like the thought though -- how many children run to an angry man holding a whip? Yet perhaps we could even dispense with the last 3 words and that question would be just as pertinent : )

January 27, 2015

Stewart said:

"... when He had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables". (Jn 2:15)

What translation did you use in the above? I have checked both the NIV and the NKJV and neither states that the whip consisted of small cords. both say ". . . he made a whip out of cords." Neither say that the whip was made of small cords.

O.K. The KJV, which I have now checked, uses the term "small cords."

Also, you are correct is suggesting that the Greek word references plaited rushes. So, I stand corrected and I have answered my own question.

January 28, 2015

...

January 28, 2015

Stewart said:

What translation did you use in the above? I have checked both the NIV and the NKJV and neither states that the whip consisted of small cords. both say ". . . he made a whip out of cords." Neither say that the whip was made of small cords.

O.K. The KJV, which I have now checked, uses the term "small cords."

Also, you are correct is suggesting that the Greek word references plaited rushes. So, I stand corrected and I have answered my own question.

When looking a little more closely at the wording, it is evident that both Strong's, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon, contain the idea of "small".

Thayers on #4979.

σχοινίον, σχοινιου, τό (diminutive of the noun σχοῖνος, ὁ and ἡ, a rush), from Herodotus down, properly, a cord or rope made of rushes; universally, a rope

Strong's.

small cord, rope.

Diminutive of schoinos (a rush or flag-plant; of uncertain derivation); a rushlet, i.e. Grass-withe or tie (generally) -- small cord, rope.

______________________

Both these Reference Works express the "diminutive" characteristic/attribute (although Thayer does not expand on it,) and for anyone that may not understand the term, "diminutive", it generally means to be unusually, or especially, small.

Other good Reference Works (in my opinion,) include Young's Literal, and Wuest.

"...having made a whip of small cords, He put all forth out of the temple..." (Young's).

"...having made a scourge of small cords..." (Wuest).

It looks like the more technical works clearly express the "diminutive" aspect, and I am wondering now why the NKJV, etc., do not do this. I'm not wanting to over-state the matter, but to me at the moment, this point seems to be reasonably important. What is Jesus holding in His hand that day?

January 28, 2015

In the study of the Biblical languages one should remember that a concordance is not a lexicon and a lexicon is a better source for the meaning of a word than is a concordance.

A lexicon is like a dictionary.

A concordance simply is a listing of the various ways in which a word has been translated.

Both have value.

Young's and Strong's are both concordances. Thayer's is an older lexicon, which was published in 1886 and is considered to contain errors. The bottom line is that with the passage of time our knowledge of the meanings of Biblical words advances. The major problem with Thayer's is that it did not consider the meaning of the Biblical words that were contained in the papyri.

In 1886, when Thayer's was published, about 10% of the words were believed to not be found in the non-Biblical writings and therefore of uncertain meanings By 1895 their meanings were known as they had been discovered in the Papyri..

The following is a very important document on this very point, which should be read by everyone who is interested in the Biblical languages..

http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/strongs-is-a-concordance-not-a-lexicon

However, this is not to be considered to dispute the idea that Christ, at the Temple, held in hand a very small whip. That, I believe is accurate. Rather my point in this post is to distinguish between a concordance and a lexicon and to point out that Thayer's is not considered to be an accurate lexicon as it isnot up to date on our present dayknowledge of the meanings of the Biblical words.

January 28, 2015

I heard from AUC, Andrews and Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies that by the time a commentary or lexicon is published they are already about 30 years out of date.

January 28, 2015

If you accept the 30 year out of date as fact, a lexicon that was based upon 1886 knowledge is beyond ancient.

January 30, 2015

In the study of the Biblical languages one should remember that a concordance is not a lexicon and a lexicon is a better source for the meaning of a word than is a concordance.

A lexicon is like a dictionary.

A concordance simply is a listing of the various ways in which a word has been translated.

Both have value.

Young's and Strong's are both concordances. Thayer's is an older lexicon, which was published in 1886 and is considered to contain errors. The bottom line is that with the passage of time our knowledge of the meanings of Biblical words advances. The major problem with Thayer's is that it did not consider the meaning of the Biblical words that were contained in the papyri.

In 1886, when Thayer's was published, about 10% of the words were believed to not be found in the non-Biblical writings and therefore of uncertain meanings By 1895 their meanings were known as they had been discovered in the Papyri..

The following is a very important document on this very point, which should be read by everyone who is interested in the Biblical languages..

http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/923/strongs-is-a-concordance-not-a-lexicon

However, this is not to be considered to dispute the idea that Christ, at the Temple, held in hand a very small whip. That, I believe is accurate. Rather my point in this post is to distinguish between a concordance and a lexicon and to point out that Thayer's is not considered to be an accurate lexicon as it isnot up to date on our present dayknowledge of the meanings of the Biblical words.

Thank you Gregory.

I am glad that we can agree that it was "a very small whip" that was held by Jesus. This was really the primary point.

But I would be surprised if any of the regular visitors to this site were not able to distinguish between a Concordance and a Lexicon. I feel somewhat reluctant to reply to a technical area that can rapidly become a bog. But if I might clarify one point in connection with my reference to "Young's Literal". This was a reference to the "Young's Literal Translation" of the Bible, rather than a reference to Young's Analytical Concordance.

I would urge caution in anything that tends to discredit the relatively old word-studies, like Thayer's, Stong's, and Young's. In my view it is much better that people be using such resources, rather than shunning them because they may be out-dated. Something else that struck me as I read your comments on Thayer's, is that the word under consideration is not among those 10% of words which you referred to, which were not believed to have examples [of usage] in non-Biblical sources.

Thayer refers [in a general sense] to extra-Biblical examples from the time of the historian Herodotus onwards, and so it seems to have been quite a commonly used word in the ancient world. But as I mentioned earlier, I am glad that we can agree on the nature of the whip, or scourge, that Jesus held in the Temple Courtyard. That, as I say, was the primary point in my last post.

January 30, 2015

As to my post:

1) I began by questioning your comment that it was a very small whip and ended up agreeing with you that it was indeed a small whip. The bottom line is that no one is perfect. I am quite willing to acknowledge that I have learned something and/or was wrong. My comment was intended to acknowledge that I had changed my initial view after looking at the evidence.

2) My focus in the comments on the difference between a concordance and a lexicon was actually more to other readers than it was to you. Based upon comments that I see posted, my perception is that many of those who post in CA are not aware of the difference between a concordance and a lexicon. Of course I could be wrong (See comment # 1 above.). In any case, my perception is subjective.

3) My reference to Young's Analytical Concordance was not a reference to anything you had posted. It was simply my inclusion along with Strong's. I often include both Young's and Strong's in comments that I make.

January 30, 2015

As to a good lexicon to use, I will suggest that for the Greek, the so-called Arndt & Gringrich is an excellent choice. However, one should be certain that one has the 3rd edition which was published by the University of Chicago in 2001.

NOTE: Zondervan had published a revision with a later publication date which was actually based upon the 2nd edition of Arndt & Gingrich and therefore is older than the University of Chicago publication. Further, this publication was the work of one person. The U. of Chicago publication had more scholars involved.

As to a Hebrew lexicon, I do not have a suggestion to make.

As to the Thayer lexicon: The fact that is may have sold more copies than any other lexicon does not indicate to me that it is of quality. It simply tells me that it has been sold for a longer period of time than any other lexicon in print and that it has better marketing. A lexicon that is fundamentally dated to the mid-1880's is flawed in my thinking.

If Arndt & Gingrich were only dated to 1957, I would have to say that it was also flawed, although better than an 1880's work. But, A & G has been updated by the University of Chicago therefore, in my thinking is much better than Thayer.

I need to make a technical clarification: I have referenced the U. of Chicago 3red edition as Arndt & Gringrich. Actually that 3rd edition cites Walter Bauer & Frederick S. Danker at the authors. So, take your pick.

January 31, 2015

I have no problem with Jesus literally overturning the tables of merchandise in the Temple. Doesn't He do that when He cleanses the soul temple?

February 1, 2015

For me the issue is the same as what Graham Maxwell use to point out: How when divinity flashed through humanity people ran in two directions. The money changers away from him and the poor and children towards him. What was it about Jesus' anger where holding a whip and maybe turning over tables still caused children to want to joyfully run to him? This was not two events but one event with two results.

February 1, 2015

I have no problem with Jesus literally overturning the tables of merchandise in the Temple. Doesn't He do that when He cleanses the soul temple?

Fair enough, Gerry.

But I would still have to disagree that Jesus does this when He cleanses the soul temple.

Love is "seemly" (1Cor 13:5) ... He does not actively bring about chaos and disorder.

Yes I accept that, in a sense, the kingdom of heaven is taken by aggressive action, and that "the violent take it by force" (Matt 11:12). But still, I cannot accept that Jesus literally creates an unseemly mess in our lives prior to His bringing in peace.

February 1, 2015

... Many of us effectively abandon the "seat of the scornful" (Ps 1:1), but Jesus does not come and tip us out of those seats.

February 2, 2015

The LORD had commanded that every man search his house for leaven, and remove it - BEFORE the eve of Passover.

Jesus was cleaning the "leaven" from His "house" - before the eve of Passover.

The Sadducees made their living from money changing at the Temple.

They banned the Roman and Greek coins because they had an image (usually of the emperor) on them.

They raised animals for sacrifice, which they sold with a mark-up of 20%.

Incidentally, the fields where they raised those animals were surrounding Bethlehem.

Of course - they would try to eradicate anyone who dared to suggest that system was NO LONGER NEEDED.

Sign In

Cating Out the Sellers and the Buyers From The Temple

Recommended Posts

Stewart (SDA)

thx4mercy

Stewart (SDA)

Kevin H

Stewart (SDA)

Gregory Matthews

Stewart (SDA)

Stewart (SDA)

Gregory Matthews

Kevin H

Gregory Matthews

Stewart (SDA)

Gregory Matthews

Gregory Matthews

Gerr

Kevin H

Stewart (SDA)

Stewart (SDA)

8thdaypriest

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity