| Author |
Message |
mikokiko
Posts: 1233
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jul 05, 2010 - 12:06 AM |
 
|
| Quote: |
| "And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” (John 2:14-16) |
Why did the Lord Jesus use a whip of cords, pour out the changer's money, overturn the tables, and drive out everyone from the temple in a violent and indignant manner? Aren't we told that He is meek and lowly of heart and gentle and that "a bruised reed He will not break, and smoking flax He will not quench"?
God Bless |
|
|
|
|
Truth.Seeker
Posts: 806
Joined: Feb 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 05, 2010 - 05:55 PM |
|
Here's an interesting explanation by St. John Chrysostom:
| St. Chrysostom wrote: |
“And wherefore,” says one, “did Christ do this same, and use such severity against these men,
a thing which He is nowhere else seen to do, even when insulted and reviled, and called by them
‘Samaritan’ and ‘demoniac’? for He was not even satisfied with words only, but took a scourge,
and so cast them out.” Yes, but it was when others were receiving benefit, that the Jews accused
and raged against Him; when it was probable that they would have been made savage by His
rebukes, they showed no such disposition towards Him, for they neither accused nor reviled Him.
What say they?
Ver. 18. “What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?”
Seest thou their excessive malice, and how the benefits done to others incensed them more
(than reproofs)?
At one time then He said, that the Temple was made by them “a den of thieves,” showing that
what they sold was gotten by theft, and rapine, and covetousness, and that they were rich through
other men’s calamities; at another, “a house of merchandise,” pointing to their shameless traffickings.
“But wherefore did He this?” Since he was about to heal on the Sabbath day, and to do many such
things which were thought by them transgressions of the Law, in order that He might not seem to
do this as though He had come to be some rival God600 and opponent of His Father, He takes occasion
hence to correct any such suspicion of theirs. For One who had exhibited so much zeal for the
House was not likely to oppose Him who was Lord of the House, and who was worshiped in it. No
doubt even the former years during which He lived according to the Law, were sufficient to show
His reverence for the Legislator, and that He came not to give contrary laws; yet since it was likely
that those years were forgotten through lapse of time, as not having been known to all because He
was brought up in a poor and mean dwelling, He afterwards does this in the presence of all, (for
many were present because the feast was nigh at hand,) and at great risk. For he did not merely
“cast them out,” but also “overturned the tables,” and “poured out the money,” giving them by this
to understand, that He who threw Himself into danger for the good order of the House could never
despise his Master. Had He acted as He did from hypocrisy, He should only have advised them;
but to place Himself in danger was very daring. For it was no light thing to offer Himself to the
anger of so many market-folk,601 to excite against Himself a most brutal mob of petty dealers by
His reproaches and His blows, this was not the action of a pretender, but of one choosing to suffer
everything for the order of the House.
And therefore not by His actions only, but by His words, He shows his agreement with the
Father;602 for He saith not “the Holy House,” but “My Father’s House.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikokiko
Posts: 1233
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 06, 2010 - 11:19 AM |
|
I'm not exactly sure what point he's trying to get across. Could you explain to me what St. John means here? Thanks
GB |
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.Seeker
Posts: 806
Joined: Feb 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 06, 2010 - 11:36 AM |
|
I think just focusing on this part may clarify it:
| St. Chrysostom wrote: |
For he did not merely “cast them out,” but also “overturned the tables,” and “poured out the money,” giving them by this to understand, that He who threw Himself into danger for the good order of the House could never despise his Master. Had He acted as He did from hypocrisy, He should only have advised them; but to place Himself in danger was very daring. For it was no light thing to offer Himself to the anger of so many market-folk, to excite against Himself a most brutal mob of petty dealers by His reproaches and His blows, this was not the action of a pretender, but of one choosing to suffer everything for the order of the House. And therefore not by His actions only, but by His words, He shows his agreement with the Father; for He saith not “the Holy House,” but “My Father’s House.” |
St. Chrysostom reads the part about overturning the tables with the part about Him healing on the Sabbath. He looks at it this way: if Jesus merely advised them gently, He would have been at no danger from the crowd and may have been accused of hypocrisy - that the One who is so jealous for the Temple's purity is breaking the Sabbath since it costs Him nothing to tell them to stop treating the place like a market.
However, having overturned the tables and violently threw the people out, He put Himself in danger by doing so. Therefore, it was not out of any hypocrisy that He did this, but it was out of a real zeal to preserve His Father's House.
In other words, they couldn't accuse Him of working against the Father (by healing on the Sabbath) when He had just put Himself in danger to purify the Temple, which He didn't just call the "Holy House" but "My Father's House" - putting Himself with the Father, not anyone else.
I must say, not St. Chrysostom's clearest of writings. |
|
|
|
|
|
mikokiko
Posts: 1233
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 06, 2010 - 12:03 PM |
|
I think I sort of got the gist of what he said, but wasn't sure exactly what he meant. But that seems to be a very insightful interpretation.
But did violence have to be the means to prove this? That's my question. Or, is it ever acceptable to use violence and coercion to prevent people from sinning?
God Bless |
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.Seeker
Posts: 806
Joined: Feb 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 06, 2010 - 12:33 PM |
|
I think it's always acceptable for God to use violence. He has done it many times (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5)). Violence is not to be used by us to stop anyone from sinning (apart from the Government (and when the sin is also a crime) - Romans 13). Of course there are other caveats - if someone is about to murder a child, I will use lethal force to stop it if I have to.
Of course we would have to disassociate the negative connotations connected with the word "violence". Those connotations are connected with acts of violence that are sins themselves. But "violence" as an involuntary physical act on someone is not necessarily wrong. (Imagine pushing someone away in the street because a car was about to hit him/her.) Of course if the businessfolk at the Temple were religiously minded, they would have welcomed His violent rebuke with joy. Then again, they wouldn't have been doing what they were doing if they were religiously minded.
So, if nobody would see a physical harm as wrong in order to stop a greater physical harm, isn't it even more fitting to inflict physical harm to stop a spiritual harm? I speculate that because this is very-much a judgment call situation, God is the only one Who can do it right (except in the OT, where people carried out these chastisements, but according to very detailed Laws set down by God). |
|
|
|
|
|
mikokiko
Posts: 1233
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 06, 2010 - 12:50 PM |
|
| Quote: |
"For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force … it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice."
- Six Books on the Priesthood (St. John Chrysostom) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.Seeker
Posts: 806
Joined: Feb 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 06, 2010 - 01:21 PM |
|
Yes. Not sure if you mean it as a supplement or a refutation. I don't see anything in there that disagrees with what I said. |
|
|
|
|
|
mikokiko
Posts: 1233
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 06, 2010 - 01:27 PM |
|
Neither do I  . I would like to also add my two cents in saying, He probably also acted far harshly against them, because they were people responsible of God's Worship and the conducting of matters in God's House. While if we look at how He dealt with sinners like prostitutes, and tax collectors we see something different. We also see this not just from a "physical-force" perspective. But also from an "oral" perspective. When addressing the Pharisees and the High Priests He leveled off accusations and criticisms of the highest and harshest levels, condemning them all off to the sufferings of Hell. While we see how much kinder and gentle He was with those who did not know the Law or lived with hypocrisy.
GB |
|
|
|
|
|
lowlyman
Posts: 287
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 22, 2010 - 10:26 AM |
|
hello everyone,
I also would like to add that the Scripture does not state that he whipped them, or that he hit anyone.
Also this passage is often mentioned with the zeal over God's house. In the Psalm, David prayed, "Because zeal for your house consumes me, I am scorned by those who scorn you."
St. Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John:
"Then the disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up:” because by this zeal of God’s house, the Lord cast these men out of the temple. Brethren, let every Christian among the members of Christ be eaten up with zeal of God’s house. Who is eaten up with zeal of God’s house? He who exerts himself to have all that he may happen to see wrong there corrected, desires it to be mended, does not rest idle: who if he cannot mend it, endures it, laments it. . . . Therefore, let the zeal of God’s house eat thee up: let the zeal of God’s house eat up every Christian, zeal of that house of God of which he is a member. For thy own house is not more important than that wherein thou hast everlasting rest. . . . I am about to give you counsel: may He who is within give it; for though it be through me, it is He that gives it. You know what to do, each one of you, in his own house, with his friend, his tenant, his client, with greater, with less: as God grants an entrance, as He opens a door for His word, do not cease to win for Christ; because you were won by Christ."
| mikokiko wrote: |
Neither do I . I would like to also add my two cents in saying, He probably also acted far harshly against them, because they were people responsible of God's Worship and the conducting of matters in God's House. While if we look at how He dealt with sinners like prostitutes, and tax collectors we see something different. We also see this not just from a "physical-force" perspective. But also from an "oral" perspective. When addressing the Pharisees and the High Priests He leveled off accusations and criticisms of the highest and harshest levels, condemning them all off to the sufferings of Hell. While we see how much kinder and gentle He was with those who did not know the Law or lived with hypocrisy.
GB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remnkemi
Ask me for help!
Posts: 788
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Boston, MA USA
|
| Posted:
Jul 23, 2010 - 01:00 PM |
|
I think if you read the Jesus' incident in the Temple in light of Jeremiah 7, you'll see that Jeremiah's words are a prophecy of Jesus.
God tells Jeremiah that the people entrusted to keep the Name of the Lord in the place He dwells violated His commandment. It's not just violating His commandment that invokes God's anger, it's their refusal to accept correction from God. Instead of listening to God's reproach and repenting, they relied on false words: "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!" As if the Temple of the Lord gave them absolute immunity to sin and to disregard God's attempts to correct them. Worse yet, they continued increasing their rebellion against God by murdering, committing adultery and perjury INSIDE the temple. Their sin started from trusting in other gods to physically sinning in the place they were entrusted to keep the Name of the Lord. In the Jews' arrogance, they challenged God's judgment and said, ""We are safe." And God's immediate response is a rhetorical question that acts as judgement for sinning in the Temple - "[Are you]safe to do all these detestable things?" It is now that God concludes His case against the Jews "Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD." Notice it is the same judgment or closing statement Christ gives to the Jews in the Temple of His time.
What is also interesting is that Jeremiah 7 continues to be a prophecy for Christ. God uses a powerful metaphor: Just as God made Shilol (Hades) His first dwelling place for His Name and destroyed it because of the wickedness of the Jews, so also He will do to the Temple that they arrogantly trusted over God Himself. And this judgment was confirmed when Christ said, "The time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down." (Lk 21:6). In redeclaring judgment against the Temple, Christ proved His divinity as God Incarnate for it was God that declared judgment against the Temple in Jeremiah 7 and God who declared judgment against the Temple in the Gospels.
If Christ gently rebuked the Jews, pleading and interceeding for the Pharisees, He would have disobeyed His Father. For God says in Jeremiah 7, "So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you...But am I the one they are provoking? declares the LORD. Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame?" It is this last sentence that proves God is acting in love, not anger.
It is after judgment is declared that God pours out His anger and wrath. And this anger will not be quenched. Jeremiah writes, 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: My anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, on man and beast, on the trees of the field and on the fruit of the ground, and it will burn and not be quenched."
I'm sorry this message is long. I think the Christ's incident in the temple is not a sign of an angry God but of the faithful Son who follows the words and has the mind/Logos of His Father, the Almighty God.
George |
|
|
 |
|
lowlyman
Posts: 287
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2010 - 12:21 PM |
|
amen.
| Remnkemi wrote: |
I think if you read the Jesus' incident in the Temple in light of Jeremiah 7, you'll see that Jeremiah's words are a prophecy of Jesus.
God tells Jeremiah that the people entrusted to keep the Name of the Lord in the place He dwells violated His commandment. It's not just violating His commandment that invokes God's anger, it's their refusal to accept correction from God. Instead of listening to God's reproach and repenting, they relied on false words: "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!" As if the Temple of the Lord gave them absolute immunity to sin and to disregard God's attempts to correct them. Worse yet, they continued increasing their rebellion against God by murdering, committing adultery and perjury INSIDE the temple. Their sin started from trusting in other gods to physically sinning in the place they were entrusted to keep the Name of the Lord. In the Jews' arrogance, they challenged God's judgment and said, ""We are safe." And God's immediate response is a rhetorical question that acts as judgement for sinning in the Temple - "[Are you]safe to do all these detestable things?" It is now that God concludes His case against the Jews "Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD." Notice it is the same judgment or closing statement Christ gives to the Jews in the Temple of His time.
What is also interesting is that Jeremiah 7 continues to be a prophecy for Christ. God uses a powerful metaphor: Just as God made Shilol (Hades) His first dwelling place for His Name and destroyed it because of the wickedness of the Jews, so also He will do to the Temple that they arrogantly trusted over God Himself. And this judgment was confirmed when Christ said, "The time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down." (Lk 21:6). In redeclaring judgment against the Temple, Christ proved His divinity as God Incarnate for it was God that declared judgment against the Temple in Jeremiah 7 and God who declared judgment against the Temple in the Gospels.
If Christ gently rebuked the Jews, pleading and interceeding for the Pharisees, He would have disobeyed His Father. For God says in Jeremiah 7, "So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you...But am I the one they are provoking? declares the LORD. Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame?" It is this last sentence that proves God is acting in love, not anger.
It is after judgment is declared that God pours out His anger and wrath. And this anger will not be quenched. Jeremiah writes, 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: My anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, on man and beast, on the trees of the field and on the fruit of the ground, and it will burn and not be quenched."
I'm sorry this message is long. I think the Christ's incident in the temple is not a sign of an angry God but of the faithful Son who follows the words and has the mind/Logos of His Father, the Almighty God.
George |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB2 and the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.
|
Productions
