Jesus and the money changers at the Temple

OK, the best source book that I have for this was loaned to me a couple of years ago and has been returned - maybe one of you has this or something similar but, here is what I remember from a very compelling argument.

The Gospel story of Jesus going into the Temple and turning over the tables of the money changers in the Temple is just in no way believable. To begin with, you have to understand the sheer size of the Temple - it was huge! Dimensions given by historians make it to be about the size of a Super Wal-Mart, at least. On top of that, the Temple had it's own elite troops of armed guards on the inside who were backed up by a large contigent of Roman soldiers on the outside. (Don't forget that the high priests of the Temple were so "in bed" with the occupying Roman forces that they were practically a branch of the Romans.) Rome was getting its cut from the take - or, more accurately, Pontius Pilate was.

The idea that Jesus, acting alone and unarmed, was able to get into and out of the Temple and get away with disrupting the commerce in the Temple is just too far-fetched to even consider. The only way that could have been remotely possible would be if his disruption were so grossly exaggerated that maybe the truth was that he kicked over one stall of one vendor and ran like crazy.

The theory is that Jesus went in with an armed band of insurgents and fought a skirmish that probably lasted most of a whole day - maybe more than a single day. In fact, it is hypothesized that this armed band may have actually occupied the outer portions of the Temple for a few days.

OK, what do y'all think? What have you read about this?

Originally posted by Al Davison
The only way that could have been remotely possible would be if his disruption were so grossly exaggerated that maybe the truth was that he kicked over one stall of one vendor and ran like crazy.

I admit, that's the way I always imagined it.

Didn't we all have our own "Apostles" in high school to bear witness to the legendary events of our heroic deeds in stories all ending with...

Man it was awesome, you should have been there.

And so the legend grows.

Well since by your own admission that you think it is false, you can therefore not understand that He was in the Temple all the time and what was He doing there? Teaching and even the Pharisees were amazed at his knowledge.

He very well got upset at the marketing of the Temple, His Father's house.


You can believe what you wish..........

RANT - Whats with your sig? Is that something that you believe in?

[edit on 13-3-2005 by edsinger]

I don't take the story as word-for-word gospel, but I think it did happen, probably in the way that it was portrayed in the movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ". Basically there would have been vendors all over the temple (and in little hallways, etc) and Jesus just went in and kicked a few tables over, not causing too much damage but making a big scene and then delivering a moving speech of some kind. The Romans would have seen little jewish fights breaking out on a daily basis and so probably just rolled their eyes at it. The Romans saw themselves as babysitting the jews, for the most part. Even if Jesus' actions would have been punishable in some way, one can assume that he was divinely protected in that instance. Kind of like how Pilate could not avoid crucifying him.

The reason it was recorded was because it was the one time when Jesus actually made a weapon (whip) and went seeking violence. It's the most important part of the gospel, in my eyes, particularly considering the actions of zionist bankers today. (Oops! Now I've done it...)

We could use a modern-day Jesus to kick the fractional-reserve bankers around a bit.



[edit on 13-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

hey thats pretty interesting... some of this stuff id never have thought of if it wasnt for ATS thx guys


even if some of the people are pretty wacky


but yeah if thats the case then jesus must have ran like crazy or the soldiers would have beat his ass pretty good, id say.

I don't believe that He knocked every table over, but He was in the temple and did cause a scene. Enough that it was noted an moved people.

Jesus actully did it twice. (Matt 21, John 2)

But often Jesus would go to the temples Teach and preach there, as well as his disiples whom were welcomed (John was). ON the first occiasion as well as the second his authority was challanged

Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

The Jews replied, “It has taken fortysix years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Not to metion since this same person fed over 5000 with jsut a few loaves of bread and a small fish. Who says he couldn't flip tables and cause all the market sellers in the temple to run away? Just another minor miricle.

Actually, I do believe that Jesus was there and caused some kind of ruckus over the profane and despicable commercial activities going on - I never said that I didn't believe that part.

I said I don't believe it happened the way the KJV and RCC would have us to believe it.

I also think it completely possible that this was an action of a small armed insurrection force with Jesus leading it. Again, please do not try to accuse me of saying I believe that this is what happened - just that it's entirely possible and not at all unlikely.

I feel it is just as likely that it was more on the opposite end of the scale - like sweeping the merchandise off of one guy's table and making a speech about it.

Before you brand me, let me say that regardless of which way the true incident played out, I am very happy that Jesus took this stand because that Temple was at least as corrupt an institution as the RCC has been (except that they don't seem to have killed a lot of people).

Originally posted by Al Davison
OK, the best source book that I have for this was loaned to me a couple of years ago and has been returned - maybe one of you has this or something similar but, here is what I remember from a very compelling argument.

The Gospel story of Jesus going into the Temple and turning over the tables of the money changers in the Temple is just in no way believable. To begin with, you have to understand the sheer size of the Temple - it was huge! Dimensions given by historians make it to be about the size of a Super Wal-Mart, at least. On top of that, the Temple had it's own elite troops of armed guards on the inside who were backed up by a large contigent of Roman soldiers on the outside. (Don't forget that the high priests of the Temple were so "in bed" with the occupying Roman forces that they were practically a branch of the Romans.) Rome was getting its cut from the take - or, more accurately, Pontius Pilate was.

The idea that Jesus, acting alone and unarmed, was able to get into and out of the Temple and get away with disrupting the commerce in the Temple is just too far-fetched to even consider. The only way that could have been remotely possible would be if his disruption were so grossly exaggerated that maybe the truth was that he kicked over one stall of one vendor and ran like crazy.

The theory is that Jesus went in with an armed band of insurgents and fought a skirmish that probably lasted most of a whole day - maybe more than a single day. In fact, it is hypothesized that this armed band may have actually occupied the outer portions of the Temple for a few days.

OK, what do y'all think? What have you read about this?

Remember that Jesus was a 'rabbi', and so probably was a priveledged person in the temple. Besides, when reading the Bible youc an't be blinded by facts. The Bible is like a poem or a metaphor. It has to be understood 'contextually', or interms of it's overall structure.

For instance Abraham's offering of Issac on the mountain top seems like a cruel and arbitrary act, when taken 'literally'. Seen in terms of 'foreshadowing', it becomes a 'prefiguration of Christ'. Issac was substituted with a lamb, as under the law animal offerings were made forthe expiation of sins.

Att he crucifixtion, Jesus and Barrabbas are offered to the crowd, who choose Barrabbas. Barabbas literaly mean Bar-Abbas, or "son of the father. A Son of Abraham, in other words.

OK, I don't want you to think that I'm arguing against your main point - I'm not.

I'm seeking to understand the "stories behind the stories". However, I would be less than truthful if I didn't admit some delight in learning how to refute those who want to use their bible as a cudgel by claiming everything in it to be literally true - that's my sin and I'll deal with it. ;-)

Couple of points about your last post that I believe to be in error:
1) although Jesus was considered a rabbi by his followers, I do not believe he would have too many privileges in this Temple. I feel certain he would not have been welcomed because his feelings about the Temple leadership were fairly well-known considering the groups with which he associated (i.e. Nazorites, Essennes, and other Zealot off-shoots). These groups had as one of their main purposes, to "clean up" Judaism and the Temple's relationship with Rome. Additionally, Jesus had made himself pretty unpopular with mainstream Judaism at that time because of his preaching that the laws of kashrut need not be followed. There are other examples but, he was considered pretty radical and more than a little dangerous to the Jewish leadership at the time. There are some who want to paint a pretty picture of Jesus as some sort of "guest lecturer" in the Temple - the only way they wanted him as their guest was to invite him over to see their old pal Pontius Pilate.

The Barrabas part of that story is equally unlikely to have happened that way. To begin with, the tradition that some "criminal" was to be chosen for a pardon is in no way supported by historical accounts of the treatment of Roman procurate (what would be the plural of this?) - particularly not one as cruel, oppressive, and corrupt as Pilate. I've not been able to really figure this one out - why even include this in the story? There is also considerable speculation regarding whether that name was correctly recorded and subsequently correctly translated. It is equally likely that it meant "son of a rabbi" as in Bar Rebbi

OK, like I said, these are details and your point about the poetry and allegory is still quite valid. Even if I can't understand the allegory of the Barabbas thing.

(Spelling error edited - probably didn't catch them all)

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Al Davison]

Originally posted by Al DavisonThe idea that Jesus, acting alone and unarmed, was able to get into and out of the Temple and get away with disrupting the commerce in the Temple is just too far-fetched to even consider.

I agree, money changers or not, the temple was too sacred to allow holliganism or violence to go unchecked.

The only way that could have been remotely possible would be if his disruption were so grossly exaggerated that maybe the truth was that he kicked over one stall of one vendor and ran like crazy.

Not unless there is more to the story. Such as, he was in the temple to begin with because he was a Jew and a high priest likely preaching in his own temple railing at them for a reason not stated. As a high priest they would call him to council which is what happened.

The theory is that Jesus went in with an armed band of insurgents and fought a skirmish that probably lasted most of a whole day - maybe more than a single day. In fact, it is hypothesized that this armed band may have actually occupied the outer portions of the Temple for a few days.

This too is also possible.

Good luck with the replies, I brought this up months ago as well.

[edit on 3/14/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by RANT
Man it was awesome, you should have been there.

I think that there's a lot to that. WHo knows what actually happened, certainly some crazy rabbi from the desert isn't going to run around the high holy temple of all judea whipping at animals and knocking over merchant's tables, disturbing the peace and what not.

The Temple comlex is huge, and, well, complex. I doubt this happened inside the temple proper. It may've happened on a little market that had arisen in some part of the complex.

In the post-modern world where everything is relative, there are many people who fail to understand how the spiritual realm responds to absolute moral authority.

We have seen recent examples as the tsunami in Sumatra, which had among the highest rates of persecution of Christians in the world, was wiped out by God's very beginning judgments. Then, we have a 26 year old woman named Ashley Smith, who is also a Christian, who, by the power of the Holy Spirit within her kept her cool and allowed the Spirit to speak through her to turn back from further evil, a large,very strong man
who had already killed several times.

And yet, people do not understand or accept that there is Power in Jesus and authority, that, even if the money changers did not understand it, brought justified fear over them in Jesus presence.

You don't have to believe me. Just wait about 2-3 years at the max and see what happens to this country for all the evil we have done in the lap
of luxury. Just remember what I said and be careful what you say now. Jesus assured all of us we would be held accountable for every careless word.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
he was in the temple to begin with because he was a Jew and a high priest likely preaching in his own temple railing at them for a reason not stated. As a high priest they would call him to council which is what happened.

Interesting. What else supports this jesus as a high preist idea? Would this require that he be a pharisee? I do recall that its often mentioned that he talked with the preists as a boy and was considered a religious prodigy, which doesn't jive, in my understanding, with the rest of the sotry.

I, too, would like to see where someone would get the idea that Jesus would have been considered a High Priest in a Temple with which he was widely known to have serious philosophical differences. My reading is that he would have been considered, at least, a political enemy of the Temple leadership.

Any info on that?

My understanding is that the Pharisees were amazed at his knowledge of the scriptures and that he was allowed to preach as a rabbi (teacher). It was these teachings that caused the problems.

The Jews were transfixed with this Nazarene, but when He made it known He did not come to free them from Rome, they revolted so to speak and considered Him a blasphemer and worthy of death, just as the scriptures they knew so well predicted.

Originally posted by NygdanInteresting. What else supports this jesus as a high preist idea? Would this require that he be a pharisee? I do recall that its often mentioned that he talked with the preists as a boy and was considered a religious prodigy, which doesn't jive, in my understanding, with the rest of the sotry.

Only if you believe that only Pharisees were high priests, and if you do, well, I am just not interested in providing your education from the ground up, nor am I here for that. I expect after all those on here, especially those challenging me, come to the table with a modicum of knowledge.

If you take your information about Jesus solely from the NT, then you have not even scratched the surface, and just accept that should you be ever willing to undertake the journey of learning you will find him called a high priest by the church fathers well into the mid second century. Were you a willing student of the history behind that 3BCE-2ACE era you would be reading about Jewish laws, customs, the various sects, the make-up of the Sanhedrin, the sedition between the sects, the civil war, the thieves, killers, plunderers... all Jews. But you are not interested, you are just here to be contrary armed with only your quote button and question mark. So you will have to suffice by looking through my previous posts for that which you lack, for I did not spend 15 years on my research to provide you with all of it in bits in pieces. My signature speaks to that.

If you wish to argue with me, then counter my posts logically with your best prepared argument, and I would be more than pleased to set you straight, agree or compromise, but your tactic thus far which I have so far indulged is wanting, trite, and annoying, this is not kindergarten. Stay away from that basal propensity to misununderstand what you read, and rise to the occassion and engage. Or look elsewhere.

And just to drive my point home to you as to how much more than the NT you would need to read to enage me intelligently Nygdan. Jesus was an high-priest, a man leading an armed sedition against other Jews and Rome. A man whose stories you read, speak to exactly that when taken with other historical perspective of the times, where all the characters are mentioned, yet the NT masks the atrocities and couch them in words written to tell you nothing yet tell you that nothing in a positive way, while suggesting he was the saviour all Jews at that time were expecting to materialize to save them from the Romans, and further romanticized by missing context and words of praise for their master. The most simple mind were they to know anything at all about the era, would have to ask how it is possible these men were walking in and out of Galilee spreading their love, when Galilee was a lock-down, drag out fight for survival.

He was sentenced to die and killed him because he was killing other Jews, not because anyone was afraid of him being the saviour, that is a Christian fable invented for simple minds. The OT is rife with tails of extraordinary bravery and overcoming of enemies, but the pliable mind falls for all of them being afraid of some man for some unexplained reason. Had he been any type of saviour, rest assured, after 3,790 years of waiting and desperately wanting one to materialize while under Roman rule, they would have chosen Fred Flinstone as long as he was willing to lead them all, not divide them and kill them.

You follow me from thread to thread, my point of view is therefore not news, so I suggest you review them over and over until you have mastered retention. Then get back to me.

Jesus was a carpenter back in the day when they didn't have trucks, cranes, or 2 by 4s. They worked with, generally, 12 by 8s and 12 by 4s to give the buildings enough support. We are talking some serious lifting here.

Now, on the other point, yeah, the temple was hugh, but a lot of it was sectioned off. Just like churches today, there was a front "lobby", the place where the congregation would be, and the inner sanctum. The money changers weren't throughout the temple, they were in the front. It is believed they worked with marble tables -- a sign that they had been there for a while. The way the money changers worked, too, was pretty darn shadey.

You would go into the temple, as was required by Jewish law, with your pure animal. It would be checked out at the door, and the person doing the checking would say it was blemished. Then, you had to take your animal to the money changers. You would sell your animal, exchange what money you had for the Jerusleam currency, and then buy a Temple certified animal for sacrfice. The people in the temple had turned God's law into a money making venture, and this infuriated God. Or Christ, whichever. His reaction was to flip these marble tables using the might muscles the perfection of humanity had. Then, if you recall, he chased them out with a whip. We're talking money here, people, so folks were rather...dedicated to their golden God. Yet he frieghtened them and they didn't attack him for two reasons. First, he was this adonis of a man, capable of taking your average banker and breaking him over his thumb. Second, because Christ was protected by God until his time came. God wasn't going to send his only Son to the world to be mobed by a bunch of bankers.

So the next time you ask yourself, "what would Jesus do," just remember it may involve throwing over a table and chasing people with a whip

I don't think the story I started off this thread with suggested anything about having the money-changers challenge Jesus on a physical basis.

The story I was questioning, without the great knowledge of many here, dealt with how he could get away with this action in the face of a pretty good-sized force of armed guards. A big man with a whip is pretty daunting to a fat old banker but not so much to a few dozen soldiers armed with swords and spears.

If the money-changers had their own section of the Temple, which seems completely logical, then logic follows that this is where the strongest part of the Temple guards would be stationed. And the Roman soldiers, which were every where, would have been close at hand and it's hard to believe that the Romans weren't getting a piece of this action.

This has been an interesting discussion but I'm still not sure which story I believe. I've read a lot but I get the feeling that if I continue reading and studying until the sun burns out, I will just know a lot of different versions of the stories. Still, that seems an interesting way to engage my remaining brain cells - beats reality TV, anyway.

Read about how the Roman soldiers treated the Temple and Judism in general. From what I've gathered, though I haven't done a ton of research on this yet, religion was for the Jews to handle, not Rome. BEcause the money changing happened in the temple, and was for a religious cause (procurement of "pure" sacrifices), the Romans left it alone. Jesus was considered a Rabbi, one of the Jew's teachers. To see him throw tables in a Jewish temple would be seen as a religious dispute, and nothing to do with the Romans. After all, Christ said, "you have taken my house".