Jesus And The Temple Incident ?

[Duncan]

We learn that Jesus got upset and turned over tables and kicked the money changers and dove sellers out of the Temple. I am wondering what was wrong with them being there? It says they were in the courtyard, was that encroaching into the Temple and all that money changing and selling doves and stuff should have been entirely outside? Another intriguing tidbit is Mark 11:16 where he says "And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple." well, what the heck does that mean? 

[JLHPROF]

It's interesting to note that many scholars think this happened twice.

 

Jesus’ first cleansing of the temple is described in John 2:11-12 as having occurred just after Jesus’ first miracle, the turning of water into wine at the wedding in Cana.

 

and

 

The second cleansing of the temple occurred just after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem the last week of His life. This second cleansing is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but not in John. There are differences in the two events, aside from their being nearly three years apart. In the first cleansing, temple officials confronted Jesus immediately (John 2:18), whereas in the second cleansing, the chief priests and scribes confronted Him the following day (Matthew 21:17-23). In the first event, Jesus made a whip of cords with which to drive out the sellers, but there is no mention of a whip in the second cleansing. So there are two recorded occasions when Jesus cleansed the temple—the first time at the beginning of His public ministry, and the second time just after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem shortly before He was crucified.

http://www.gotquestions.org/temple-cleanse.html

 

As to why this was an issue?  Commerce in the temple.  Selling sacrifices.  Basically, selling salvation.

[strappinglad]

It is my understanding that the money changers were there to exchange foreign money for the money needed for the temple. As with all such transactions a profit is needed. As happens with all foreigners, they were subject to the opportunism of the situation and could easily be extorted and overcharged. Such corruption within the temple boundaries, Jesus could not overlook. It is not inconceivable that the temple leadership were getting a cut of the action.

[Uncle Dale]

We learn that Jesus got upset and turned over tables and kicked the money changers and dove sellers out of the Temple. I am wondering what was wrong with them being there? It says they were in the courtyard, was that encroaching into the Temple and all that money changing and selling doves and stuff should have been entirely outside? Another intriguing tidbit is Mark 11:16 where he says "And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple." well, what the heck does that mean? 

 

The temple during Herod's time had multiple enclosures,

with the "House of the Lord" within the central walls.

There was an area reserved for the priests and Levites;

and exterior to that an area for acceptable Jewish men; 

and exterior to that an area for Jewish women, and whomever

had business/activities there, who otherwise could also go 

into the inner area.

 

Surrounding all of that war an enclosed courtyard. Gentiles

and unacceptible Jewish people could approach as closely

as the gates, atop the steps.

 

However, it seems that during a certain period of years the

Gentile coins (and perhaps some old Jewish coins which were

not kosher for temple offerings) could be brought inside of

that first set of gates. Probably this was just a convenience

approved by the priests, but it meant that unholy things were

being carried onto holy ground.

 

Had the money-changers set up their kiosks outside of those

main gates, probably nobody would have disapproved. But

strict fundamentalists (such as Jews who had taken Nazarite

vows) would have, no doubt, felt disturbed by the practice of

having unholy coins exchanged for holy coins INSIDE the gates.

 

On the other hand -- if the high priest of the House of the Lord

had approved the practice (as a convenience, not strictly abiding

by the sanctity of the temple grounds -- then who was going to 

raise his voice in protest?

 

Doing so would have been an act of defiance against the high priest

and the Sadducee establishment.

 

Like standing up at General Conference, and vocally refusing to

sustain The Brethren (and maybe doing some things that threatened

to cause a disturbance). Or, worse than that, perhaps attending a

temple wedding of a grandchild of one of the First Presidency members,

and yelling out protests of some sort, during the ceremony. Not the

sort of acts that the Temple Establishment folks would ever condone.

 

If Jesus really did act as the gospel-writers portray him doing, it would

have symbolized a refusal to sustain the Sadducean priesthood. Not

the sort of thing the "Expected Messiah" was supposed to be doing.

 

UD

[Alan]

I must say I feel very uncomfortable about paying for the hire of temple clothing in the temple itself.

I purchased my own set in order to avoid doing this, but plenty of people still hire clothing.

I don't see why this can't be done outside of the temple.

[Duncan]

I must say I feel very uncomfortable about paying for the hire of temple clothing in the temple itself.

I purchased my own set in order to avoid doing this, but plenty of people still hire clothing.

I don't see why this can't be done outside of the temple.

 

 

and cafeterias, although any Temple Cafeteria I have been to has made divine food so it's okay

[longview]

It is my understanding that the money changers were there to exchange foreign money for the money needed for the temple. As with all such transactions a profit is needed. As happens with all foreigners, they were subject to the opportunism of the situation and could easily be extorted and overcharged. Such corruption within the temple boundaries, Jesus could not overlook. It is not inconceivable that the temple leadership were getting a cut of the action.

The place was rife with corruption.  First off, the top Temple leadership (High Priest) had to be purchased with large sums to Greek overlords (since then to Roman or Herodian despots).  Then the Temple leadership would bid for choice alcoves and closeness to various functions.  Jesus could discern all the details with His amazing power of spiritual insights and revelation.

Edited March 28, 2015 by longview

[ksfisher]

I must say I feel very uncomfortable about paying for the hire of temple clothing in the temple itself.

I purchased my own set in order to avoid doing this, but plenty of people still hire clothing.

I don't see why this can't be done outside of the temple.

 

You are paying for the equipment and materials used in cleaning the clothing as well as the time of the people hired to do the work.  Temple laundry facilities are self sustaining.  They are not for profit, nor do they use any tithing money. 

 

The difference between what happening with Jesus and renting clothing at the temple is intent.  The money changers intent was to make a profit (and possibly not an honest one).  The intent of the laundry facility at the temple is to  provide ceremonial clothing to those who desire to attend the temple, but do not have their own clothing.  This is done without cost to anyone except the person renting the clothing. 

 

The same goes for cafeterias as well.  They operate entirely on the funds taken in from those who use the service and do not generate a profit. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

I must say I feel very uncomfortable about paying for the hire of temple clothing in the temple itself.

I purchased my own set in order to avoid doing this, but plenty of people still hire clothing.

I don't see why this can't be done outside of the temple.

 

I don't see what it matters.  The cost is just to help pay for washing them and keeping them in good repair.  The last time i rented a set it cost me $4.  

 

Is money evil?  Is that why you don't want people touching it in the temple?

[Blah]

Jesus took issue with the fact that the money changers were extorting people who came to worship, not that money was changing hands.

As for the clothing services in modern temples, I can speak from experience. I have worked in the Houston Temple laundry for nearly a decade. There is no profit, and we operate as efficiently and inexpensivly as possible. There have been discussions (that I have not been a part of) about discontinuing clothing rental but it was determined by the Temple Department that, since many of our patrons cannot afford their own clothing, doing so would impede the very work for which the temple exists in the first place. It's all about hastening the work.

[JLHPROF]

Jesus took issue with the fact that the money changers were extorting people who came to worship, not that money was changing hands.

As for the clothing services in modern temples, I can speak from experience. I have worked in the Houston Temple laundry for nearly a decade. There is no profit, and we operate as efficiently and inexpensivly as possible. There have been discussions (that I have not been a part of) about discontinuing clothing rental but it was determined by the Temple Department that, since many of our patrons cannot afford their own clothing, doing so would impede the very work for which the temple exists in the first place. It's all about hastening the work.

 

I agree and understand this.  But in the end, if you were to account for the administrative cost, laundry costs, etc, it would probably be less costly to GIVE a set to any member in the stakes that couldn't afford it.

I know when I was going through the first time that I was given a fairly sizeable discount at the distribution center because it was my first time and the GA's had put that incentive in place.

The goal should be for members to own their own clothing in my opinion.  But until that's possible the rental program will suffice.

Edited March 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[cinepro]

I agree and understand this.  But in the end, if you were to account for the administrative cost, laundry costs, etc, it would probably be less costly to GIVE a set to any member in the stakes that couldn't afford it.

I know when I was going through the first time that I was given a fairly sizeable discount at the distribution center because it was my first time and the GA's had put that incentive in place.

The goal should be for members to own their own clothing in my opinion.  But until that's possible the rental program will suffice.

 

Most newer and smaller temples don't have cafeterias and laundry, so it is becoming rarer and rarer.  I doubt anyone who attends regularly rents clothing; I've been to many different Temples while traveling and I always have to rent clothing because I don't travel with it. 

 

Personally, I would be more disturbed if there were stores across the street from the Temple with big signs advertising "Rent Temple Clothes Here".

 

As for Jesus and the Temple, here is what Wikipedia says:

 

In Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 Jesus accused the Temple authorities of thieving and this time names poor widows as their victims, going on to provide evidence of this in Mark 12:42 and Luke 21:2. Dove sellers were selling doves that were sacrificed by the poor who could not afford grander sacrifices and specifically by women. According to Mark 11:16, Jesus then put an embargo on people carrying any merchandise through the Temple—a sanction that would have disrupted all commerce.^[4][7] This occurred in the outermost court of the gentiles. Gentile money could not be used at the Temple because of the graven images on it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I must say I feel very uncomfortable about paying for the hire of temple clothing in the temple itself.

I purchased my own set in order to avoid doing this, but plenty of people still hire clothing.

I don't see why this can't be done outside of the temple.

Some temples have an annex in which that is done.  However, LDS have no rules prohibiting monetary transactions within a temple.  Indeed, even in the ancient Jewish temple, when one presented the male first born child of a family to the priest at the temple (as Jesus was presented) for the ritual of Redemption of the Firstborn, five-sheqels were paid to the priest to redeem the child.  The ceremony still takes place today in Jewish synagogues, a symbolic $5 being paid in the USA.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Jesus’ first cleansing of the temple is described in John 2:11-12 as having occurred just after Jesus’ first miracle, the turning of water into wine at the wedding in Cana.

 

and

 

The second cleansing of the temple occurred just after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem the last week of His life. This second cleansing is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but not in John. There are differences in the two events, aside from their being nearly three years apart. In the first cleansing, temple officials confronted Jesus immediately (John 2:18), whereas in the second cleansing, the chief priests and scribes confronted Him the following day (Matthew 21:17-23). In the first event, Jesus made a whip of cords with which to drive out the sellers, but there is no mention of a whip in the second cleansing. So there are two recorded occasions when Jesus cleansed the temple—the first time at the beginning of His public ministry, and the second time just after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem shortly before He was crucified.

http://www.gotquestions.org/temple-cleanse.html

With so many and varied descriptions of the same event, as Dan Vogel might say, it must never have happened at all.  Just a made-up story, as with the First Vision of Joseph Smith Jr, or with the Vision on the Road to Damascus of St. Paul.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[VideoGameJunkie]

After hearing about this story I always felt weird spending money and renting temple clothes and getting change for the cash I give. To me it felt like a moneychanger in the temple moment. Now I have my own temple clothes.

[busybee]

You are paying for the equipment and materials used in cleaning the clothing as well as the time of the people hired to do the work.  Temple laundry facilities are self sustaining.  They are not for profit, nor do they use any tithing money. 

 

The difference between what happening with Jesus and renting clothing at the temple is intent.  The money changers intent was to make a profit (and possibly not an honest one).  The intent of the laundry facility at the temple is to  provide ceremonial clothing to those who desire to attend the temple, but do not have their own clothing.  This is done without cost to anyone except the person renting the clothing. 

 

The same goes for cafeterias as well.  They operate entirely on the funds taken in from those who use the service and do not generate a profit. 

To be truthful, most times they operate at a loss (well, ours does anyway  ) . Patron Accommodation is run on the same basis.

[saemo]

We learn that Jesus got upset and turned over tables and kicked the money changers and dove sellers out of the Temple. I am wondering what was wrong with them being there? It says they were in the courtyard, was that encroaching into the Temple and all that money changing and selling doves and stuff should have been entirely outside? Another intriguing tidbit is Mark 11:16 where he says "And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple." well, what the heck does that mean?

[21:12] These activities were carried on in the court of the Gentiles, the outermost court of the temple area. Animals for sacrifice were sold; the doves were for those who could not afford a more expensive offering; see Lv 5:7. Only the coinage of Tyre could be used for the purchases; other money had to be exchanged for that.

The activities going on in the temple area were not secular but connected with the temple worship. Thus Jesus’ attack on those so engaged and his charge that they were making God’s house of prayer a den of thieves (Mt 21:12–13) Also, Jesus is referencing Jeremiah 7

9 Do you think you can steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, sacrifice to Baal, follow other gods that you do not know,

10 and then come and stand in my presence in this house, which bears my name, and say: “We are safe! We can commit all these abominations again!”?

11 Has this house which bears my name become in your eyes a den of thieves? I have seen it for myself!—oracle of the LORD.

12 Go to my place at Shiloh, where I made my name dwell in the beginning. See what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel.

13 And now, because you have committed all these deeds—oracle of the LORD—because you did not listen, though I spoke to you untiringly, and because you did not answer, though I called you,

14 I will do to this house, which bears my name, in which you trust, and to the place which I gave you and your ancestors, exactly what I did to Shiloh.

15 I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast away all your kindred, all the offspring of Ephraim.

...in short, Jesus was casting them out of his sight.

Edited March 31, 2015 by saemo

[theplains]

On the other hand -- if the high priest of the House of the Lord

had approved the practice (as a convenience, not strictly abiding

by the sanctity of the temple grounds -- then who was going to 

raise his voice in protest?

 

Which ever persons approved and/or participated were corrupt themselves.

 

Jesus made this quite evident - "And he went into the temple, and began to cast out

them that sold therein, and them that bought; Saying unto them, It is written, My house

is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves".

 

Regards.

Jim

[mfbukowski]

and cafeterias, although any Temple Cafeteria I have been to has made divine food so it's okay

Some temple cafeterias are actually outside concessions with LDS employees.

But surprise- we are no longer under the law of Moses either.

[mfbukowski]

Jesus took issue with the fact that the money changers were extorting people who came to worship, not that money was changing hands.

As for the clothing services in modern temples, I can speak from experience. I have worked in the Houston Temple laundry for nearly a decade. There is no profit, and we operate as efficiently and inexpensivly as possible. There have been discussions (that I have not been a part of) about discontinuing clothing rental but it was determined by the Temple Department that, since many of our patrons cannot afford their own clothing, doing so would impede the very work for which the temple exists in the first place. It's all about hastening the work.

Also there are traveling patrons without clothing with them, folks who are coming from work, etc, or people who just don't feel like carrying suitcases everywhere they go, in case they get near a temple, or even if they do they don't want to wear crumpled clothes that have been sitting in the trunk for a month.

Laundrys definitely hasten the work

[Uncle Dale]

Which ever persons approved and/or participated were corrupt themselves.

 

Jesus made this quite evident - "And he went into the temple, and began to cast out

them that sold therein, and them that bought; Saying unto them, It is written, My house

is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves".

 

Regards.

Jim

Some folks would say that all human actions are essentially

corrupt, or else open to potential corruption.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, and battles special interests,

but in a real life sequel the proponent of the people's voice

in Congress eventually faces the damned if you do and

damned if you don't political decision, and ends up feeling

dirty, for taking the least objectionable pathway.

I don't suppose that the entire Saducee priesthood in

Jesus' day was composed of evil men, or even headed

by high priests who wished to do Satan's work on earth.

Power corrupts. Without prayer, fasting, and ongoing

repentance, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The

Talmud makes the Saduceans look terrible, but then

again the Talmud (and Christian Bible) were composed

by the theological survivors and winners -- we don't

hear much from the losing, extinct high priests.

Messiah was expected to descend upon the Mount of

Olives and ride a kingly white horse through the golden

gate, up the Temple Mount, and there to be honored

and praised by the Temple Establishment. Seems that

it didn't quite work out as the priests had envisioned.

UD

[theplains]

Messiah was expected to descend upon the Mount of

Olives and ride a kingly white horse through the golden

gate, up the Temple Mount, and there to be honored

and praised by the Temple Establishment. Seems that

it didn't quite work out as the priests had envisioned.

UD

 

I am not sure what sources or traditions the priests were using for such expectations, but

it seems they were victims of their own 'urban legend'.   Some believe he will make a future

appearance to a special select group at the New Jerusalem which is to be built in Jackson

County, Missouri.   Time will tell if this is a false prophecy too.

 

Regards,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

Time will tell if this is a false prophecy too.

 

 

As it does with all prophecies, true and false.

[Uncle Dale]

I am not sure what sources or traditions the priests were using for such expectations, but

it seems they were victims of their own 'urban legend'.   Some believe he will make a future

appearance to a special select group at the New Jerusalem which is to be built in Jackson

County, Missouri.   Time will tell if this is a false prophecy too.

 

Regards,

Jim

The story of Jesus' final entry into Jerusalem has strange,

almost mocking messianic overtones -- as if to partly fulfill

Jewish expectations of a messianic arrival, but in such a

humble and low key way as to warn against expectations

of a powerful Son of David, come to destroy the Romans.

Probably, if we look closely enough at the prophetic

passages in the Hebrew Bible, there might be found

some foreshadowing of this temple cleansing idea,

as one of the events signaling a messianic advent.

At any rate, the temple and all it signified was doomed

to destruction -- not many years later there was not

even a few stones left atop one another to "cleanse."

Kinda makes one wonder what sort of temple activities

(and officials) Jesus would have praised and supported,

and whether there was ever a period in Israel's past

when such righteous men performed functions pleasing

to "the Heavens" (as some psalmist might say).

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not sure what sources or traditions the priests were using for such expectations, but

it seems they were victims of their own 'urban legend'.   Some believe he will make a future

appearance to a special select group at the New Jerusalem which is to be built in Jackson

County, Missouri.   Time will tell if this is a false prophecy too.

 

Regards,

Jim

Yeh, and it is to be built (or come down from heaven prebuilt) directly in front of the RLDS (CoC) Auditorium -- immediately north.