The temple scene

The temple story seems to be very important in understanding Jesus. One should begin with trying to answer the question of what was Jesus meaning by his action?

Here is the text (Mark 11:15-19):

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area 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.'"
The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
When evening came, they went out of the city.

(1) The first response is to suggest that the story was entirely invented by 'the early Christian community' (whoever they are). Several criticisms of the story as we have it are usually put forward, of which the most common is that, if Jesus had made such a commotion, then he would have been arrested immediately - it stretches credulity to suggest that he left the scene unmolested by the authorities. This is possibly true. It is also possibly true that the authorities would not have arrested him if they feared a riot in the temple area. It is also possibly true that the story as we have it is somewhat exaggerated - perhaps Jesus made a small disturbance and then, having made his point, left the scene leaving the onlookers bewildered and unsure if he'd actually broken the law. Mark 11-12 depicts several engagements of this type between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, where Jesus never gives them anything to actually convict him of, even though his words and actions are always highly provocative. So one may feel surprised that Jesus actually survived for so long (several days) after such a culpable act, but it is certainly not impossible that he did so.

The most serious problem for those who peddle the idea that the story was invented is that they fail as historians - they cannot account for the most solid piece of history in the whole jigsaw - the crucifixion. Jesus must have done something at least worthy of arrest and, ultimately, of execution. There is no explanation for the cross if one questions the temple scene, the triumphal entry and the confrontational teaching of Mark 12. These three events reasonably lead to an increased tension between Jesus and the authorities, culminating in his arrest.

(2) So what was Jesus' temple message? The popular answer is that he disapproved of people trading in 'his father's house'. This simply won't work, for two reasons.

First, people were allowed to trade in the temple. People coming from all parts of the empire had to change their money and purchase sacrifices. There were accepted places within the temple area for this.

Secondly, Jesus would not have got into trouble for taking a high view of the temple - he may have been arrested for the first century equivalent of disturbing the peace, but certainly not executed. If people were trading in forbidden areas then many would have joined him in protest - in fact the protest would not have even required Jesus to start it - Jews zealous for their religion have never been hard to find.

(3) So was Jesus instead merely symbolising the destruction of the temple - literally or figuratively - in an acted parable? Certainly the story placed immediately before the temple story - the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14) - supports this view ...

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.
Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

The teaching about 'this mountain' (= the Temple) being cast into the sea also supports the destruction view, as does Jesus explicit prediction of the Temple's destruction (Mark 13:1-2):

As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"
"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Many consider this as a prophecy 'after the event' - written into Jesus mouth after the temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. One can reply that (a) post-event prophecies are usually incredibly accurate - this one is wrong. A whole wall of the temple remained standing, and still stands today - the Wailing Wall. Jesus is also literally incorrect by saying that the temple walls would be 'thrown down' - the temple was actually destroyed by fire. (b) if Jesus could allude to the destruction of the temple cryptically, using fig trees and mountains as metaphors, then why not explicitly? (c) Predicting the temple's destruction does not imply any supernatural foresight. Jesus would have been well aware of the Jews' bloody history of the last 200 years - the possible destruction of Jerusalem, let alone the temple, may well have been in the back (and front) of many minds.

When the texts are examined as a whole, the conclusion that Jesus' action in the temple was primarily one symbolising destruction (and God's judgement) seems most compelling. We now arrive at the most perplexing question of all - did Jesus realise that his actions would most likely result in his death? All his reported actions appear to have been quite deliberate and there is no record of him trying to escape - he seems to be rushing towards his inevitable fate.

Back