Editor’s note: On our journey through Holy Week, today we’re remembering when Jesus got mad… really, really mad. On Monday of Passion Week, Jesus saw what was going on at the temple and He wasn’t polite about it. He overturned tables, made a whip out of cords driving all the merchants out — money changers, their animals, and all those selling animals for sacrifice. Enjoy this excerpt of What Made Jesus Mad? by Tim Harlow.
*
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts 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. — Mark 11:15–18
The logical place to start a study on the anger of Jesus would be the “opening up a can of...” incident, as I call it, in the temple when He overturned the tables and threw out the money changers. How can we not start there? Also, this most famous expression of Jesus’ anger precisely illustrates the point of denied access. But we may need to dig in a little deeper than what you’ve likely been taught in the past.
There are many ways to interpret anything, especially when something was written for a different culture by people from a different place and period in history. We are always looking through personal lenses we may or may not even realize are there. For example, Paul explicitly commanded the church in one of his letters to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (Romans 16:16). It was in the imperative tense, in the Dad voice, a command. It was evidently an important part of that culture. In some cultures, kiss greeting is still in practice, but I don’t know a church in the United States that is obeying Paul’s command. Nobody is smooching in my lobby, and I probably have more Italians at my church than you do. Why aren’t we kissing?
This concept isn’t easy, and it’s not the point of this book. But we need to think it through before we can really understand Jesus’ anger. Let me explain some categories of bad Bible interpretation. I’ll call the first category Gummy Bears interpretation, which is applying what you want while ignoring what you don’t want. Our church used to have an office next to a candy store. It was the nineties, and all the nutrition talk was about fat content. So I tried to watch my fat intake as I walked into the candy store. I know. I know. Just let me tell you how I justified it. I got a bag of gummy bears because they are fat-free! Never mind that they are basically just melted globs of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. I didn’t want to hear about that! In my mind, it was all fine as long as it was fat-free. Much of our bad Bible interpretation follows the same logic when we pick and choose the things we like and ignore what we don’t.
Why did we decide, for instance, that it was okay to go against 1 Timothy 2:9 and allow women to wear jewelry, but obey 1 Timothy 2:12 and not allow women to teach men in some congregations? Those are four verses apart! How do we reconcile 1 Corinthians 11:5, which talks about women prophesying in public, against the “command” for women to be silent in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35?
The question of tattoos fits here also, even though forbidding tattoos is part of the old covenant, which we’ll talk about in a second. Why do so many Christians believe tattoos are wrong? The injunction against tattoos (Leviticus 19:28) was in the same biblical chapter that rules against shaving (v. 27) or wearing clothes made of two different kinds of fabric (v. 19). Somehow many — maybe most — Christians still think tattoos are bad, yet a poly-cotton-blend shirt is acceptable. Gummy Bears: ignoring one thing while emphasizing another.
Let’s call the second category the Sister-in-Law interpretation, which is applying rules that are no longer binding. Deuteronomy 25:5 tells us that if a married man dies without a son, his widow “must marry her late husband’s brother” (CEV). Sounds like a good plot for a reality television show, but I don’t see that working today.
The problem with this interpretation arises when we take the rules from the Old Testament and try to make them apply to our lives in the post-law, New Testament era. The issue is that these are rules we’re no longer obligated to keep (Colossians 2:14; Galatians 3:13). Trust me when I tell you that you don’t want to head down the path of trying to follow the Mosaic law. I’ll give you one reason: bacon (Leviticus 11:7–8).
The third category I’ll call the Bake Sale interpretation. These are the rules we create based on a completely incorrect interpretation of a specific passage of Scripture, even under the new covenant. For example, in some churches, bake sales are not allowed in the building because everyone knows we “don’t sell stuff in church.” The reason is obvious, right? Because Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. But was that the point Jesus was making? Was He mad about selling things in general? Was it that they were overcharging? Or was it much deeper than that?
Let’s go back and take a closer look at the Mark 11 passage about Jesus’ anger in the temple, which I would submit has nothing to do with selling stuff in church. How do we know this? Let’s break this down, starting with verse 17:
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.’”
There are three parts to this statement:
- house of prayer,
- for all nations, and
- den of robbers.
House of Prayer
By the time Jesus was born, it was standard practice to sell the animals used in the temple sacrifice. It was more convenient for travelers who no longer had to bring the animals to the temple.
The service of the money changers also made things easier for travelers who had to pay the temple tax with a certain type of currency. It was more efficient to both exchange the money and buy the sacrifice once they got to the temple. If you modernize the concept to online church giving, it will make more sense. You can bring your offering envelope or your check (if you still have a checkbook), but I find it more convenient to do it online.
So, was Jesus’ anger mainly because they were doing all this in the house of prayer? I definitely think so, but can we rid the world of one terrible interpretation of this story?
Acts 17:24 tells us,
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of Heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.
We don’t worship in a temple anymore, because in the post-Jesus era the temple is gone. God’s house is not the church building! The church building is not the temple. To God, this is likely the most offensive part of this entire misinterpretation. In the old system, God knew that He needed a place to meet with His children, or, more correctly, a place where they could come to meet with Him. While they lived as nomads in the desert, He had them construct a movable temple called a tabernacle. Then once they settled in the promised land, King David did a fund-raiser, and his son Solomon built the elaborate temple in Jerusalem. This is the temple building where Jesus started throwing stuff around.
The temple had different places where certain segments of the population were allowed to worship. The outermost area was the Court of the Gentiles, which meant that anyone could go there and worship. Next was the court for Jewish women, then the place for Jewish men. Yes, it was discriminatory; I won’t argue with that. It was the old covenant, and God set it up how He wanted it and knew how the Jewish culture would accept it.
- But then Jesus came, and everything changed. Don’t you just love Jesus even more for that?
Inside the Jewish boys’ club was the Court of the Priests, where the religious leaders worshiped and offered sacrifices brought by the people. Beyond that was the innermost area, the Holy of Holies, where God’s presence dwelt. It wasn’t that God was limited to this spot; it simply represented a connection to His presence in a tangible way. However, as already mentioned, the presence of God was separated from everyone else by a thick veil.
The gospel writers record that the veil was torn from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). This was not an accident; it was symbolic. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, there is now no separation between God and His people. There is no need for priests to sacrifice something for our sins. The perfect sacrifice was made once and for all. There is no need even for a temple; the temple is now in our hearts:
Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? — 1 Corinthians 3:16
All of us now have an all-access pass to hang out with God any time we want. This is the essence of the gospel: access to God. We get to go backstage.
Have you ever had a backstage pass? I will never forget the time I had the opportunity to officiate a wedding for a member of Styx. I love classic rock music, so I was thrilled. Yes, I know. Styx is the name of a river in hell. But the band was so good.
I had dinner backstage with the band that night and then sat in killer seats for their concert. We had a cue song so I would know when to go backstage and get ready. When the song “Mr. Roboto” came on, I grabbed my Bible and went to the door. I got in without question because I had the all-access pass, which, by the way, is still in my desk drawer in case the band gets back together. After their final song, the lead vocalist, Dennis DeYoung, came out and said, “Now we’re going to have a wedding.” He then introduced me to the crowd of 14,000 people, who were pretty wasted by this time. Right as I pronounced the drummer John Panozzo and his sweet fiancée, Jan, husband and wife, the guitarist Tommy Shaw started singing, “Oh, Mama, I’m in fear for my life from the long arm of the law...” It still gives me goose bumps to this day.
Oh yeah, the point is I had the all-access pass. That’s what Jesus died to provide for you, which is why there is no need for a physical temple anymore. So to make a correlation between a modern church building and the temple is complete heresy. A church building today is just a place where people gather to worship. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have respect for a building that was likely built on the sacrifices of some very godly people. I’m saying it’s not the same as a temple; that is, it’s not the dwelling place of God. This is my emancipation proclamation: I hereby pronounce emancipation for your church building from any rules that were meant for the temple. There are no theological conditions forbidding selling in the church or, more importantly, bringing coffee into the service. Can I get an “amen”?
In Jesus’ day, however, the temple was still the house of prayer and the place where people had access to God, which is why Jesus was mad. We will come back to that later.
Den of Robbers and All Nations
Now that we’ve addressed the “turning the house of prayer into a market” problem, the next obvious issue is the robbery. The money changers charged a fee for the exchange, which was perhaps exorbitant, although we don’t really have evidence of this from history. Another possibility is that inside racketeering was going on, with the church leaders receiving kickbacks on approved animals. For now, let’s just place this in the same category as paying nine dollars for a Coke at a baseball game. You get the idea. You can complain about the “den of robbers” all day, but if you get thirsty at a baseball game, you don’t have much choice. Sure, Jesus was unhappy with the price charged and the location chosen, but I don’t believe that alone was the reason Jesus got angry.
- Jesus was mad because of what always made Him mad: denied access to his Father.
Jesus was angry because of what was happening as a result of the money changers and dove sellers turning the “house of prayer” “for all nations” into a “den of robbers.” My belief is that it was not one but likely a combination of all three parts of this statement that elicited Jesus’ zeal. In keeping with what we know about Jesus, permit me to make a case for the less obvious “all nations” part.
Jesus was in the outer court, the “all nations” part of the temple, when He decided enough was enough. This was the Court of the Gentiles, far from even the area where the Jewish women gathered. It was the place where God provided access to the rest of the world. And this was where the “robbers” had set up shop.
Jesus’ anger was directed at the Jews who turned the non-Jews’ house of prayer into a market, thereby denying access, literally, to the outsiders who wanted to worship God.
Making this area into a marketplace was not particularly conducive to worship either. In other words, the outsiders, those who felt furthest from the Father, were the ones who suffered the most. They were being robbed not only of their hard-earned money, by the exorbitant prices of the animals and exchange fees, but of their very access to God.
This was something Jesus cared deeply about. His anger was not just a split-second moment of passion. There is an important detail to this story that shows Jesus did not just fly off the handle in the temple that day. This event happened on the Monday morning of Jesus’ final week before His death.
The previous day, Jesus rode into Jerusalem as the crowds waved palm branches, believing He was coming to become the new king. Then on Palm Sunday night, He went into the temple:
Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, He went out to Bethany with the Twelve. — Mark 11:11
He knew what was going on already before the events that happened on Monday morning. So this isn’t Him just blowing his fuse suddenly. This was more than a hasty, in-the-moment statement about selling baked goods or T-shirts in the foyer. This was a thought-out, slow-burning conviction about the access God wanted people to have to Him. John, who wrote his gospel many years after the other gospels, tells us that the disciples remembered this incident (John 2:17) as a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy:
Zeal for Your house consumes me. — Psalm 69:9
Does it make more sense now? Jesus wasn’t zealous for the sanctity of the temple. He prophesied that it would soon be destroyed, and it was. Jesus was zealous for the access to God the temple provided. He came to rip the veil and give us an all-access pass to a beautiful relationship with our heavenly Father. The relationship for which we were created. He’ll throw tables or animals or people out of the way to give us this all-access pass. He gave up His own life to get us backstage.
God wants us in. He’s calling us in. And Jesus is never going to just stand by and let anyone or anything keep even one of us out. I apologize on behalf of the church if someone has done that to you or your friends. It was not and never has been Jesus’ intent. As a matter of fact, He would create a scene in a holy place to make sure everyone has access. Especially the ones who are the furthest away.
Excerpted with permission from What Made Jesus Mad? by Tim Harlow, copyright Tim Harlow.
* * *
Your Turn
Do you realize that that’s how Jesus feels about your access to Himself?... That’s it’s throwing-tables-worthy? He’ll fight for you to have an all-access pass to Himself because He loves you that much! ~ Devotionals Daily