Dan, your uncertainty is beautiful. Perhaps the Godliest thing is not to figure out the "right" answer, but to be spaciousness enough to hold all of the unanswered questions and complexity in awareness?
Here's where I find myself landing on this this morning: fortunately, we will be judged by a Jesus who knows exactly what it's like to have spiritual ideals and human impulses all at once.
From my understanding, the money changers’ tables as well as the people selling animals for sacrifice were all set up in the court of the Gentiles. This was the furthest in that non-Jewish people could enter for worship of Jehovah, but it had been turned into an open air market. Imagine the sounds and smells. It was no longer a place of quiet contemplation or reverence.
Plus those selling and changing money were most likely taking advantage of people who had come to worship.
I believe that Jesus came to restore all people to their Creator regardless of race and I think this story is showing his heart for that purpose. He was upset about the dishonesty and the prevention of worship, and he was angry at the brokenness of our world keeping people from God. But he was about to change all that and this is a foreshadowing—when he died the veil to the Holy Place was torn in two again as a picture allowing everyone access to God.
I think your question is a good one. This is one of the stories about Jesus that I haven't thought much about. Not because it isn't important, but because there's a lot going on there, and honestly, it was just easier to put it on the back burner and focus on the easier teachings of Jesus.
But, I'll give this a go from my "not a trained Christian theologian" perspective, including some things I think my Christian community might not fully appreciate.
-As I understand him, Jesus was fully committed to justice, and his interactions with his faith community's leadership groups was checkered at best, and this is without mentioning his claims about divinity. He challenged them on a regular basis and was willing to point out injustice where he saw it. As my memory serves, my Christian upbringing taught that the money changers weren't being honest in how they conducted business in the temple court. I do not know if this is accurate, or Christian story-bending to suit our Christian agenda. But anger about injustice fits the Jesus I've grown to understand.
-But I also wonder if there was anger due to what might have become a transactional view of atonement. To get forgiveness for such-and-such, just buy this animal and follow the sacramental laws and procedures. (My apologies if "sacramental laws and procedures" is poor wording.) In a sense there was an additional monetary barrier between God a God's people, and they paid the price for the animals they needed, a price set by someone else. From the previously mentioned justice perspective, maybe people without means couldn't afford it? It seems somewhat akin to the Catholic indulgences which lead to the Reformation.
-I'd disagree, I think, with Don. (One of the most wonderful people I've come across on Substack!) But I just disagree from a literary perspective. I don't think the writers got this one wrong. Where I might agree is that the storytellers had an agenda, and this particular telling of the story was done in a way that would support their agenda, facts and memories being a bit hazy... I'm a writer, and I also have an agenda each time I sit to tell a story. I know you understand this too, based on some of your previous writing about the Eden story.
-I also wonder if Jesus was using a moment to initiate the circumstances leading to his arrest and crucifixion. That's not something I was taught, but Jesus also had an agenda...
My faith grew stronger when I placed my certainty in the complete humanity of Jesus. It made him more like me, and I could identify more with him. I'm not as concerned with the divinity part. I'll leave that to mystery. I know people in my faith community don't love that acceptance of mystery. I've addressed my different ways of viewing Jesus in the past. For instance, I don't believe he was perfect. Here's a link to that article. (https://www.theunfilteredscribe.com/p/jesus-unfiltered-unmasking-his-obvious?r=kfke9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
(I've also shared this article with some of my more formally trained Christian friends and inquired for answers. If they reply with something that I think you might appreciate, I'll bring it back here.)
Jeff, thanks for your thoughtful response. And yes, I think the story can be made understandable by reading in various possibilities. Jesus was protesting the sacrificial system —that makes sense. Jesus was protesting unfair business practices—that makes sense. But as a reader, I’m making up those reasons with the assumption that Jesus was “right” about something—I just don’t know what he was right about.
I’m less committed to Jesus being right. (Earlier posts have showed an angry Buddha and I’ve said God has an anger problem—so in my mind, this is equal treatment for Jesus.) Maybe Jesus, like Buddha, like God, was wrong. But I can’t tell one way or the other.
Being a retired ordained pastor, I find these discussions fascinating because, although we talked at length about these controversial questions in seminary, we always came up with several reasons why it just MIGHT make sense and can be preached! To say that it is confusing and leave it at that is so totally honest. All scripture, in every religion that I've studied so far (many!) has its inconsistencies and contradictions in thought, word, or deed. I love the conversation, and believe that our Higher Power ~ however we might each see Them, loves the discussions as well! Keep up the great work! Sandy Carpenter, Substack The Nature of Things.
I’ve never turned over a table, but I punched a wall once. I was frustrated. Another time I slammed my fist down on the dashboard of my car repeatedly. Again, I was angry, confused, frustrated, emotionally distraught. Something was being taken away from me, and I was being misrepresented. And, probably most importantly, I felt helpless to do anything about it. I saw my life going in a spiraling negative direction that I never expected, and I saw one other person contributing to that, and taking seeming pleasure in it.
I would say that 1) the storytellers probably got it wrong, and 2) Jesus was probably emotionally distraught and feeling powerless when he turned those tables over, and it was likely not about coin changers and robbers, but about something else that was going on in his life at the time.
I was taught that money exchanged to access God’s love was an offense to Jesus who believed all of us flawed humans already had the forgiveness we sought, that the new convenant with God promised us that. These sellers ranked people by how many coins they had rather than their essential value as children of God. Makes me think about Jesus's honoring of Mary M, who was scorned by being made into a commodity by men who bough access to her with coins.
"It is all about equity, diversity and inclusion and those opposed don't want to hear the truth as they exclude themselves from what is right, good and beautiful. Loving your neighbor isn't limited by boundaries that define cities, counties and states. You can tell some of those Bible-toting "Christians" that, for Jesus, a neighbor was anyone with whom you came into contact — whether Jew, Samaritan, or Gentile ( Luke 10:25-37 ). In fact, this focus on an expanding definition led to the breaking down of Jewish barriers that were constructed around the traditional interpretations of cleanness and uncleanness. It was our friend, MLK Jr. who said, "I am sticking with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear." Thanks, Connie, for this column that hits the target squarely where it's needed."
Dan thank you for your question. For me one needs to look at the motivation for anger is it just an automatic reaction to when my identity is threatened or does it come from a deeper part of myself that reacts to injustice? Just my two cents for the day,
Then you have Ephesians 4:26, "Be angry but do not sin." Obviously not from the mouth of Jesus. But an acknowledgment that anger is a normal human emotion, while providing a helpful distinction between our initial emotional response and what we do with it.
And in Matthew 18, Jesus offers instruction on what to do if someone sins against you. Anger is not mentioned, but it would be an understandable response, along with hurt, betrayal, etc. Matthew 18 offers an elegant process--confront the person, and if you can't resolve the issue, bring others along with you, presumably to help the two parties resolve the conflict.
Dan, once again you've written another thought provoking piece. I was raised Catholic and in those years we were told what to think about what was written in the Bible, there wasn't room for Bible study or discussion. I've not considered your question before. What I remember from the way I was taught, is that Jesus was angry for the desecration of the sanctity of the temple with the merchant selling within its walls, and for them cheating the poor. I was also taught that Jesus would never harm or hurt or use violence against another. That his show of anger was more of a warning that he had full control over. You've got me pondering...
This is such a thoughtful series. Narratively, this scene is important to all four gospel writers because it shows the level of threat that Jesus posed to the existing order, leading to his death. It escalates conflict and helps to explain what's coming. But that's not what you're asking.
I think this passage and another one that comes to mind that might signify anger (Jesus to Peter in Matthew: "Get behind me, Satan!") both provide examples of Martha Nussbaum's theory that anger reveals a need for change and then no longer serves. In the temple scene in all four gospels, Jesus is immediately teaching and attracting crowds as soon as he sends the money-changers away. The same thing happens in Matthew 16. He chastises Peter and then goes right back to teaching the disciples. His anger burns out on its object and does not spread to other things. The object is any offense that separates people from God. To read this way is to answer, yes, imitate this Jesus by identifying the action that will make a change.
This scene reminds me of the mother who once told me she spanked her son only once while raising him - after he ran out into a street. I suspect she was angry. She reacted in a way that was stronger than usual but did not waste her anger/spanking on lesser things than what she considered the most important mission. For her: safety. For Jesus: the union of all people with God.
I don't think Jesus says that anger is equal to murder, only that both are "subject to judgment" - e.g., not innocent. And Jesus is shortly after to be judged, too harshly for the crime of running people out of a temple or speaking to crowds.
More than that, your question has me thinking about these moral teachings and the problem of scale. Anyone angry with a brother or sister .... If someone strikes your cheek ... Leave your gift at the altar and be reconciled to your brother or sister. We offend each other personally, get angry and are reconciled personally. When Jesus is angry at a whole system of sales (easy to abuse for personal gain or for excluding people from prayer), there is no "brother" or individual he can reconcile with before bringing the "gift" of himself to the "altar" of the cross. In the case of the "system," he has to "overturn" (the tables) the whole thing. Thinking aloud there.
Hey Dan, great article. I think I may have the issue to your struggles with understanding Jesus, and an interesting textual story that may help your study of anger.
Firstly, when reading the gospels, it's important to remember that you're not reading the gospel but the gospel according to someone. When you read John, you don't get jesus's opinion you get John's opinion of what Jesus is opinion was. That's why understanding what Jesus actually believed can be so hard. You have to take the gospel accounts and work out which parts of them come from historical truth. This also explains why the gospels may disagree. The gospel according to John was written later than the gospel according to Mark And thus there were developments that occurred between the two that led to John having a different opinion. This makes it harder to understand Jesus's original view on something like anger, but it also gives us the ability to not only learn what Jesus thought about anger. But what later Christian authors thought by analyzing their differences.
Also, specifically on the question of why Jesus was angry in the temple, there 's a fair argument to be made that Jesus often spoke against corruption in the Temple authorities of his time. I'd recommend looking into those views.
Further, I think an interesting story can help your understanding of Jesus's anger. If you open a copy of Mark To chapter 14 verse 39-
45 in most translations of the New Testament You will find a story of Jesus healing a man with a skin disease. In verse 41 it will say that Jesus felt compassion towards this man. However, a lot of earlier manuscripts do not say Jesus felt compassion towards this man, but rather say he was angry. The reason why your Bible says he was compassionate is later copiests changed the text likely to avoid the troubling idea that Jesus was angry in this moment. Bart Ehrman discusses this in his book. Miscording Jesus on pages 133-139.
You wrote:- "According to Jesus, being angry is tantamount to murder. And we should give in to someone who hits us or comes to take our possessions". No, that is not an accurate summary of Jesus words. To paraphrase Matt. 5:45 The Father sends the sun to shine on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be like Heavenly Father. It is not for us to judge another.
You say without evidence that Jesus was angry with the money changers. The text does not say that. He was emphasizing a teaching on the importance of sanctity with a pro-active demonstration of it. He often was using real-life situations to highlight aspects of his teachings, on sanctity, generosity, hypocrisy, forgiveness.
In the context of the entire passage 'You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, “Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment.” But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be subject to judgment'.
This is just one of a series of teachings on religious hypocrisy, usually directed to the 'Scribes and Pharisees' as examples of hypocrisy, bigotry and following the letter of the law but not the Spirit"
In the Greek text the word translated as "anger", is Strong's 3710. ὀργίζω (orgizó). This is translated elsewhere as "enraged" (Matthew 22:7). By allowing yourself to become enraged at your brother or sister you will only bring judgrmemt on yourself. It is a teaching on natural consequences, or what eastern religions call Karma. Jesus is upturning the man made laws and legality and returning us to an understanding of Cosmic Law.
Dan, your uncertainty is beautiful. Perhaps the Godliest thing is not to figure out the "right" answer, but to be spaciousness enough to hold all of the unanswered questions and complexity in awareness?
Here's where I find myself landing on this this morning: fortunately, we will be judged by a Jesus who knows exactly what it's like to have spiritual ideals and human impulses all at once.
From my understanding, the money changers’ tables as well as the people selling animals for sacrifice were all set up in the court of the Gentiles. This was the furthest in that non-Jewish people could enter for worship of Jehovah, but it had been turned into an open air market. Imagine the sounds and smells. It was no longer a place of quiet contemplation or reverence.
Plus those selling and changing money were most likely taking advantage of people who had come to worship.
I believe that Jesus came to restore all people to their Creator regardless of race and I think this story is showing his heart for that purpose. He was upset about the dishonesty and the prevention of worship, and he was angry at the brokenness of our world keeping people from God. But he was about to change all that and this is a foreshadowing—when he died the veil to the Holy Place was torn in two again as a picture allowing everyone access to God.
Dan,
I think your question is a good one. This is one of the stories about Jesus that I haven't thought much about. Not because it isn't important, but because there's a lot going on there, and honestly, it was just easier to put it on the back burner and focus on the easier teachings of Jesus.
But, I'll give this a go from my "not a trained Christian theologian" perspective, including some things I think my Christian community might not fully appreciate.
-As I understand him, Jesus was fully committed to justice, and his interactions with his faith community's leadership groups was checkered at best, and this is without mentioning his claims about divinity. He challenged them on a regular basis and was willing to point out injustice where he saw it. As my memory serves, my Christian upbringing taught that the money changers weren't being honest in how they conducted business in the temple court. I do not know if this is accurate, or Christian story-bending to suit our Christian agenda. But anger about injustice fits the Jesus I've grown to understand.
-But I also wonder if there was anger due to what might have become a transactional view of atonement. To get forgiveness for such-and-such, just buy this animal and follow the sacramental laws and procedures. (My apologies if "sacramental laws and procedures" is poor wording.) In a sense there was an additional monetary barrier between God a God's people, and they paid the price for the animals they needed, a price set by someone else. From the previously mentioned justice perspective, maybe people without means couldn't afford it? It seems somewhat akin to the Catholic indulgences which lead to the Reformation.
-I'd disagree, I think, with Don. (One of the most wonderful people I've come across on Substack!) But I just disagree from a literary perspective. I don't think the writers got this one wrong. Where I might agree is that the storytellers had an agenda, and this particular telling of the story was done in a way that would support their agenda, facts and memories being a bit hazy... I'm a writer, and I also have an agenda each time I sit to tell a story. I know you understand this too, based on some of your previous writing about the Eden story.
-I also wonder if Jesus was using a moment to initiate the circumstances leading to his arrest and crucifixion. That's not something I was taught, but Jesus also had an agenda...
My faith grew stronger when I placed my certainty in the complete humanity of Jesus. It made him more like me, and I could identify more with him. I'm not as concerned with the divinity part. I'll leave that to mystery. I know people in my faith community don't love that acceptance of mystery. I've addressed my different ways of viewing Jesus in the past. For instance, I don't believe he was perfect. Here's a link to that article. (https://www.theunfilteredscribe.com/p/jesus-unfiltered-unmasking-his-obvious?r=kfke9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
(I've also shared this article with some of my more formally trained Christian friends and inquired for answers. If they reply with something that I think you might appreciate, I'll bring it back here.)
Jeff, thanks for your thoughtful response. And yes, I think the story can be made understandable by reading in various possibilities. Jesus was protesting the sacrificial system —that makes sense. Jesus was protesting unfair business practices—that makes sense. But as a reader, I’m making up those reasons with the assumption that Jesus was “right” about something—I just don’t know what he was right about.
I’m less committed to Jesus being right. (Earlier posts have showed an angry Buddha and I’ve said God has an anger problem—so in my mind, this is equal treatment for Jesus.) Maybe Jesus, like Buddha, like God, was wrong. But I can’t tell one way or the other.
Being a retired ordained pastor, I find these discussions fascinating because, although we talked at length about these controversial questions in seminary, we always came up with several reasons why it just MIGHT make sense and can be preached! To say that it is confusing and leave it at that is so totally honest. All scripture, in every religion that I've studied so far (many!) has its inconsistencies and contradictions in thought, word, or deed. I love the conversation, and believe that our Higher Power ~ however we might each see Them, loves the discussions as well! Keep up the great work! Sandy Carpenter, Substack The Nature of Things.
I’ve never turned over a table, but I punched a wall once. I was frustrated. Another time I slammed my fist down on the dashboard of my car repeatedly. Again, I was angry, confused, frustrated, emotionally distraught. Something was being taken away from me, and I was being misrepresented. And, probably most importantly, I felt helpless to do anything about it. I saw my life going in a spiraling negative direction that I never expected, and I saw one other person contributing to that, and taking seeming pleasure in it.
I would say that 1) the storytellers probably got it wrong, and 2) Jesus was probably emotionally distraught and feeling powerless when he turned those tables over, and it was likely not about coin changers and robbers, but about something else that was going on in his life at the time.
I was taught that money exchanged to access God’s love was an offense to Jesus who believed all of us flawed humans already had the forgiveness we sought, that the new convenant with God promised us that. These sellers ranked people by how many coins they had rather than their essential value as children of God. Makes me think about Jesus's honoring of Mary M, who was scorned by being made into a commodity by men who bough access to her with coins.
I sent this comment to Connie Schultz earlier today in response to her good post,
https://connieschultz.substack.com/p/love-won
"It is all about equity, diversity and inclusion and those opposed don't want to hear the truth as they exclude themselves from what is right, good and beautiful. Loving your neighbor isn't limited by boundaries that define cities, counties and states. You can tell some of those Bible-toting "Christians" that, for Jesus, a neighbor was anyone with whom you came into contact — whether Jew, Samaritan, or Gentile ( Luke 10:25-37 ). In fact, this focus on an expanding definition led to the breaking down of Jewish barriers that were constructed around the traditional interpretations of cleanness and uncleanness. It was our friend, MLK Jr. who said, "I am sticking with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear." Thanks, Connie, for this column that hits the target squarely where it's needed."
Dan thank you for your question. For me one needs to look at the motivation for anger is it just an automatic reaction to when my identity is threatened or does it come from a deeper part of myself that reacts to injustice? Just my two cents for the day,
Then you have Ephesians 4:26, "Be angry but do not sin." Obviously not from the mouth of Jesus. But an acknowledgment that anger is a normal human emotion, while providing a helpful distinction between our initial emotional response and what we do with it.
And in Matthew 18, Jesus offers instruction on what to do if someone sins against you. Anger is not mentioned, but it would be an understandable response, along with hurt, betrayal, etc. Matthew 18 offers an elegant process--confront the person, and if you can't resolve the issue, bring others along with you, presumably to help the two parties resolve the conflict.
Dan, once again you've written another thought provoking piece. I was raised Catholic and in those years we were told what to think about what was written in the Bible, there wasn't room for Bible study or discussion. I've not considered your question before. What I remember from the way I was taught, is that Jesus was angry for the desecration of the sanctity of the temple with the merchant selling within its walls, and for them cheating the poor. I was also taught that Jesus would never harm or hurt or use violence against another. That his show of anger was more of a warning that he had full control over. You've got me pondering...
This is such a thoughtful series. Narratively, this scene is important to all four gospel writers because it shows the level of threat that Jesus posed to the existing order, leading to his death. It escalates conflict and helps to explain what's coming. But that's not what you're asking.
I think this passage and another one that comes to mind that might signify anger (Jesus to Peter in Matthew: "Get behind me, Satan!") both provide examples of Martha Nussbaum's theory that anger reveals a need for change and then no longer serves. In the temple scene in all four gospels, Jesus is immediately teaching and attracting crowds as soon as he sends the money-changers away. The same thing happens in Matthew 16. He chastises Peter and then goes right back to teaching the disciples. His anger burns out on its object and does not spread to other things. The object is any offense that separates people from God. To read this way is to answer, yes, imitate this Jesus by identifying the action that will make a change.
This scene reminds me of the mother who once told me she spanked her son only once while raising him - after he ran out into a street. I suspect she was angry. She reacted in a way that was stronger than usual but did not waste her anger/spanking on lesser things than what she considered the most important mission. For her: safety. For Jesus: the union of all people with God.
I don't think Jesus says that anger is equal to murder, only that both are "subject to judgment" - e.g., not innocent. And Jesus is shortly after to be judged, too harshly for the crime of running people out of a temple or speaking to crowds.
More than that, your question has me thinking about these moral teachings and the problem of scale. Anyone angry with a brother or sister .... If someone strikes your cheek ... Leave your gift at the altar and be reconciled to your brother or sister. We offend each other personally, get angry and are reconciled personally. When Jesus is angry at a whole system of sales (easy to abuse for personal gain or for excluding people from prayer), there is no "brother" or individual he can reconcile with before bringing the "gift" of himself to the "altar" of the cross. In the case of the "system," he has to "overturn" (the tables) the whole thing. Thinking aloud there.
Hey Dan, great article. I think I may have the issue to your struggles with understanding Jesus, and an interesting textual story that may help your study of anger.
Firstly, when reading the gospels, it's important to remember that you're not reading the gospel but the gospel according to someone. When you read John, you don't get jesus's opinion you get John's opinion of what Jesus is opinion was. That's why understanding what Jesus actually believed can be so hard. You have to take the gospel accounts and work out which parts of them come from historical truth. This also explains why the gospels may disagree. The gospel according to John was written later than the gospel according to Mark And thus there were developments that occurred between the two that led to John having a different opinion. This makes it harder to understand Jesus's original view on something like anger, but it also gives us the ability to not only learn what Jesus thought about anger. But what later Christian authors thought by analyzing their differences.
Also, specifically on the question of why Jesus was angry in the temple, there 's a fair argument to be made that Jesus often spoke against corruption in the Temple authorities of his time. I'd recommend looking into those views.
Further, I think an interesting story can help your understanding of Jesus's anger. If you open a copy of Mark To chapter 14 verse 39-
45 in most translations of the New Testament You will find a story of Jesus healing a man with a skin disease. In verse 41 it will say that Jesus felt compassion towards this man. However, a lot of earlier manuscripts do not say Jesus felt compassion towards this man, but rather say he was angry. The reason why your Bible says he was compassionate is later copiests changed the text likely to avoid the troubling idea that Jesus was angry in this moment. Bart Ehrman discusses this in his book. Miscording Jesus on pages 133-139.
I hope this is of some help, have a good day
You wrote:- "According to Jesus, being angry is tantamount to murder. And we should give in to someone who hits us or comes to take our possessions". No, that is not an accurate summary of Jesus words. To paraphrase Matt. 5:45 The Father sends the sun to shine on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be like Heavenly Father. It is not for us to judge another.
You say without evidence that Jesus was angry with the money changers. The text does not say that. He was emphasizing a teaching on the importance of sanctity with a pro-active demonstration of it. He often was using real-life situations to highlight aspects of his teachings, on sanctity, generosity, hypocrisy, forgiveness.
Max, how do you understand “everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be subject to judgment?”
In the context of the entire passage 'You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, “Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment.” But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be subject to judgment'.
This is just one of a series of teachings on religious hypocrisy, usually directed to the 'Scribes and Pharisees' as examples of hypocrisy, bigotry and following the letter of the law but not the Spirit"
In the Greek text the word translated as "anger", is Strong's 3710. ὀργίζω (orgizó). This is translated elsewhere as "enraged" (Matthew 22:7). By allowing yourself to become enraged at your brother or sister you will only bring judgrmemt on yourself. It is a teaching on natural consequences, or what eastern religions call Karma. Jesus is upturning the man made laws and legality and returning us to an understanding of Cosmic Law.