I agree with most everything here. I didn't mean to give an impression that I thought Jesus had any Marxist motive. I don't think he had any economic motive at all. I don't he wanted to reform the Temple, I think he wanted to destroy the Temple altogether. Crossan thinks Jesus wanted to remove the entire institution of temple sacrifice and replace it with his utopian "Kingdom" ideal (this would be a somewhat expanded/universalized version of what the Essenes were already doing). I think he might have been trying to fulfill Malachi 3:1:PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Diogenes the Cynic,
You are probably right that the money-changers were much closer to today's exploited bank tellers and low level bank managers than upper level management making millions in bonuses.
However Jesus was not an early version of Karl Marx. He did not do an economic analysis of the net costs and profits of the money changers. He was not advocating price controls for sacrificial animals.
The gospel writers are doing what they always do. They are being metaphorical in this scene. The people and practices in the temple are like "a den of thieves." The question is when would the terrorist activities of Jesus in physically and criminally beating up the money-changers and animal sellers have been seen as a correct action. It certainly was not during the time that Passover activities in the Temple were successful and thriving and bringing in lots of money. That would have been seen as proof of God's acceptance of the system. It would have only been after the destruction of the temple. It was the destruction of the temple that would have given the writers an argument that the temple was a den of thrives. Their proof of this would have been the destruction of the temple. Since everybody knew about the destruction of the temple, there was no need to mention it. The person reading the text at this point would naturally say, "Oh yes, the sacrifices were unacceptable to the father, the Jewish priests were thieves. That's why God had the Romans destroy the temple. This passage is really a prediction by Jesus and an explanation for the destruction of the temple (and not an economic analysis of merchant-religious consumer relations).
It was possibly after the partial destruction in 70 C.E., but far more likely after the complete destruction of the Temple in 130 B.C. that this idea that God permitted the destruction of his own temple due to priestly mismanagement would arise.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
I believe the Qumran literature indicates a belief that Herod's Temple as going to be miraculously and instantly replaced with Solomon's original Temple, so he might have expected that too. Either way, I think he saw himself as the "Messenger" (i.e. "angel" [Malach/Aggelos]) who was going to "clear the way" for some kind of theophanic or eschatological event - possibly in the form of Daniel's descending "son of man" figure (though that could also be a post-crucifixion reconfiguration to make Jesus himself into the expected figure of divine retribution.Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
I don't find this kind of scenario any less plausible than the Samaritan Josephus says was crucified by Pilate for saying he would find the artifacts of the Ark on the Samaritan temple mount. A Galilean trying to clear the Temple for God to come down (in whatever form) is not out of keeping with what kinds of things those guys did. Another one said he would part the Jordan River and he got chased down and killed by the Romans before he could even get there and try. Jesus may not have even had to have really tried it, he may have just threatened it. The Romans (as seen in the examples above) did not necessarily bother to wait for people to fail.
