Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 21:12 - 21:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE AND ABODE IN IT AS ITS KING
Mat_21:12-22
A. The House of Prayer and Mercy, in contrast with the Den of Thieves. Mat_21:12-14.
(Mar_11:11-17; Luk_19:45-46.)
The temple.— áֵּéú àֱìֹçִéí , çֵéëַì ÷ãֶùׁ , äֵéëַì éְäåְֹä Here comes into view the history of the temple—its construction, and form, and meaning. The Jewish temple was the mysterious centre of Israel: hence its history is the history of the people down to the destruction of Jerusalem. We may distinguish, 1. The period of the patriarchal altar; 2. that of the tabernacle (travelling; moveable, and at last resting on Zion); 3. the temple of Solomon; 4. the temple of Zerubbabel; 5. the temple of Herod. At the destruction of Jerusalem the temple disappeared, its meaning being absorbed in the Church of Christ; that is the type gave place, or was lost in the antitype. The temple-vision of Ezekiel has only an ideal, symbolical meaning. The attempt of Julian to rebuild the temple only served to demonstrate the continuance of its doom; and the temple of the Egyptian Jews at Leontopolis was only a transitory imitation. As the temple, in the narrower sense, had three historical periods, so the sanctuary of the temple had three divisions—the Forecourt, the Sanctuary, and the Holiest or Holy of Holies. See Winer, art. Tempel [also the valuable article Temple, illustrated with plates, in W. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii., pp. 1450–1464]. As to the signification of the temple, compare the various treatises of BÆhr, Kurtz, Sartorius, Hengstenberg, and others, upon the Mosaic Cultus, but especially Friederich: Symbolik der Mosaischen Stiftshutte, Leipz., 1841, and BÆhr: Der Salomonische Tempel, Karlsruhe, 1848. The following are some of the views taken: 1. The temple was a figure of the universe (Philo, Josephus); 2. a symbol of the dwelling-place of God after the analogy of human dwellings (Hoffmann); 3. a figure of the human form and nature (intimated by Philo, Luther, Friederich); 4. a symbol of heaven (Bähr); 5. the symbol of the kingdom of God under the Old Covenant (Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Lisco, etc.).—So far as the temple of God was a symbol, it was a figure of the theocracy—of the kingdom of heaven which comes down to earth; but bo far as it was a type—that is, a figure of something to come—it was a figure of the body of Christ (according to John 2), and of His Church as the real house of God. And thus, as the Holiest of all was the most essential thing in the type, it will find its final and consummate realization in the kingdom of glory (comp. Heb_9:24; Rev_21:22).
And cast out.—The locality of this scene was the Court of the Gentiles. The history of this court is obscure, but it is a very important element in the history of the temple; it is connected with the development of the hierarchy on the one hand, and with the advancement of proselytism on the other. The changes which this court underwent, reflected precisely the course of these relations. The tabernacle had only one forecourt, the court of the altar of burnt-offering (Exo_27:1-8). The only hint of a distinction between the place of the people and the place of the priests, is the circumstance that the laver of brass for the priests’ washing (Exo_38:8) stood nearer the sanctuary than the altar of burnt-offering. In the temple of Solomon the court of the priests (the inner court) was distinguished from the great court (2Ch_4:9). Probably, also, it was a few steps higher; and the altar of burnt-offering belonged to the court of the priests. In the temple of Zerubbabel, Alexander Jannæus (b. c. 106) separated the court of the priests by a wooden trellis from the external court of the temple (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 3, 5). This wooden trellis gave way in the temple of Herod to one of stone, of the height of an ell (Joseph. Bell. Judges 6, 6, 5); and in this temple also the court of the Gentiles assumed a definite character. The temple itself was surrounded by terraces, which formed the several courts in gradation. “The outermost space (in the Talmud: mountain of the house; 1Ma_13:53 : mountain of the sanctuary) went round the whole temple, and had several gates. It was laid with colored stones, and begirt with beautiful halls. A few steps higher a stone lattice, three ells high, ran all the way round, with here and there Greek and Latin inscriptions, that forbade all who were not Jews to proceed any farther toward the sanctuary (on pain of death, Bell. Jdg_6:2; Jdg_6:4). Hence the space of the temple mountain as far as this limit has been called by Christian archæologists the Court of the Gentiles.” (See Winer, sub Tempel, 2. p. 581.) Through this court was reached the court proper, which in its breadth was divided into the courts of the men and the women (the former lower than the latter), but in its depth was divided into the court of the people and that of the priests. The “Court of the Gentiles” grew in importance in proportion as the distinction between proselytes of the gate and of righteousness came to prevail, and it became customary for even devout Gentiles to bring gifts to the temple.
Those that sold and bought.—“In the court of the Gentiles was the so-called temple-market tabernœ, where sacrificial animals, incense, oil, wine, and other things necessary for the service and sacrifice, were to be obtained.” Lightfoot.—The table of the money-changers.—They changed, at a certain premium, the common money, which was accounted protane, for the double drachmas which served for the temple-tribute. Thus the agents who had to collect the temple-tribute from the various districts resorted generally to these money-changers. According to Lundius, these collectors themselves took charge of the exchange in the temple. It is highly probable that many of those who came up from the country paid at this time the tribute which fell due in the month of Adar. “And possibly other business connected with money-changing by degrees had crept in.” Meyer.
The Cleansing of the Temple.—According to Pearce, Wetstein, Lücke, and others, this act was identical with the cleansing mentioned in Joh_2:13, which belonged to the first visit of Jesus to the Passover after His entrance on His ministry; according to Chrysostom and most modern commentators, the account of the Synoptists is a repetition of that earlier one. It is obvious that they omitted the earlier action of the same kind, because they record, generally, only the last of Christ’s visits to the feast. But for John’s point of view, the former cleansing was a decisive crisis, and was recorded by him as such. There is no difficulty in assuming, as the distinct narratives require, that the act was performed twice. And although it might be possible that the two records mutually influenced each other (as Neander, Leben Jesu, 388, assumes), it is plain that the later has its own advance in meaning. According to Mark, Jesus did not suffer that any man should carry vessels through the temple ( Mat_11:16); and, while in John we read, “Make not My Father’s house a house of merchandize,” in the last accounts we read of the house of prayer for all nations being turned into a den of robbers. As to the Lord’s warrant for attacking the existing irregularities, which had become regular by practice, various explanations have been given. Selden (de Jure nat. et gent. Mat_4:6) and others found upon the act of Phinehas (Num_25:11) the supposition of an Israelite zealot-right; that is, the right of at once and violently assaulting and abolishing any crying offence in the theocracy. Lücke (Com. on Joh_2:15-16) thinks that zealotism as a right can not be proven, yet he gathers from the history of the people and the writings of the Rabbins that the reforming vocation in the Jewish church, if it really existed, stood higher than the external right. Of course, it is not necessary to assume that this right was invested with legal sanctions. The real question is, whether there ever was an acknowledgment of a right to interfere, under divine impulse or as a prophet, with existing abuses. And of that there can be no doubt; indeed, the sad prelude of this zealotism was the violence of the brothers Simeon and Levi (Gen_34:25), and the last perversion of it was the conduct of the Zealots during the siege of the city. Between these extremes, however, there are many, illustrious instances of zealotism; and, in its pure fundamental idea, it continues permanently in the discipline of the Christian church. That, at His first cleansing of the temple, Jesus acted from the impulse of prophetic zeal, and according to zealot-right, is plain from the consideration that He had not yet publicly announced Himself under the name of the Messiah; and the Evangelist significantly refers to the saying, “The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up” (Joh_2:11). We may, therefore, thus distinguish; On the first occasion Christ attacked the abuses of the temple in the authority of prophetic zealotism; on the second occasion, in the authority of the Messiah. But we must not overlook the fact, that the former authority forms the true Old Testament basis for the latter; and that the Messiah, as a reformer, was the consummation and glorification of the prophetic zealotism. Much has been said about the assent of the people. Origen and Jerome regarded this as a specific miracle. Doubtless, the fact is explained by the miraculous influence of the prophetic majesty of Christ on the one hand, and of the evil conscience of the Jews on the other.
[The silent submission of these buyers and venders, who by their physical force might easily have overpowered Jesus, conclusively proves the sublime moral majesty and power with which our Saviour performed this act, and silences the objection of some modern skeptics, who see in it an outbreak of violent passion, which is always a sign of weakness. It was a judicial act of a religious reformer, vindicating in just and holy zeal the honor of the Lord of the temple, and revealed the presence of a superhuman authority and dignity, which filled even these profane traffickers with awe, and made them yield without a murmur. Jerome regards this expulsion of a multitude by one humble individual as the most Wonderful of the miracles, and supposes that a flame and starry ray darted from the eyes of the Saviour, and that the majesty of the Godhead was radiant in His countenance.—P. S.]
Mat_21:13. And He said unto them.—Isa_56:7 : “For My house shall be called the house of prayer for all nations.” Jer_7:11 : “Is then this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?” The two passages are quoted freely, and joined together according to their Old Testament meaning.—In what sense a den of robbers? 1. Theophylact: ôὸ ãὰñ öéëïêåñäὲò ëῃóôñéêὁí ðÜèïò ἐóôßí . 2. Fritzsche: Ye gather together here money and animals, as robbers collect their booty in their den. 3. Rauschenbusch (Leben Jesu, 309): By these abominations the Gentiles, for whose prayer this house was designed, are kept back from God’s service. Assuredly, the fact that the place of prayer for the Gentiles was made a market for beasts, was a robbery inflicted on the rights of the Gentiles. Humanity was outraged by the false churchliness or bigotry of the Jewish odium generis humani.
Mat_21:14. And blind and lame persons came to Him.—And then He turned the desecrated temple again from a den of robbers into a house of mercy.
2. Only one full day did Jesus dwell and rule personally in the temple—the Monday of the Passion-week. This theocratical residence of one day had, however, an eternal significance. It re-established for ever the spiritual destination of the temple, and spiritually confounded and silenced in the temple itself all the false ministers and watchmen of the temple. Thus was the word of Haggai fulfilled, not only in its spirit, but also in its letter: “The last glory of this house shall be greater than the first” ( Mat_2:9). But, if we include the entrance on the Sunday evening (the looking round, the visitation), and the solemn departure from the temple on Tuesday (its abandonment to judgment), then the one day must be extended to three.
Starke:—Hedinger: Foul blasphemers require severe dealing: the fear of man, flattery, and gentleness, will not drive them out—Cramer: As everything has its time, so everything has also its place.—All reform must proceed according to the rules of Holy Writ: thus Christ is the Founder of all scriptural reformation.—Canstein: Churches are exclusively for divine worship.—He who would spiritually walk and see, must come to Christ in the temple.
Lisco:—The cleansing of the temple had a symbolical reference to the cleansing of the Church of God.
Heubner:—The Lord’s sacred anger at the desecration of God’s house.—This cleansing reminds us, 1. of the holiness which the temple had in Christ’s eyes; 2. of the guilt of all who desecrate God’s house and day; and 3. of our duty to do all we can to maintain their sanctity.—Lavater says, that His being able to do this was the proof that He ought to do it.
[Matthew Henry:—Abuses must first be purged out and plucked up before that which is right can be established.—Buyers and sellers driven out before (Joh_2:14-15), will return to the temple and nestle there again, if there be no continual care and oversight, and if the blow be not often repeat—That which is lawful and laudable (as buying and selling and changing money) in another place and on another day, defiles the sanctuary and profane the sabbath.—This cleansing of the temple was the only act of regal authority and coercive power of Christ in the days of His humiliation; He began with it (John 2), and He ended with it.—In the reformation of the Church we must go back to the authority of the Scripture as the supreme rule and pattern, and not go further than we can justify by a final: It is written ( Mat_21:13).—The blind and the lame were debarred from David’s palace (2Sa_5:8), but were admitted into God’s house, from which only the wicked and profane are excluded.—The temple was profaned and abused when it was turned into a market-place, but it was graced and honored when it was made a hospital.—Christ’s healing was the real answer to the question: Who is this? and His healing in the temple was the fulfilling of the promise, that the glory of the latter house should be greater than the glory of the former.—W. Nast:—By cleansing the temple Jesus symbolically sets forth the purity of heart which He requires of His church in general and of each individual belie Matthew 21 :1Co_3:16-17; 2Co_6:16.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
Mat_21:12.— Ôῶí ðùëïýí ôùí ôὰò ðåñéóôåñÜò Lang and other German Versions: Taubenhädler; Luther: Taubenkrämer; sellers of doves. Doves were offered to the Lord by the poor as a substitute for a lamb, Lev_5:7; Lev_12:8; Luk_2:24.—P. S.]
Mat_21:13.—[A new sentence ought to commence with Mat_21:13, and hence the He inserted. So also Lange.—P. S.]
Mat_21:13 —Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Tregelles, Alford], read: ðïéåῖôå , ye make, with Codd. B., L., [Cod. Sinait], and other ancient authorities, instead of ἐðïéÞóáôå of the Recepta (from Luke).
Mat_21:13.—[Comp. the Authorized Version in Jer_7:11, from which this passage is quoted. ËῃóôÞò robber, plunderer, is stronger than êëÝðôçò , The Authorized Version, however, generally renders it thief (in 11 passages of the N. T.). except in Joh_10:1; Joh_10:8; Joh_18:40; 2Co_11:26. The difference appears plainly in Joh_10:8 : êëÝðôáé åὶóὶí êáὶ ëῃóôáß thieves and robbers. But Luther’s Mördergrube, which Lange retains, is too strong; although the verse quoted from Jeremiah stands in connection with the charge of murder and the shedding of innocent blood. Better: Räuberhöhle, spelunca latronum.—P. S.]
Mat_21:14.—Cod. C. reverses the order: ÷ùëïὶ êáὶ ôõöëïß . [In the English Version the definite article is required, or else the addition of the word persons.—P. S.]
[A circumlocution of the German: Werdebild, for which I know of no precise equivalent in English.—P. S.]
[The Edinb. transl. here, as often, reverses the sense of the original, and reads: as the distinction....was [illegible] (in German: hervortrut). The rabbinical distinction between âֵּøֵé äַùַּׁòַø and âֵּøֵé äַöֶּãֶ÷ or âֵּøֵé äַáְּøִéç far from being done away with, appeared just in the later history of Judaism, and was in full force at the time of the aposties. In the N. T. the proselytes of the gate are called ïéóåâïìåíïé (or öïâïõìåíïé ôὸí Èåïí ). Act_10:2; Act_13:50; Act_16:14; Act_17:4; Act_17:17; Act_18:7 (comp Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 7. 2); they were more susceptible for the gospel than he Jews, and Gentiles, and generally formed the nucleus of the Gentile-Christian congregations.—P. S.]
[So also Alford. The omission of the first cleansing in the Synoptists is in remarkable consistency with the fact that their narrative is exclusively Galilæan until this last journey to Jerusalem. It is impossible that either the Synoptisis or John should have made such a gross error in chronology, as the hypothesis of the identity of the two narratives assumes.—P. S.]
[I took the liberty of substituting this idea for the “Polisei des christlichen Staates” in the original, which Implies the union of church and state, and is hardly applicable to our country —P. S.]