John 2:13-16
13 ¶ And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of amoney sitting:
I think, though I might be wrong, that those money collectors in the temple were quasi state, quasi private. The temple was a government building and a government bank. As far as the merchants go they are no different then the corporations that rely on making wealth by buying government bonds and government debt.
ErikMalin: John 2:13-16 13 ¶ And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of amoney sitting: 15 And when he had made a ascourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. So did Christ sin by abridging the property rights of the merchants and money-changers? Christ did not physically own the building because in verse 20 it says that "Forty and six years was this atemple in building." I believe Christ was in his 30's at this time. If he didn't like it he should have pleaded with the property owners. If they didn't want to kick them out then too bad. It seems like a bad example concerning property rights was set here. To me that seems sinful. BTW I'm a Christian.
Firstly if Christ is God then there is no problem. Secondly the temple would have run on a sort of restricted covenant agreement- the mosaic law- which described what could and could not happen in the temple. If this was violated then Jesus could legitimately turned them out.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Assuming that it was his father's house and Jesus was entitled to act on his father's behalf, then driving out the money changers would be an apropriate action. The money changers would be the agressors in this case and Jesus would be the legitimate defender of his property.
But if the congregation owned the temple and permitted the money changers to operate there, then Jesus would have made a claim on another's property and commited an agressive act against it and the temple owners and the merchants would be entitled to compensation from Jesus. Or even his father if he was acting as an agressor on his father's behalf.
Now discussing who owned what is a matter of faith and interesting to think about but pretty irrelevent.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Deist:I think, though I might be wrong, that those money collectors in the temple were quasi state, quasi private. The temple was a government building and a government bank.
I think, though I might be wrong, that those money collectors in the temple were quasi state, quasi private. The temple was a government building and a government bank.
The bible doesn't say, but in history the Roman's liked to take over cultural and religious sites of the areas they conquered and use them for either their own temples or for the functions of the Roman state. This was not done to "rub their noses in it". The Roman's believed that by taking over a religious site that it would show the locals that the Romans were legitimate both in the secular world and in their traditional spiritual one. Obviously not every group saw the Roman policy as being anything but insulting.
My belief is that God owns everything, both spiritual and natural. While He gives man free license (most of the time) on natural things, He reserves his rights on spiritual matters - and the temple was the literal point where the spiritual touched the natural. It was His house, and He rescinded the license for occupancy and use by the moneychangers - perfectly within His rights, even if He had not insisted on exercising those rights for a long time.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I am new to the forums but I just had to jump in on this conversation.
In the original post, he states that he is a Christian. By stating that you believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose again. That sacrifice could only have taken if Christ was sinless.
Now I realize that perhaps you are not implying true biblical sin but sin in Austrian terms, if that is so...just stop me now.
However, Jesus could not have been the Christ if he sinned. So that argument would have nulled your very beliefs. That is unless your definition of Christian is different from mine stated above.
I don't think he sinned, in any sense of the word, during this event. As the son of God he had the authority to carry out his father's business here on earth. Because his father could not act on earth, Jesus then became the executor of his estate. Therefore he was simply kicking out trespassers. Right?
www.combsy.com www.paleoaddict.com
Welcome Combsy. I understand that Christ needed to be sinless. I brought it up because I was discussing with a friend that it would be wrong to punch an anti-Christian protestor who was burning a cross or something. The cross is his property and he's done no violence to you. He then brought up Christ using the whip and flipping the merchants tables which is their property. He is our Great Exemplar. I didn't have an answer.
It was my understanding that the merchants in the temple were commiting fraud. I heard somewhere that they were selling the same animal multiple times with the promise that they would sacrifice it for each buyer. Also, technically, if he is God they are operating stores in his house without his permission thus violating his property rights. Then again I am not particularly knowledgable about religion although I like Jesus' ethics as far as I understand them.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
You are correct in your understanding. The merchants in the temple I believe actually would cover spots on animals and sell them as spotless, and also the prices were outrageous...not even a market driven price... So technically Jesus was just driving out fraudulent merchants, no sin in that.
Twirlcan: The bible doesn't say, but in history the Roman's liked to take over cultural and religious sites of the areas they conquered and use them for either their own temples or for the functions of the Roman state. This was not done to "rub their noses in it". The Roman's believed that by taking over a religious site that it would show the locals that the Romans were legitimate both in the secular world and in their traditional spiritual one. Obviously not every group saw the Roman policy as being anything but insulting.
The Jews voluntarily joined the Roman Empire so had special religious status.
Peace
It was my understanding that the merchants in the temple were commiting fraud.
Absolutely. Plus there's the factor that Jesus is the Owner's son. He was evicting trespassers.
--Len.
Just my 2 cents, echoing what some of the others have said...
1. Christ was sinless. He could not and did not sin.
2. Christ is God, and Christ owns everything, he rules in dominion over every molecule of the universe. So if he wants to trash the tables of the money changers out of righteous perfect anger, or manipulate nature causing proprty damage, or ending the life of a human eve, it's all his divine perogative.
"The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it."
“We ought to obey God rather than men.” -Acts 5:29.
"Slaves before God, free before all others." -Boer Motto.