Mark 11:15

‘And they come to Jerusalem, and he entered into the temple and began to cast out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold the doves and he would not allow that any man should carry a vessel through the temple.’

‘And they come to Jerusalem.’ Presumably the fig tree had been outside the boundary of Jerusalem proper, which was seemingly Bethphage. But Mark wants us to recognise that Jesus is ‘coming to Jerusalem’ because the whole city is under sentence. It is Jerusalem as a whole, what men called the holy city, that is the object of Jesus’ attention (which is partly why He symbolically leaves it each night. Perhaps there is a hint here that He does not want to be too closely identified with it).

In the light of what He had observed the previous afternoon Jesus now entered the Temple and began to drive out those who were trading there by the sheer force of His personality and stern eyes and words. This time He did not need a scourge, for He did not drive the animals out. This action was not because He disapproved of the sacrificial system as a whole, which was God ordained, but because of His concern for the holiness of God’s house and because of the nefarious practises being carried on. As the Sanhedrin rightly recognised this was a claim to unique authority from God (Mark 11:28).

This was the second time that Jesus had purged the Temple. John 2:13-17 tells us of the first time, early in His ministry, when His prime concern had been the treating of God’s house like a marketplace and a stable. Then His main opponents were the traders, and His aim had been to drive out the cattle as well. He had wanted to clear the house for prayer. It had not been a direct attack on the leadership. That may well have been treated as the spontaneous action of a young hothead, a demonstration, which some even approved of to some extent, (especially the people). But when He came to Jerusalem again the next time they would have been on their guard. However, as year succeeded to year He had not done it again and they had no doubt felt able to relax. Thus they were simply unprepared for it when it happened again.

The fact that this first cleansing is not mentioned by the Synoptics is not surprising. They ignore the whole of Jesus’ original ministry in Judaea. And the position of this one at the end of His ministry indicated symbolically what they wanted to convey.

But here His accusations reached much deeper than in that first clearing of the Temple. Here He called it not just a marketplace but a ‘haunt for rogues’. He was now, by implication, involving the Chief Priests themselves in it. On the first emptying He had possibly not known of the chicanery that would certainly have been going on, but had only been aware that they were using it as a marketplace. Now through His ministry He had learned more of what was happening there. He had learned of the skulduggery that was the talk of the marketplaces.

‘Those who sold and bought in the Temple.’ Those who came to the Temple would need to have suitable sacrifices that could pass the test of being unblemished. Thus sacrificial animals and birds were sold in the Temple by traders commissioned by the chief priests with a certificate guaranteeing that they were satisfactory, together with such things as wine, oil and salt, . And this was done in the Court of the Gentiles under the sanction of the authorities with little regard for what it meant for worshippers. It was not a far cry from this to making the test very stiff for sacrificial beasts brought in from outside by individuals so as to ensure that they often failed the test, so that the prospective worshippers had then to buy certificated beasts or birds at ultra high prices, with suitable commissions paid to the authorities. And this undoubtedly happened regularly, or at least was rumoured to do so. No doubt the ‘rejected’ beasts were included in the price as part exchange and some no doubt were later sold on again as certificated beasts.

‘The tables of the moneychangers.’ The Temple tax (Exodus 30:12-16; compare Matthew 17:24) had to be paid in the Tyrian two drachma piece which was the nearest available equivalent to the Hebrew half shekel. (This was the equivalent of well over a day’s wage). This was because it had no image of man or beast on it. Thus moneychangers sat at tables and accepted other currencies in exchange for it, charging a comparatively large fee for the exchange and a further fee if change had to be given, while the chief priests again claimed their commissions. The noise of typical Middle Eastern negotiation and haggling would have been deafening, and the whole process was designed to extract as much money as possible from the unfortunate pilgrims, many of whom were poor, and to line the pockets of the chief priests and their cronies. When Jesus overturned their tables and their beloved money went rolling round the floor, it would have been to the delight of the crowds. They at least would be on Jesus’ side.

The result of all these practises was that those who came into the court of the Gentiles of the house of God, instead of being filled with awe and a realisation of the presence of God, found themselves in a busy, hectic marketplace, with buyers and sellers arguing and disputing loudly and furiously, prospective sacrificial animals and birds adding their own particular protests, and moneychangers calling out their rates. But such potential worshippers were only Gentiles and so it did not matter.

‘He would not allow that any man should carry a vessel through the Temple.’ The Temple courts were also being used as a thoroughfare to provide short cuts for those moving about that part of the city. Jesus, no doubt with the help of His disciples, prevented such movements. This emphasises that His main concern in both cases was for the purity of the Temple. It was for worship, not for convenience. The later Rabbis cite a provision that a man ‘may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff, or his sandal, or his wallet, or with the dust on his feet, nor may he make of it a short by-path’. Thus in this He was probably following what was strictly the law, which had seemingly fallen out of use through carelessness and neglect, or lack of policing.