What a difference after a few days at home between the quiet miracle of turning water into wine at the small town wedding and the family coming once again to Jerusalem to observe Passover. We know this was a regular event for his family as Luke tells us they came every year. But this is an entirely different scene from Jesus as a young boy in the Temple. Instead of sitting in his Father’s house among the teachers listening to them and asking questions he is clearing the place out, overturning tables and driving out animals with a whip. I’m sure no one expected this from him.

I had a similar response many years ago when I took my father to the top of St. Peter’s in Rome. Climbing the narrow stairs both of us were talking about the awe we would experience from the spectacular view of Rome from the roof of the church. When we stepped out at the top it was not the silence or the view that greeted us but the first thing we saw and heard was a gaudy gift shop and a loud recording of Elvis singing, “It Will Be A Blue Christmas Without You.” I thought about turning over a few tables myself just then. What in the world were the merchandisers doing in this sacred place? It’s the same everywhere, isn’t it? Whether it is the Taj Malal, a great Cathedral in Paris, a Christian concert or the British Museum we have to go through the gift shop one way or another. You cannot have one without the other.

But this one is different in a number of ways.

First, the Court of the Gentiles is huge. It covered almost 14 acres and it was the only place that believing Gentiles could worship as they were not allowed any further into the Temple area. During Passover the entire Court would have been filled with believers from around the Empire – hundreds of thousands of people or more pressing in on themselves to observe Passover. You can imagine how difficult it would have been to worship in the midst of everything else going on. A place of worship for all people who were not Jews but coming to observe one of the most important days of their religion had become something else entirely. There was no possibility of it being a house of prayer with all the stench, crowding and uproar. If you came as a Gentile expecting a place to worship you would go away disillusioned and disappointed. There was nothing but exploitation of the naive and unsuspecting.

Second, there was a time when the business of buying and selling had been done elsewhere and away from the Temple but for a number of reasons had been moved to the Court of the Gentiles. Given human nature, I imagine someone realized making it more convenient for people would only increase their revenue. Think about having the gift shop two miles from the museum. Convenience has always been attractive. Remember Jeroboam when the Kingdom of Israel split into two halves? He said to the people in the North, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of Egypt.” So the people could observe Passover without making the journey with their offerings to Jerusalem.

Third, because it was a requirement for the people to bring offerings of spotless animals and shekels for the Temple tax it was a highly controlled process. If a person was poor and could not afford a lamb they were allowed to bring two doves. They would bring two doves considered to be spotless but the dove inspector finds a flaw and directs them to the officially approved dove seller who not only happens to be his brother-in-law but the markup on a dove is 8,000 percent. If a person is wealthy enough to bring a lamb or a goat the decision is the same. What choice does a person have but to buy the one approved in spite of the obvious conflict of interest. Can you bring your own hot dogs and beer to a ball game? Think about the difference between bringing your own popcorn to a movie and buying it there. I have a friend in the theater business and he told me they make very little money on showing the films but the popcorn, candy and drinks is where they make up the difference. Do you think the Temple inspectors were any different?

The money exchange was the same. The fact that the money-changers received some fee when they changed the coins of the pilgrims was not in itself wrong. The Talmud addressed it: “It is necessary that everyone should have half a shekel to pay for himself. Therefore when he comes to the exchange to change a shekel for two half-shekels he is obliged to allow the money-changer some gain.” It was not the fee but the exorbitant fee. The people were required to pay a Temple tax of two shekels annually. That would be equivalent to two days of work for a poor person. Nothing but shekels was accepted at the Temple because all other currency had the image of the Emperor on it and that would have been a sacrilege to offer. So, any coins used elsewhere had to be converted. Again, the exchange rate was outrageous. People were charged a 50% fee for the exchange. There were no ATM’s or international banks offering better rates. It was a monopoly and the money changers took full advantage of it. In fact, the priests had millions stored in foreign currency they used for lending to the poor at similar rates. When the Roman general Crassus captured Jerusalem and raided the Temple treasury in 54 B.C. he took from it millions in currency, silver and gold without coming near to taking everything in it. Religion was a cash cow.

Finally, there is historical evidence that the High Priests, Annas and Caiphas, owned the whole operation and a big piece of every transaction went into their pockets. Annas and his sons had bought the position of high priests as they were commonly sold to the highest bidder. It was also a dynasty as the first Annas was followed by his four sons and Caiphas was his son-in-law. It was a racket and everyone seemed to go along with it. No doubt people complained about it and said someone ought to do something about it but no one did. After all, remember what happened to Paul in Ephesus when he threatened the business interests of the silversmiths? “Men, you know we receive a good income from this business? And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia..There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited..”

You notice the order of his concerns? First, his business and then Artemis. It’s the same here. The buyers and sellers were not much interested in worship or making it easier for people to worship. They were interested in just one thing – making money by essentially robbing people who had no options. They had cornered the market on offerings and were not interested in losing that business. It’s surprising they didn’t rise up like the silversmiths in Ephesus but there was something about the personal force of Jesus that kept them from doing that. It happens a number of times in Scripture. Remember when they tried to push him off a cliff in Nazareth. He walked right through the crowd. Or when they came to arrest him later in John the soldiers literally fell on the ground when they came to arrest him and he said, “I am he.” His personal presence was overwhelming when he chose.

But I believe Jesus knew from the very start they would get him in the end. Look at the context of the words the disciples remember afterwards. “Zeal for your house will consume me.” This is not just an expression of righteousness or outrage at what had become of Temple worship. These words are from Psalm 69 and the way the New English Bible translates that is “Zeal for thy house shall destroy me.” It is a prayer of David for deliverance from his enemies who hate him because of his devotion to God. It is his zeal for God that has put him on a collision course with the secular rulers and religious robbers.

More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
that dishonor has covered my face.
I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for your house will destroy me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

Jesus driving out the merchants has been used throughout history to excuse religious fanaticism and violence. During the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin (in 1554), defended himself by using the purification of the temple, when he was accused of having helped to burn alive Michael Servetus, a theologian who denied the divinity of Jesus. For centuries afterwards the image of the corrupt money changers has followed the Jews wherever they go – even today. We all remember Shylock in “The Merchant of Venice” as the conniving money lender who insisted on his pound of flesh when Antonio could not repay his debt. There is a latent anti-semitism that now and then boils over into violence.

In 2021, the Anti-Defamation League counted a total of 2,717 antisemitic incidents across the U.S. This represents a 34 percent increase from the 2,026 incidents recorded in 2020 and is the highest number on record since ADL began tracking antisemitic incidents in 1979. The Audit classifies incidents into three categories:

Assault: A total of 88 incidents were categorized as assault, defined as cases where Jewish people (or people perceived to be Jewish) were targeted with physical violence accompanied by evidence of antisemitic animus. Antisemitic assaults increased 167 percent from the 33 reported in 2020.

Harassment: Of the total, 1,776 incidents were categorized as harassment, defined as cases where one or more Jewish people (or people perceived to be Jewish) were harassed with antisemitic slurs, stereotypes or conspiracy theories. Acts of harassment increased 43 percent, up from 1,242 incidents in 2020.

Vandalism: Another 853 incidents were categorized as vandalism, defined as cases where property was damaged along with evidence of antisemitic intent. Acts of antisemitic vandalism increased 14 percent from the 751 incidents reported in 2020. Swastikas, which are generally interpreted as symbols of antisemitic hatred, were present in more than two-thirds (578) of these incidents.

Antisemitism has historically spiked in times of fear and uncertainty, but this most recent uptick in antisemitic practices and expressions has reached a new quality––in part due to its presence in social, civic and political institutions in the United States and abroad. There is an increased political support for, and expansion of, far-right and anti-Semitic movements that used to exist only on the fringes. And when you see these antisemitic references on television, social media and even in presidential debates, there’s undoubtedly a resulting uptick in rhetoric and, ultimately, violence with deadly outcomes.

But there is one final angle I want to explore. Sometimes this passage is used incorrectly to teach that Jesus was against business in general. He wanted a world without trade, profit, markets and money making. I don’t think that is accurate or what he taught. While I don’t believe there is a simple or easy way to implement a biblical model for business, I do believe there could have been an acceptable alternative for what was happening. After all, it was a necessary service even if it had been corrupted.

As we all know there are a number of business models we use and could have been as well by the merchants in the court of the Gentiles

Some say the purpose of business is to make as much money as possible so we can give it away later in life. That is the driving force behind what we call effective altruism in business today. It is in the headlines today with the loss of billions by a crypto trader. It’s also a way to delay giving.

Some say the purpose of business is to make a profit for the shareholder. That’s the premise of Milton Friedman: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”

There are some who believe the correct model is corporate social responsibility or CSR through either giving back part of the profits through charity in a community or creating a corporate foundation to do philanthropy.

There are some who believe businesses have a responsibility to make profits in socially responsible ways through fair trade, fair wages and processes and products that do not harm the environment or take advantage of the poor.

There is even a movement called the economics of mutuality that believes business has a greater purpose to benefit everyone in the chain – from the producers to the customers to the society. It is not just philanthropy or fair trade but a way of transforming the purpose of business completely. I met with the founders of this movement this week to talk about their book, “The Completion of Capitalism” We talked about this passage:

“It is the argument of this book that most successful organizations are those that choose to be driven by a sense of purpose that transcends self-interest—a sense of purpose that seeks to develop reciprocally beneficial obligations amongst a wide variety of relevant stakeholders—a sense of purpose that can transform business performance for the benefit of people, planet and profit (in that order)—in other words, mutuality.”

In other words, it is possible to make a profit and not be perceived as a person or corporation interested solely in one thing at the expense of everything else. It is possible to make business a way that more people benefit.

How could the money lenders and dove merchants have created a profit making business model without corrupting themselves and their own religion? How could they have served a captive market without exploiting them? How could the religious leaders have avoided the temptation of excessive wealth and using it to take advantage of the poor? It would be fun to design something that would have avoided what happened over time to ruin everything.

I have no doubt they could have and Jesus would not have had to drive them out. The Temple could have been a place of commerce and prayer at the same time. Everyone would have been served. Sadly, every good thing is subject to misuse and abuse. Maybe it is human nature. Maybe it is the nature of money. Maybe it is so deep in the makeup of the world that there is no way to drive it out.

But one thing is true. Genuine zeal for the things of God will always bring us into confrontation with the world’s zeal for other things. You can count on that.

Art by Raimundo de Oliviera