[jeremysarber]

Obviously, the answer would begin with defining what was wrong with merchants and money-changers conducting business in the temple. Some have said they were corrupt and dishonest, but Jesus simply said in John 2, "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

If it was wrong for them to do business in the temple, what in the law should have told the Jews it was wrong?

[jeremysdemo]

an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth?

it's my understanding they were giving half a Temple coin for a Greek coin.

then there is the whole charging interest commandment, Deuteronomy 23:19, Exodus 22:25.

keep shinin

jerm

[OMEGA]

Something better than Merchandise was there at the Temple.

Pr 3:11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:

11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:

12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

13 ¶ Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.

14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by jeremysarber

Obviously, the answer would begin with defining what was wrong with merchants and money-changers conducting business in the temple. Some have said they were corrupt and dishonest, but Jesus simply said in John 2, "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

If it was wrong for them to do business in the temple, what in the law should have told the Jews it was wrong?

Seriouslyl? What was to happen in the temple? Then say why selling the animal to the believer isn't wrong.

[jeremysarber]

That's a good point. So, you'd say they were wrong simply because they had not been commanded to sell merchandise or change money in the temple?

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by jeremysarber

That's a good point. So, you'd say they were wrong simply because they had not been commanded to sell merchandise or change money in the temple?

My point isn't layed out in the the text. A non believing Jew told me they typical "Jesus was a really good Jew" story, just not the messiah. He said they were probably selling the offering instead of bringing it like they were supposed to. And the money changers is just to trade foreign currency, and sell the sacrifice offering.

[TruthSetsFree]

Originally Posted by jeremysarber

Obviously, the answer would begin with defining what was wrong with merchants and money-changers conducting business in the temple. Some have said they were corrupt and dishonest, but Jesus simply said in John 2, "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

If it was wrong for them to do business in the temple, what in the law should have told the Jews it was wrong?

just about the whole thing... the whole OT

all through the OT the temple is REVERED

look up info on the Ark of the Covenant that was inthe temple...

and Jesus says

Zeal for [God's] House consumes me

they should have known because it was where God himself LIVED... "dwelt among them" as many scripture psgs put it ..

[HisServant]

People were supposed to provide the sacrifices via the very land that God delivered to them. The process of raising the doves, goats or whatever was just as important to God as the sacrifice itself. So the money changers were trivializing the sacrifices, which is what provoked Jesus.

Pretty much along the lines of Esau and Jacobs sacrifice.

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

One could argue that Jesus didn't like people selling the animals intended for sacrifice, but with 300,000-400,000 pilgrims visiting the temple during the passover it is hard to argue they would have to bring their animals with them from far and wide. It seems the selling of animals for sacrifice would be needed to supply enough blood to keep YHWH satisfied and happy.

Jesus claims the house is for prayer, but the bible makes it clear to be a house of sacrifice much more so than a house of prayer. Jesus also quotes Hosea about God not wanting sacrifice but mercy. Paul also touches this when he calls the sacrifices made as sacrifices made to Demons and not God. This would fit with the contemporary tradition that Solomon when he built the temple trapped seven demons in it, and it became known as the "house of demons".

So my view is that the sacrificial system is a demonic system, one that Jesus did not like one bit and this is what riled him up.

[Lazy afternoon]

The law said that they could exchange their animal for money and then buy again if they came from a far place.

However they were cashing in on it bigtime like in many churches today concerning tithing which was 10% per every three years not one.

The key scripture is--

Zec 14:21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

Canaanite is the word for merchant.

We see this also in Rev.ch 18.

and the condition of the church of the 7th letter of Rev. as is so often as the church today and increasing.

Building treasure cities for Pharoah will become even more labourous for the Christians in bondage to Egypt before they are called out with great wrath poured out.

Of course many will not go, and others unexpectedly will go with them.

LA

LA

[Bradley D]

I have read that even those who brought their own animals were refused in order to make them buy the animals on sale at the temple. Also common currency was not acceptable as offerings to the temple. They had to exchange their money at an unfair exchange rate. Therefore, what they were doing was not holy and unrighteous.

"But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the Lord, as in days gone by, as in former years" (Malachi 3:2-4).

[One Eyed Jack]

It wasn't much of a sacrifice if you could just go to the temple and buy it.

[Angel4Truth]

Originally Posted by jeremysdemo

an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth?

it's my understanding they were giving half a Temple coin for a Greek coin.

then there is the whole charging interest commandment, Deuteronomy 23:19, Exodus 22:25.

keep shinin

jerm

Originally Posted by HisServant

People were supposed to provide the sacrifices via the very land that God delivered to them. The process of raising the doves, goats or whatever was just as important to God as the sacrifice itself. So the money changers were trivializing the sacrifices, which is what provoked Jesus.

Pretty much along the lines of Esau and Jacobs sacrifice.

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

It wasn't much of a sacrifice if you could just go to the temple and buy it.

All the above but especially the bolded one.

They were suppose to raise the sacrifice, it was to be without blemish, and raised as part of the family, so one understood the heavy nature of sin and its requirements of a life for a life, since sin leads to death.

Its not much of a sobering experience if you can just go purchase any animal.

The whole system was not following what God had laid out when Jesus said what He did.

They were literally making Gods house a den of thieves and hypocrites.

[Dena]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

It wasn't much of a sacrifice if you could just go to the temple and buy it.

Giving up money is a sacrifice too. There were other sacrifices that could be made too. Not just animals.

[SaulToPaul]

They were doing exactly what their father did,


Ezekiel 28:5 (KJV)
Ezekiel 28:18 (KJV)