A Den of Robbers
This is something I blogged about more than a year ago, but it bears repeating. First, take a look at this excerpt from the Bible :
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”
Fast forward a couple thousand years and take a look at this item for sale at the online store for Pat Roberson’s Christian Broadcasting Network :
Either I’ve missed the part of the Bible about how to keep lady-parts clean, or Pat Robertson and his ilk are scumbags who know they can throw the words “Bible”, “Christian”, and “Jesus” on any product and know some schmuck is gonna buy it. It’s a shame that many people who read the Bible all the time don’t realize that the leaders of their movement are the money changers Jesus was warning them about.
10 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
ummm… “over 300,00 booklets sold”?!? that’s a lotta yeasty christians!
Comment by josh — June 15, 2004 @ 3:58 pm
Not to rain on anyone’s parade, or apologize for this book (I believe it is evil, but for different reasons), but Jesus and the money changers is one of the most missunderstood pieces of the scripture. You really have to have a good feel for the Jewish temple culture of the period to understand it. Jesus was not angry at the money changers. They were a necessary part of the temple. With pilgrams coming from all over, they would need to change their various currencies into the Jewish coin. The people selling animals were also necessary as it would have been impossible for the pilgrams to bring the animals with them to sacrifice. Jesus was protesting something in the temple (most likely the temple aristocracy, and quite possibly trying to make the prophecy of the temple being destoyed come true), but it wasn’t the fact that their were money changers and animals for sell. The harshness in the passages was most definately added later to try to frame the Jews in a bad light (it is interesting that you chose John, as it’s description of the scene is the least historical and John is the harshest to the Jews). A better passage to take would have probably been from Mark:
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’ But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
I must also be known that the word robbers (translated from the hebrew) used here denotes violence, so if Jesus was protesting anything it was not that people were making money and possibly cheating the pilgrams, he was saying that the slaughter of animals was no longer necessary.
Of course this just highlights the problem I have with people using the bible for just about anything. Very few people actually understand it’s meaning, it’s historical context, what is original, and what was later added.
Comment by Andrew — June 15, 2004 @ 4:06 pm
From the three versions of this story, I chose John because it had the wording that’s most fitting for a post about an online store. The wording “How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” is more apt than Mark’s “den of robbers” (which I liked enough to put in the subject line).
This being the case, the interpretation I’m using in this post goes back to at least King James (whose translation of John is “make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.”). Seeing as how this interpretation is consistent with that of most modern Christian faiths (including the religious right’s), I stand by my claim that Pat Robertson is a hypocrite.
Comment by greg — June 15, 2004 @ 4:48 pm
I understand the historical context just fine, but I still see that the story reflects Jesus’s anger with commerce in the Temple, which is fitting with other things he said about greed, etc.
But yeah, the story also reinforced developing Christian antagonism with Jews.
Comment by Amanda — June 15, 2004 @ 6:47 pm
But the story doesn’t reflect anger with commerce. If anything it reflects anger at animal sacrifice. The true meaning was lost in the translateion from hebrew->greek->latin->english. Now I will give you this, the way Pat Robertson interpets it, it would be anger with commerce; which does prove him a hypocrite.
Comment by Andrew — June 15, 2004 @ 6:57 pm
Greg, please direct us to your post a year ago.
Comment by walterthump — June 15, 2004 @ 8:52 pm
For biblical instruction on keeping lady-parts clean, Leviticus 15 is where it’s at. Something to do with turtles or pigeons.
“15:25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of
her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
15:26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she
sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
15:27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be
unclean until the even.
15:28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.”
Comment by arthur — June 16, 2004 @ 9:51 am
Well, I stand corrected. Ladies, keep this in mind next time you get an infection. Throw away your Monistat and take your tutles to church.
My next question is about the “Bible Cure” for Hepatitis C, Osteoporosis, Cancer, Heartburn, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
Comment by greg — June 16, 2004 @ 10:05 am
In my earlier life as a devout Christian, I interpreted (and still maintain) the ‘money changer/temple’ story as being a cautionary tale about religious leadership focusing on acquiring wealth (through surcharges for using the temple for selling goods or tithing in the modern era) versus prioritizing leading their flock spiritually.
If the argument for Jesus being angry with sacrificing animals hinges on a translation of the word ‘robber’ as connotating violence (which it still does today, hence the difference between robbery and burglary), then it’s a tad flimsy for me when everything else within, and surrounding the passages from Mark and John indicate it did have more to do with commercial than religious activity.
Comment by Gin — June 16, 2004 @ 3:28 pm
I don’t dispute that the surrounding passages make it seem like Jesus was upset by commercialism. However, there are other passages in the gospel where he gladly pays the temple tax. So to think that he was actually oppossed to the commercialism is guesswork at best. The problem is, we don’t know what really happened. Nearly all the biblical scholars I’ve read accept that Jesus did stage some sort of protest and overturning of tables in the temple. However, much of the passages were later additions designed to make the Jews look bad. Much of the gospels are that way however. One of the most interesting things I’ve read are attempts to take out the later additions and try to get to the root of Jesus’ teaching. When you do this, you often see that modern christianity has nothing to do with Jesus.
Comment by Andrew — June 17, 2004 @ 10:57 am