34. Siphré on Deut. § 105, end. ed. Friedmann, p. 95 b; Jer. Peah i. 6.
35. St. Matt. xxi . 12.
36. Ant. xx. 9. 2-4.
37. Pes. 57 a.
38. Pes. u. s.
These Temple-Bazaars, the property, and one of the principal sources of income, of the
family of Annas, were the scene of the purification of the Temple by Jesus; and in the
private locale attached to these very Bazaars, where the Sanhedrin held its meetings at
the time, the final condemnation of Jesus may have been planned, if not actually
pronounced. All this has its deep significance. But we can now also understand why the
Temple officials, to whom these Bazaars belonged, only challenged the authority of
Christ in thus purging the Temple. The unpopularity of the whole traffic, if not their
consciences, prevented their proceeding to actual violence. Lastly, we can also better
perce ive the significance, alike of Christ's action, and of His reply to their challenge,
spoken as it was close to the spot where He was so soon to be condemned by them. Nor
do we any longer wonder that no resistance was offered by the people to the action of
Jesus, and that even the remonstrances of the priests were not direct, but in the form of a
perplexing question.
For it is in the direction just indicated, and in no other, that objections have been raised to
the narrative of Christ's first public act in Jerusalem: the purgation of the Temple.
Commentators have sufficiently pointed out the differences between this and the
purgation of the Temple at the close of His Ministry. 39 40 Indeed, on comparison, these
are so obvious, that every reader can mark them. Nor does it seem difficult to understand,
rather does it seem not only fitting, but almost logically necessary, that, if any such event
had occurred, it should have taken place both at the beginning and at the close of His
public ministry in the Temple. Nor yet is there anything either 'abrupt' or 'tactless' in such
a commencement of his Ministry. It is not only profane, but unhistorical, to look for
calculation and policy in the Life of Jesus. Had there been such, He would not have died
on the Cross. And 'abrupt' it certainly was not. Jesus took up the thread where he had
dropped it on His first recorded appearance in the Temple, when he had spoken His
wonder, that those who knew Him should have been ignorant, that He must be about His
Father's business. He was now about His Father's business, and, as we may so say, in the
most elementary manner. To put an end to this desecration of His Father's House, which,
by a nefarious traffic, had been made a place of mart, nay, 'a den of robbers,' was, what
all who knew His Mission must have felt, a most suitable and almost necessary beginning
of His Messianic Work.
39. St. Matt. xxi. 12, &c.; St. Mark xi 11, &c.; St. Luke xix. 45 &c.
40. It must, however, be admitted, that even Luther had grave doubts whether the
narrative of the Synoptists and that of the fourth Gospel did not refer to one and the same
event. Comp. Meyer, Komment. (on St. John), p. 142, notes.
And many of those present must have known Jesus. The zeal of His early disciples, who,
on their first recognition of Him, proclaimed the new- found Messiah, could not have
given place to absolute silence. The many Galilean pilgrims in the Temple could not but
have spread the tidings, and the report must soon have passed from one to the other in the