Mark 11:15-19

2. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 11:15-19

TEXT 11:15-19

And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple. And he taught, and said unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye have made it a den of robbers. And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching. And every evening he went forth out of the city.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 11:15-19

615.

Is this the same cleansing as recorded in John 2:13-22? Discuss.

616.

In what particular part of the temple does this incident occur?

617.

Was it altogether wrong to buy and sell in the temple?

618.

Why overthrow the tables and seats?

619.

Explain Mark 11:16.

620.

From what two references did Jesus quote?

621.

How could the Jewish temple be a house of prayer for all nations.

622.

Why would the words and actions of Jesus especially anger the chief priests?

623.

Give two or three possible reasons for the hatred of the leaders.

624.

How is the word astonished used in Mark 11:18 b?

625.

Why mention the fact that He left the city every evening?

COMMENT

TIME.A.D. 30Monday, 3rd April, 11th Nisan, the fourth day before the great Jewish Passover.
PLACES.The Templein the court of the GentilesBethany.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Matthew 21:11-13; Luke 19:45-48.

OUTLINE.1. What He did, Mark 11:15; Mark 16:2. What He taught, Mark 11:17. Mark 11:3. The results, Mark 11:18-19.

ANALYSIS

I.

WHAT HE DID, Mark 11:15-16.

1.

Entered the temple and cast out those who bought and sold.

2.

Overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.

3.

Would not permit the traffic of those carrying various burdens.

II.

WHAT HE TAUGHT, Mark 11:17.

1.

It is writtenMy house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.

2.

Ye have made it a den of robbers.

III.

THE RESULTS, Mark 11:18-19.

1.

His words and actions were known by the chief priests and scribes.

2.

They sought a way to kill Him because of jealousy.

3.

He could not stay overnight in Jerusalem.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

WHAT HE DID.

Mark 11:15. -And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out,-' etc. It seems, at first sight, almost incredible that men who professed such reverence for the temple, and were so scrupulous about the slightest ceremonial defilement (John 18:28), should actually let out, as they did, a portion of the sacred precincts, the court of the Gentiles, or a part of it, to dealers in cattle and sheep and doves, and to money-changers, but unscrupulous men will do anything for the sake of gain, It would be a great convenience to a Jew from a distance to buy his Passover Lamb close to the spot where it had to be killed; and the Sadducean priests, taking advantage of this, were themselves the real desecrators of the most sacred building of which they were the guardians, by encouraging the unholy traffic. But the Lord, Who ever regarded the temple as His Father's house, and looked upon the very building as imparting its sanctity to all in it, resented this as He had done on a former occasion, alone and unaided, for this occurred on the day after His arrival, and the enthusiastic crowds were dispersed. He drove out all the traffickers, overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of those who sold doves to those who were too poor to bring a more costly offering, and according to our Evangelist, even went further, by forbidding the temple to be made a thoroughfare, so that vessels should be carried through it.

Now we must ask first, Was this an ordinary exercise of power? and then, What was its significance?
It would have been a natural, though, of course, a remarkable exercise of power if it had been, as is asserted, through the personal greatness and intensity of will that showed itself in our Lord's look and word and tone. But if this personal greatness means a very commanding presence, so that all enemies should be at once overawed, why did not this save Him from the insults and outrages which were heaped upon Him during this very week? We have no reason to believe from anything in the gospel that the Lord had a presence which greatly overawed men, and He must have had a very commanding personal presence indeed, to disperse without apparently the faintest opposition a crowd of cattle-dealers and money-changers. It seems to me that the faculty of transfiguring Himself at will, so as on one day to put on an appearance which overawed the roughest of men, and on the next day so to disguise His majesty as that the very slaves should spit on Him and strike Him, is as much a supernatural endowment as the power of healing the sick or casting out devils.

Why do men treat the exercise of the Lord's Divine power as if it were something immoral, something to be ashamed of, something that we must get rid of even at the expense of common sense, unless we are compelled to acknowledge it? It may interest the reader to contrast with the modern view, that of a Father of the Church, St. Jerome: To me it appears that amid all the signs of our Lord, this was the most wonderful; that one single man, at a time too when He was an object of scorn, and accounted so vile as soon after to have been crucified, while the Scribes and Pharisees (chief priests?) moreover were furiously raging against Him, on account of the loss through Him of their worldly gain, should nevertheless have succeeded with a whip of small cords (John 2:15), in driving out of the temple so vast a multitude, overthrowing the tables and the seats, and doing other like things, which scarcely a troop of soldiers could have accomplished.

The second question is, What is the significance of the act? Did its significance cease when the fame whose sanctity Christ thus marvelously vindicated, was forever desecrated and cast to the ground, or has it any reference to the new state of things in the kingdom of God? To this we answer, it asserts an universal principle, that whatsoever is consecrated to the true God, be it building, or society, or body, cannot be profaned without bringing on those who desecrate it the severe anger of God. God has nowhere, in so many words, commanded that the buildings devoted to the prayers and Lord's Supper of the New Covenant should be dedicated with a special service. He has left such a thing to be inferred from his Word, and a certain Divine instinct has led Christians everywhere solemnly to set apart their material churches to the exclusive service of God; but when they do so God holds them to their word. They have set apart these buildings to Him, He has accepted the offering, and inasmuch as He has not ceased to be a jealous God, He will certainly regard any desecration of them as profanity and impiety. If it be asserted that the Jewish temple was of greater sanctity than a Christian Church, because so much is said in Scripture about its dedication, we answer, No. A building, however humble, set apart for the offering up of prayer in the Name of Jesus, must be greater than a temple, however magnificent, in which His Name was never invokeda building set apart for the celebration of the Lord's Supper must be holier than a building set apart for the offering of bullocks and calves. It also is defiled by heresy and false doctrine, and traffic in holy offices; and Christ will assuredly look upon this with more anger than He looked upon the profanation of the temple, inasmuch as a temple of living stones, built into a spiritual house, is a greater thing than a building even of marble and gold. And so with the bodies of Christians, which together with their souls, are so made the temple of God in Holy Baptism, that an inspired Apostle could ask, Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you? and so he says, If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy. Let us then cleanse our souls by prayer and thoughts about the holiest things, or Christ may suddenly visit us and cast us out of the true house of God.
With respect to our Lord's not suffering anyone to carry a vessel through the temple, Dr. South has a good remark: We must know that the least degree of contempt weakens religion; because it is absolutely contrary to the nature of it; religion properly consisting of reverential esteem for things sacred. (Quoted in Ford).

II.

WHAT HE TAUGHT.

Mark 11:17. -And he taught, saying unto them, My house shall be called,-' etc. If, as is probable, the marginal translation (a house of prayer for all nations) is the true one, then there may be here a tacit reference to the fact that the court of the Gentiles, as being the least sacred part of the temple, had been employed, in part at least, for the infamous traffic; in which case the Lord's words would mean, -My house shall be called the house of prayer for all the Gentiles, but ye have driven them out and polluted their share, and made it a den of thieves.-'

It has been asked, Were not the future houses of God to be houses of preachingwas not, that is, preaching to be their characteristic? No, we answer, and for this reason: preaching may be and ought to be, everywhere; wherever people can be congregated to hear it: Whereas the celebration of the Lord's supper and also united Church prayer ought, if possible, to be in places set apart from the world, its associations, its businesses, and pleasures; and ought to be in places, the architecture and arrangement and associations of which tend to raise the worshipper above the world. The restriction on the part of the authorities of the English Church, for nearly two centuries, of preaching to the interior of churches, has been most disastrous. It has been the real reason why she has lost so many of the working classes. Our missionaries, in India preach to the heathen in thoroughfares, in bazaars, at times even in the temples, and the heathen of England require to be met in the same way.

III.

THE RESULTS.

Mark 11:18. -And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might,-' etc. This is the first instance in the Synoptics of the chief priests taking serious measures to destroy Him, and the reader will notice how closely it follows upon the cleansing of the temple.

-They sought how they might destroy him.-' Their fears made them think that it would be no easy thing to destroy Him. They did not count upon the fleeting nature of all popularity. Three days after this the people who were astonished at His doctrine made no effort to save Him. (M. F. Sadler)

FACT QUESTIONS 11:15-19

690.

For one thing unscrupulous men will do anythingWhat is the one thing?

691.

Who encouraged this unholy traffic? Why?

692.

Why would carrying items through the temple defile it?

693.

Just how did Jesus accomplish what scarcely a troop of soldiers could have done? Discuss.

694.

How does Sadler relate this incident to the transfiguration? Do you agree?

695.

What universal principle is given in the cleansing of the temple?

696.

How can it be thought that church buildings today are in any way sacred unto God?

697.

In what sense is the most humble building today holier than the temple?

698.

In what way is Christ attempting to cleanse the church of today?

699.

What about cleansing the temple of our body? Mention scriptural support.

700.

Are not the meeting houses of today to be houses of preaching? Discuss as related to prayer.

701.

Specify and discuss how our Lord is at work cleansing His temple today.