House of Prayer or Den of Thieves?

On the Monday of Holy Week, Jesus entered the Temple and cleansed it of corruption and commerce. I have studied and preached on the cleansing of the Temple many times in my life, but this year I decided to focus on Luke’s account, rather than Matthew or Mark (or even John’s possibly out-of-order story in his second chapter).

“And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” And he was teaching daily in the temple. The chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people were seeking to destroy him, but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were hanging on his words.” (Luke 19:45-48)

Luke’s account differs in several points, primarily because it is the shortest version. If you exclude the reaction of the priests and the crowds, Luke’s account is told in one verse. Matthew and Mark provide more details about Jesus' actions (overturning tables, stopping traffic), but Luke simply states that Jesus "began to drive out those who sold" (Luke 19:45). Matthew and Mark mention that Jesus drove out both sellers, buyers, and money changers (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15). Luke only mentions those who were selling (Luke 19:45). Matthew and Mark specifically mention "those who sold doves," likely referring to merchants exploiting the poor who needed doves for sacrifices (Leviticus 5:7). And yet Luke, well known for his focus on the poor and marginalized, omits this detail. In Mark 11:16, Jesus prevents people from carrying merchandise through the Temple courts, whereas Luke does not mention this aspect at all. Why is the normally detail-oriented Luke so terse in this instance?

I don’t believe we should conclude that Luke does not care about the incident or even that he cares about it less than the other Gospel authors. Perhaps we should conclude that Luke’s streamlined account exists to reinforce an already prevalent Lukan theme.

Notice that Luke combines the action with teaching (“he was teaching daily in the Temple”). The message here is that Jesus’ actions match his teaching. Just like today, the ancient reader wanted to know if a man practiced what he taught. As Plato wrote in the voice of Socrates: “For the true philosopher, it is not only in words but in deeds that he demonstrates his virtue, and the man who does not do this, I do not consider a true philosopher. You see, Gorgias, the wise man must not only be able to teach others the truth but also live by it himself” (Gorgias 524e-525a). Luke has adopted this concept as the framework for telling Jesus’ story. In Acts 1:1, he states it explicitly in the summary of his Gospel: “I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach.” Actions and words make up the Jesus story.

In contrast, notice the strong distinction painted between Jesus and the Temple leadership. Jesus is a man of integrity. His words and his actions line up. Consequently, the people “were hanging on his words.” On the other hand, the Temple leadership enabled corruption to take place in the Temple, and they likely profited from it. They undoubtedly taught that the Temple was holy, but they acted as though the Temple was profane or common. They would certainly say that the Temple was a house of prayer for the nations, but they acted as though it was a flea market, or worse, “a den of thieves.” As a result, the people reject the leadership’s verdict against Jesus at this point and rebuff their campaign against him. The Temple leadership lacks credibility with the people for the same reason Jesus has credibility. The people are comparing words to actions.

I believe this simple lesson is repeated in the life of the church as Luke tells it. The church “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” but also “were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:42-45). While congregating in that same temple that Jesus had called a den of thieves, the church practices the sacrificial giving taught by Jesus. The result? They had “favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (2:47). The crowd in the Temple is once again hanging on every word as they had with Jesus. The message is persuasive because the actions are sincere.

This lesson could be learned from several eras of church history. The pagan satirist Lucian of Samosata (125-180 AD) described Christian persuasiveness in his time: “They are able to win over people, especially by their charitable acts. These people, they say, love one another. They do not regard any of their own possessions as their own, and they share everything in common” (The Passing of Peregrinus 11). Celsus, a second-century critic of Christianity, wrote, “The Christians, in particular, show that they are full of pride, as they put the poor and weak above others. They think they have a new secret knowledge that makes them virtuous” (On the True Doctrine). Oh, that Christians could be criticized at all times for their selflessness!

On Holy Week, the message of Monday’s Temple cleansing may be as simple as that. As Christians ponder the implications of declining church numbers and a post-Christian culture, perhaps we have too often targeted the wrong culprit. Maybe the problem is not the message we preach or even the dreaded cultural irrelevance we hear about so much, but rather our failure to consistently present the world with authentic Christian actions. Perhaps, as with Luke’s account of the cleansing of the Temple, our problem is as simple as this: “do and teach.”

Dr. Benjamin Williams is the Senior Minister at the Central Church of Christ in Ada, Oklahoma and a regular writer at So We Speak. Check out his books The Faith of John’s Gospel and Why We Stayed or follow him on Twitter, @Benpreachin.