Jesus and the Temple
One of the most significant themes that dominates the last week of Jesus’ life is the temple in Jerusalem. This is understandable. If the center of Israel is Jerusalem then the center of Jerusalem is the temple. Additionally, the narrative of the last week of Jesus’ life revolves around the temple in Jerusalem. Luke mentions the temple as the location of Jesus’ ministry during this week (Luke 19:47), the place where he is questioned by the religious leaders Luke 20:1), and the topic of discussion with his disciples (Luke 21:5). Look at the way he summarizes this time in 21:37-38, “And every day he was teaching in the temple, but at night he went out and lodge on the mount called Olivet. And early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him.” If we should change the name of the triumphal entry to donkey day, then maybe what follows should be called temple time.
Unfortunately, Christians have had the tendency to minimize the significance of the temple in 1st century Judaism and have, therefore, minimized its significance in the life of Jesus. So, what are we missing? The teachings, symbolic actions, and legal accusations show us that much of the last week of Jesus’ life revolves around the temple in Jerusalem. And that is because Jesus’ messianic identity and authority is tied to the temple theme.
Cleansing the Temple
Where does Jesus go after entering Jerusalem? That’s right, the temple. Immediately after the triumphal entry, Jesus rides right up to the temple mount, disembarks his royal mount, and enters his sanctuary. In fact, the way Matthew records this almost presents this as the reason Jesus came to Jerusalem. Matthew 21:10 reads, “and when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up,” then in verse 12, “and Jesus entered the temple.” So, the narrative reads Jesus entered Jerusalem and entered the temple. There is really no break in the flow of the narrative. Mark records something similar, “and he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple” (11:11).
Another point that connects the triumphal entry with the cleansing of the temple is that the children in the temple are crying out “Hosanna to the Son of David” as they celebrate his miraculous works of healing (Matt. 21:15). This is the very celebration the people were proclaiming at the triumphal entry. It’s almost as if the celebration of the triumphal entry continues into the temple. I think that’s how we’re supposed to read it.
That Jesus enters the temple immediately after entering the city of Jerusalem while being hailed as the long-awaited Davidic Son is a what we would expect from what we’ve learned about the triumphal entry. If triumphal entry has messianic undertones, then his visit to the temple certainly does as well. This is exactly what we would expect to happen. This doesn’t mean that any Jew entering the city of Jerusalem and immediately visiting the temple would imply that they’re the messiah, but the manner in which Jesus enters Jerusalem definitely implies as much.
More important than the fact that Jesus entered the temple immediately after entering Jerusalem is what he did when he got there. What did Jesus find when he visited the temple? The King returns home, finds his house in disarray, and immediately gets to work setting things straight. The practices taking place within the temple mount are judged by Jesus as corrupt, empty, and driven by greed. Instead of being a place for the nations to gather in praise of God (see Isa. 56:7), it has become a dark cave that thieves call home. But Jesus doesn’t merely speak of their corrupt practices or teach about temple reform. He actually gets his hands dirty in driving out the people who were buying and selling in the temple! This is not ‘meek and mild’ Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. This is Jesus on fire. This is Jesus justly raging against the corruption of the people, flipping their tables over, and driving them out with a whip (see John 2:15). The same word used to describe Jesus’ action of driving them out is the word the Gospel writers use to describe the casting out of demons (Matt. 8:16; 9:33; Mk. 1:34).
Who has the authority to do such things? That is the question that comes to the minds of the religious leaders (Matt. 21:23). Anyone presuming to act in such a manner is acting on the basis of authority, whether a claim of their own authority or as a representative of someone with authority. Imagine someone pulling a stunt like this at one of our national monuments, say Mt. Rushmore. We may call them a terrorist, vandal, or anarchist. But it would definitely raise our collective outrage. Jesus’ actions in cleansing the temple, in setting the sanctuary of God aright, elicits the question of his authority. Those in power have rightly interpreted the meaning of his actions. Jesus actions are understood as actions by one who has authority, by one who has power to do such things.
Ultimately, there is one who has such authority. The instructions for the building of the sanctuary and for the practices within the sanctuary were given with such specific detail that any deviation would warrant extreme punishment or judgment. Think of Uzzah reaching out to prevent the ark of the covenant from crashing to the ground (2 Sam. 6:6-7). Or think of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, who were struck down for offering unauthorized fore before the Lord (Lev. 10:1-2). The specific instructions God gave were intended to be followed exactly as he described. This point is repeatedly stressed in Exodus where Moses did as the Lord commanded him in setting up the tabernacle. In the concluding section, Moses did “as the Lord had commanded” eight distinct times (Ex. 40:16-33). That is why he was considered to be “faithful in all God’s house as a servant” (Heb. 3:5). So, the Lord is the one who has authority to alter or add to the practices of the temple. I think we see this authority in Jesus’ actions in the temple and in other places during his ministry where he overrules specific OT laws or traditions of the Pharisees. For example, he declares himself to be “Lord of the Sabbath” and allows his disciples to eat the grain they plucked from the field (Mk. 2:23-38).
But we also see this authority anticipated in several other places in the OT. There are several passages that lie behind Jesus’ actions in the cleansing the temple. First, God promises David that one of his sons is going to be his son and will build him a house: “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Sam. 7:13-14a). The distinction of this one as a Son and as a builder is important. The comparison is made between Moses as a faithful servant in God’s house and Jesus as a faithful builder and Son of God’s house. The latter is worthy of far more glory than the former, “as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself” (Heb. 3:3). We all know that the first step of a remodel is to gut the entire structure, to strip it down to the studs. That’s in essence what Jesus is doing in cleansing the temple by his own authority as the Son of David.
Another passage is in Zechariah. After the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians and the subsequent exile, a promise is given about a man who will build the temple of the Lord. Zechariah 6:12-13 says, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” Look! It’s Branch Man! Branch Man is a messianic figure, one who would come from the lineage of David (see Isa. 11:1ff). This makes sense since the prophecy in Zechariah speaks also of his royal status (and maybe his priestly status as well?). The very one to (re)build the temple is the one who has authority to preside over it and to ministry in it.
This should raise the question though of whether Jesus is rebuilding the temple as it exists in Jerusalem or if he’s building a new structure of an entirely different sort. I’m persuaded of the latter and that the rebuilt temple of Ezra-Nehemiah-Haggai was a shadow of its former self (see Ezra 3:12-13). The glory of the Lord departed Solomon’s temple (see Ezek. 10) and never returned to Jerusalem until the God-Man, who tabernacled among us (see John 1:14), strolled through its gates riding on the back of a donkey. The glory of the Lord returns in the person of Jesus. Additionally, Jesus speaks several chapters later of the temple’s destruction in the lifetime of the apostles (Matt. 24; Mk. 13; Lk. 21). If he’s aiming for a rebuild of the existing model, then it seems strange to speak of the very same building being destroyed as a judgment of God at the end of the age. But this was also anticipated by the prophets. God would “once more . . . shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land” (Hag. 2:6). This shaking “indicates a removal of the things that are shaken—that is, the things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain” (Heb. 12:27). The cleansing of the temple prefigures the destruction of the temple that would come in their lifetimes. Jesus has the authority to teach on such things and to act them out in symbolic fashion. As we’ll see next week, this is what gets him killed.