In reading these passages, one is led to conclude, that the ACT itself, here ascribed to our Lord, was of no small importance; for it is related, we see, by every one of the four Evangelists. The substance of what we learn from all of them, compared together, is this: “That Jesus, at two several times, once, before the first Passover which he attended after the entrance on his ministry, and again, before the Passover which preceded his passion, went up to Jerusalem, and entered into the temple; that is (as all interpreters agree, and as the nature of the thing speaks) into the first, or outermost court of the temple, or that which was called the court of the Gentiles; because the Gentiles, who acknowledged the one true God, were permitted to come and worship him there; that in this court (which was separated from the next or second court by a sept or low wall, and deemed by the Jews prophane, in contempt of the Gentiles, to whose use it was dedicated) he found those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money; that is, persons who attended there to furnish what was necessary for the service of the temple, and so made a kind of market, of this first court or division of it: that, upon observing this prophanation, he made a scourge of small cords, or, as the word in the original strictly means, of rushes, such as he may be supposed to have found upon the spot, and with this scourge drove these traffickers from their station; signifying, by this and such like actions, his displeasure at this pollution of a part of the temple; and saying to them, withall, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer of all nations: But ye have made it an house of merchandize, or, as the equivalent expression is, a den of thieves.”
Thus stands the history itself: And the light in which it is commonly understood, is this; “That Jesus, in virtue of his prophetic, or, if you will, regal character, did this act of authority, to testify his zeal for the honour of God’s house, thus polluted and desecrated, contrary to its original purpose and design, by the base and commercial uses, that were now made of it;” and it is probable, that the Disciples themselves, at the time, considered it in this light, only, for they remembered, St. John says, that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up—applying a passage out of the Psalms, to this act of zeal in their master.
It is true, this circumstance is only related by St. John, who records the former transaction, and omits the latter: the reason of this difference will, perhaps, be seen, as we proceed in our inquiry.
But to this solution of the case some objections have been made.
Besides the strangeness and indecency, as many apprehend, of the proceeding itself, and the improbability that the persons concerned in this chastisement, who had public allowance for what they did, should patiently submit to it (for we hear of no resistance, nor of any complaint, made by them)—Besides, I say, these obvious considerations, the act itself was an act of CIVIL POWER, which Jesus always disclaimed, and for which, it will be said, he had no warrant, either from the ruling Jews, themselves, or from his regal, or prophetic character: not, from the ruling Jews, who, we know, were offended at his behaviour; not, from his regal character, which was not of this world; nor yet, lastly, from his prophetic office: for, though that might authorize him to declare his sense of this prophanation, it may be thought not to extend so far as to justify him in disturbing the civil rights of men, and doing a direct violence to their property and persons. Jesus himself, we understand, was so tender of both, that, upon another occasion, when it was proposed to him to divide a contested inheritance between two claimants, he said to the proposer, Man, who made me a judge, or a divider over you[302]? Whence it may seem reasonable to infer, that he would not have interposed, by an overt act of authority or jurisdiction, in this case; notwithstanding the reference it had to the honour of religion, or the right he might have to condemn an abusive practice, from his spiritual character.
These difficulties seem to shew, that there is something more in the case, than a mere expression of zeal against the prophaners of the temple: not but this might be one end, but it could not be the sole or even principal end, of so extraordinary a transaction.
I do not indeed find, that the ancient commentators on the Gospels have said any thing to the difficulties, I have mentioned. They seem to have looked no further than to the obvious sense of this transaction, and to have acquiesced in the opinion of its being intended to evidence our Lord’s zeal for the honour of God’s house, without any further view or purpose whatsoever. They found it related as a matter of fact; and they piously admitted the authority of Jesus to controul the civil usages and rights of the Jews, by virtue of his transcendant power and divine character.
But the moderns have been aware of the objections, which lie against this interpretation. Our learned Selden, in particular, has an entire chapter, in his book De jure naturali et gentium juxta disciplinam Hebræorum, on this subject[303]. His notion is, That Jesus exerted this act of power, in virtue of what the Jews called The right or privilege of zealots[304]; by which they meant, not a general zeal or indignation (such as is before spoken of) against what they conceived to be derogatory to the honour of their religion; but a right, strictly so called, derived to them from the civil institutions and approved usages of their country, of interfering, in some extraordinary cases, to repel a manifest insult on their law, by private force, without waiting for the slow process of a judicial determination.
The principal, or rather sole foundation, on which this notion is erected, is the case of Phinehas, related in the book of Numbers[305]: which the Jews afterwards construed into a law, or embraced at least as a traditionary rule of conduct, derived to them, as they supposed, from the times of Moses. But this case will by no means bear the construction, which has been made of it. For,
1. It was a single and very particular case, without any intimation from the historian, that it was afterwards to be drawn into precedent.