We may further observe, that the history of this fact is not to be construed with the utmost rigour. Some of the evangelists express themselves in such terms, as, in the strict sense of them, imply, that Jesus actually drove all the beasts and traffickers out of the temple. But we need only suppose that he applied himself to this action, as if his purpose had been actually to drive them all out: and that he continued to employ himself in it in such sort, and for so long a time, as that the persons present might take notice of what he did, and so be able (I do not say immediately, but in due season) to interpret this sign, together with Isaiah’s prophecy, in the manner he intended. I say, we need only suppose this: because if no more was done by Jesus, the Evangelists, in their concise and simple way of narration would naturally express themselves, as they have done, their accounts of this fact; and I believe, if we consider the accounts we have of many other informations by action, recorded in the old Scriptures, we shall find it necessary to understand them with some such restrictions and qualifications.
If, after all, it be thought, that some violence was offered to the merchants, and that some inconvenience was suffered by them, in consequence of it; I suppose they deserved this punishment for their pollution of the temple; and I admit that the prophetic character of Jesus authorized him, in the course of his ministry, to inflict it; just as, without doubt, it authorized him to destroy the barren fig-tree, when it served his purpose to discharge a part of his office by making use of that emblem, though it might be with some loss to the proprietor of it. The case was the same here, when he drove the traffickers from their station. But there is a wide difference between supposing the violence, offered to them, to be the direct and proper purpose of the act, and the incidental effect of it. And the silence of the merchants themselves, under this violence, sufficiently shews, as I observed, that they felt this difference.
But the main difficulty, perhaps, is still behind. For, it will be asked, Why was this mysterious method used by our Saviour at all, in conveying the supposed momentous information, when he might have expressed his meaning directly, in plain words?
1. One reason, I suppose, might be, the inveterate and insurmountable prejudices of the Jewish converts to this part of the Messiah’s character. For, though the prophets had given frequent, and sometimes the most clear, descriptions of it: yet, so possessed were they with the notion of their being, and of their continuing to be, even under the dispensation of their Messiah, a chosen and peculiar people, that they never could hear (no, not the Apostles themselves, till enlightened by the holy Spirit, and by a special revelation for that purpose; they could never hear, I say) without the utmost indignation, That God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles[337]. This indirect information was then in condescension to the weakness of his own disciples and followers.
And of this tenderness to their infirmities we have a remarkable instance in the case of the fig-tree, so often mentioned; the drift of which was unquestionably to denote the approaching rejection of the Jews, for their unfruitfulness under the means of grace, and their rejection of the Messiah. But, the minds of the disciples being too infirm, at this time, to bear the open communication of so mortifying a truth, Jesus purposely diverts them from the main purpose of that miracle (though it was wrought, and the sign given, for their future information and recollection) and turns their attention on another and very remote circumstance, the efficacy of faith to enable them to work this and greater miracles[338]. But it was a general rule with our Lord to consult the infirmities of his disciples, and to communicate to them only so much of his purposes and councils, as they could bear; leaving the rest to be collected by them, in due time, from casual hints and obscure passages, when they should afterwards call them to mind, and be in a condition, under the influence of the holy Spirit, to profit by them. Thus, in John xvi. 12. I have yet many things to say to you, but YE CANNOT BEAR THEM NOW: and then refers them to the spirit of truth, for further information.
Connected with this tenderness for his disciples,
2. A further reason, without doubt, was a prudential regard to the general success of his ministry, with the rest of the Jews.
For that great event, the call of the Gentiles, was not to take place during the life of Jesus; who was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel[339]; that is, he was personally to address himself only to THEM; the conversion of the Heathen being to be effected, after his ascension, by the ministry of his Apostles and followers. Hence, had our Saviour plainly unfolded this secret to the Jews, he would certainly have indisposed them for paying any regard to his mission. And yet, so important a part of his character was not to be wholly concealed. It was therefore signified in this covert way; and (being itself a prophecy of something yet to be deferred) in the mode, and with the usual obscurity, of a prophetic information.
What I have just now observed of the caution with which our Lord revealed his purpose of calling the Gentiles, explains the reason why St. John’s account of the first transaction in the temple, differs so much from that which the other Evangelists give of the second. Jesus had just entered on his prophetic office, when he used the sign of purging the temple, of which St. John speaks: he therefore leaves the Jews to their own interpretation of that sign, saying only, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandize; as though a zeal for that house had been his sole inducement to make use of it: and accordingly the disciples, as I before observed, so understood him. But, when he thought fit to employ this significative action a second time, of which the other Evangelists only speak, his ministry was then drawing to a conclusion. So that he is now less scrupulous of giving offence, and does all but directly interpret the sign himself, by referring his hearers to the prophecy of Isaiah, which was the proper key to it—He taught them, saying, Is it not written, My house shall be called the house of prayer for all the nations[340]? Still, there was some obscurity, which he did not think fit altogether to remove: but he had said enough to correct their former hasty conclusion. For we are not told by those other Evangelists, as we are by St. John, that the disciples considered what they had seen their Master do, as a pure act of zeal for the honour of the temple: the prophecy, without doubt, suggested something to their minds, which led them to apprehend a farther and higher purpose in that transaction.
3. Lastly, we may suppose, that the information was given in this symbolic way, that, when men saw the event, they might be the more strongly convinced of its being Christ’s intention it should come to pass, by calling to mind the sensible and striking manner, in which it had been predicted by him.