The article examines the incident in which Jesus expels the traders from the Temple, an event reported differently in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Whereas the Synoptics place this action shortly before the crucifixion, John places it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, describing a scene involving a whip. This divergence raises the question of whether it occurred more than once. Although symbolic, Jesus’ action did not provoke Roman intervention, highlighting his strategy for affirming spiritual purification.
You can consult:
The Gospel writers sometimes independently mention the same events. Each adds a personal touch, enriching the narrative.
From time to time, we notice similar stories with differences so great that we can no longer reconcile them.
Such is the case with this passage in which Jesus the Messiah drives the traders out of the Temple.
In this instance, are the biblical writers referring to the same event or simply to two quite distinct incidents?
These three similar texts from the Synoptic Gospels recount events during the week of the crucifixion. Mark particularly emphasises Jesus the Messiah’s great renown. He can afford to act this way because the Temple authorities would never dare arrest him before his followers.
Matthew, Mark and Luke provide few details about the event itself.
According to Mark 11.11, Jesus the Messiah had already surveyed the place the previous day before returning to the village of Bethany, where Martha, Mary and Lazarus lived. During the night, he could therefore consider what course to adopt and choose the best moment to act.
The traders, established beneath Solomon’s Portico, also encroached on the Court of the Gentiles. Furthermore, according to Mark 11.16, they crossed the esplanade to attract customers, making contemplation and prayer impossible. Jesus the Messiah’s intervention therefore appears legitimate.
We note that the allusion to the Temple’s destruction in the Synoptic Gospels belongs to a discourse delivered not on the day Jesus the Messiah drives out the traders, but the following day on the .
The intervened to calm the situation. It was crucial to prevent it from deteriorating and drawing the people into an uprising, since the Roman army would then suppress the insurrection in a bloodbath.
The three authors quote the Master’s words, which echo those of Isaiah 56.7 and Jeremiah 7.11.
We may question the usefulness of such an action, since nothing now seems capable of stopping this phenomenon.
Nevertheless, by acting in this way, Jesus the Messiah asserts his authority, far superior to that of the religious leaders and the high priest Caiaphas, who remain passive in the face of these abuses.
Ultimately, although the three accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke agree, John’s differs considerably.
Did Jesus the Messiah attempt to cleanse the Temple twice?
We know that John wrote his account late and knew his friends’ writings. Yet he recounts this incident while developing a previously unmentioned detail: Jesus the Messiah makes himself a whip and uses it to drive everyone out, traders and animals alike.
Although apparently brutal, the scene did not trigger intervention by the soldiers, suggesting that it was relatively discreet. His disciples remain spectators and do not intervene! When John writes that he drove all the traders out of the Temple, he probably means those nearby.
A large-scale intervention would have been impossible, since the soldiers and the Jewish Temple guard would have intervened rapidly to arrest the troublemaker. The prefect Pontius Pilate’s instructions were very clear: no disturbance would be tolerated without bloody repression.
The crowd present probably concealed his intervention. We see that no one restrained him. Contrary to all expectations, a courteous dialogue begins.
Evidently, Jesus the Messiah did not intend to drive every trader out of the Temple, which seems impossible, but simply to send the people a message.
John describes the incident and then first adds his comment in verse John 2.17. He next records an exchange with some Jews, probably Temple traders.
We see no reaction from the religious authorities, which seems to support the idea that Jesus the Messiah’s intervention remained very localised.
John places this account at the beginning of the Master’s ministry, in April of the year 30 according to our chronology.
Neither the religious nor the Roman authorities intervene, although they watch for any attempted sedition. We can explain this by emphasising the intervention’s relatively limited scope, which allowed it to escape these various observers’ notice.
The disciples’ discretion leads us to wonder whether they were present during this intervention. Verse John 2.17, emphasising that they remember the Master’s words in connection with this event, seems to confirm their presence. Nevertheless, we do not know how many there were.
The very restrained reaction of the traders and money changers may also surprise us. Devout Jews did not accept Caiaphas’ authorisation for these traders to establish themselves within the Temple precincts. They occupied Solomon’s Portico and part of the Court of the Gentiles as well. Aware of many Jews’ reservations, the traders had an interest in calming a situation that could quickly deteriorate and lead to brutal intervention by the Roman army. A courteous dialogue appears the best solution to the problem.
Verse John 2.14 seems to indicate genuine astonishment at finding traders on the Temple esplanade. After the Temple’s renovation, Caiaphas had authorised these traders to occupy these places in order to control both the animals and the transactions. They had previously been located on the . The considerable space occupied by this commerce remains a great surprise to these Jews who have come to pray.
In verse John 2.15, John says that he drove them all out. We understand him to mean those close to Jesus the Messiah. Given the explosive situation created by Caiaphas’ decisions, any large-scale intervention would necessarily have provoked a brutal response from the Roman army watching the Temple esplanade. But this did not happen! Note that, amid the hubbub of the animal market and bargaining, Jesus the Messiah’s action cannot have attracted many people’s attention.
Jesus the Messiah acts alone, while his disciples merely observe the scene, suggesting that the action was swift. Although making the whip took some time, several people must have wondered what it was for. The Master did not strike the traders, who were probably forming a barrier to protect their stalls.
Verse John 2.16 shows Jesus the Messiah speaking to the traders, accusing them of turning this place of prayer into a livestock market through their business. He quotes Isaiah 56.7 and Jeremiah 7.11.
Verse John 2.14 mentions the Temple, but here it means the esplanade and, in particular, the Court of the Gentiles.
In conclusion, the reported facts require us to acknowledge that Jesus the Messiah’s action remained discreet. It was chiefly symbolic: by asserting his authority, the Master was not seeking a popular uprising. As for the violence of the actions, we must acknowledge that no one was injured and that Jesus the Messiah wished only to remind everyone that the Temple was, above all, the house of , Yahweh.
Was this a first intervention, while Matthew, Mark and Luke recount a second?
Our answer rests solely on the differences between the reported events. John’s description of a forceful intervention by the Master, absent from Matthew, Mark and Luke, would lead us to think there were two interventions.
Such a surprising and especially unusual reaction was unlikely to be forgotten, leading us to think that the Synoptic Gospel writers intentionally omitted it.
According to John, Jesus the Messiah attended four Passover festivals in Jerusalem during his ministry. It seems obvious that he must have been outraged each time by the disorder caused by this great market.
The noise, the filth of animal droppings and, above all, the trading were incompatible with the solemnity of the place, even if everything took place in the Court of the Gentiles, outside the holy place. Jesus the Messiah could therefore have intervened each time!
The four authors then report a discourse connected with the Temple.
But the similarities end there, and the divergences seem so great that it is difficult to regard these as the same event.
_1 The date: the year 30 for John and 33 for Matthew, Mark and Luke.
_2 No intervention by the authorities in John, whereas in the Synoptic Gospels they clearly decide to kill Jesus the Messiah. The insignificant incident John records assumes major proportions in the Synoptics.
_3 John speaks of the Temple’s construction and the Jesus the Messiah offers concerning his death. He evokes Jonah’s three days in the fish’s belly. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not make this connection.
_4 John’s discourse amounts to a simple dialogue with the Jews, whom we believe to be the traders, following the incident; everything takes place in the Court of the Gentiles. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, the discourse is placed on the following day, on the .
_5 He makes himself a whip in John, which does not happen in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
In conclusion, the two events differ too greatly to be regarded as the same incident.
Should we be surprised that Jesus the Messiah drove out the traders or overturned their tables twice during Passover festivals?
During the great festivals, traders moved onto the Temple esplanade to attract buyers. This place of contemplation and prayer became a deafening market. The animals’ smells and noise, and their droppings, intensified the transformation. Many Jews rejected this decision by the .
For any devout Jewish person, this situation was outrageous, but no one dared act except Jesus the Messiah.
Before Solomon’s Temple was built, the Jews personally managed the arrangements for this Passover sacrifice. The Levites were responsible for slaughtering the animals and preparing them, since a portion often had to be burnt.
Pilgrims bought a lamb or young goat; the Temple’s religious authorities checked that the animal met the requirements and performed the sacrifice. It seems that the pilgrim slaughtered the animal himself, and the priest collected the blood, which must never be consumed because it represents life, belonging to God alone Leviticus 17.11.
In 30 BC, the religious leaders, under the authority of the high priest Hananel and his successor Jesus ben Phabi, appointed by Herod the Great, realised that control of animal sales was slipping away from them. They decided to move this great market from the directly into the Temple, specifically into the Court of the Gentiles.
From the information in John 2.20, we know that the Temple was rebuilt over forty-six years. The work, begun in -19 or -20 BC, was due to finish around the year 28.
The high priest Caiaphas therefore reorganised this market, taking the opportunity to expand it. According to John, Jesus the Messiah thus intervenes after this reform, about two years later by our deductions. The traders therefore seem to have expanded their activity rapidly, gaining ground on the Temple esplanade.
The traders, merchants and money changers, as well as the religious authorities, know that some of the people view this development unfavourably, and therefore tend to play down this new Master’s interventions.
The financial windfall from this operation exceeds every expectation of the who rule the .
Indeed, the outcome appears extremely advantageous to these priests. They require a particular currency, probably the Tyrian shekel because of its high silver content. Jerusalem was not allowed to mint its own currency.
The official reason—that Caesar’s image on the coins was incompatible with the sanctity of the place—seems to give way to economic reality!
Most silver coins, particularly the Roman denarius, the standard of the time, contained only 80% silver, whereas the Tyrian shekel reached 95%. This detail had not escaped the Temple’s accountants.
The exchange rate favoured the Jewish religious authorities, especially since, before departing, pilgrims exchanged their remaining shekels back into their various original currencies.
This monopoly benefited the chief priests but disadvantaged the city’s notables, so Jesus the Messiah could enjoy support from this opposition.
We can imagine the noise of this commerce close to the holy place, disrupting faithful Jews’ prayers.
The priests’ continually increasing prices meant that the poor could no longer even buy a pair of pigeons.
This outrageous profiteering, denounced by Jesus the Messiah, could therefore find opposition across various classes of Jewish society.
John’s account differs from those of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Brutality has a more prominent place in it. The making of a whip reinforces this impression.
Can the Master’s behaviour justify violence under the pretext of religious purification? Sadly, history shows that this has happened all too often. Our purpose here is not to comment on history but simply to consider John’s text.
Note that in John’s account, apart from some affronts and a little work, no one suffered harm, neither people nor animals. Moreover, the Son of God possessed a legitimacy and authority that no human being can hope to possess.
The idea that all the traders were driven out of the Temple is a greatly exaggerated interpretation. As we have seen, the reality is much more restrained. A few merchants were simply interrupted in their business for a time. This was far from a revolution, and the action remained largely symbolic. The great majority of pilgrims and the Roman guard watching the esplanade noticed nothing suspicious.
Had they detected the slightest unusual commotion, they would have suspected the beginnings of a rebellion and intervened swiftly and brutally. Jesus the Messiah would then have ended the Passover festival in a prison in the Antonia Fortress.
We cannot ignore this brutal and astonishing act by the Master. ‘Zeal for your house consumes me’, John 2.17 would say, to justify or at least explain this action.
We also think of Jesus the Messiah’s rebukes to the , calling them hypocrites Matthew 23.13, or to King Herod Antipas, whom he called a fox Luke 13.32. ‘Unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I put up with you?’ he would say to his own disciples Matthew 17.17, Mark 9.19, Luke 9.41.
All these forceful expressions demonstrate the gulf between the Master’s thinking and that of those around him. The seriousness of the situation sometimes demanded an energetic reaction to elicit a positive response from his interlocutors.
Using these examples to justify violent behaviour would be like justifying adultery by citing King David, the man after God’s own heart, in the affair of Uriah the Hittite 2 Samuel 11.1!
Moreover, the facts should be carefully examined before using the word ‘violence’. Overturning the money changers’ tables, driving out animals with a whip made of cords, and reprimanding pigeon sellers are forceful actions appropriate to the situation; but calling this violence, as we know it today, seems exaggerated.
Jesus the Messiah’s behaviour frightened few people; they probably resumed their profitable business immediately afterwards.
Jesus the Messiah simply wished to proclaim an important message. Indeed, when writing this passage, John remembered the striking connection between these acts and David’s words Psalms 69.10.
These religious leaders transformed the last place devoted to God into an area for profitable business.
The Jews affected by Jesus the Messiah’s intervention remind him, and everyone listening, that the Temple’s reconstruction took forty-six years. From Flavius Josephus we also know that reconstruction began in 20 or 19 BC. Adding the forty-six years these people mention brings us to around the year 27 or 28.
We have calculated that this event occurred during the Passover that fell on Friday, 7 April 30. How can we explain this gap of two or three years? We know that work on the Temple actually continued until the year 63. But what these people refer to here is simply the completion of the principal project, the reconstruction itself. Other smaller works followed without preventing pilgrims’ access to the Temple.
We therefore understand these words as referring solely to a duration, rather than a precise date. According to our analysis, this reconstruction had already been completed about three years earlier.
The biblical writers had one aim: to report the extraordinary events they had experienced. Apart perhaps from Luke, they did not concern themselves with the chronology of events. They could not correct their papyrus, and if something was forgotten, the only solution was to move the account.
As readers, we therefore sometimes find the sequence of pericopes somewhat difficult to understand. This does not undermine the authors’ credibility, but simply highlights the difficulty of summarising so many equally important events.
Their number, similarities and occasional repetition only increased the difficulty. Even so, the result of their work is remarkable!
