"Rather, I simply expect answers to questions and the basic recognition
of reality. If he answers questions and if he recognizes reality, he can
comment here. But given his long history of failing on both points, I
have little patience remaining for rants, false claims and a failure to
recognize reality."
Justice would be if I chose to apply this standard to Dan.
Grace is allowing him to comment here any, knowing that he'll never even attempt to meet the standard he demands of others.
18 comments:
1. Do you recognize that many scholars and groups (including the group I cited which is conservative) view it as obvious that the Traders were oppressing the poor and this specifically angered Jesus?
Yes, I recognize the fact that "many" people believe this. As you are so fond of saying, that doesn't make your hunch correct. This is an example of a logical fallacy.
2. What is your explanation for Matthew specifically siding the doves as opposed to the offerings that were purchased by wealthier people?
In actuality Matthew specifically mentioned the "money changers" and the people "selling doves", so he clearly didn't "single out" the dove people.
3. Do you recognize the reality that doves in that day and time where the sacrifice that specifically poor people were purchasing?
Yes.
Do you realize the reality that in your question number 1 that you are engaging in the Bandwagon logical fallacy? Do you realize that Art pointed out that your Ligonier piece actually doesn't support your hunch as well as you think?
Do you realize the reality that Matthew (by definition) doesn't "single out" anyone?
In this Court of the Gentiles two kinds of trading were going on. There was the business of money-changing. Every Jew had to pay a temple tax of one half-shekel, and that tax had to be paid near to the Passover time. A month before, booths were set up in all the towns and villages, and the money could be paid there, but after a certain date it could be paid only in the Temple itself; and it would be there that the vast majority of pilgrim Jews from other lands paid it. This tax had to be paid in certain currency, although for general purposes all kinds of currencies were equally valid in Palestine. It must not be paid in ingots of silver, but in stamped currency; it must not be paid in coins of inferior alloy or coins which had been clipped, but in coins of high-grade silver. It could be paid in shekels of the sanctuary, in Galilaean half-shekels, and especially in Tyrian currency which was of a very high standard.
The function of the money-changers was to change unsuitable currency into the correct currency. That seems on the face of it to be an entirely necessary function; but the trouble was that these money-changers charged the equivalent of 1p for changing the currency at all; and, if the coin was of greater value than a half-shekel, they charged another lp for giving back the surplus change. That is to say, many a pilgrim had not only to pay his half-shekel--which was about 7 pence in value--but another 2 pence also in changing dues; and this has to be evaluated against a background where a working man's wage was about 3 pence a day.
This surplus charge was called the qolbon (compare kollubistes, Greek #2855). It did not by any means all go into the money-changer's pockets; some of it was classed as freewill offerings; some of it went to the repair of the roads; some of it went to purchase the gold plates with which it was planned entirely to cover the Temple proper; and some of it found its way into the Temple treasury. The whole matter was not necessarily an abuse; but the trouble was that it lent itself to abuse. It lent itself to the exploitation of the pilgrims who had come to worship, and there is no doubt that the Temple money-changers made large profits out of it.
The selling of doves was worse. For most visits to the Temple some kind of offering was essential. Doves, for instance, were necessary when a woman came for purification after childbirth, or when a leper came to have his cure attested and certified (Leviticus 12:8; Leviticus 14:22; Leviticus 15:14; Leviticus 15:29). It was easy enough to buy animals for sacrifice outside the Temple; but any animal offered in sacrifice must be without blemish. There were official inspectors of the animals, and it was to all intents and purposes certain that they would reject an animal bought outside and would direct the worshipper to the Temple stalls and booths.
No great harm would have been done if the prices had been the same inside and outside the Temple, but a pair of doves could cost as little as 4 pence outside the Temple and as much as 75 pence inside the Temple. This was an old abuse. A certain Rabbi, Simon ben Gamaliel, was remembered with gratitude because "he had caused doves to be sold for sliver coins instead of gold." Clearly he had attacked this abuse. Further, these stalls where the victims were sold were called the Bazaars of Annas, and were the private property of the family of the High Priest of that name.
1.) The abuse was, buying and selling, and changing money, in the temple. Note, Lawful things, ill timed and ill placed, may become sinful things. That which was decent enough in another place, and not only lawful, but laudable, on another day, defiles the sanctuary, and profanes the sabbath. This buying and selling, and changing money, though secular employments, yet had the pretence of being in ordine ad spiritualia—for spiritual purposes. They sold beasts for sacrifice, for the convenience of those that could more easily bring their money with them than their beast; and they changed money for those that wanted the half shekel, which was their yearly poll, or redemption-money; or, upon the bills of return; so that this might pass for the outward business of the house of God; and yet Christ will not allow of it. Note, Great corruptions and abuses come into the church by the practices of those whose gain is godliness, that is, who make worldly gain the end of their godliness, and counterfeit godliness their way to worldly gain (1 Tim. 6:5); from such withdraw thyself.
(2.) The purging out of this abuse. Christ cast them out that sold. He did it before with a scourge of small cords (Jn. 2:15); now he did it with a look, with a frown, with a word of command. Some reckon this none of the least of Christ's miracles, that he should himself thus clear the temple, and not be opposed in it by them who by this craft got their living, and were backed in it by the priests and elders. It is an instance of his power over the spirits of men, and the hold he has of them by their own consciences. This was the only act of regal authority and coercive power that Christ did in the days of his flesh; he began with it, Jn. 2 and here ended with it. Tradition says, that his face shone, and beams of light darted from his blessed eyes, which astonished these market-people, and compelled them to yield to his command; if so, the scripture was fulfilled, Prov. 20:8, A King that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes. He overthrew the tables of the money-changers; he did not take the money to himself, but scattered it, threw it to the ground, the fittest place for it. The Jews, in Esther's time, on the spoil laid not their hand, Esther 9:10.
2. What he said, to justify himself, and to convict them (v. 13); It is written. Note, In the reformation of the church, the eye must be upon the scripture, and that must be adhered to as the rule, the pattern in the mount; and we must go no further than we can justify ourselves with, It is written. Reformation is then right, when corrupted ordinances are reduced to their primitive institution.
(1.) He shows, from a scripture prophecy, what the temple should be, and was designed to be; My house shall be called the house of prayer; which is quoted from Isa. 56:7. Note, All the ceremonial institutions were intended to be subservient to moral duties; the house of sacrifices was to be a house of prayer, for that was the substance and soul of all those services; the temple was in a special manner sanctified to be a house of prayer, for it was not only the place of that worship, but the medium of it, so that the prayers made in or toward that house had a particular promise of acceptance (2 Chr. 6:21), as it was a type of Christ; therefore Daniel looked that way in prayer; and in this sense no house or place is now, or can be, a house of prayer, for Christ is our Temple; yet in some sense the appointed places of our religious assemblies may be so called, as places where prayer is wont to be made, Acts 16:13.
(2.) He shows, from a scripture reproof, how they had abused the temple, and perverted the intention of it; Ye have made it a den of thieves. This is quoted from Jer. 7:11, Is this house become a den of robbers in your eyes? When dissembled piety is made the cloak and cover of iniquity, it may be said that the house of prayer is become a den of thieves, in which they lurk, and shelter themselves. Markets are too often dens of thieves, so many are the corrupt and cheating practices in buying and selling; but markets in the temple are certainly so, for they rob God of his honour, the worst of thieves, Mal. 3:8. The priests lived, and lived plentifully, upon the altar; but, not content with that, they found other ways and means to squeeze money out of the people; and therefore Christ here calls them thieves, for they exacted that which did not belong to them.
Matthew 21:12 "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,"
“Cast out”: This was the second time Jesus had cleansed the temple. John 2:14-16 describes a similar incident at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. There are distinct differences in the two incidents. In the first cleansing, temple officials confronted Christ immediately afterward (John 2:18); none of the accounts of this second cleansing mention any such confrontation.
Instead, the synoptic gospels all describe how Jesus addressed all present (verse 13) and even made the incident an occasion for public teaching (Mark 11:217; Luke 19:46-47).
“Them that sold and bought”: He regarded both merchants and customers guilty of desecrating the temple, items being bought and sold included “doves” and other animals for sacrifice (John 2:14).
“Money changers”: Currency-exchange agents, present in droves, were needed because Roman coins and other forms of currency were deemed unacceptable for temple offerings. Evidently, both merchants and money changers were charging such excessive rates that the temple marketplace took on the atmosphere of a thieves’ den (verse 13).
This kind of commerce took place in the court of the Gentiles, a large area covering several acres on the temple mount.
Matthew 21:13 "And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
“It is written”: Jesus conflates two Old Testament prophecies, Isa. 56:7 (“My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples”) and Jer. 7:11 (“Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight”).
Jesus came into the temple this time with great authority. He, by force, chased those out who were in there for self-gain. He reminded them that the house of God is a place of prayer. I just wonder what He would do today, if He would come into the churches as so many are not a house of prayer.
The world and its ways have crept into the house of God. Compromise is everywhere. I am sure that He would be displeased and do some house cleaning, as He did there in Jerusalem.
So, if we want to play the Bandwagon logical fallacy game, I'd turn Dan"s question back on him and ask
"Do you realize the reality that not every biblical scholar agrees with your hunch about this being specifically directed at "the poor" to the extent of diminishing all others?
I'd also pointy out that when Jesus (in the quote that Dan is so scared of that he hasn't addressed) specifically says "It is written...". The obvious questions naturally follow this statement. Where is "it written"? Why does this "written" work carry such authority with Jesus? Why is He appealing to something "written" as His justification?
These are all questions that will likely go unanswered in any substantial sense.
Just to answer your questions directly and clearly to show how it's done and to demonstrate your false claims/bad understanding about my positions...
Do you realize the reality that not every biblical scholar agrees with your hunch about this being specifically directed at "the poor" to the extent of diminishing all others?
That is NOT my "hunch." I never said anything about it diminishing all other groups who were being cheated. Rather, I pointed to the reasonable and biblical position that when the poor are cheated, it is especially egregious and contemptible. When people like you minimize the plight of the poor, that, too, is wrong and contemptible.
Yes, the cons in the temple (and the cons in our white house) are cheating EVERYONE. But it is the poor who can least afford it and it is the poor that Jesus (Mary, James, the prophets, God, etc) tell us to watch out for especially and specifically.
When Jesus said "if you fail to do this for the least of these, you fail to do it for me..." he was NOT "diminishing the plight of the wealthy who are robbed. If THAT is your conclusion about Jesus' teachings, then you just don't understand his teachings. The point is simply that God is especially concerned for the least of these, at least as we find it taught throughout the Bible.
Do you understand, now, that this is not "my hunch" and so your question is based upon a false understanding/representation of my actual position?
Answered.
Where is "it written"?
Scripture. Specifically, Isaiah 56, for at least one place, where God says that God's house shall be a house of prayer for ALL peoples. Including the poor, whom Isaiah constantly defends from attacks.
Isaiah, "Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people."
Indeed.
Answered.
Why does this "written" work carry such authority with Jesus?
Why is He appealing to something "written" as His justification?
It's a truth. We ought not oppress the poor, we ought not cheat. We ought to watch out for the marginalized. We ought to be welcoming to all, a "house of prayer for all people..."
Why is he quoting the passage to a bunch of Pharisee types, who make a big deal out of following rules in the Scripture? To point out that the very scripture that they so idolize and fetishize tells them to not cheat the poor or oppress people. If a group is going to appeal to the Scripture as a rulings book, then they can be expected to live by those rulings.
The problem with you Pharisee types is that you want OTHERS to live by the rules that you make up that you then say are "as Scripture" when you don't want to live by the actual rules of love and grace and siding with the poor found within the holy texts.
Beyond those guesses, you'd have to ask Jesus, as he literally does not say why he's citing Scripture. I can offer my guesses, but I can't speak for Jesus what he didn't say.
Answered.
Pat yourself on the back, for the first time in ages you actually try to answer questions. Well done.
"Yes, the cons in the temple (and the cons in our white house) are cheating EVERYONE."
That's why Trump lowered taxes for everyone...to correct what the cons had done. What a guy! But you refuse to acknowledge that fact, cheating Trump out of at least one area deserving of some praise.
And if the cons in the temple were cheating everyone, as you now admit, then to say the story is about Christ's anger at the oppression of the poor fails by your own words.
"Isaiah, "Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people.""
This sounds like concern for those who make unjust laws, who issue oppressive decrees to deprive the poor of their right and withhold justice from the oppressed of God's people.
"The problem with you Pharisee types is that you want OTHERS to live by the rules that you make up that you then say are "as Scripture" when you don't want to live by the actual rules of love and grace and siding with the poor found within the holy texts."
This is what you like to say to avoid the truth of your perversion of Scripture, which you do to enable sinful behaviors. But what you choose to believe folks like Craig and I do is NOT a matter of reminding anyone to live by rules we won't live by ourselves, but simply reminding those...like you especially...who ignore, dismiss or pervert Scripture to satisfy your own worldview (to which you then falsely attribute to Christ's teachings)in order to posture yourself as more compassionate for those whose salvation is in more in jeopardy due to your enabling.
And frankly, it is not hypocrisy...or acting like Pharisees...to fail to perfectly abide God's will after preaching it to others. Only an idiot would suggest that one must be perfect Christians in order to preach God's will. No one is perfect in abiding God's will. That doesn't have anything to do with compassion for sinners, which is what compels our more accurate rendering of God's will as clearly described in Scripture.
then to say the story is about Christ's anger at the oppression of the poor fails by your own words.
Look, this is NOT that difficult to understand. Our president cheats people all the time. He is a pervert, conman and deviant liar. But I'm not especially focused upon or concerned with the rich idiots who put him in office who might lose money because of his scams. I AM concerned about the poor, the immigrants, the marginalized... the SAME PEOPLE Jesus made it clear that he was concerned about.
That we acknowledge harm comes to the rich in some pyramid scam doesn't mean that our main concern is not with the poor and vulnerable... those most harmed by scams. And that's true whether we're talking about your pervert con man or the Pharisees or the moneychangers in the temple. The concern is ALWAYS primarily with the poor.
What about that is so difficult for you two to wrap your minds around?
Dan,
Where in this post is there anything political?
If you can’t deal with the Jesus quote you’ve been avoiding, then you can’t continue to add obfuscation on top of obfuscation. You’ve gone detour predictable route in starting with a logical fallacy, ignoring evidence that contradicts your hunch, and layering on volumes of verbosity to divert attention from the fact that you can’t explain away the words of Jesus at the core of the passage.
Any more Trump hatred will be edited out.
Let me explain why you're being a douchebag, Craig:
1. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about (Jesus quote you've been avoiding...). You regularly make these vague and unknowable claims as if they mean a single thing to anyone outside of your little skull. WTF?
2. I've already pointed out the hole in your "fallacy" claim, and why it is wrong.
Will you recognize that you are simply factually stupidly mistaken on this false claim about a supposed fallacy?
The core of the passage and the core of Jesus teaching BEGINS with his own words making clear WHY he came: To preach good news to the poor. Or Mary's claims... to bring down the rich and powerful and lift up the oppressed and poor.
Here in this passage, we have Jesus just repeating that common, consistent thread... that the traders were taking advantage of/cheating the poor. Conservative theologians acknowledge this. That it was also wrong to cheat the well-off is besides the point. You can't just toss all of Jesus' teachings about poverty and justice in the garbage and still claim to be a fan of the Man.
There is nothing TO explain away on my part. I'm just pointing out what conservative and other reasonable people recognize and acknowledging its role here in this passage.
The modern "conservative" references is because you all are part and parcel of the tribe of cheats and pharisees who have long oppressed the poor.. They did it then. You do it now. For you to claim that Jesus didn't get worked up about the poor is just shit-mouthing the God of the universe and denying the Gospel that you pretend to admire. Stop it.
Where in this post is anything political? The TITLE of your post is Justice. Justice work involves policy work, which is politics. That you deny the plight of the poor or Jesus' great concern for the poor is just another political dodge and attack upon the poor.
You make this political when you deny justice for the poor.
Dan,
Your faux outrage is amusing. You’ve been avoiding the singular quote from Jesus at the center of the story you’ve chosen to sacrifice your pacifism on. You can pretend all you like, but we both know it’s there and that you’ve been hiding from it since I pointed it out and asked you to explain it.
Did you read the post?
Do you understand that when I don’t treat you the way you treat me I’m engaging in grace, not justice?
Do you understand that when you make a claim of fact, you’ll be expected to provide proof of that claim?
So, please prove your claim or retract it.
Again, what the fuck are you talking about?
Speaking in vague inanities and incomplete thoughts may impress your children and loved ones, but I literally have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. What "claim of fact?" Retract what? Hiding from what? what "singular quote?"
You're babbling and I fear your pants are probably wet. If you're actually suffering from dementia and that is the reason why you're making no sense, well, I AM sorry for being so harsh. But I don't think you are.
If you ever want to, you know, actually make one single fuck's worth of sense, let me know.
Your credibility, Dan, would improve greatly if didn't ignore questions put to you, answer them directly and not change the subject so that many comments later you can claim you don't know what question Craig means.
I would also extrapolate from my earlier response to the Isaiah offering is that we could easily say that Christ's concern in any Temple cleansing was the victimized, but rather the victimizes. Jesus said a doctor doesn't come to heal the healthy.
Ahhhhhhhh. The generate a bunch of expletive laced faux outrage to be able to self justify the inevitable exit. Even though it would be easier to have explained the Jesus quote and why it means something other than what it says, and to have answered the questions asked, we're now going to be subject to another comment or two of the above before the metaphorical stomping out of the room like a 5 year old.
Why not just be civil and honest and say that you don't want to answer questions and explain Jesus' quote.
Art,
What Dan is choosing to ignore is that we have yet one more instance of Jesus trusting the Jewish scripture as authoritative. He’s pointing out that this circumstance was dealt with in the OT and that He’s carrying out that fulfillment of the OT law.
Jesus tells us what He’s doing- Cleansing His Father’s house.
He tells us why- it’s supposed to be a place of prayer and worship not commerce.
He tells us that He’s acting in accordance/fulfillment of the OT.
Never once does He mention the poor. He does mention the sellers of doves (which were not only for the poor, they were mandated as sacrifices for other specific things), but to draw a direct connection that ignores His specific words is just absurd.
To ignore the repeated requests to address and pretend not to know what’s being referenced is just hiding from that which is inconvenient.
Dan has two huge problems with his pronouncement.
1. The direct, clear words of Jesus.
2. His mistake regarding the use of doves.
I suspect he’ll continue to ignore those problems and move on to something else to increase the distance between him and his problems.
Post a Comment