The Church Meeting in Jesus’ Name
602 Oak Knoll Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78228
Epistle
July 2018
Event Calendar
JULY 15-22
- World Evangelism Conference
- Sundays 10:00 AM, all evenings at 7:00 PM
- Mon – Sat open meeting & prayer 10:30 AM
OCTOBER 12-13
- Men’s Meeting
NOVEMBER 25
- Thanksgiving Open Meeting
2019
FEBRUARY 1 – 10
- Revival Meeting with Evangelist David Spurgeon
House of Merchandise
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. John 2
There are many surprising facts about Jesus found in the Gospels. To those that knew Jesus personally they may not have seemed as unusual as they seem to us, but after centuries of traditionalization and sanitation of the character of Jesus in Christian cultures, when reading the Bible directly we are surprised to see him as he was, described by those who knew him well, so distinct from the pathetic rennaissance portrayal of him, and the effeminate contemporary imagination of him. And no Biblical narrative of Jesus is more surprising than his purging of the temple grounds. It strikes us as out of character, but only because his character has been soaked and rinsed by people who never knew him, and imagine him in their own mawkish image. And I must say, the Jesus of the Biblical accounts is more interesting, and far preferable, to the average Sunday School, or Christian School Kindergarten version of him, or the colorful cartoons about him with his hands folded and lips pouted, found painted on church walls. Give me the real Jesus any day.
There are, however, some discrepancies in the accounts of Jesus’ temple episode. The synoptic Gospels relate this at the end of his ministry, after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the very week of his crucifixion. All three of these accounts are identical as to time and place and the words spoken. The account in John is different however. It happens at the very beginning of his ministry, just after his first miracle in Cana. If all else were equal we might suppose that the story in John was simply out of chronological order. But there are a number of other differences that make me suspect these are different episodes. Perhaps not, but it may be that Jesus purged the temple twice.
If so, both times he made a scourge of small cords and drove them out, and drove out the sheep and oxen as well, and both times he overthrew the tables of the moneychangers. But in the second purging Jesus deliberately “poured out the changer’s money.” It even has Jesus policing the temple for some time, refusing to let anyone carry so much as a vessel through it. Also in the second episode he overthrew the seats of the dove vendors as well as the money changers, but in the earlier he only spoke to the dove vendors, as in our text above, telling them to take the doves out.
There is also an apparent difference between the earlier Gospels and John’s as to what they remembered as the immediate reaction of the authorities. The Synoptics have them demanding him to justify his authority to act this way, and he indirectly referenced John’s testimony about him, leaving them with no practical way of denying his right to do it. If John’s ministry was of God, Jesus was authorized. If they denied John’s authority, they would be discredited by all the people hanging around. Classic rock and a hard place. But the earlier episode in John has them demanding a sign to prove his authority over the temple grounds, and he confused them with a veiled promise of his resurrection by offering to raise up the temple in three days. None of this is conclusive, but there is one other difference that distinguishes these temple episodes in my mind.
In the Synoptics Jesus quotes Jeremiah, and essentially calls the merchants “thieves.”
46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. Luke 19
11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 7
But in John’s account, of the earlier temple episode, he does not quote Jeremiah, nor does he accuse them of those common marketplace practices equivalent to stealing. He simply makes his own somewhat understated demand. It is this reasonable and modest demand that interests me here. And though modest, it wasn’t mild. He was clearly angry. Jesus doesn’t want his “house” to be a house of merchandise.
Now, what the Jews were doing wasn’t itself unethical. It was actually practical and functional. Selling doves and sheep in Jerusalem makes perfect sense, considering the urbanization of Jewish society, and the impracticality of bringing a personally raised sheep or dove to Jerusalem to fullfil ritual requirements. But apparently what disturbed Jesus was the use of the temple grounds to do it. Any field in Jerusalem would have served well as a marketplace for sacrifice accessories, but merchants are notorious for seeking a competitive advantage, and a concession stand directly outside the temple itself would be a gold mine. So the merchants hawked their merchandise daily on the temple premises without regard to how it affected the temple service. I’ve seen firsthand how unruly these merchants are when authorities try to restrict their encroachments. I doubt very seriously the temple authorities were happy with the merchants’ invasion. The merchants themselves would be enraged, no doubt, but the authorities would not necessarily object to their eviction. It was still an astonishing feat of fierceness and zeal for Jesus to drive out an entire market of scrappy merchants, and hold his ground afterwards. I’m very impressed.
The temple in Jerusalem was never God’s house, of course, except in some secondary symbolic sense. God’s people are his house, and wherever they meet in his name, that is his “temple.” But Jesus zeal to cleanse the corruptible temple grounds leaves us with no doubt that he does not want his church to become a house of merchandise either. Yet who can miss the myriad ways in which the Lord’s house, or local churches throughout history, have become a market, a business or a lucrative incorporation?
In 1516 Martin Luther objected to the sale of indulgences, sparking a fire-storm that hasn’t been completely put out to this day. Most Bible-believing churches among us would agree that selling indulgences was wrong. The main objection, of course, is that forgiveness of sins cannot be purchased with money, and the sale of indulgences was nothing less than heretical. But Luther noted more than that. At least 9 of his 95 theses condemned the avarice of church money mongering (e.g. 28: What is sure, is, that as soon as the penny rattles in the chest, gain and avarice are on the way of increase; see also 48,51,66,82,83,84,86,89). In the past Catholic churches have published lists of costs associated with their services, such as baptism, last rites, funerals, weddings (extra for carpet, flowers, etc.). Even now a schedule of suggested “donations” is common. Money is the most visible objective, and it is certainly not dispensable.
Major Protestant denominations also have offended, using their offerings in a business-like way, investing heavily into corporations, and growing their capital through lucrative trading. This seems to be just responsible behavior on the part of denominational authorities, one might think. Be that as it may, it certainly turns the denomination into a business, operated like a business, by profit-minded businessmen. And I suppose that’s good thinking, if only Jesus had expressed no opinion.
Evangelical churches have indulged in the same low practices of selling things to raise money, including bake-sales, garage-sales, carnivals, bingo and bicycle rodeos. Often they use straight-forward retail practices without using marketing terms, ostensibly because of IRS regulations concerning non-profits, but just as likely because of the crassness of the terminology when used “in church.” How often do mass-media “ministries” offer a book, or a CD for a donation of five dollars or more? When Christian bands perform concerts, they often turn the lobby of the church auditorium into a retail store, complete with money-changers, cash-registers and credit-card machines. “Gospel Music” is a modern “industry” competing with other genres on the same commercial terms. Maybe Jesus doesn’t mind the industry, or the genre. But the gospel should be free. And when it isn’t, it matters. And somebody is at fault.
All peripheral and para-church ministries, such as Christian Schools, Youth Camps, Day-care programs, orphanages, and even annex book-stores cross the gospel interest with the business interest, easily and often dragging the local church into the corruption of marketplace mentality. The power of the church is often seen as its bank account. The more money it has the more power it has. No doubt the intention is noble. Most pastors want the power of money to do stuff for God, for the gospel, for the lost. But there is a price.
What so many pastors and Christian leaders don’t notice is how they soil the reputation of Christ when the obvious objective is ultimately money. The pastors that do notice it go out of their way to conceal the objective, so that it doesn’t appear so crass. But we all notice it when the TV preacher with his $200 hair-cut and $2000 suit pleads with the on-air audience to send money, or when the “ministry” offers “gifts” in exchange for donations. It is crass, it is wrong and it is nauseating. And unbelievers sure do notice. What is hard to quantify is how much the gospel of Jesus Christ has suffered because churches have become so commercial.
None of this was a problem in the New Testament generation. Peter and John had no silver, and they weren’t seeking any! The gospel was all they wanted. The apostles did not want the “business” of “serving tables,” or distributing money. They wanted to dedicate themselves to “prayer and the ministry of the word” (Acts 6). Paul would not even receive offerings from people he was preaching the gospel to (1 Cor. 9:15), even though he proves scripturally and logically that he deserved to. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, he said (2 Cor. 10:4).
The initial solution to this is for the local church to stop selling things. I don’t just mean to stop selling things for a profit, but to stop selling things altogether. In the first place, if churches shouldn’t sell indulgences, weddings or funerals, they shouldn’t sell coffee and donuts, CDs, or even Bibles. We shouldn’t have bake-sales or bingo parties, nor should we organize any “fund-raisers” whatsoever. We should avoid making the place where believers meet in Jesus’ name a marketplace. In the second place, we should separate all peripheral church organizations that operate as businesses under the auspices of the local church. Make them independent. Church sponsored Holy-Land excursions and spiritual cruises, day-care centers, scout groups, adoption agencies and hospitals are unnecessary encumbrances to the gospel. There is no reason these things, if useful, cannot be organized privately. The church’s money should not be used, and the gospel should not be confused.
I witnessed to an LDS (Mormon) salesman recently, and when he knew I was a pastor he wanted to present his goods to my congregation. I told him Jesus doesn’t allow it. When he registered skepticism bordering on scorn at my claim, I quoted Jesus’ words found in our text. He was visibly shaken. He hung his head and said, “you’re right, I had never noticed that.” Few Christians are as attentive to Christ’s words as this Mormon was, at least superficially. I know that Jesus will be reasonable and understanding in his day of reckoning with us, and perhaps even forbearing, but he did make himself clear. The house of God is not to be a house of merchandise. And as Christ showed, sometimes a good house-cleaning is in order.