prophets_[311]; and the effect of it was, to impress the proposed
information on the minds of men with more force (being addressed to their
eyes and senses) than could have been done by a mere verbal explication.
This mode of teaching by signs, then, let it be remembered, was familiar
to the Jewish nation, and prevailed even in the days of Jesus; as is
clear from John the Baptist’s _wearing a garment of camel’s hair, and
eating locusts and wild honey_[312]; to signify the mortification and
repentance, which he was commissioned to preach—from Christ’s _riding
into Jerusalem_[313]; to signify the assumption of his regal office—and
from his directing his disciples to _shake of the dust of their
feet[314], as a testimony against them_, who would not receive his Gospel.
And we find that, sometimes, even a miracle was wrought to furnish a
convenient _sign_—As when Simon’s _draught of fishes_[315], was made
to denote the success he should have in his ministry; according to the
interpretation of Christ himself, who said to him, _Henceforth thou shalt
catch men_—As, again, when Jesus _curst the barren fig-tree_[316], to
signify the unfruitfulness and rejection of the Jewish nation—And, as
when he permitted _the unclean spirits to enter into a herd of swine_,
which, thereupon, _ran violently down a steep place and perished in the
waters_[317]: an exertion of his miraculous power, which, among other
purposes, might be intended to express, in the way of _representation_,
the tyranny of evil spirits, and their attendants, evil habits, over
sensual and voluptuous men (of whom _swine_ are the acknowledged
emblems), and the consequent _perdition in which they drown them_. Nay,
the very parables of our Lord, are but this mode of information, by
material signs, once removed.
It may, further, be observed, that the two Christian Sacraments
themselves are founded on this principle: and so prevalent was the use of
conveying information in this form, that even the Roman Governor, when
he condemned Jesus, _took water and washed his hands[318] before the
multitude_, to signify to them, that he was innocent of that horrid crime.
From all this we may certainly conclude, that it was very customary
in our Saviour’s time for men to express themselves by outward and
visible signs: that this mode of expression was especially of ancient
and approved use among the Prophets, when they would inforce some high
and important topic of instruction: and that, not impossibly therefore,
the famous transaction in the temple may be only an information of this
nature.
If then we would know, what that _information_ was, or, in other words,
what was the peculiar _object_ of it, it will be proper, in the next
place,
2. To turn to the PROPHECY, to which Jesus appeals, and to consider the
true scope and purpose of it.
The prophecies of Isaiah, it is well known, are chiefly taken up in
predicting the future glories of Christ’s kingdom, of which _the call
of the Gentiles_ makes a conspicuous and shining part. This great event
is foretold in a vast variety of places; and in different forms of
expression, one while, plain and direct, at other times, figurative
and obscure. The Messiah is spoken of as _bringing forth judgement to
the Gentiles_; and more clearly still, as _being given for a light to
the Gentiles_[319]. In other places, the expression is ænigmatical;
as where the Heathen are mentioned as _prisoners_, who shall be set
at liberty[320]—as _strangers_, who should build up the walls of
Jerusalem[321]—_as blind people that have eyes, and deaf that have
ears_[322]—and under a multitude of other images.
Full of these ideas, the Prophet begins the fifty-sixth chapter with the
following triumphant exhortation—_Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment,
and do justice, for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to
be revealed_; the very language, almost, in which the Baptist afterwards
announced our Saviour to the Jews: whence it may appear, of _what_
salvation the Prophet is here speaking. But to _whom_ is this salvation
promised? Why, in general, to those _who keep the Sabbath from polluting
it_, ver. 2; that is, in the prophetic style, to those who should embrace
the Christian faith: for the _Sabbath_ being the sign or token of God’s
covenant with the Jews, hence the prophets transfer this idea to the
Christian Covenant; and, by _keeping the Sabbath_, they express the
observance of that future covenant, to which mankind should be admitted
under the ministry of Jesus.
But, perhaps, the Jews _only_ were to be admitted to this new covenant
of salvation. The prophet expressly asserts the contrary: for not only
the Jews of the captivity (to whom we are to suppose the course of the
prophecy to be immediately directed) are concerned in this salvation,
but THE SONS OF THE STRANGER, that is, the Gentiles (whom the Jews
always considered under the idea of _Strangers_, just as the Greeks did
the rest of the world, under that of _Barbarians_)—_Even them_ (says
the Prophet, speaking in the person of God) _will I bring to my holy
mountain_, ver. 7, and make them joyful _in my house of prayer: their
burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on my altar_.
The language is still _Jewish_, according to the prophetic style, which
describes the Christian dispensation under Jewish ideas: but by _holy
mountain_ is meant the Church of Christ; and by _Sacrifices_, the
spiritual services of that new œconomy. And, to make this purpose of
his prophecy the clearer, he even departs, in one instance, from his
_legal_ manner of expression, in saying, _I will make them joyful in my_
HOUSE OF PRAYER; which is a spiritual and Christian idea; the Jewish
temple being properly a _house of sacrifice_, and not of _prayer_; for
which last service there is no express precept in the law. And then
follows the prophecy, quoted by Jesus, as explanatory of what he was then
doing—_for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people_.
The prophet, as solicitous to be understood, repeats and marks out this
distinction: I spoke of it, says he, as my house of prayer, _For my house
shall_ [in those latter days] _be called_ [that is, shall _be_] a _house
of prayer_, and that too, _for all people_; that is, not for the Jews
only, but for _all the Gentiles_. And, as if all this were not still
clear enough, he adds—_The Lord God, which gathereth the outcasts of
Israel_, the Jews dispersed in the captivity, _saith, Yet I will gather_
OTHERS _to him, besides those that are gathered him_, ver. 8. that is,
the Gentiles.
This famous text, then, is clearly a prediction of the call of the
Gentiles into the Church of Christ, a prediction of that great event
which should take place under the new dispensation, when the Jewish
enclosure was to be laid open, and all men indifferently, the Gentiles,
as well as the Jews, were to be admitted into the Christian covenant.
It is true, our English version of this text, quoted by our Lord, very
much obscures, or rather perverts, its sense. It stands thus in the
Gospel of St. Mark—_My house shall be called of all nations the house of
prayer_, xi. 17. Whence it appears, that our translators considered this
text, as describing only the _destination_ of the Jewish temple, and not
as predicting the _genius_ of the Christian religion. But the scope of
the prophecy, as above explained, and the Greek text itself, clearly
shews that it ought to have been rendered thus—_My house shall be called
a house of prayer for all the Gentiles_: ὁ οἶκός μου, οἶκος προσευχῆς
κληθήσεται πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.
Thus much being premised, both _of the prophetic manner of teaching by
signs_, and _of the true meaning of this prophecy_, let us see now what
light these considerations afford to our present subject.
Jesus enters into that court of the temple, which was called _the court
of the Gentiles_; who had leave to worship the God of Israel there, but
were permitted to advance no further. This _court_, he finds polluted
by the sale of beasts, and the traffic of merchants; the Jews, in their
sovereign contempt of these poor heathen, not only excluding them from
their own place of worship, but debasing them still farther by the
allowance of this sordid society to mix with them. What is the conduct of
our Lord, on this occasion! Why, agreeably to his prophetic character, he
declares himself sent to break through all these exclusive privileges and
distinctions; to accomplish that great mystery, which the old prophets
had so much and so triumphantly spoken of, as reserved to be revealed
by him; and to admit the Heathen to an equal participation of the
blessings, which the Gospel-covenant was to dispense, with the Jewish
people.
But, in what manner does he declare this purpose? Why, he _makes a
scourge of small cords_, and, by the representative action of driving
this prophane company out of the temple, shews that he is come to break
down that partition-wall, which separated the Gentile and the Jewish
worshippers, to vindicate the despised Heathen from the insults offered
to them, and to lay open the means of salvation to all people. _He began
to cast out them that sold therein and them that bought, saying to them,
It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the
Gentiles._ The action, we see, is used as _expressive_ of his design; and
his _design_ is clearly ascertained, by applying to himself the express
words of Isaiah. The whole is, then, _a prophetic information, by way of
action_, of the genius of Christianity, which was to extend its benefits
even to the Gentiles.
I have before acknowledged, that a _secondary_ purpose of this
transaction might be, to give the Jews to understand, how culpable they
had been in permitting even a lawful traffic to be carried on in any
part of their temple. For it was usual with Jesus to accomplish several
ends by the same act, and even to lay the greatest apparent stress on
that end, which was not first in his intention: of which some examples
may hereafter be given. But the primary design of _this_ act (and but for
the sake of which it would not have been undertaken) I suppose, was, to
point out the diffusive nature and influence of his spiritual kingdom.
It may be said, perhaps, that, if such was the intention of Jesus, it
had been more properly and significantly expressed by a different act, I
mean, by that _of bringing the Heathen into the temple_, rather than _of
driving the merchants out of it_. But we are to reflect, that, as the
Heathen were already permitted to come into this part of the temple (and
it would have given, at this time, too great a shock to the prejudices
of the Jews, to have carried them into any other), that act would have
conveyed no new information; it being on all hands agreed that the
devout Heathen might worship there. The business was, to shew that their
religious privileges were, hereafter, to be the same with those of the
Jews; and that no more contempt was to be countenanced, towards the one,
than the other. All distinctions were to cease; and this information
was, therefore, most fitly conveyed by an act, which expressed the same
regard for the court of the Gentiles, as for the court of the Jews: that
is, the honour of each is equally asserted, and no prophanation allowed
of either.
In further confirmation of the sense, here given to this transaction, it
may be observed, that the relation of it is joined, or rather interwoven
with that other of his _cursing the barren fig-tree_: which was plainly
an emblem, and so is _confessed_ to be, of _the rejection of the Jews_;
just as that we have been considering is _presumed_ to be, of _the
call of the Gentiles_: these two things being closely connected in the
order of God’s dispensations. Whence St. Paul speaks of the one, as the
consequence of the other; of _the fall of the Jews_, as _the riches
of the world_; and of _the loss of the Jews_, as _the riches of the
Gentiles_[323]. Now, if we turn to St. Mark, we there find[324], that the
_fig-tree is cursed_, as Jesus is coming from Bethany to Jerusalem—that,
when he came to Jerusalem, he went into the temple, and _drove out
the money-changers_, &c.—and that the next morning, when he and his
disciples were returning the same way, _as they passed by, they saw the
fig tree dried up from the roots_[325].
If then it be allowed, that Christ meant, by the _sign_ of the blasted
_fig-tree_ (the story of which is so remarkably incorporated with that
other of purging the temple), to express and predict _the rejection of
the Jews_, how natural is it to suppose that, in purging the temple,
he meant to express and predict, by another sign, _the vocation of the
Gentiles_! Or, if there be still any doubt in the case, Christ’s own
parable of the _Vineyard_ (which follows close in the history[326]) will
effectually remove it. For the application of this parable is made by
Christ himself to BOTH these subjects[327]—_What shall the Lord of the
Vineyard do?—He shall come and destroy_ THOSE _husbandmen, and shall give
the Vineyard to_ OTHERS—That is, He shall REJECT THE JEWS, and ADMIT
THE GENTILES: an interpretation, so clear and certain that the Jews
themselves could not avoid seeing it; _for they perceived that he had
spoken this parable against them_.
But I think it appears, from the conduct of the ruling Jews, on occasion
of what had passed in the temple, that it was well understood for _what
general purpose_, and under _what character_, Jesus had exhibited
that extraordinary scene. For they presently come to him, and say,
_By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this
authority[328]?_ That this question relates to _what things_ he had done
in the temple, when he applied the scourge to the merchants, the context
clearly shews; and is indeed beyond all doubt, since we find the same
question put to him, and almost in the same words, when he had performed
this act before, at the first Passover: _Then answered the Jews, and
said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these
things[329]?_
Now, if the Jews had seen this transaction in the light of an _act
of authority_ or of _violence_ against the persons of the merchants,
it neither agreed with their _character_, nor indeed with their
_principles_, to put this question. _The chief priests and elders of
the people_ are the persons who interrogate Jesus in this manner[330]:
and would they, who constantly _laid wait for him, that they might
accuse him_[331], let slip so fair an opportunity of citing him before
the magistrate, as a disturber of the public peace, and a violater of
their civil rights and customs? Instead of taking this obvious advantage
against him, they at once drop all the malice of their character, and
only ask him, in the way of civil and almost friendly expostulation, _By
what authority he did these things_. It is certain, they never had so
specious a pretence, as this affair administered to them, of bringing a
public accusation against him. Yet it seems never once to have entered
into their thoughts. Nor can it be said, that they stood in awe of the
_people_ (as they sometimes did, when they were enough disposed to lay
hands on him); for the people, in this case, when so free an attack was
made on their privileges, as well as prejudices, would naturally be on
their side.
But neither would their _Principles_ suffer them to put this question.
Jesus had, as they conceived, committed a flagrant act of injustice,
in assaulting the persons of men, who were under the protection of the
state: and they call upon him only for _a sign, since he did these
things_. Is it credible that men, so attached, as they were, to their own
laws and customs, should demand, or accept a _sign_, in such a juncture?
Could all Paul’s miracles justify him, in their opinion, for _not walking
after their customs_[332]? Or, would a _sign_ from heaven, of how
transcendant a nature soever, have absolved Jesus in their apprehension,
from a crime, so palpably proved upon him? They would certainly have
said, as they did say on another occasion, _We have a Law_, which forbids
all offences of this sort; and _by that Law_, he ought to be tried and
judged.
Thus, I think, the matter stands, if the Jews had regarded Jesus, in the
light of a CRIMINAL. On the other hand, if they saw him only in the light
of a PROPHET, of one who _assumed_ that character, and had now, in the
way of his office, employed this act to convey some important information
to them, their conduct was very natural in demanding some proof of his
being what he pretended to be: and that proof, could be no other than a
_sign_, or miracle; which was the proper evidence of his being a person
sent from God. This evidence, indeed, of his prophetic mission had
already been given to the Jews, in the _signs_, or miracles, which he had
wrought among them. But they wanted more than a general conviction of his
being invested with the prophetic character. They were anxious to know by
what _authority_ he did THESE THINGS; in other words, what _Commission_
he had, and how it came to be in his commission, to put the Jews and
Gentiles on a level. A prophet he might be; but not a prophet, authorized
to declare himself so roundly, as by this expressive act he had done,
against the peculiar people of God, and in favour of the despised
heathen. Of his commission to publish such a doctrine, as this, it was no
ordinary _sign_ that would satisfy them. They pressed him, therefore, for
some _sign_, purposely and expressly wrought for this end; some _sign_,
so extraordinary in itself, and so peculiarly adapted to the nature of
the case, as to furnish an immediate and decisive answer to their demand,
_Who gave thee_ THIS _authority_?
This question our blessed Lord thought fit to elude (for reasons, which
will, in part, appear in the progress of this discourse) at both the
times, when it was proposed to him: once, by referring them to the
authority of John the Baptist: and, again, by referring them (but
in ænigmatic terms) to his own resurrection. Yet even _the Baptist_
would have let them into some part of the secret, which they desired
to penetrate; for, knowing the master-prejudice of his countrymen,
he addressed them in these remarkable words—_Think not to say within
yourselves, We have Abraham for our Father: for I say unto you, God is
able even of_ THESE STONES[333] _to raise up children unto Abraham_[334].
And then, for the miracle of his own _resurrection_, that would not only
be the fullest proof of his prophetic mission, but would, at the same
time, be the completion of what he was now signifying to them, by this
prophetic act: for the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah, into which all
the nations were to be admitted, was to take place from that event.
_Destroy_, says he, _this temple_, [meaning, as we are told, _the temple
of his body_] _and in three days I will build it up_[335]. So that,
although Jesus refused to gratify his questioners by working instantly
before them the _sign_, which they demanded: yet he refers them to _such_
a sign, which would be wrought in due time, and to the very purpose
of their inquiry; that is, it would be a sign, which should, _both_,
demonstrate his prophetic commission to declare, by this _significant
act_, the favour which God intended to confer on the Gentiles, and
should, _also_, realize his declaration, or set before them _the thing
signified_. Such is the force of that divine answer—_Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will build it up_.
Where, by the way, we may, further, observe, that the _symbolic
language_, in which he here predicts his resurrection, not being at all
apprehended by the Jews, was afterwards made the foundation of a charge
against him, as if he had entertained the criminal _design_ of destroying
the temple of Jerusalem[336]. How much more would his enemies have laid
hold on this symbolic _act_, which he performed in the temple, in order
to found a charge of sedition against him, if they had not conceived of
him as acting in the character of a _prophet_ only, and so had clearly
comprehended, at least, the _general_ scope and meaning of that act!
That it was taken in this light, I mean, of a _prophetic action_, by
the very persons on whom this seeming outrage was committed, may be
reasonably presumed, since they make no resistance to it, nor complain
of any injury, done them by it: a conduct, very strange and unlikely, if
the parties concerned had received any considerable damage: or if they
conceived that any _intended_ violence had been offered to them. It is
plain, they considered the whole transaction, as a piece of _scenery_, or
representation only; under the cover of which, Christ proposed, in the
manner of the Eastern sages, and especially of the Jewish prophets, to
convey some momentous information to them, and to impress it with much
force and energy on their minds.
Nor can it be concluded from the narration of the Evangelists, that any
thing more was intended by their master. They relate this adventure,
simply as _a matter of fact_; and it could not well be related otherwise,
for the _information_ was given in the _fact_. They intermix, indeed, no
explanation; because they probably saw not, any more than the generality
of the by-standers, the _specific_ information, it was meant to convey.
They only saw, in general, that _some_ information was the end and
purpose of the act. The ruling Jews, who interrogated Jesus concerning
this act, I have no doubt, saw or suspected, at least, the real drift
of it. But, as Jesus could not be brought to explain himself by any
direct answer, they were left to their own conclusions about it: and were
content, we may suppose, to keep these conclusions to themselves: the
rather, as the turn, which our Lord thought fit to give to this act, as
if it respected only the honour of God’s house, put it out of their power
to charge that other meaning, decisively, upon him.
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?