Jesus has entered Jerusalem, being welcomed like a king by the crowds but is still rejected by the authorities of the Jewish people. After weeping for them and prophesying their future destruction at the hands of gentiles, Jesus proceeds toward the temple. All three synoptic Gospels place the Cleansing of the Temple at the end of Jesus’ ministry whereas John’s Gospel places it at the start. There are a variety of acceptable opinions that explain the apparent contradiction. The historical view which allows for two separate events, one being at the start of Jesus’ ministry (mentioned in John but omitted by the Synoptics) and the second at the end of Jesus’ ministry (mentioned in the Synoptics, omitted by John) with the inclusion and omission being explained by theological and symbolic emphases. Another more common view is that it is a singular event that the authors place differently to serve different theological aims.
45 And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold,
Jesus enters the temple and begins driving out “those who sold.” The other Gospels provide additional context about what was being sold and by whom. For instance, Matthew 21:12–13 specifically mentions pigeons and money changers. Selling within the temple complex was forbidden by Jewish law, yet during Jesus’ time, a lax attitude had allowed the outer courts—the Court of the Gentiles—to become a marketplace. This area was originally intended as a space for Gentiles to worship the one true God.
The temple complex itself was an immense structure, covering 36 acres. It consisted of concentric courtyards that increased in sanctity as one moved closer to the temple building at the center. Therefore, when the Gospels state that Jesus “entered the temple,” they refer not to the temple building itself but to the larger temple precinct, most likely the outer court where such commerce took place.
46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of robbers.”
Here Jesus combines two Old Testament passages to issue a powerful condemnation of the current state of the temple. The first quotation, “My house shall be a house of prayer”, is drawn from Isaiah 56:7. In its original context, this verse emphasizes the temple’s role as a sacred space for all nations, a place where both Jews and Gentiles can worship the one true God. By invoking this verse, Jesus underscores the temple’s intended purpose as a place of prayer and worship, not a marketplace.
The second quotation, “but you have made it a den of robbers”, comes from Jeremiah 7:11, part of the prophet’s condemnation of the corrupt practices of the Israelites. Jeremiah accuses the people of turning the temple into a place of hypocrisy, where individuals sought refuge from their unrighteousness while continuing in unjust behavior.
This combination of two passages serves to critique the temple’s current state. While Isaiah highlights the temple’s sanctity and openness to all, Jeremiah emphasizes the need for purity in worship and the dangers of hypocrisy. By linking these texts, Jesus articulates a comprehensive rebuke: the temple, meant to be a place of prayer for all nations, had become a corrupt institution that failed to fulfill its divine calling.
The method Jesus uses to combine these two scriptures is typical of the rabbinic tradition of His time. Rabbinic exegesis often involved linking different passages to create a fuller understanding of a theological or moral point. Techniques such as gezerah shavah, which connects verses based on shared words or themes, were commonly used.
47 And he was teaching daily in the temple. The chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to destroy him;
Here in this verse we see Luke’s editorial choice to condense the ministry in Jerusalem, omitting the leaving and returning aspects found in Mark. Jesus is teaching daily in the temple, most likely beginning where he just drove out the animal sellers and money changers. This area provided the best vantage point for Jesus to teach the most amount of people as everyone regardless of race or gender was allowed here. Luke highlights the three classes of people who will be responsible for his death. The chief priests: high ranking religious leaders who held authority over the temple and its rituals mostly if not all Sadducees. The scribes: the experts in Jewish Law, typically associated with the Pharisees but their services for consultancy were for anyone who could pay and finally the “principle men of the people” or more literally “first of the nation”. This would be the nobles of Jerusalem, the wealthy aristocracy. These three groups were the main occupiers of the Sanhedrin, the 71 man group that had the highest authority and influence over the temple and people although their authority was more limited under Roman rule. For example they could not stone people to death when they wanted anymore.
48 but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people hung upon his words.
The fact that the religious leaders “did not find anything they could do” reflects their powerlessness in the face of public opinion. While they have the power to plot against Jesus, they are hindered by His widespread support. This foreshadows the eventual arrest and trial of Jesus, where the leaders must rely on manipulation and betrayal (as with Judas) to seize Him, since they cannot act openly while He is still so popular with the people.
The phrase “hung upon” is very interesting as the Greek word is ekkremamai. It is used to convey the meaning “to hang on the lips of a speaker” but it’s literal meaning is suspension or hanging. It is only used once in the entire bible.
John Nolland (Luke: A Commentary) points out that this verse shows the clear distinction between the intentions of the authorities and the people. While the leaders desire to destroy Jesus, the people are eager to hear and follow Him, emphasizing the gulf between these two groups.
Leave a Reply