Moneychangers revisited

[Siloam]

From what I've learned, the doves, lambs and other sacrificial animals had to be acceptable for the sacrifices. This could mean without a blemish in their coloring, or had to be first born, or whatever the requirement. If one bought the animal outside the temple, you had no guarantee it was acceptable for the sacrifice. The priests had the final say as to if it was.
But if you bought it in the Temple area, it was prequalified, so to speak. Yet another way the corrupt could "game the system".

I believe the clean and without blemish requirement was for the sin offering. There were many sacrifices for many purposes. An offering made because of increase, whether grain grown or new livestock was to be from the first fruits, meaning among other things before subtracting for other uses (in today's economic system this would be called pretax gross earnings), and of the best quality. An offering of general thanksgiving could to be made from the best the believer had to offer. But, one was never allowed to 'sacrifice' using one's poorest quality goods. God expects (and deserves) our best.

I do not believe that the offering made to enter the temple had to be perfect and without blemish. That would be a lot of perfect animals every week. There may have been periods when the system became so corrupt that the priests required temple goers to buy from them, but I do not think this was an on-going long term practice, but I do not really know.

 

[Great Fiction]

Far past relevance but the Temple coins were not simple Hebrew money and you could only purchase sacrifices with Temple money (again at a loss) and the Temple treasurers were Ciaphas's sons....generally the Temple priests (of Ciaphas's clan) would reject the common man's sacrifices forcing them to buy those being sold....it was big business...the whole den were thieves!

That's incredible insight Brother Paul.

Would you agree that all “original” Hebrew money from the OT, and even regarding the temple taxes from Solomon were handled not with “denominational money managed by a compulsory stamp,” but was instead “incremental by weight?”

 

[Great Fiction]

What this has to do with money Im not sure...all I know is land and house prices keep rising or are astronomical and ppl keep 'trading up' or 'getting on the property ladder' everyone wants to be a landlord...yet..Jesus owned nothing.

Our citizenship is in heaven and there God gives everything freely if you just ask.

I agree with your wisdom that we are indeed citizenry of heaven

I simply argue a point that "individually owned property" is ordained by God, yet lust for property (money) is the root of all evil.

 

[Great Fiction]

This thread makes me think more along the lines of the commonwealth not communism.

Nz belongs to the commonwealth, used to be called the british empire. Anyway it is now called the United Kingdom, even though theres a queen on the throne. So who is this Kingdom referring to? Who is this King? Even earthly kings and queens come and go, but they are answerable to someone even higher. who would be that person?

I resonate with your point

I also will also abandon this topicality to respect the op's topical direction.

 

[Lanolin]

Next time any preacher says 'God wants your wallet' I'm gonna put in my empty Louis Vuitton wallet in the collection bag that my brother gave me, pretty much useless as got no cash..and I can't even sell it on trademe because they want proof it's genuine like a receipt or something.

 

[calvin]

First I do no accuse you of perpetuating Communism yet your premise would reflect it "if" you believe in required common ownership. Let us realize that Act 2 was a “common fellowship” and not required common property unto Communism: for one “requires the take” and the other “gives as the Spirit leads.”

As far as I understand it, communism was originally based on Acts 2. But of course being used as a political tool and not either acknowledging God or honouring Christ as Lord and Saviour, it was doomed to failure because it was purely a man made ideology.
I think the same thing applied to the trade union movement, as I read somewhere, the trade union came into being via the Methodists to get children out of the coal mines...but look at them now!

 

[Brother Paul]

That's incredible insight Brother Paul.

Would you agree that all “original” Hebrew money from the OT, and even regarding the temple taxes from Solomon were handled not with “denominational money managed by a compulsory stamp,” but was instead “incremental by weight?”

Actually I do not believe there was a denominational money before the "Jews" returned from the Babylonian Captivity. Yes to the second part also...the Shekel was actually related to a unit of weight and in cognate roots goes back to the Akkadian people (also a Semitic people) and the typical equivalent to "money" were pieces of silver or pieces of gold (again that were measured by weight) every other forms of trade/commerce were with goods...(numbers of sheaves, sheep, bales of wool, so many camels, etc.,)

 

[JohnC]

The whole deal about driving out the money changers and those buying and selling in the temple... Jesus was not simply attacking the matter of somebody walking into the temple to buy and sell - but rather the Religious Leadership's "Grant" by the Romans to formally LICENSE people to do such... The leadership running the temple as a BUSINESS - Making profit off of those coming to worship...

Jesus' point was not challenging and attacking the individual SELLERS - but rather challenging and attacking the Romans granting the privalege to the Temple Leadership to PROFIT off of the worship.... That's why the High Priest got so bent out of shape and was asking "By what authority"... The High Priest's point was: I got my authority to do this from ROME... Where do YOU get your authority to stop me from?

It's as if your state Governor granted the pastor of your church "License" to profit off of the sale of church articles, clothing, rites, services, and the like.

I will explain....

One thing we miss because it's not explicitly recorded in the bible (Though it is explicitly recorded in Jewish history such as Josephus and Macabees)

The unbroken lineage of High Priests of the direct Blood descent of Aaron ended in the 1st book of Macabees with Onias the high priest's leaving for Egypt to go build his own temple there... . One of the Macabee sons (A priest and Levite, but not specifically of the High Priestly lineage) was then "Appointed" high priest by the Ptolemy's (Egypt) - and he "Took up the ephod" and served as high priest... But - they still followed the Torah rules pertaining to succession and observance....

When Rome came in with Antipater - they "Sacked" the Jewish inherited priesthood that was then held by the Macabees. Antipater appointed an Egyptian levite "Hanameel the Egyptian" as High Priest... During Roman rule - exactly 100% of the High Priests were formally appointed by the Romans - and served at the good will and good pleasure of the Roman Procurator, and confirmed by the Roman Senate.... So, for example - the Romans didn't wait for the death of the high priest to pick another one if he didn't go along with the them... They just sacked the fellow and appointed somebody else (The NT makes sideways allusion to this with Ananias and Caiphus and the comment "Was high priest that year".. Where Ananias had been appointed and sacked, but was still alive - and Caiphus appointed and serving in his place)

The Romans appointed many privaleges that came along with the High Priesthood... AND those privaleges were revoked upon being sacked and somebody else being appointed:
The right to "License" selling of sacrificial material
The right to "License" selling of religious rites and such
The right to "License" commerce pertaining to the temple
The Romans purchased all the "Official High Priestly" garments for the High Priest
The Romans provided a palace and "Per diem" pay for living expenses for the high priest
Etc...

The deal with the Money Changers and those selling in the temple.. Those money changers were PAYING the High Priest for license to perform Temple Currency money changing. This was Jesus explicitly confronting the Roman's "Right" to appoint the "things of God" by directly challenging the High Priest's "Right" to license that sort of thing... His point was that it doesn't matter what the Romans say - God says "No" - the answer is NO!

Thanks

 

[Big Moose]

One thing this thread is connected to is, how we look at raising money for our local church, flea markets, bingo, food sales and the like.
It is always a concern, as it should be, that we are to be careful not to emulate the moneychangers while we are raising money by selling items.
In my experience, the main concerns were how often we were selling and what part of the church building was being used. The sanctuary was obviously off limits, and even in the social hall it was wrong to sell dinners, since money had to be exchanged. Free food with only a donation basket is the only acceptable option for many.
Who else has experiences with this?

 

[Lanolin]

My church has a carboot sale they use the carpark. But church memberss dont sell stuff mostly its other ppl, or whoever in the community got stuff to sell.
Got some good bargains there...mostly cast offs.
The only money that goes to the church is maybe a one off fee to have your car park there. Or maybe not even that. Sometimes the prefab is open for prayer or to buy a cup of tea and refreshment...but in general, its just a public market.
Theres no commercialism...its like a community garage sale.

Only thing you would need to guard against is ppl selling stolen goods, but im sure the elders pray against that.

 

[Lanolin]

Ive never had to fundraise for anything..God has always provided. i dont ask for more though..happy with what I have, or use what I have. I dont like asking ppl for money and I dont like when ppl ask me.

 

[Lanolin]

We have a free community meal, all the food is donated. We would never dream of charging ppl to have dinner with us!!!
The supermarkets are more than happy to donate.

 

[Lanolin]

Least its not church potluck. I HATE potlucks. i wouldnt go to any church that held them again. Such a hassle. just cook the food at church if you gonna have dinner. By the time you slaved over a hot stove and bought eveything, its all gone cold, and then theres too much and nobody can eat it anyway, and you have to take it home.

 

[Siloam]

One thing this thread is connected to is, how we look at raising money for our local church, flea markets, bingo, food sales and the like.
It is always a concern, as it should be, that we are to be careful not to emulate the moneychangers while we are raising money by selling items.
In my experience, the main concerns were how often we were selling and what part of the church building was being used. The sanctuary was obviously off limits, and even in the social hall it was wrong to sell dinners, since money had to be exchanged. Free food with only a donation basket is the only acceptable option for many.
Who else has experiences with this?

It's not church, but I am currently distressed by the fund raising efforts, or more to the point, the uses that money is put to, of a community group I belong to. We do good things, but I think that the funds are getting in the way of concentrating on the people we want to help.

I don't think necessarily that they should stop anything they are doing, but the much of the money is going to more indirect purposes rather than directly helping our community.

In general I think we need to carefully consider the way we handle funds, as well as how we collect, and be good stewards all resources entrusted to our care.

 

[Great Fiction]

Calvin to your keen perception, the Christian Diggers from the English Civil war very well might have been influenced by ; but will add perspective that “Secular Communism (political and compulsory ideologies)” derive further back from “millennialism” or more accurately “post millennialism” with the early German and Dutch Anabaptists from the reformation.

(I am only giving derivation for communism and am not marginalizing post-mill believers, I also am not insinuating that Marxism is a form of post-millennialism)

Immanentization or to “make immanent the eschaton” is often the “antagonism” that materializes against post-millennialism by many in the body, yet this position is also antagonistic in secular applications toward Communism's champion Carl Marx. Marx like the Anabaptists believed in a “dark culmination” to usher in a Utopian age, yet without God and with a “human collective.”

Christians see utopia to be “our eternal experience with Christ as He rules” also the post-mill Christian believes they becomes the van-guard that will “usher in the utopia with Christ on earth.” In the same sense but on secular/collective grounds, Marx was highly influenced with a notion of being a “secular vanguard,” a people that will usher in “the communistic Utopian age on earth.” Communism seeks to usher in a “unified collective” using authoritarian force. Thus to Marxist Communism the goal is “collectivism” and “is the utopia to transfigure into one organism on earth.”

Thus secular modern dialectical-materialistic or scientific Communism in my opinion gives no credence to Acts 2; also denouncing that God even exists (claiming its scientific). Yet its not actually scientific and is based on wild unsupported metaphysics void of any objective truth, assertoric facts, or any a_priori knowledge. It is a far reaching ideology premised on violence.

It would make for a fascinating thread to explore the intricacies of millennialism's influence on political-economic thought.

 

[Big Moose]

Calvin to your keen perception, the Christian Diggers from the English Civil war very well might have been influenced by ; but will add perspective that “Secular Communism (political and compulsory ideologies)” derive further back from “millennialism” or more accurately “post millennialism” with the early German and Dutch Anabaptists from the reformation.

(I am only giving derivation for communism and am not marginalizing post-mill believers, I also am not insinuating that Marxism is a form of post-millennialism)

Immanentization or to “make immanent the eschaton” is often the “antagonism” that materializes against post-millennialism by many in the body, yet this position is also antagonistic in secular applications toward Communism's champion Carl Marx. Marx like the Anabaptists believed in a “dark culmination” to usher in a Utopian age, yet without God and with a “human collective.”

Christians see utopia to be “our eternal experience with Christ as He rules” also the post-mill Christian believes they becomes the van-guard that will “usher in the utopia with Christ on earth.” In the same sense but on secular/collective grounds, Marx was highly influenced with a notion of being a “secular vanguard,” a people that will usher in “the communistic Utopian age on earth.” Communism seeks to usher in a “unified collective” using authoritarian force. Thus to Marxist Communism the goal is “collectivism” and “is the utopia to transfigure into one organism on earth.”

Thus secular modern dialectical-materialistic or scientific Communism in my opinion gives no credence to Acts 2; also denouncing that God even exists (claiming its scientific). Yet its not actually scientific and is based on wild unsupported metaphysics void of any objective truth, assertoric facts, or any a_priori knowledge. It is a far reaching ideology premised on violence.

It would make for a fascinating thread to explore the intricacies of millennialism's influence on political-economic thought.

Yet again I learn something new, “make immanent the eschaton”. Very interesting.
I suppose the definition and what people mean by the word "Communism". Much like in American politics, "democratic reform" with the lower case "d" means something wildly different from "Democratic reform" with the uppercase "D". Could we say "Communism" is the Marxist form, and "communism" is the view that we hold all things in common, like in Acts 2 and like the first year of the Pilgrims, more as an elected or agreed to commonization.

The problem with even one's election to be part of a "communistic" society is that you can't just leave the society of communism you sign up for. For instance, a territory voluntarily would join the United States to become a state within the country. But we see what happened when some states wanted out of this membership and tried to secede.
To me, Commonization should be the word to describe voluntarily holding all things in common, as in Acts 2. Communing connotes living within a bordered commune which would cause repercussions to one who would try to leave.

 

[Great Fiction]

Yet again I learn something new, “make immanent the eschaton”. Very interesting.

I suppose the definition and what people mean by the word "Communism". Much like in American politics, "democratic reform" with the lower case "d" means something wildly different from "Democratic reform" with the uppercase "D". Could we say "Communism" is the Marxist form, and "communism" is the view that we hold all things in common, like in and like the first year of the Pilgrims, more as an elected or agreed to commonization.

The problem with even one's election to be part of a "communistic" society is that you can't just leave the society of communism you sign up for. For instance, a territory voluntarily would join the United States to become a state within the country. But we see what happened when some states wanted out of this membership and tried to secede.

To me, Commonization should be the word to describe voluntarily holding all things in common, as in . Communing connotes living within a bordered commune which would cause repercussions to one who would try to leave.

I enjoyed your comment immensely

To further support the separation you just described: "voluntary participation vs. compulsion," we could say, "that the group who voluntarily will give things in common have a right to self-determination."

From the OP, it begs to question, did the Jews who dealt with the moneychangers have a right to self-determination: for they were under the law? Yet to Acts 2, did they have a right to self-determination since they were no longer under the law?

Maybe this is why Jesus responded in anger, because the theft was “compulsory” to people who did not have the right of self-determination (innocence)? or Maybe not? Maybe his motivations rests solely on the fact that “compulsory theft was being exercised in His fathers house?”

Yet this leads to another question, “what or who is the temple today?”