Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecy. He is not getting angry but fulfilling prophecy.
*I have become an outcast to my kindred,
a stranger to my mother’s children.
Because zeal for your house has consumed me,
I am scorned by those who scorn you.
On that day, “Holy to the LORD” will be written on the horses’ bells. The pots in the house of the LORD will be as the basins before the altar. Every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the LORD of hosts. All who come to sacrifice will take them and cook in them. No longer will there be merchants in the house of the LORD of hosts on that day. (Zechariah, 14:20-21)*
Merchants sold the animals to be sacrificed. Animal sacrifice would no longer be needed and so the merchants who sold them were no longer needed and Jesus therefor, drove them out. Jesus himself was to be the last sacrifice - once for all. There was no need for merchants to sell sacrificial animals, and Jesus was scorned and outcast for it.
In cleansing the temple, Jesus is preparing to restore the common priesthood of all people, to redeem all of creation, and to consecrate creation to himself. No longer will holiness be determined by adherance to the law of Moses but by how they treat each other. Every pot in Jerusalem will be holy - holiness is accessible to all.
If I went into my church and found people desecrating it, I would not pull out a frothy estrogen milkshake and start singing kumbaya as I turned into a chemical eunuch.
I would see to it that those desecrating God’s church would regret it. Would Our Lord expect any less? Women are important in the life of the Church, but the Church also needs men. If the Church lacks men, it soon falters.
It would be horrible indeed, :eek:, although there are a few points I’d like to address.
The market was located in an area just outside the Temple. While semi-holy because of its proximity to the Temple, this outer court wasn’t really similar to a Eucharistic Chapel.
Furthermore the merchants were there for a good reason: people needed suitable animals for sacrificial worship. Especially during the holidays, when pilgrims traveled long distances to Jerusalem, I imagine it was easier to purchase an unblemished goat/lamb/bird in the Temple market than to drag your own animal from home and possibly injure (and disqualify) it.
So the problem wasn’t the market, but how business there was conducted: “Ye have made [the Temple] a den of thieves.” Since the merchants faciliated Temple worship, they should have had high regard for God’s commandments.
Meh, it’s probably a bad analogy, but it’s not the point. Even when someone does something illegal, you don’t enforce the law as an individual, even if you’re on the recieving end. If you steal my car, it’s wrong. But I cannot punish you – I must follow a “fair” system to recieve justice and allow a court to punish you, not take matters in my own hands.
There was also a “fair” legal system in Judea. As a man Jesus had no “ownership” over the Temple; he arrived as a pilgrim, like everyone else, and ironically would have been forbidden to enter the holiest sanctuary. Neither did he have the practical authority to punish the merchants, and by taking matters in his own hands, technically he did not follow the law. In that sense, I think the OP has a point.
There are passages where Christ counsels us to avoid those who lead us into sin (“pluck out your eye and throw it away”), to shun those who repeatedly resist brotherly correction (“let him be as a tax collector or a Gentile to you”) and to defend ourselves legitimately (“let him who has no sword buy one”). Even under the Inquisition, making someone “regret it” (that is, a capital sentence) was generally a last resort.
“Muscular Christianity” is a Protestant concept, and its most famous exponent, Charles Kingsley, was memorably excoriated by Cardinal Newman (Apologia Pro Vita Sua) for trying to make him “regret it”. There is certainly a place for legitimate authority, stern punishments and rebukes, and keeping away from spiritual dangers, but no room for private vendettas (“if someone strikes you on one cheek…”)
There is a danger, in today’s world, to try and marry the neo-Pagan “cult of manhood” (sorry folks, “Iron John” is New Age nonsense) to authentic Catholic doctrine. While this is understandable as a reaction to indifferentism and radical feminism / liberalism, it cannot be condoned or advocated on a large scale; such a “religion” would soon devolve into either self-parody, or something rather like militant Islam. In either case, it wouldn’t be pretty.
(Corollary: Are Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis “unmanly” because they did not personally beat up child abusers? Was Pope John Paul II, who visited his would-be assassin in prison and forgave him, “unmanly”? I don’t think so.)