Psalm 118:19-29
Matthew 21: 12‑17
Howard W. Roberts

During this Lenten season, I’m focusing on times when Jesus got angry and how he used his anger redemptively for the benefit of others.  I don’t know what your experience has been with people who were angry with you.  My experience has been that usually the anger leads to some type of destructive action or behavior.
 
Perhaps you have never thought of Jesus getting angry.  If you have considered that Jesus got angry, it probably is the story recorded in our text from Matthew’s Gospel that is the example you have in mind, popularly identified as Jesus cleansing the Temple.
  
Although all of the Gospels tell about Jesus' cleansing of the Temple, there are variations in their accounts.  John has this event at the beginning of Jesus' ministry while the other Gospels place it at the end of Jesus' ministry, on the day of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  Matthew is the most verbose while Luke gives the least amount of ink to this event.  For comparison, Mark uses sixty words to tell about this incident while Luke uses twenty‑five.1 

Jesus' protest was against the abuses of the Temple.  It was not against the helpful practices that had developed to assist the worshipers.  Jews were expected to come to the Temple for at  least one of the three major festivals each year.  Passover was by far the most popular of the three.  Many of these people traveled great distances from their homes to Jerusalem.  This made it impractical, if not impossible, to bring their animal sacrifices with them.  For a long time before Jesus lived there had been merchants who sold sacrificial animals at the Temple. Jesus was not opposed to this practice.
          
What angered Jesus was that the merchants and moneychangers were exploiting people in the name of religion.   When people are being exploited, they become angry and argumentative.  There was so much haggling over the prices being charged that the atmosphere was thick with hostility?  The Court of the Gentiles was in such a state of confusion that prayer and preparation for worship were nearly impossible.  Jesus did not interrupt a service of worship.   Rather, he made a clearing where worship could occur.  The Court of the Gentiles was the one area reserved for response to God by all races.  Jesus repudiated in principle an establishment where trade had usurped the place of worship and sacrifice had become a substitute for worldwide compassion. 

Matthew recorded that after Jesus turned the tables on the merchants and the moneychangers that the lame and the blind came to him and he healed them.  Why did they come after this event?  Perhaps they had been exploited by some of these dealers because of their handicaps.  Now they had an advocate for their situations and concerns.  There was healing in such advocacy.
    
How was this received?  The chief priests and the religious teachers were outraged by the wonderful things that Jesus had done.   What an unusual response to the help and healing that Jesus brought to those in need!  Of course, the religious teachers and the chief priests were still smarting from the cut in revenue that Jesus caused by the wild scene a brief time earlier. Anything that negatively affects people’s financial positions angers them.  Jesus had done just that.

Then, children were shouting in the Temple and that also upset the religious leaders. They asked Jesus, "Do you hear what they are saying?" (Matt. 21:16).  This question had a condescending tone to it.  Only if Jesus were deaf would he be unable to hear what the children were saying.  Of course the fact that he heard what they said and did not refute them was self incriminating as far as the religious leaders were concerned.  Part of what was threatening to the religious leaders was the implication made by the praise of the children, "Hosanna, to the Son of David!"   Hosanna originally was a Hebraic invocation addressed to God that meant "O save!"  Although it later became an expression of joyous acclamation, Hosanna continued to have the plea for salvation wrapped in it.  Who was Jesus to allow the inference that he would bring salvation?  From what would he save people?  He had just saved many of them from the abuses and charlatanry of merchants and moneychangers who were a part of the religious establishment. 

What Jesus had done was to ask the people to throw off the traditional structures that had been accumulating for a thousand years.  Jesus was disruptive in the Temple when through the cleansing of the Temple he called the very heart of Judaism to radical renewal.  Jesus' approach sent the religious leaders rocking and reeling because in turning over the tables he was turning the tables on them to demonstrate the abuse that was being done in the name of religion.   

Nothing angered Jesus more than to see people exploiting their fellow human beings, i.e. the woman at the home of Simon the Pharisee, the woman caught in adultery.  When Jesus cleansed the Temple he leveled his anger at those who blocked the way of worship for others.  Here were religious leaders who were exploiting their fellow human beings and baptizing their actions in religious language.  On the basis of providing sacrifices without blemish and coins without graven images, they were extorting their fellow human beings.  They were huckstering piety for profit.  Jesus was angered by it and he used his anger to motivate him to healthy action.  He confronted those who were wrong and he sought to help those who were in need.  Jesus' anger was not a negative berating of character; rather, he forced the exploiters and extortionists to stop sinning against their fellow human beings at least for that day.  He also sought to clear a way for people to have a place to engage in authentic worship. 

Religious exploitation and extortion did not end in the Temple with Jesus’ action. These sins have continued through the centuries and there is evidence of them today.   
   
With the increase in interest in religion in recent years there has been an increase in exploitation and extortion.    Our culture is in a time of transition.  We are moving out of the space age and through the informational age.  History is replete with evidence that revival of religion parallels cultural transitions.  During times of great change, turmoil, and flux people desire structure.  They often look for it in religion. 
           
During the time I served a congregation in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., I had several friends who were retired pastors who had served congregations in Washington, D. C. during World War II.  They often commented about the overflow crowds they had for worship services during those bleak days.  The analysis of that situation is that when the whole world was in such a state of turmoil as it was in the 1940's people sought security in religion.  However, after the turmoil passed, people became more secure and their need for religion was reduced.  Now those same churches in Washington, D. C. are never filled for worship services; yet, there are more people in metropolitan Washington now than there were seventy years ago.  A similar thing happened across the country for a briefer time following the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
           
During the last quarter of the twentieth century as our culture was in flux and interest in religion was on the rise, the electronic church developed.  With its development the possibility increased for charlatanry.  There has been a rising desire and search for celebrity-hood enhanced by the lure of the spotlight.   The church often has been confronted by the temptation to use the world's yardstick to measure its effectiveness.  That yardstick tends to suggest that bigger is better and to offer the corporate model as the model for the church.  The result too often is the expectation for ministers to be CEOs of congregations rather than servants of God. The electronic church encourages this approach with the lure of the spotlight.  Desire for and being in the spotlight makes it difficult to see or distinguish who others are.  The spotlight tends to make the one standing in it to be bigger than life.  How the culture spells success and how God spells success are worlds apart.  The culture measures success by the numbers and God measures success by faithfulness.  
           
To measure success by the numbers contributes to charlatanry.  Charlatanry is a form of the word charlatan which comes from the Italian ciarlatano which means babbler, idle talker.  Charlatan is applied to any person who pretends to have knowledge or ability that he does not have.  A charlatan is an impostor.  The selling of papal indulgences during the Middle Ages is one of the more infamous acts of charlatanry in the life of the Church.  Martin Luther's reaction against this practice was a major contributing factor in the Protestant Reformation.
           
The local congregation is not exempt from charlatanry.  It may be as subtle as someone encouraging a prospective member to join by saying, "This congregation can really use you."  Too many members have been used by the congregation for the benefit of the congregation and when they were of no more use then the congregation had no interest in them any more.  Perhaps you are aware of a situation where an excellent teacher finally burned out or where a capable leader kept being asked to do more and more.  Finally the person dropped out of the church.  We’ve had that happen in this congregation.  Maybe it was the only way the person could deal with having been abused by the church. 
           
The more common form of charlatanry in the local congregation is that of a religious leader who manipulates members or the entire congregation for personal gain.  There are a number of payoffs that come from the game of charlatanry.  The payoff of extortion is money.  Generally extortion in the church is understood as a minister who milks a congregation for all kinds of financial rewards through a variety of shenanigans.   However, the other side of this issue is the member or members of the congregation who seek to control and maneuver the congregation the direction they want it to go by designating their money to particular projects or by withholding their contributions with the hopes of shutting down the effectiveness  of the congregation.  Once that is accomplished, then they hope to persuade the membership to do things their way. 
           
I know of a congregation where one family left the church because they did not feel they were having enough influence in the congregation.  The woman stated, "Without our financial support the church will fold in six months.  Then we will come back, reopen it, and name it Huddleston Chapel."   You can guess what the family name was.  This was charlatanry because it imposed the will and direction of a few on all.  The primary purpose for the church's existence is to worship God.   When the power plays of charlantry are occurring, many people are being kept from worshiping God.  Jesus had very stern words and action for such religious leaders in the Temple.  In addition to money and control other payoffs for religious quackery include power, prestige, popularity, as well as manipulative and exploitative abilities.  What is wrong with these payoffs is that they turn people into objects to be used by one or more people for personal gain, benefit, or agenda. 
           
Chalatanry is both an ancient and contemporary practice.   Nothing angered Jesus more than to see extortion and exploitation. Adding insult to injury was to baptize extortion and exploitation in religious language or God talk.  Jesus responded to charlatanry by his action and his words.  His approach can be instructive for us. First, Jesus cleared a way for people to worship God.  The worship of God was primary and nothing was to keep people from that. 
          
A second thing that Jesus did was to embrace ambiguity.  Jesus was not opposed to people making sacrifices in the Temple.  He did not oppose sacrifices being available for purchase at the Temple.  He was angered that the convenience of the sacrificial animals had become a requirement so that the merchants had captive customers.  He was angered that people were using religion for commercial exploitation.  Thus Jesus embraced the ambiguity of supporting the Temple practices but not to the extent of extortion.
           
Often what charlatanry offers us today is clear cut either/or options.  The issues of life are not that clearly defined.  We have to embrace ambiguity like the man who said, "Lord I believe; help my unbelief" (Mark 9: 24).  Abraham embraced ambiguity in his faith commitment when he left Ur.  He went out not knowing where he was going, but knowing with whom he was going. 
           
A third way to respond redemptively to charlatanry is to seek to work with people for the relief of guilt for their well being but not for the benefit of anyone else.  To manipulate people by playing on their guilt is another form of charlantry. Religion continues because of the felt need of people to deal with guilt.  Helping people deal with their guilt keeps religion popular and being popular always leaves religion open to racketeering, profiteering, and fraud. 
           
A fourth way of responding redemptively to charlatanry is done by allowing ourselves to be vulnerable to fear, pain, and suffering. Jesus took this approach.  He knew the climate well enough to know that to take the action that he took against the merchants and the moneychangers would put him in a life threatening situation.  But for Jesus he had to take a stand on the side of the oppressed, the victims of extortion and exploitation, regardless of the pain and suffering that that might cause him. Therein is the risk for us if we stand with the oppressed and against the charlatans.  Here is where we need to stand.  May the words we speak and the actions we take clear a way for people to worship God, treat people with respect, and provide a loving atmosphere where forgiveness can be experienced.  Indeed, these are redemptive responses to charlantry. Indeed, as people of faith with Jesus as our model these are the actions we need to take in our day and in our time.
Note
   
1Malcolm O. Tolbert.  Luke.  The Broadman Bible Commentary.(Nashville:  Broadman Press, 1969), vol. 9, p. 152.