708
8 With obj, 16. καὶ τοῖς τὰς περιστερὰς πωλοῦσιν εἶπεν, “"Αρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν :
in geu., x Kom. x. 2. BT) Cp. Ps.
Ixix. 9.
fifteenth verse they are called κολλν- βισταί, from κόλλυβος, a small coin, this again from κολοβός, docked, snipped short. Maimonides, quoted by Liicke, says the κόλλυβος was the small coin given to the money changer for exchang- ing a shekel into two half-shekels. The receiver of the change ‘ dat ipsi aliquid superabundans,” gives the changer some- thing over and above, and this aliquid superabundans vocatur collybus. In fact the word was transliterated, and in the Hebrew characters was read “kolbon”, This kolbon was about 2d., which was pretty high for providing the sacred half-shekel, which could alone be received into the Temple treasury and which every Jew had to pay. It was not only on the exchange of foreign money brought up to Palestine by Jews of the dispersion these money changers must have made a good percentage; but especially by exchanging the ordinary currency of Galilee and Judaea into the sacred half-shekel, which was the poll- tax or Temple tribute exacted from every Jew. This tax was either paid a week or two before Passover in the provinces or at the Passover in the Temple itself. To Jesus the usage seemed an intoler- able abuse. καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων. φραγέλλιον is the Latin flagellum, Many commentators repre- sent the matter as if Jesus made a whip of the litter; but John does not say ἐκ σχοῖνων, “' of rushes,” but ἐκ σχοινίων, of ropes made of rushes. In the account of Paul’s shipwreck (Acts xxvii. 32) σχοίνια are the ropes which held the boat to the ship; so that it is impossible on this ground to say with Dr. Whitelaw that ‘the whip could only have been designed as an emblem of authority’’, It is quite probable it was not used; as Bengel says: ‘‘meque dicitur hominibus ictum inflixisse ; terrore rem perfecit ’.—rdvras ἐξέβαλεν. Holtzmann and Weiss consider that the following clause is epexegetical of the πάντας, as, grammatically, it is ; and. that πάντας therefore refers to the sheep and oxen, not to the men. Inthe Synoptical Gospels πάντας ἐξέβαλεν certainly refers to the men, and as the masculine is here retained it is difficult to refer it to the πρόβατα. After driving out the oxen and their owners, ἐξέχεε τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέστρεψεν, Or
ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός µου οἶκον ἐμπορίου.᾽
17. Ἐμνήσ-
θησαν δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι γεγραμµένον ἐστὶν, ΄ Ὁ ἵῆλος * τοῦ
as W.H. read ἀνέτρεψεν.- -τραπέζας were specifically ‘bankers’ tables,” hence τραπεζίται, bankers, so that we might translate ‘‘ counters”. These He overturned, and poured the coin on the ground. We cannot evacuate of forcible meaning these plain terms. It was a scene of violence: the traders trying to protect their property, cattle rushing hither and thither, men shouting and cursing, the money changers trying to hold their tables as Jesus went from one to another upsetting them, It was indeed so violent a scene that the disciples felt somewhat scandalised until they remembered, then and there, not afterwards, that it was written: ‘O ἵῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί µε, words which are found in the sixty-ninth Psalm, the aorist of the LXX being changed into the future. In ordinary Greek ἐσθίω has for its future ἔδομαι, but in Hellenistic Greek it has φάγομαι for its future. See Gen. ili. 3, Lk. xvii.8. The disciples saw in their Master’s act a con. suming zeal for God’s house. It was this zeal which always governed Christ. He could not stand by and wash His hands of other men’s sins. _ It was this which brought Him to this world and to the cross. He had to interfere. It might have been expected that the words of Malachi would rather have been suggested to them, ‘“‘ The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple: but who may abide the day of His coming? for He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver”. Their interpretation of His act was suggested by His words: μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός pov οἶκον ἐμπορίου. At His first visit to the Temple He had called it His Father’s house. There is, no doubt, in the pov an appropriation from which others are excluded. He does not say ‘‘your Father’s house” nor ‘‘ our Father’s,” but “my Father’s”. In this word and in His action His Messiahship was implied, but directly the act and even the word were no more than a reforming prophet might have felt to be suitable. Weiss (Life of Fesus, ii:, 6) says: ‘ He felt Him- self to be the Son of Him who in a unique way had consecrated this place for His temple, and He exercised the authority of a Son against the turmoil which defiled His Father’s house. Those