Were gentiles allowed in the Temple?

[outhouse]

Why not just post the verses here? You stated there is an OT reference. I don't buy that.

Unknown authors take the phrase "den of robbers" from Jeremiah 7:11

Cleansing of the Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matthew 21:14–16 says the Temple leaders questioned Jesus if he was aware the children were shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David." Jesus responded by saying "from the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." This phrase incorporates a phrase from the Psalm 8:2, "from the lips of children and infants," believed by followers to be an admission of divinity by Jesus, thus confirming his divinity via prooftexting the Old Testament.


And



An incident where provocation took place in the Temple can be found in the time of Nehemiah, when Nehemiah overturned the furniture of Tobiah the Ammonite who had, with the cooperation of Eliashib the High Priest, leased the storerooms of the temple, depriving the Levites of their rations from the offerings, and drove out Eliashib's grandson who had married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 13

 

[fallingblood]

Unknown authors take the phrase "den of robbers" from Jeremiah 7:11

Cleansing of the Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matthew 21:14–16 says the Temple leaders questioned Jesus if he was aware the children were shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David." Jesus responded by saying "from the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." This phrase incorporates a phrase from the Psalm 8:2, "from the lips of children and infants," believed by followers to be an admission of divinity by Jesus, thus confirming his divinity via prooftexting the Old Testament.


And



An incident where provocation took place in the Temple can be found in the time of Nehemiah, when Nehemiah overturned the furniture of Tobiah the Ammonite who had, with the cooperation of Eliashib the High Priest, leased the storerooms of the temple, depriving the Levites of their rations from the offerings, and drove out Eliashib's grandson who had married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 13

First quote has nothing to do with the turning over of tables. I never doubted that the Gospel writers took verses out of the OT, I just doubted that the idea of overturning tables came from the OT.


Now for the second quote. Just to point out, the author of this Wikipedia entry never cited their sources correctly. Thus it is debatable as to whether or not they ever even read the source they are quoting, or if that is what the source is saying. Second, where is the overturning of tables? Where is the actual verse? Neither actually exist.

 

[outhouse]

First quote has nothing to do with the turning over of tables. I never doubted that the Gospel writers took verses out of the OT, I just doubted that the idea of overturning tables came from the OT.


Now for the second quote. Just to point out, the author of this Wikipedia entry never cited their sources correctly. Thus it is debatable as to whether or not they ever even read the source they are quoting, or if that is what the source is saying. Second, where is the overturning of tables? Where is the actual verse? Neither actually exist.

There is your answer

Neh 13:8 Cross References (5 Verses)

 

[fallingblood]

There is your answer

Neh 13:8 Cross References (5 Verses)

Is that not a huge leap? Of course it is. There is no mention of tipping over tables, no mention of selling animals or exchanging money. Even where it happens is different and the who it is happening to is different.

 

[outhouse]

Is that not a huge leap? Of course it is. There is no mention of tipping over tables, no mention of selling animals or exchanging money. Even where it happens is different and the who it is happening to is different.

Nehemiah 13:8

And I was very angry, and I threw all the household furniture of Tobiah out of the chamber.


Too bad, you dont get it wrapped in a bow and a song sung. Im sure there is a table in there with the furniture, and most of N13 deals with cleansing

13;9

9 Then I commanded, and they cleansed the chambers; and thither brought I again the vessels of the house of God, with the meal-offerings and the frankincense.

Its not going to be a direct quote, but as far as influence, it is there, and as good as it gets.

 

[fallingblood]

Nehemiah 13:8

And I was very angry, and I threw all the household furniture of Tobiah out of the chamber.


Too bad, you dont get it wrapped in a bow and a song sung. Im sure there is a table in there with the furniture, and most of N13 deals with cleansing

13;9

9 Then I commanded, and they cleansed the chambers; and thither brought I again the vessels of the house of God, with the meal-offerings and the frankincense.

Its not going to be a direct quote, but as far as influence, it is there, and as good as it gets.

That might be as good as it gets, as in trying to find some reference in the OT; however, that doesn't mean that such a verse ever influenced the NT writers.

If we look at what is being talked about, it is removing an individual from a Temple chamber. Actually, it is talking about someone being evicted from their living spaces. Sure, maybe there was a table in there; however it is just as possible their wasn't. If you really wanted, we could point to the destruction of the Temple as well by the Babylonians, and say that is the OT reference to the cleansing of the Temple, as certainly the Babylonians destroyed a Temple. However, such an idea is not rational.

There really is no connection between this and what Jesus did. For Jesus, it was a symbolic destruction. This is quite clear as one of the charges brought against Jesus was him saying he was going to destroy the Temple. He never cleared any Temple chambers, nor was he actually even in the Temple proper. He never cleared the courts either, but instead would have focused on just a few tables. And it is said that he specifically tipped over tables; he did not throw any household furniture, or any furniture out of any room.

The connections you are making are very shallow, and are an extremely big leap. To think that the NT writers needed to rely on this verse in order to create the episode in the Temple is basically the same thing that mythicist do.

 

[outhouse]

The connections you are making are very shallow, and are an extremely big leap. To think that the NT writers needed to rely on this verse in order to create the episode in the Temple is basically the same thing that mythicist do.

False, your acting similar to a apologist who denies the real details.


We dont know that there were tables set up where one could even tip them over.

We know they had gaurds for each table, and the bank teller would have wrestled hin down to ground himself for such a offense.


This was big business and a lot of money was changing hands, this wasnt some rag tag table in the open where anyone could just walk up and tip.


For all we know, he could have thrown a fit over the Tyrian shekel with Melqarts picture on it, in gods house, the same type of blasphemous event happened previously with the eagle over the entry way of the temple where Herod burns 40 alive that started trouble and took the eagle down.

We do not know what happened other then he caused a disturbance enough to get him murdered on a cross

 

[outhouse]

that doesn't mean that such a verse ever influenced the NT writers.

.

And what proof is there that any verse influenced the NT, we know it is ripe with OT influnence.



The fact I gave you a cross refference here that matches perfectly should be a clue
Neh 13:8 Cross References (5 Verses)

The fact wiki as well refferences it should be another clue.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus is calling the Temple a house where all people can pray, and this is a partial quote of Isaiah.

Mark 11:17
And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Does this mean that gentiles were allowed in the Temple in the first century or not?

Isaiah seems to be the most liberal Jewish book and is often quoted in the NT, but it was my impression that Jews would not allow gentiles into the Temple unless they converted to Judaism. Is this what Isaiah and Jesus were saying?

Jesus seems to be speaking in the future tense. This goes along with other notations of Jesus having non-Jewish followers etc. The Temple traditionally was more strict, Jesus here is saying that it i.e. 'His', Jeshuas, Temple, will be open to either 'more' people, or even Gentiles. Considering the nature of the verse I would guess it is referring to Judeo-Xian converts, unless contextually it is more symbolic.
ps actually the use of 'all' people indicates a very broad allowance of Temple use.

 

[Simplelogic]

Gentiles have always been able to become Hebrews. The Torah lays out exactly how a Gentile becomes an Israelite by heart circumcision first, then flesh circumcision. After a gentile has "crossed- over" and become circumcised in flesh, he is allowed to enter the Temple and keep Passover like any other Hebrew. So Gentiles have always been grafted in, there are rules though for how they do it.

 

[sojourner]

Gentiles have always been able to become Hebrews. The Torah lays out exactly how a Gentile becomes an Israelite by heart circumcision first, then flesh circumcision. After a gentile has "crossed- over" and become circumcised in flesh, he is allowed to enter the Temple and keep Passover like any other Hebrew. So Gentiles have always been grafted in, there are rules though for how they do it.

Yet, the church agreed that Gentiles didn't have to become Jewish in order to be good Christians. The Temple simply isn't part of the Christian's theological reality. It's unnecessary because of God's salvific work through Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Gentiles have always been able to become Hebrews. The Torah lays out exactly how a Gentile becomes an Israelite by heart circumcision first, then flesh circumcision. After a gentile has "crossed- over" and become circumcised in flesh, he is allowed to enter the Temple and keep Passover like any other Hebrew. So Gentiles have always been grafted in, there are rules though for how they do it.

Not accurate during this period at all.

First. They would never become Hebrews. Only Jewish.

Second. Many Proselytes could be considered Jewish without circumcision. Hellenistic Jews were quite open to this.

Third. Gentiles were welcomed into the temple, only the inner court was were Jews were allowed as we do not know how they determined or checked for this during Passover.

Much is unknown to state any certainty on who was or was not allowed, as the word Jewish is pretty hard to define in this period.

Some gentiles In some places were considered Jewish simply by swearing off all other pagan deities. And we don't know if they went in to the inner area or not.

 

[bird]

Jesus is calling the Temple a house where all people can pray, and this is a partial quote of Isaiah.

Mark 11:17
And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Does this mean that gentiles were allowed in the Temple in the first century or not?

Isaiah seems to be the most liberal Jewish book and is often quoted in the NT, but it was my impression that Jews would not allow gentiles into the Temple unless they converted to Judaism. Is this what Isaiah and Jesus were saying?

In the Mark 11:17 verse above, the phrase "all nations" is a parable term for all true believers and the term "house" is speaking ultimately of the true believers as well, not a physical building. "But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end" (Heb 3:6). In the Isaiah 56:7 verse above, the 'holy mountain" mentioned is a parable word for the kingdom of God headed by Christ and the "house of prayer" is the true believers. The burnt offerings and sacrifices are alluding to Christ's sacrifice and the mention of "all people" at the end of the verse is talking about all true believers. People get confused by the word "all" in the Bible. It is frequently used to describe all true believers rather than all persons on the planet. Acts 11:14: "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

The Old Testament often featured a physical scenario that represented the Jews as a saved group and the Gentiles as an unsaved group mostly. There was a physical tabernacle and later a physical temple but these were physical pictures, for illustrative purposes, of how people can enter into the body of Christ. Only saved persons can enter and be a part of the body.Those who are inside the tablernacle, for example, are part of Christ, because he is the one who tabernacled amongst us. He is the tabernacle and the true believers are in him. Isaiah is just using language that speaks of the fact that all true believers of any country of origin are part of the house of God in the salvation plan of God. Even Gentiles can be "Jews" and part of the house of God, for a Jew is not one who is one outwardly.

 

[outhouse]

In the Mark 11:17 verse above, the phrase "all nations" is a parable term for all true believers and the term "house" is speaking ultimately of the true believers as well, not a physical building

Thee is no one with credibility following that translation or interpretation. I would hate to see how your whole book would read with that much disagreement to what is known.

Everyone claims it is the temple in that verse.

Mark 11:17 Commentaries: And He began to teach and say to them, "Is it not written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS '? But you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."


And he taught, saying unto them, is it not written,.... In Isaiah 56:7.

My house shall be called of all nations, the house of prayer? For not only the Jews went up to the temple to pray, see Luke 18:10, but the Gentiles also, who became of the Jewish religion, and had a court built for that purpose; and so the whole temple, from hence, was called an house of prayer: and the meaning is, not only that it should be called so by the Gentiles, but that it should be so to them, and made use of by them as such. Jarchi's note on the clause in Isaiah 56:7 is, "not for Israel only, but also for the proselytes."

 

[atpollard]

As to Jesus, his story may be derived from a real event in history such as the Judas story. But I think Jesus usually represents an anti-zealot. . . he is largely inversely correlated with the zealots.

I was recently studying the story of clearing the temple.

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Note that no one was hurt or suffered actual loss.
First he made a whip, but he struck no person ... He drove out the sheep and cattle. That's exactly how we got cows and horses to move on my father's farm. A light smack will not penetrate that thick hide. So the first step sent the animal merchants hurrying out of the temple following after their animals.

Second thing he did was to overturn the tables and scatter the coins. The people who loved money, were forced to scramble in the dirt to save their precious coins. Humiliation, but no loss or harm.

Third he ordered those who sold doves to leave ... carrying their caged birds with them. Had he overturned the cages, the birds would have been injured or simply escaped and, either way, the merchant would have suffered loss.

I was impressed by how a non-violent activist handled the situation.
MLK would have approved.
YMMV

 

[outhouse]

Note that no one was hurt or suffered actual loss.
First he made a whip, but he struck no person ... He drove out the sheep and cattle. That's exactly how we got cows and horses to move on my father's farm. A light smack will not penetrate that thick hide. So the first step sent the animal merchants hurrying out of the temple following after their animals.

Second thing he did was to overturn the tables and scatter the coins. The people who loved money, were forced to scramble in the dirt to save their precious coins. Humiliation, but no loss or harm.

Third he ordered those who sold doves to leave ... carrying their caged birds with them. Had he overturned the cages, the birds would have been injured or simply escaped and, either way, the merchant would have suffered loss.

I was impressed by how a non-violent activist handled the situation.
MLK would have approved.
YMMV

Your guesses leave to many unanswered questions. And you cherry picked one gospel account only. To date we simply say he caused a disturbance, as to what exactly we don't know.


There were probably little cattle, but sheep literally by the thousands. And they were not kept in open areas where one man could run them off. The temple had almost half a million people in attendance, and the sheep market was ran by the Sadducees. They were also ritually bathed before entering the temple, and had to be clean and unblemished. Doves were for cheap people who could not afford a regular sacrifice.

The money changers amounted to bank tellers and had guards, they were not set up where street traffic could just run up and disrupt business, they also had guards that would have tackled anyone messing with the money. It would be a crime then as robbing a bank today, but their punishment would not be something to be taken lightly.

Not only that the temple silver coin required to make ANY purchase had the pagan deity Melqart on them in gods own house. I pious Jew could take offense to having another pagan god in gods house.

It could have also been an attempt to start a riot or war which would stop the money flow going back to Rome. Pilate was there to police the event to make sure the money flow would not be interrupted by anyone.

There was nothing non violent about causing enough trouble to get one crucified.

 

[atpollard]

There was nothing non violent about causing enough trouble to get one crucified.

To your textual criticisms ... and yet that is what it says.

To your last remark ... you are conflating 'peaceful' with 'non-violent' ... Ghandi and MLK knew the difference.

 

[outhouse]

To your textual criticisms ... and yet that is what it says.

To your last remark ... you are conflating 'peaceful' with 'non-violent' ... Ghandi and MLK knew the difference.

non sequitur

 

[Tumah]

Jesus is calling the Temple a house where all people can pray, and this is a partial quote of Isaiah.

Mark 11:17
And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Does this mean that gentiles were allowed in the Temple in the first century or not?

Isaiah seems to be the most liberal Jewish book and is often quoted in the NT, but it was my impression that Jews would not allow gentiles into the Temple unless they converted to Judaism. Is this what Isaiah and Jesus were saying?

There was a ~ 3.5 foot fence around the Temple within the Temple mount called the Soreg. Until that point, non-Jews were permitted.

 

[outhouse]

There was a ~ 3.5 foot fence around the Temple within the Temple mount called the Soreg. Until that point, non-Jews were permitted.

But no one doubts this. Its common knowledge.

Here is a picture that gives a better definition.

https://michaelruark.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/temple-mount-layout.jpg