I recall a somewhat simple explanation that is not anti-Jewish. Jesus may certainly have realized the sacrifice of an animal was an old tradition, but he didn't like it. He was against the idea that you could find the Kingdom simple by sacrificing an animal or paying a fee.
Arguably that's the most anti-Jewish explanation of all, because it casts the Jewish sacrificial system as old/unjust/unchristian, and places Jesus in the position of eroding his own religious system!
This is a really good question, because it gets to the question of what we are doing when we interpret biblical texts. The answer, for me, is embedded in the question itself. I think it depends on what you mean by "convincing." What do we want when we interpret biblical texts? Do we want the answer--whether that means something like the author's original intent or something else--or do we want to connect with the story or derive some meaning from it at its intersection with our own lives? Are we looking to solve the equation, or use the story as a jumping-off point for reflection? I think we want different things at different times, so the answer to your question might shift over time. I guess I'm most convinced by the idea that in this story Jesus is a brash young religious zealot who thinks everyone else is doing it all wrong. He is fresh out into public (the wedding at Cana, possibly an infancy narrative, has just happened), and he's just finding his way. But the way the story gets picked up and told by different gospel writers surrounds it with interpretation and meaning, with the synoptics in particular framing it in terms of conflict and escalating violence. So I guess it would depend on our own contexts, what we might find most convincing, and it might change over time.
I recall a somewhat simple explanation that is not anti-Jewish. Jesus may certainly have realized the sacrifice of an animal was an old tradition, but he didn't like it. He was against the idea that you could find the Kingdom simple by sacrificing an animal or paying a fee.
Arguably that's the most anti-Jewish explanation of all, because it casts the Jewish sacrificial system as old/unjust/unchristian, and places Jesus in the position of eroding his own religious system!
Which explanation, or explanations, for Jesus' actions here do you find most convincing?
This is a really good question, because it gets to the question of what we are doing when we interpret biblical texts. The answer, for me, is embedded in the question itself. I think it depends on what you mean by "convincing." What do we want when we interpret biblical texts? Do we want the answer--whether that means something like the author's original intent or something else--or do we want to connect with the story or derive some meaning from it at its intersection with our own lives? Are we looking to solve the equation, or use the story as a jumping-off point for reflection? I think we want different things at different times, so the answer to your question might shift over time. I guess I'm most convinced by the idea that in this story Jesus is a brash young religious zealot who thinks everyone else is doing it all wrong. He is fresh out into public (the wedding at Cana, possibly an infancy narrative, has just happened), and he's just finding his way. But the way the story gets picked up and told by different gospel writers surrounds it with interpretation and meaning, with the synoptics in particular framing it in terms of conflict and escalating violence. So I guess it would depend on our own contexts, what we might find most convincing, and it might change over time.