Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.
Jesus Cleanses the Temple?
Today we have an interesting dilemma to deal with. The cleansing of the temple is not itself necessarily difficult (though we did have a lively discussion in the comments about the meaning of it!), but what makes it difficult is John's placement of it. The account occurs in all of the Synoptic Gospels, but in all of them occurs very near the end of Jesus' ministry. Here it is in John, right at the very beginning! What is going on here?
"There are a number of differences both of vocabulary and theme between John and the Synoptics: John alone mentions oxen, sheep, the whip of chord, and the command to depart. The Synoptics provide a Scripture citation (Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11). The most important difference has to do with time. The Synoptics place the temple cleansing at the end of the ministry of Jesus while John introduces it at the beginning. For the Synoptics, this event acts as a catalyst to galvanize the temple’s opposition to Jesus. John has the episode launching his public ministry in Judea; what becomes the chief aggravating reason for Jesus’ capture is the raising of Lazarus (11:1–57; 12:9–11)." [1]
There are two main theories about what's going on with the John account:
1) John records a second, earlier cleansing of the temple that is not the same as the one recorded in the Synoptics:
"Why, Morris [a commentator] asks, should we assume that there was only one cleansing? Pointing out numerous differences between the two cleansings, he suggests that the best reconstruction would have Jesus cleansing the temple twice. When Jesus’ repeats the act at the end of his ministry, the authorities are ready for him. The problem here is that there are also several parallels between the Synoptics and John (e.g., Passover, moneychangers, Jesus’ authority). In addition, one element in the Johannine version is presupposed in the Synoptic trial: In 2:19 Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple, but nowhere does this subject appear in the Synoptics. Note Mark 14:58: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man’ ”; a basis for this comment occurs only in John." [2]
2) "For a complete account of what actually happened, we do well to read both versions together. I suggest that John has recorded his own version of one cleansing and while it is an historical record, he has moved it chronologically for theological reasons. There is no doubt that all four evangelists felt free to place sayings and stories from Jesus’ life in settings that suited their literary purposes. Using uncompromised historical material, John is creating a theological portrait of Jesus’ display of signs in the context of Judaism. Jesus is the fulfillment and replacement of Judaism’s festivals and institutions. And the temple is high on his list as a place that soon (through his death) will no longer serve the purposes of God." [3] (emphasis mine)
I would personally side here with the second view. I think that John and the other Gospel writers are telling us about the same event, but I also think that John does not feel bound in any way to present his events chronologically. John is trying to paint us a very particular picture of who Jesus was and what He did, and it suits him very well to put this event at the beginning. It can be a bit jarring for us because we expect a "Gospel" to be almost like a biography or historical account. John is definitely both of those things, but not in the modern form that we are familiar with. It's clear that John writes with a radically different style and purpose than the other Gospel writers, and this is a great example of that.
Questions? Comments?
Jesus Cleanses the Temple?
Today we have an interesting dilemma to deal with. The cleansing of the temple is not itself necessarily difficult (though we did have a lively discussion in the comments about the meaning of it!), but what makes it difficult is John's placement of it. The account occurs in all of the Synoptic Gospels, but in all of them occurs very near the end of Jesus' ministry. Here it is in John, right at the very beginning! What is going on here?
"There are a number of differences both of vocabulary and theme between John and the Synoptics: John alone mentions oxen, sheep, the whip of chord, and the command to depart. The Synoptics provide a Scripture citation (Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11). The most important difference has to do with time. The Synoptics place the temple cleansing at the end of the ministry of Jesus while John introduces it at the beginning. For the Synoptics, this event acts as a catalyst to galvanize the temple’s opposition to Jesus. John has the episode launching his public ministry in Judea; what becomes the chief aggravating reason for Jesus’ capture is the raising of Lazarus (11:1–57; 12:9–11)." [1]
There are two main theories about what's going on with the John account:
1) John records a second, earlier cleansing of the temple that is not the same as the one recorded in the Synoptics:
"Why, Morris [a commentator] asks, should we assume that there was only one cleansing? Pointing out numerous differences between the two cleansings, he suggests that the best reconstruction would have Jesus cleansing the temple twice. When Jesus’ repeats the act at the end of his ministry, the authorities are ready for him. The problem here is that there are also several parallels between the Synoptics and John (e.g., Passover, moneychangers, Jesus’ authority). In addition, one element in the Johannine version is presupposed in the Synoptic trial: In 2:19 Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple, but nowhere does this subject appear in the Synoptics. Note Mark 14:58: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man’ ”; a basis for this comment occurs only in John." [2]
2) "For a complete account of what actually happened, we do well to read both versions together. I suggest that John has recorded his own version of one cleansing and while it is an historical record, he has moved it chronologically for theological reasons. There is no doubt that all four evangelists felt free to place sayings and stories from Jesus’ life in settings that suited their literary purposes. Using uncompromised historical material, John is creating a theological portrait of Jesus’ display of signs in the context of Judaism. Jesus is the fulfillment and replacement of Judaism’s festivals and institutions. And the temple is high on his list as a place that soon (through his death) will no longer serve the purposes of God." [3] (emphasis mine)
I would personally side here with the second view. I think that John and the other Gospel writers are telling us about the same event, but I also think that John does not feel bound in any way to present his events chronologically. John is trying to paint us a very particular picture of who Jesus was and what He did, and it suits him very well to put this event at the beginning. It can be a bit jarring for us because we expect a "Gospel" to be almost like a biography or historical account. John is definitely both of those things, but not in the modern form that we are familiar with. It's clear that John writes with a radically different style and purpose than the other Gospel writers, and this is a great example of that.
Questions? Comments?
[1] Gary M. Burge, NIV Application Commentary: John (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 94.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Burge, 94-95.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Burge, 94-95.
RSS Feed
