Bible Study Series: John 2:13-22. It was a bold statement. He is going after the Jerusalem and temple establishment.
Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together how to apply these truths to our lives.
I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click here:
For the Greek text, click here:
At that link, I provide a lot more commentary.
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: John 2:13-22
13 Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 He found in the temple those who were selling cattle and sheep and doves and the coin-changers stationed there. 15 After he made a whip from ropes and chased out everyone from the temple, both sheep and cattle, and spilled out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 And to those selling doves he said, “Get these things out of here!” Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!”
17 His disciples remembered that it was written:
“The zeal for your house devours me.” [Ps. 69:9]
18 Then, in reply, the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us that you do these things?” 19 In reply, Jesus said to them, “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!” 20 So the Jews said, “For forty-six years this temple was built, and you raise it up in three days?”
21 But he was speaking of the temple of his body. 22 So when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, and they believed the Scripture and the statement which Jesus spoke. (John 2: 13-22)
Comments
13:
This is a passage about Jesus’ making a clear statement, backed by action. Call it an action parable.
The Passover came first, and then the Feast of Unleavened Bread, often counted as one festival. Passover is one of three spring festivals required by law (Tabernacles or Booths and Pentecost are the other two).
Festivals in Leviticus 23 from a NT Perspective
The key points in that definition: popular usage merged Passover and Unleavened Bread for practical reasons; the Greek can be translated as the lamb itself, so the figurative usage is easy to apply to Christ’s sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7). (To this day, modern Greeks celebrate the pascha by eating a lamb.) The latter usage of the term “Easter” is the church’s choice to take over a pagan festival. You can certainly skip the term if it bothers your conscience and biblical values.
The ancient Israelites were not supposed to eat leavened bread during this time. They were in such a hurry to leave Egypt that they could not wait for the yeast to raise the lump of dough. In this context yeast symbolized sin and hindrance. We are to keep the Passover, but only in a spiritual sense: “with sincerity and faith.” We are to get rid of the old yeast or moral corruption in our lives and the life of the church. Christ is our Passover lamb, and he protects us from God judicial wrath or judgment, when we are in union with him.
This is the first Passover mentioned in the Gospel of John. The other two are mentioned in 6:4 and 11:55, and possibly a fourth one in 5:1. Carson locates this first Passover at around A.D. 28 (comment on v. 13).
14:
Deut. 14:24-26 says that if the distance to a designated holy place is too far for the Israelite to travel because of the animals or grain are burdensome, he is allowed to exchange the animal or grain for money near his home. Then he can carry the money to the designated holy place and there buy the grain or animal, to sacrifice and eat. In Jerusalem it is a sure thing that the money tables were set up to accommodate this lawful practice. Money changers converted the Greek and Roman currency into temple currency; the half-shekel temple tax had to be paid (Matt. 17:24-27).
However, apparently Jesus examined and inspected the temple business and found it lacking. Maybe dishonesty was the rule of the day. Maybe interest was charged, or maybe the price of the animal or grain was exorbitant. Maybe the business was conducted too closely to the temple precinct, which was the most likely occurrence; it provoked his righteous anger. Whatever the specifics, Jesus did not like what he saw.
Jesus said “my Father’s house.’ Mounce: “‘My Father’s house is a clear-cut messianic claim. Jesus does not bracket himself with others in his references to God the Father. When Jesus’ parents found him in the temple, the boy responded with, “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?’” (comment on v. 16).
Commentator Klink insightfully says that the temple is a character in the story, which can feel shame or honor. When Jesus cleared out the temple, he dishonored it and its personnel, from the high priest down, and according to Jewish belief, where God dwelled. “For this reason, the narrative events about to be described as happening in this place are personal at numerous levels.”
15:
His expelling them from the temple took some physical strength. He was no weakling. He made of whip of cords (or ropes). So it was not some torture device, which made animals or people bloody, but it got the message across. Clear out.
John’s reference to merchandise may have these verses in the background:
20 On that day holy to the Lord will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the Lord’s house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord Almighty. (Zech. 14:20-21, NIV)
Or these verses may be in view:
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty. … 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. (Mal. 3:1, 3, NIV)
Judgment has come to the temple of the Lord. It is fulfillment of the OT by patterns and themes and concepts, not only a literal verse-by-verse fulfillment. Sometimes the authors of the Gospels quote from a verse, but here the OT sits in the background, by theology and principle.
16-17:
In vv. 14 and 16, “doves” could be translated as “pigeons.”
In v. 16, “marketplace” could be translated as “merchandise” (“a house of merchandise”). Bruce translates it as “a trading establishment.”
Ps. 69:9 speaks of house, but the context is temple. In Rom. 15:3, Paul quotes the other half of the verse (“and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me”). So clearly Paul and John, whose writings probably never crossed paths, saw this verse as Messianic, entering in the Christian defense of the gospel (Bruce, comment on v. 17)
18-19:
In v. 18, I translated it literally, but clearly the Jews are asking for Jesus to demonstrate what right he has to do these things. So some translations reflect the meaning: “What sign do you show us that you have the authority to do these things” (or similar wording).
Jesus conveys the desire that the authorities should (imperative or command) destroy this temple (his body), so that he could accomplish the resurrection. “If you destroy this temple—and I command you to—in three days I will raise it up” (Novakovic, p. 67, quoting Daniel Wallace). Jesus was issuing a strong challenge. I dare you! Go ahead! Make my third day! That’s heavy. Wow.
Irony is also being expressed, in the prophetic tradition (1 Kings 18:27; Isa. 6:9; 8:10; 29:9; Jer. 23:28; 44:55; Amos 4:4-5). That is, Jesus is “inviting” his opponents to do their best (kill him), but then he will be vindicated, by his resurrection. They don’t realize that by doing “their best,” they are accomplishing the redemption of Israel and the whole world and the vindication of the Son (Novakovic, p. 67).
20-21:
Jesus said the only sign offered to the religious establishment was the sign of Jonah, an indirect reference to his resurrection:
38 Then at that moment some of the teachers of the law and Pharisees replied, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you!” 39 But he answered back and said, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, 40 for just as Jonah was in the belly of the sea-monster for three days and three nights, so also the son of Man shall be in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights. (Matt. 12:38-40)
The resurrection is the culmination of all the signs in John’s Gospel and in the Synoptics.
In v. 20, an alternative translation could read: It has taken forty-six years for this temple to be built, and you will erect it in three days!?” Implied: “Ha! Nonsense!”
At Jesus trial before the high priest and Sanhedrin in Matthew’s Gospel, witnesses came forward and accused Jesus of this statement, yet Matthew’s Gospel does not have Jesus’s ambiguous words, and neither does Mark or Luke.
59 Now the chief priests and all of the Council were seeking for false testimony against Jesus, so that they may put him to death, 60 and they found no one, although many false witnesses came forward. Finally, two came forward 61 and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God within three days build it.’” (Matt. 26:59-61)
This passage in Matthew lends credibility to the interpretation that John has retained an historical statement, which Matthew picked up on. It may be going too far to say that these words prove that Jesus cleared out an area of the temple at the beginning of the ministry, but the words certainly point in that direction (see below for more discussion).
It was unlawful to defame the temple (see Exod. 22:28 for the principle and Jer. 26:1-19 for its application). Jesus was mocked on the cross for saying that he could rebuild the temple (Matt. 27:40). Stephen got stoned to death for criticizing the temple and the irreligious behavior of its guardians (Acts 6:13-14; 7:48-50). So why wasn’t Jesus arrested then and there? He probably cleared out the Gentile section of the temple (Morris, comment on 14). Also, the establishment may have been in shock, and as Klink argues (below), the establishment must have believed they won the round and ignored him, after a retort which they did not carry through (v. 18). But he will be challenged later, throughout his ministry. And he will stand his ground.
It must be noted that Jesus’s body—soon to be reinterpreted as his church—fulfills and replaces the temple. Yes, the temple had theological significance of cleansing the people and propitiating for sins, but it was nothing more than a ritualized slaughter house, which has been done way with. The Epistle to the Hebrews spells this out (Chapters 7-10).
The Church Fulfills and Replaces Old Testament Temple
Jesus was making a revolutionary statement. Something better than the temple was here (Matt. 12:6). He had the right to cleanse the temple. In John 2:17, Jesus calls the temple “my Father’s house.” The guardians of the temple—the chief priests—no doubt heard about this protest action and were about to inquire further into this man who accepted praise from children and healed the blind and the lame in the temple area.
22:
Jesus had several messages going on. First, this was personal. The Jerusalem religious establishment was misusing his Father house. Next, they allowed too much commercialism near the temple, for profit. No doubt the moneychangers took an extra cut, if only secretly. Did the religious leaders secretly take money from the amount? Finally, the issue was theological. It was a small act of judgment on the temple which was about to be judged more fully by God (Matt. 24:15; Luke 21:20-22). Action parable. Action protest.
The disciples put things together after he was raised from the dead. John says of the disciples after Jesus entered Jerusalem triumphantly: “His disciples did not know these things at the first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about him and they did these things to him” (John 12:16).
To find out if there were one or two cleansings, the one here at the beginning of his ministry or at the end, please go to this link:
For me, I’m a traditionalist. I believe in two cleansings.
Commentator Darrell L. Bock defends the two cleansings, in his commentary on Luke’s Gospel:
Differences between the Synoptics and John make it slightly more likely that there were two temple cleansings. The use of Ps. 69:9 … in John is a unique citation that the Synoptics lack. True, the Synoptics sometimes use different citations for the same event in their telling of Jesus’ death. Still, it seems odd if this Johannine event actually occurred in the last week that the only temporal note was that the Passover was near. The setting in relation to John 23:25 does not look like chronological rearrangement. John apparently intends the reader to see the event as relatively early in Jesus’ ministry. The attempt to argue for Synoptic rearrangement is equally problematic, since the cleansing solidifies the decision to destroy Jesus and is an issue at his trial. If the event were early in Jesus’ ministry, then such a plot would have been present throughout Jesus’ ministry. (Luke 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 2. [Baker, 1996], p. 1577).
Carson says the issue is not easily resolved, but the natural reading is for two cleanings. The first established Jesus’s reputation as a challenge to the Jerusalem establishment and their temple, while the second cleansing provides the last straw and brought about strong and deadly opposition.
Klink says there were two cleansing based on the honor and shame society of first-century Israel. Honor could be won or lost in social exchanges, and the loser has shame and the winner enjoys honor, in the eyes of the bystanders. The challenge demands a response. So here in this first challenge to the Jerusalem establishment, the Jews demand a sign for Jesus’s authority to do the cleansing.
Klink continues:
A significant issue, and one especially pertinent for our pericope, was the beginning of the challenger. Not just anyone could make a legitimate claim to honor. For example, if one’s status was far below the honor claimed, those whose honor should have been at risk could merely ignore the challenge. This nonresponse was itself a shaming, and it could only be done if the challenger was not a serious contender, something recognized by the bystanders. This is the situation at play in John’s cleansing of the temple. Jesus claimed honor by his actions in the temple. It was a claim to a very high honor (or at least prophetic honor, if not divine honor) (p. 177).
Klink goes on to point out that the Jerusalem establishment asked for a sign (v. 18), so the threat was taken seriously. But Jesus’s response was ambiguous, so the establishment must have seen themselves as victorious. But therein lies the irony, as I noted above. They were not victorious. He is the one who will be resurrected and vindicated. Further, the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. In any case, the first challenge prepares the ground for the second temple cleansing, and the establishment reacts with deadly force.
This is an excellent interpretation because it relies on the cultural background.
Morris says that two cleansing took place because Jesus wanted to start off his ministry signaling the Jerusalem establishment that he was coming for them and their whole temple system (p. 167).
You can decide, however, whether you accept the one cleansing and John’s rearrangement of the material or two cleansings. The essential meaning, whether one or two events, is clear: Jesus challenged the Jerusalem establishment and his body will replace the temple. You should not allow your faith to be so brittle that it snaps in two when these differences come up.
Though I am a traditionalist, I cannot categorically deny that John may have rearranged his material for a theological purpose (whatever the purpose may be).
This post lists numerous similarities in John’s Gospel and the Synoptics:
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
Celebrate the similarities. Don’t obsess over the differences.
GrowApp for John 2:13-22
1. Jesus cleared out an area of the temple to challenge the religious authorities, who used the temple to make money. Has he challenged any area in your life, which had become unclean?
RELATED
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
12. Eyewitness Testimony in John’s Gospel
4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel
3. Archaeology and John’s Gospel
SOURCES
For the bibliography, click on this link and scroll down to the very bottom:
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 