Exegetical Paper – John 2:13-22



FREE CHURCH COLLEGE

Bachelor of Theology

Academic Year 2008/2009

New Testament 102

Exegetical Essay: John 2: 13-22

2983 words

Winston Tay

Student No.: 0705

GNT John 2:13-22 13  Kai. evggu.j h=n to. pa,sca tw/n VIoudai,wn( kai. avne,bh eivj ~Ieroso,luma o` VIhsou/jÅ 14 kai. eu-ren evn tw/| i`erw/| tou.j pwlou/ntaj bo,aj kai. pro,bata kai. peristera.j kai. tou.j kermatista.j kaqhme,nouj( 15 kai. poih,saj frage,llion evk scoini,wn pa,ntaj evxe,balen evk tou/ i`erou/ ta, te pro,bata kai. tou.j bo,aj( kai. tw/n kollubistw/n evxe,ceen to. ke,rma kai. ta.j trape,zaj avne,treyen( 16 kai. toi/j ta.j peristera.j pwlou/sin ei=pen( :Arate tau/ta evnteu/qen( mh. poiei/te to.n oi=kon tou/ patro,j mou oi=kon evmpori,ouÅ 17 VEmnh,sqhsan oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ o[ti gegramme,non evsti,n( ~O zh/loj tou/ oi;kou sou katafa,getai, meÅ 18 avpekri,qhsan ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi kai. ei=pan auvtw/|( Ti, shmei/on deiknu,eij h`mi/n o[ti tau/ta poiei/jÈ 19 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( Lu,sate to.n nao.n tou/ton kai. evn trisi.n h`me,raij evgerw/ auvto,nÅ 20 ei=pan ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi( Tessera,konta kai. e]x e;tesin oivkodomh,qh o` nao.j ou-toj( kai. su. evn trisi.n h`me,raij evgerei/j auvto,nÈ 21 evkei/noj de. e;legen peri. tou/ naou/ tou/ sw,matoj auvtou/Å 22 o[te ou=n hvge,rqh evk nekrw/n( evmnh,sqhsan oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ o[ti tou/to e;legen( kai. evpi,steusan th/| grafh/| kai. tw/| lo,gw| o]n ei=pen o` VIhsou/jÅ

ESV John 2:13-22 13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade." 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me." 18 So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

Textual Variants

2:15

As noted by Metzger[1], some manuscripts (including the two oldest) prefix w`j before fragellion. This is probably a copyist insertion to soften the somewhat bald reading that Jesus made a whip of cords to ‘he made a kind of whip of cords’.

Introduction

The narrative contained within this pericope concerns Jesus action in clearing the temple of commercial activity he encountered in the temple courts at a certain Jewish Passover early in his ministry. The main controversy raised that day concerned the basis of Jesus’ authority to undertake such and action. In reply, Jesus forwarded the sign of his future bodily resurrection as the basis of his authority to clear the temple. The Jews however, misperceived Jesus to be referring to the destruction and reconstruction of Herod’s temple as he employed the word “temple” when referring to his own body. Through the events recounted in the narrative, John raises the issue of the significance which Jesus’ death and resurrection had on Jewish temple worship, intimating that Jesus himself was the true temple, come to replace the interim type through his messianic mission and destiny.

Outline

2:13 Narrative Context

2:14-16 Jesus Interrupts the Commercial Activity at the Temple

2:17 The Disciples’ Reaction

2:18-20 Jesus’ Exchange with the Jews

2:21-22 John’s Editorial Comments

Exegesis & Exposition

2:13 Narrative Context

This verse sets the chronological, cultural and geographical context of the narrative. In John’s gospel, Jesus’ interruption of the temple activities occurred early in his ministry, within the context of the Jewish Passover taking place in Jerusalem.

The usage of evgguj in John is usually with reference to an approaching festival. (c.f. 6:4; 7:2; 11:55)[2] The festival referred to in this passage is to. pa,sca tw/n VIoudai,wn. Two sets of discussions have arisen over this phrase. The first is historiographical in nature while the second concerns John’s designation of to pasca as being twn vIoudaiwn.

The question of dating arises when attempts are made to harmonize John’s account with a similar event during Jesus’ final Passover in Jerusalem recorded in the Synoptic Tradition (Mk 11:15-18; Matt 21:12-17; Lk 19:45-46). While John places the temple clearing early in the opening sequences of Jesus’ public ministry, the Synoptic Tradition locates a temple clearing late in the closing frames of his career. This has led a majority of scholarship to take the view that John rearranged the synoptic material to favor a topical rather than chronological order.[3] A significant minority however, hold to the historiographical reliability of both the Johannine and Synoptic Traditions, necessitating the incidence of two temple clearings in the ministry of Jesus. Much ink and paper have gone into discussing the two options. Surveying these, Bock estimates that “neither option is impossible, although two cleansings seem slightly more likely because the differences between the accounts outweigh the similarities, and each Gospel seems to give a specific setting to the cleansing each describes.”[4] Avoiding a long re-presentation of the various arguments,[5] this paper notes merely that contra the claim of some that two temple clearings is historically implausible[6] or “a historiographic monstrosity that has no basis in the texts of the Gospels”[7], there is sufficient grounds for maintaining two temple clearings as a perfectly legitimate and historically plausible option.[8] If so, there seems to be no pressing reason why we should not take the most natural reading of both accounts of temple clearing in the Synoptic and Johannine Tradition as historically reliable (i.e. there were two temple clearings). A heavier burden of proof lies perhaps on those who wish to reject the perfectly plausible natural reading as default, opting rather for an admittedly possible alternative which nevertheless, requires an elaborate conjecture of chronological displacement of materials not indicated or even hinted at by the text.

John’s designation of the Passover as being specifically twn vIoudaiwn has also elicited a host of conjectures as to its possible significance.[9] These at their best however, are nevertheless still merely conjectures. The narrative function of the phrase within the context of the pericope is unaffected by these conjectures and does not require one to imbue it with any particular significance beyond that of pointing to the Passover Feast of Ex 12 and Deut 16:16 as part of the backdrop against which Jesus’ action was undertaken.

John records that Jesus ‘went up’ (avne,bh) to Jerusalem because Jerusalem was situated at a higher elevation than Galilee and because it was the capital city.[10]

2:14-16 Jesus Interrupts the Commercial Activity at the Temple

The commercial activity which Jesus found and subsequently interrupted in Jerusalem was taking place evn tw/| i`erw. “i`eron” is commonly used of the whole temple complex including the sanctuary, ancillary buildings, and courts.[11] Here, it is the Court of the Gentiles (the outermost court) that John is referring to.[12] If it was the sanctuary proper that was in view, naoj would have been the word of choice (c.f. 2:19-20).

Two groups of merchants were operating in the temple courts; animal traders who were selling cattle, sheep and pigeons for the temple sacrifices, and money changers supplying the stipulated Tyrian coinage for the temple tax required of every Jewish male age 20 and above. When Jesus found them operating within the temple courts, he made a frage,llion evk scoini,wn and drove them all out of the temple. This expression is found only in this instance in the New Testament and is not so far attested in earlier writings. It could mean a “whip of cords” or “a whip of rushes”.[13] The difference between the two however is not to be pressed. Whichever the preferred translation taken, the phrase coveys rather, the improvised nature of the instrument Jesus used, suggesting that more than the make-shift whip, it was the force of Jesus’ personal and moral authority that drove the merchants out along with their wares.[14]

Amidst the commotion of all the action up to this point, the first speech which John records of Jesus is contained in the words spoken to the pigeon sellers (v16). These words are important for as Morris notes, they give the reason for his whole action.[15] Jesus’ indictment against the merchants in the temple courts was that they had made the house of his Father oi=kon evmpori,ou. The exegetical interest over this indictment concerns whether Jesus was censuring the “malpractice” of trade or attacking the very “legitimacy” of trade in the temple courts itself.

The motivation for taking Jesus’ words as an indictment against opportunistic and oppressive commercialism is perhaps influenced by the Markan indictment that the merchants had made the temple into a “den of robbers” (ph,laion lh|stw/n). There are certainly historical grounds for accepting that opportunistic and oppressive trade was taking place in the temple courts. As Kostenberger notes, “the temple establishment had amassed excessive wealth in Jesus’ day, which made the merchants and moneychangers part of a system that exploited the poor for the purported goal of beautifying and administering the affairs of the temple.”[16] Nevertheless, even while this is historically true, Jesus’ contention was not primarily over business ethics but the legitimacy of what was taking place in his Father’s (YHWH’s) house. The merchants had no business to be using YHWH’s house as trading grounds and the Jewish temple authorities had no right to allow them to do so at the expense and disregard of YHWH’s own designs and purposes for its use[17] either. The temple was not their house (it was his Father’s) and hence they were not to do as they pleased with it for their own convenience or gain. This is true of the emphasis of John’s account as well as that of the Synoptic Tradition, with its “den of robbers” indictment which is conspicuously absent in the Johannine narrative. Carson notes that even in the Synoptic accounts where in most translations Jesus accuses the merchants and money changers with this particular indictment, the Greek expression does not suggest thievery but zealotry: by setting up in the court of the Gentiles, they have excluded Gentiles who might have come to pray, and have turned the temple into a nationalist stronghold.[18] It was hence not unethical trade in the main, but unauthorized and unlawful usage of YHWH’s house for parochial agendas instead of as a house of prayer for all nations that Jesus was indignant over.

2:17 The Disciples’ Reaction

After giving the “reason” for the act of temple clearing in Jesus’ speech (v16), John moves on to explicate its “significance” through the disciples’ reaction to the event (v17). Jesus’ disciples “made the connection”[19] between Jesus’ zeal for his Father’s house and the zeal displayed by the psalmist in Ps 69:9. “gegramme,non evstin” is the standard formula of Scriptural citation. The function of the quotation “is to characterize Jesus’ action and to do so in scriptural terms by linking Jesus with the righteous sufferer of this Davidic psalm.”[20] John’s quotation of the text contains both an element of messianic fulfillment as well as prophetic prescience.

Firstly, through the citation, John interprets Jesus’ temple clearing as having messianic significance, identifying Ps 69:9 as typological and Jesus’ action as a fulfillment of it. As Kostenberger notes, historically, the characterization of one consumed by zeal for God’s “house” fits King David. Further, the characterization of the righteous sufferer in Ps 69:9 and the designation of the psalmist as God’s “servant” (Ps 69:17; cf. 2 Sam. 7:5) are also congruent with the depiction of YHWH’s faithful servant in Isaiah (Isa 50:4-9; 52:13; 53:12).[21] John records the disciples’ recognition that Jesus in the act of temple clearing was in fact consumed with zeal for God’s house as the Davidic sufferer/servant of Ps 69 was. Jesus’ description of the temple as to.n oi=kon tou/ patro,j mou contains implicit claims of being a Davidic Son as well; claims that would not have been lost on the ears of both the disciples and the Jews.

Secondly, John’s usage of the future deponent middle katafa,getai instead of the aorist of the LXX (katefagen) may represent an interpretation of the Hebrew as a prophetic perfect as well. Kostenberger reasons that “the change of verb tense most likely serves to shine the spotlight prophetically on Jesus’ cross-death as it is narrated later in the Gospel. Otherwise, the quotation in John is identical in wording to the LXX, which in turn closely corresponds to the MT.”[22]

Jesus’ act of temple clearing is hence presented by John as a sign related to his messianic identity and destiny. Jesus as the Davidic messiah, was both consumed with, and will eventually be consumed by, his zeal for his Father’s house. It is not clear how much the disciples of Jesus actually perceived through the connection they made at the point of the event’s occurrence. In the light of Jn 2:22 however, it could be that while they did make the messianic connection concerning Jesus’ identity, the forth-telling significance of the act concerning Jesus’ messianic destiny was only fully grasped after the resurrection.

2:18-20 Jesus’ Exchange with the Jews

‘Oi vIoudaioi in v18 is specific to the “Jewish Leaders” rather than a generic reference to the Jews. Carson identifies it with the temple authorities or members of the Sanhedrin.[23] Unlike the disciples, the Jewish leaders did not accept Jesus’ actions as indicative of his messianic identity. Like Nicodemus (3:2) however, they would have at least recognized the prophetic tone of his deed and detected the messianic claim inherent in it. They hence questioned Jesus’ authority to undertake such an act on behalf of God by asking him for a shmei/on. Morris notes that “their demand arose from the fact that the Jews were a very practical race and that they expected God to perform mighty miracles when the messianic age dawned. Thus their test for a messianic claimant was, ‘Can he do the signs of the Messiah?’”[24] The sign the Jewish leaders were looking for however, was presumably some sort of miraculous display performed on demand.[25] This was clearly the “frame” they used to interpret Jesus’ reply to their request (v19); hence their resulting perplexity at his response (v20).

Jesus did not deny the request of the Jewish leaders for an authenticating shmei/on as he usually did. The sign he forwarded was that if (and when) they destroy “to.n nao.n tou/ton”, he will raise it up in three days. “Lu,sate” as Wallace notes, probably has both a conditional as well as an imperatival force[26]. The imperatival element though, would most certainly be lost on its first hearers and is perhaps detected to be present on account of a post-resurrection retrospective reading of the event. The phrase to.n nao.n tou/ton is vague in its reference. It is no wonder then that within the context of what Jesus had just done in the temple courts and the type of “sign” which the Jews were looking for, the Jewish leaders would have thought that he was referring to the physical building of Herod’s Temple.

The misunderstanding of the Jews led to their incredulity at Jesus’ proffered sign. There was perhaps more than one element of negativity in the response of the Jews in v20. They were certainly incredulous at what they perceived to be Jesus’ claim, but were probably aghast at Jesus’ seeming challenge as well. On the one hand, what Jesus seemed to be claiming he could do, was deemed a sheer impossibility. The temple which took forty-six years (and certainly many men) to build could not just be rebuilt by a single person in three days. On the other, what they perceived to be Jesus’ challenge; for them to tear down the temple so that he could perform the sign,[27] would be equally preposterous if not sacrilegious as well. It was perhaps this misperception that led some to claim at Jesus’ trial (Mt 26:60; Mk 14:57-59) and also at the cross (Mt 27:40; Mk 15:29) that he wanted to destroy the temple and build it in three days. That this was their taunt even at the cross (and not just a charge raised at the trial) gives grounds perhaps for believing that the Jews were not just “cooking up” what they knew to be baseless charges (which they did unsuccessfully attempt at, but could not make to “stick” on Jesus). They really believed that Jesus was seeking to do away with the temple and it was on account of this charge that Caiaphas finally took more decisive action. (Mt 26:59-62)

2:21-22 John’s Editorial Comments

There may be some significance in John’s emphatic placement and use of evkei/noj. The force of the emphasis would work to contrast the Jews’ misperception with the true meaning of Jesus’ words; he was in fact speaking about the temple of his body, but the Jews thought that he was speaking about the temple Herod built. The basis therefore which Jesus offered for his authority to do what he did in YHWH’s temple, was not “his ability to perform some messianic miracle”, but that “he himself in his body, is in fact the true temple”, of which Herod’s temple was only an interim type. Since Jesus in his body replaces the temple, or since Jesus in person is the true temple, he naturally has the authority to do what he did with the interim type.

There seems to be two “signs” contained in the pericope of the narrative. The sign of “temple clearing” which reflected the messianic identity of Jesus was accepted by the disciples but rejected by the Jewish leaders. The sign of “raising the destroyed temple” which pointed to that fact that he himself is the true temple replacing the interim type was however, not performed in the scene of this narrative. The Jews did not take up the challenge Jesus posed that day and in any case, misunderstood what he really meant. Ironically, by the end of John’s gospel, they would have indeed destroyed the true temple that Jesus was really referring to and his resurrection three days later would vindicate what Jesus did and said that day. Accordingly, John records the response of Jesus’ disciples to the proffered sign when it finally did take place; after Jesus’ resurrection, his disciples remembered what Jesus said, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. The “tou/to” of “tou/to e;legen” would most naturally refer to Jesus’ preceding challenge to the Jews. Within the context of the periscope, the only possible referent for the singular grafh/| (usually used of a specific citation of Scripture) would be Ps 69:9. While the distinction of usage between rhma and logos is not to be pressed, within the present context, if we take it to be the case that John was not simply repeating a reference to Jesus’ speech in v19, tw/| lo,gw| o]n ei=pen o` VIhsou/j may be read as “the message which Jesus spoke”, concerning the temple that day. i.e. that as messiah and through his death and resurrection, he had come to be the focal point of God’s dwelling with Man and the only route of access to God for all nations.

Bibliography

Beal, G.K & Carson, D.A. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapid: Baker Academic, 2007)

Beasley-Murray, G.R. John Word Biblical Commentary Vol.36 (Word, 1987)

Bock, D.L. JESUS according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002)

Borchert, G.L. John 1-11. New American Commentary 25A (Nashville: Broadman & Homan, 1996)

Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991)

Keener, C.S. The Gospel of John. 2 Vols. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2003)

Kostenberger, A.J. John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004)

Metzger, B.M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd Ed. (UBS, 1994)

Morris, L. The Gospel according to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995)

Wallace, D.B. Greek Grammer beyond the Basics. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996)

-----------------------

[1] Metzger, B.M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd Ed. (UBS, 1994) 173.

[2] Kostenberger, A.J. John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004) 104.

[3] An alternative but essentially similar line of thought holds the historical accuracy of John, taking the reordering of material to have occurred in the Synoptic Tradition. Both however are driven by the same concerns and adopt similar strategies for resolution. They equally feel the inherent need to harmonize the incidence of events in the Synoptic and Johannine Traditions, and do so by giving up on the historical reliability of one of the accounts.

[4] Bock, D.L. JESUS according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) 427.

[5] See Kostenberger, A.J. Ibid, 111 for a more detailed summary and discussion.

[6] Keener, C.S. The Gospel of John. 2 Vols. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2003) 518-519.

[7] Borchert, G.L. John 1-11. New American Commentary 25A (Nashville: Broadman & Homan, 1996) 160.

[8] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 177-78. and Morris, L. The Gospel according to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995) 166-69.

[9] See Kostenberger, A.J. Ibid 104. for a summary of these

[10] Kostenberger, A.J. Ibid, 104.

[11] Beasley-Murray, G.R. John Word Biblical Commentary Vol.36 (Word, 1987) 37.

[12] Carson, D.A. Ibid, 178.

[13] Morris,L. Ibid, 194.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Kostenberger, A.J. Ibid, 106

[17] As a house of prayer for all nations.

[18] Carson, D.A. Ibid, 179.

[19] the force of Vemnh,sqhsan used in this context

[20] Kostenberger, A.J. in Beal, G.K & Carson, D.A. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapid: Baker Academic, 2007) 433.

[21] Ibid,

[22] Ibid,

[23] Carson, D.A. Ibid, 180.

[24] Morris, L. Ibid, 197

[25] Carson, D.A. Ibid, 181.

[26] Wallace, D.B. Greek Grammer beyond the Basics. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 490.

[27] Kostenberger, A.J. John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004) 110.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download