The Synoptics record Jesus' cleansing of the temple after His triumphal entry (Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-16; Luke 19:45-46). Only John noted this cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. The differences between the two cleansing incidents and their placement in the chronology of Jesus' ministry argue for two cleansings rather than one.114
2:13 John alone recorded that Jesus went up to Jerusalem, topographically again, for three separate Passover celebrations.115This one was evidently the Passover of April 7, 30 A.D., the first one after Jesus began His public ministry.116He did that because He was a Jew who obeyed the Mosaic Law (Deut. 16:1-8), and He used the opportunity to minister. John's description of the Passover as "the Passover of the Jews"supports the view that he wrote his Gospel late in the first century for a general audience that was mainly Gentile.
2:14-16 Jesus witnessed the buying and selling going on in the temple courtyard (Gr. hieron). This was undoubtedly the outer Court of the Gentiles, not the temple building (Gr. naos).117Probably the custom of selling sacrificial animals and exchanging various types of money for temple coinage began as a convenience for pilgrims. The priests accepted only Tyrian coins because of the purity of their silver. By Jesus' day this practice had escalated into a major business for the priests and had replaced spiritual worship in the courtyard during the Passover season. The priests transformed this area from a place of quiet prayer into a noisy oriental bazaar. It was virtually impossible for Gentiles to worship there, the only courtyard accessible to them, with all the business going on. The priests set up tables for the moneychangers only for about three weeks leading up to Passover.118
Jesus responded to this situation actively and verbally. He claimed that God was His Father and that He acted for God in what He did. John's vivid description has inspired many painters who have drawn what they believed this action-packed scene must have looked like. John gave the reason for Jesus' deeds as His concern for the misuse of the temple. He did not mention the corruption that may have been going on as the priests bought and sold and changed money. Jesus' action constituted a major threat to the financial arrangements for the sacrificial system.119
By claiming God as His Father, Jesus was citing authority for His action, not claiming equality with the Father, which He did another time (5:18). To those present, the issue was clearly Jesus' authority, not His identity (v. 18).
Though Jesus' action was violent, it evidently did not constitute a threat to the peace in the temple area. Roman soldiers from the adjoining Antonia Fortress would have intervened quickly if it had. Jesus was forceful but not cruel. There is no indication that He injured anyone with His fairly harmless scourge of cords (Gr. phragellion ek schoinion).120
"It is clear that it was not so much the physical force as the moral power he employed that emptied the courts."121
The Old Testament predicted that Messiah would come and purify the Levites (Mal. 3:1-3; cf. Zech. 14:21). Jesus' action perhaps recalled these prophecies to the godly in Israel who may have wondered if Jesus was the Messiah. His actions did not fulfill these prophecies, however, which appear in millennial contexts. Jesus will yet return to the temple that will be standing in Jerusalem when He returns at His second coming and purify the Levites serving there then. This will be preparation for His messianic reign that will follow.
2:17 The outstanding impression that Jesus' acts presented to His disciples was one of zeal for the proper use of the temple and ultimately for God's glory. They may have recalled Psalm 69:9 then, or they may have thought of it later. John's description does not make this clear. This is one of the most frequently quoted Psalm in the New Testament (cf. 7:3-5; 15:25; Matt. 27:34, 48; Rom. 11:9-10; 15:3).122In Psalm 69:9 David meant that zeal for the building of the temple had dominated his thoughts and actions, and he implied that others had criticized him for it. John changed the quotation from the past to the future tense implying that it was a prophecy concerning David's great Son. He undoubtedly saw it as such. However, was he not misquoting the verse?
The Hebrew language does not have past, present, and future tenses as English does. It has a perfect tense indicating complete action and an imperfect tense indicating incomplete action. In Psalm 69:9 the tense of the Hebrew verb is perfect. One can translate a Hebrew perfect tense with an English past, present, or future tense depending on the context. Here an English past tense was appropriate for David's statement about himself, but the Hebrew also permits an English future tense that is appropriate for Messiah, the so-called prophetic perfect tense.
"We should not miss the way this incident fits in with John's aim of showing Jesus to be the Messiah. All his actions imply a special relationship with God. They proceed from his messianic vocation. The citation from Scripture is important from another point of view, for it accords with another habit of this Evangelist. While John does not quote the Old Testament as frequently as do some other New Testament writers, it is still the case, as Richard Morgan says, that the Old Testament is present at every crucial moment in the Gospel.' It is one of John's great themes that in Jesus God is working his purposes out. Every critical moment sees the fulfillment of Scripture in which those purposes are set forth."123
"When Jesus cleansed the temple, He declared war' on the hypocritical religious leaders (Matt. 23), and this ultimately led to His death. Indeed, His zeal for God's house dideat Him up!"124
2:18 The spokesmen for the Jews present in the courtyard wanted Jesus to perform some miraculous sign (Gr. semeion, cf. 2:11). They wanted Him to indicate that He possessed divine authority to do what He did (cf. Exod. 4:1-9; Matt. 12:38; 16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16; 1 Cor. 1:22). The sin of these Jewish leaders is apparent in that they did not deal with the question of the justice of Jesus' criticism. They only inquired about His authority to act as He did.
2:19 Jesus gave them a sign but not the kind they wanted. They wanted some immediate demonstration of prophetic authority. Instead Jesus announced a miracle that would vindicate His authority after He died.
Why was Jesus not more cooperative? First, He controlled when as well as how He would act under the Father's authority, and the time was not yet right for a dramatic sign (cf. v. 4). Second, these Jews had already demonstrated that they had no real interest in justice, only in discrediting Jesus (v. 18). They did not sincerely want a sign. They would not have acknowledged Jesus' authority even if He had performed a miracle for them.
The Jews thought that Jesus was offering to rebuild Herod's temple within three days if they would knock it down. His ability to do so would have been a miraculous enough sign for any of them. Furthermore it would have demonstrated His authority to regulate temple service. However they were unwilling to fulfill their part of the sign. By suggesting this action Jesus was also implying that the old temple and its service had served its purpose. He had come to establish a new temple and a new way of worship.
Why did Jesus answer enigmatically rather than clearly? Why did He not say, Destroy my body, and I will raise it up in three days? Jesus was replying to unbelief the way He often did, in parabolic language. He wanted to hide revelation from the unbelieving but to reveal it to believers.
The Sanhedrin used Jesus' words about destroying the temple as a capital charge against Him at His trial (Matt. 26:61; Mark 14:58; cf. Matt. 27:40; Mark 15:29). This was unfair, however, because Jesus had said, "You destroy the temple,"not, "I will destroy the temple."Furthermore Jesus was speaking of His body primarily, not the temple.
2:20-22 Verse 20 provides an important chronological marker in the life of Jesus. It enables us to date His visit to the temple here as happening in 30 A.D.125Work on Herod's Temple had been proceeding for 46 years. It was not completed until 63 A.D.
Jesus' critics assumed that He was speaking of Herod's temple, but John interpreted His true meaning for his readers. Even Jesus' disciples did not understand what He meant until after His resurrection. The Scripture they then believed was Old Testament prophecy concerning Messiah's resurrection (e.g., Ps. 16:10).
Jesus' body was a temple in a unique sense. It was the body in which the Word had become flesh (1:14). The Father indwelt it as did the Son (14:10-11) and the Spirit (1:32-33). It therefore uniquely manifested the Father. It was also the site where God manifested Himself on earth as He had done previously, though to a lesser extent, in the tabernacle and temple. Moreover it was the center of true worship following the Incarnation (cf. 4:20-24). In it the ultimate sacrifice would take place.126Jesus spoke of the temple as a type (i.e., a divinely intended illustration) of Himself. Later Christ's body became a figure for the church (cf. Eph. 1:23; 4:16; Col. 1:18), but that use probably began after the founding of the church at Pentecost. It seems clear that Jesus was referring to his physical body here rather than to the church. Yet there may be an intentional allusion to the ultimate abolition of the Jewish temple and temple sacrifices.127Such double references are common in this Gospel.
"The misunderstandings seem to function to highlight the two levels of understanding that take place in the Gospel. On the one hand is the spiritual or heavenly level that Jesus came bringing, to teach the true way to eternal life. On the other hand is the temporal or earthly level that most people operate at, including most of Christ's professed disciples, which leads to darkness and loss of eternal life. John wants to show that one must cross over from the earthly to the heavenly, from darkness into light, from death into life. By his careful construction of the narratives, John leads his readers to see and understand what the original participants could or did not, and thus to believe the claims of Jesus and avoid the ignorance displayed by the original characters in the drama."128
