Posted by Rev. Marc DeSilva on March 25, 2005 at 14:21:59:
In Reply to: Having Survived Life East of Equity, Kinda. posted by LiBbey Joplin. on March 05, 2005 at 03:39:45:
Dear LiBbey your words remind me of Matthew gospel in Matthew 23: 27-29; 27: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
You write powerfully. I pray this Commentary may assist you in your poetry.
Respectfully yours in Christ Jesus, Rev. Marc DeSilva
Commentary Year B, Lent 3, March 23, 2003
John 2:13-22/The Text:
(13) The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
(14) In the temple, he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at
their tables.
(15) Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He
also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
(16) He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s
house a market place!”
(17) His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
(18) The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?”
(19) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
(20) The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise
it up in three days?”
(21) But he was speaking of the temple of his body.
(22) After 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.
*****************************************************
(13) The Passover of the Jews was near,
and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Every year, there were three main pilgrimages to Jerusalem:
Passover - Spring/ Pentecost - Summer
Sukkoth - Fall
A pilgrimage, in this instance, is a religious journey to a hallowed shrine.
It normally entails consecrated persons traveling to sacred places in order to experience
the divinely sacred, most often at sacred times. What makes a pilgrimage different from
a vacation is the whole pilgrimage process derives from a religious responsibility,
whether by divine command, divine revelation, or reverence for ancestors or ancestral
heroes.[i]
Divine command decreed the triennial Jewish journey to Jerusalem, and we find it in Deuteronomy
16:16:
Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place
that he will choose; at the festival of the unleavened bread, at the festival of the weeks,
and at the festival of the booths.[ii]
In the Antiquities, Josephus describes the benefits that are to be derived from such pilgrimages:
Let those who live as remote as the bounds of the land which the Hebrews shall
possess, come to that city where the temple shall be, and this three times in a year,
that they may give thanks to God for his former benefits, and may entreat him for those
they shall want hereafter; and let them by this means maintain a friendly
correspondence with one another by such meetings and feasting together – for it is a
good thing for those who are of the same stock, and under the same institution of laws,
not to be unacquainted with one another, and so renewing the memorials of this union;
for they do not thus converse together continually, they will appear like mere strangers
to one another.[iii]
In John 3:13, we have the traditional language of pilgrimage: there is talk about Jesus “going up”
(anabaino) to Jerusalem. But he does not behave like a pilgrim. In John, Jesus uses the pilgrimage
journeys as an opportunity to protest established practice.
******************************************
(14) In the temple, he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves
and the money changers seated at their tables.
The Temple of Herod the Great was constructed in the form of a quadrangle, a four-sided structure of
somewhat irregular shape. It was about 1000 feet wide and 1500 feet long. At the very center were the
interior courts, consisting of the temple building, the altar of sacrifice and the area where the Jews
worshipped. Outside the interior courts and to the south, but still within the four-sided structure, there
was a large open space, and this was open to the Gentiles as well as the Jewish people. It is here
where the traders were, and this is where the scene with Jesus takes place.
A Rabbinic text of the period informs us about the degrees of holiness:
The Land of Israel is holier than any other land…
The walled cities (of the land of Israel) are still more holy…
Within the walls of Jerusalem are still more holy…
The Temple Mount is still more holy…
The rampart is still more holy…
The Court of the Women is still more holy…
The court of the Israelites is still more Holy…
The Court of the Priest is still more holy…
Between the porch and the altar is still more holy…
The Sanctuary is still more holy…
The holy of holies is still more holy…[iv]
Women and Gentiles had access to the same restricted area.
The people doing business in the temple court were a necessary part of the religious establishment.
First, the pilgrim would have paid a temple tax, and although payment was voluntary, many Jews in
Palestine and the Diaspora (communities of Jews in other lands) supported the tax on the basis of moral
suasion. It was considered a religious duty and a requirement of the law. [v] The moneychangers
were necessary, because it was impossible to pay the tax with Greek or Roman coins. It
was forbidden by law to use image-bearing currency. Therefore, people with such coins
had to exchange them for Tyrain coins, which had worth only as a designation. The
amount of tax paid is listed in the period as a half-shekel, and the charge for the
exchange of a coin was 2.12%.
The doves, goats and cattle would have been for sale to pilgrims who wanted to use them as sacrificial
offerings. It was difficult to journey with an animal or a bird. It was much easier for a pilgrim to sell an
animal where he lived, and to use the money gained by the sale to buy a sacrificial animal when he
arrived in Jerusalem. In addition, the sacrifice itself had to be unblemished, and officials approved the
ones on sale in the temple precincts. The dove, the smallest of the animals available, was the poor
man’s sacrifice (Leviticus 5:7; 12:8).
*******************************************
(15) Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple,
both the sheep and the cattle.
He also poured out the coins of the money changers
and overturned their tables.
It would have impossible to move sheep and cattle with one’s bare hands, so Jesus made a whip. Most
commentators believe that the specific reference to sheep and cattle (in the second line above) means
that the whip was applied specifically to these animals. This thought is confirmed in verse 16, where
there is a description of Jesus speaking to those selling doves; obviously the “dove sellers” had not been
driven away. If the animals were driven out, it is difficult to determine where they would have gone.
*******************************************
(16) He told those who were selling the doves,
“Take these things out of here!
Stop making my Father’s house a market place.”
This verse generates an interpretative issue.
· Is the problem the presence of the market within the temple precincts?
· Or is the problem the specific location of the marketing activity; i.e. the court designated for
women and Gentiles?
If the first is the case, John 2:16 is an implicit reference to Zechariah 14:20c:
And there shall no longer be traders
in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day.
In Zechariah, the reference is to the eschaton (the last days and the coming of God’s reign) and the
thought is that, in an ideal situation, there will be no traders within the temple precincts.
This “spin” on the incident is different than the one we find in parallel passages in Matthew, Mark and
Luke. There the concern is not so much the presence of the traders as it is the specific location of their
activity. In Mark 11:17 (//Matthew 21:13//Luke 19:46), we read:
For my house shall be called
a house of prayer for all people.
Rather than an implicit reference to Zechariah 14:20c, we have a direct quote from Isaiah 56:7c. The
phrase “for all people” points to a concern for the Gentiles who may have wanted to worship the one God
in the location set aside by the Jews for this purpose. Jesus’ complaint would have been that the
marketing going on made it impossible for the Gentiles to use the outer court for its designated purpose.
This concern is different than the one occupying John. In the Fourth Gospel, the simple presence of
commercial activity is regarded as an issue.
But there is more than this going on in John. In 2:20-21, there is an exchange between the Judeans and
Jesus. When Jesus speaks of the destruction of the temple and rebuilding it in three days, the Judeans
argue that the temple has been under construction for forty-six years. Jesus responds by saying that he
was speaking of the temple of his body, in particular, his resurrected body (2:22).
Through the words of Jesus, John sets up a contrast between the material temple and its external
practices and the spiritual, resurrected body of Jesus. This is typical of John. Frequently he has the
questioner of Jesus speaking on a material level and misunderstanding, when in fact, Jesus is talking
about a spiritual realm. This play on material/spiritual polarities can be seen in the story of Nicodemus
(John 3 – born of a woman/born from above), and the account of the exchange between Jesus and the
Samaritan woman (John 4 – water from the well/living water); and it occurs here, in John 2. Therefore,
the narrative expresses more than displeasure with the presence and the location of the traders. John’s
Jesus is saying that the whole sacrificial system, as it was known and practiced in first century
Palestine, was a roadblock rather than a gateway to God. John wants his readers to accept Jesus as the
sole mediator between the divine and the human.
**********************************************
(17) His disciples remembered that it was written,
“Zeal for my house will consume me.”
John wants to make sure that Jesus’ action has a Biblical base, and to this end he quotes Psalm
69:9a. Again, this is different than what we find in Mark and the parallels. Matthew, Mark and Luke
combine Isaiah 56:7c and Jeremiah 7:11:
Mark 11:17/Matt. 21:13//Luke 19:46
Isaiah 56:7c
(in Italics - found in Mark only)
“It is (Is it not) written, ‘My house shall be
for my house shall be called
called a house of prayer (for all nations).’
A house of prayer for all peoples.
Jeremiah 7:11
Has this house which is called by my name
But you have made it a den of robbers”
become a den of robbers in your sight?
This Synoptic citing of Isaiah and Jeremiah rather than Zechariah or the Psalm changes the character of
the primary issues. The fundamental concerns of the Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke are (a) the
dislocation of Gentile worshippers (“for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people”), and (b)
corruption within the temple precincts (the “house of prayer” has become “a den of thieves”) The issues
are not, as they are in John, the presence of traders in the temple, or the sacrificial practice of the
temple system. One further note: In John, it is the disciples who recall Psalm 69, whereas in Matthew,
Mark and Luke, it is Jesus who quotes scripture.
*******************************************************
(18) The Jews said to him,
“What sign can you show us for doing this?”
What follows from John 2:18 (through to the end of verse 22) is commentary on Jesus’ action in the
temple. At this point, John parts company with the other Gospels. Matthew and Mark intervene with
the account of the withering fig tree, a symbol for the future of the temple religion, and Luke moves
directly to the question of the authority of Jesus.
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus deals with the authority question by asking whether or not John the
Baptist’s baptism was of heavenly or human origin. This is not the approach in our passage. Rather,
there is the specific request for a sign. (A “sign” has already been granted with the miracle at Cana - the
turning of water into wine - but in this passage, it has been forgotten.) Jesus responds by speaking about
the destruction of the temple and its rebuilding as his resurrected body.
************************************************************
(19) Jesus answered them,
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
See the last paragraph of the explanation for John 2:16, on the material/spiritual contrast intrinsic to
John’s Gospel. Here we see the beginning of the presentation of a typical Johannine theme: the world
cannot understand the words of Jesus. Also see the source analysis for parallels.
**********************************************
(20) The Jews then said,
“This temple has been under construction for forty-six years,
and you will raise it up in three days?”
Again, see the explanation for 2:16 above. The Jews understand Jesus in a crass way, as did
Nicodemus (John 3:4) and the Samaritan woman (4:15) before them. They think of the temple in a
material sense. According to Josephus, the construction of the temple was begun in 20/19 B.C.E.
(Antiquities 15.2.1.380). If this were the case, we are in the year 28 C.E. when Jesus has this incident in
the temple (there was no year 0).
The words of John 2:20 have fueled speculation about Jesus’ age. The equation of Jesus’ body with the
temple has led to the suggestion that Jesus himself was 46 years of age. He is called the second
Adam, and the numerical value of the word “Adam” in the Hebrew language is also 46 years. This is far
fetched, given the usual conviction that Jesus died when he was in his early thirties; but it can be
harmonized with John 8:57, where we have the Jews saying to Jesus, “You are not yet fifty years old.”
*****************************************************
(21) But he was speaking of the temple of his body.
Jesus’ response fails to satisfy those requesting a sign, for little is accomplished in the moment. Jesus
responds with words and promises, with words that were not understood, and promises that would be
fulfilled in the future. Jesus says, “if you destroy the temple” (pointing to an action taken by someone
else), “in three days, I will raise it up” (pointing to an action to be accomplished by him). But now he
clarifies this previous statement. John has Jesus speaking of his own body as the temple, with a
reference to the length of time between his death and his resurrection. Through Jesus, John expresses
the conviction that the Jerusalem temple and its sacrificial system had been superseded.
Later commentators have referred to the risen body of Christ as the church (the new temple), citing the
resurrection as the impetus for Christian community, and passages in the New Testament that speak of
the church as the “body of Christ” (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-30; Ephesians 1:23; 4:1-16), and
Christ as the “head of the body” (Colossians 1:18). Oscar Cullman modifies this approach, suggesting
that Jesus is referring to a temple “not made with hands,” but to “the community of disciples.”[vi]
However, these thoughts are built on John’s particular understanding, and they are the product of
speculation after the church had been established. They did not inhabit the mind of Jesus.
**************************************************
(22) After he was raised from the dead,
the disciples remembered that he had said this;
and they believed the scripture and the word Jesus has spoken.
Jesus’ statements did not illuminate the disciples in the moment that he spoke. They would have to wait
for understanding. John is reflecting the experience in the early church, where it took time to make
specific connections: i.e., the new temple = the risen body of Christ, the discipleship community, the
church.
The reference to scripture is obscure. What scripture? What passage in scripture? As the Christian
community developed, a connection would be made between the persecuted and risen Jesus, and the
stone rejected becoming the corner stone. For example, in Psalm 118:22, we read:
The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
In 1 Peter 2:4-7, there is a commentary on this passage, equating Christ with the rejected stone:
Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals, yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and like
living stones, let yourself be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual
sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in scripture: ‘See, I am laying in Zion a
stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.’ To you
then who believe, he is precious; and for those who do not believe, ‘The stone that the builders
rejected has become the very head of the corner.’
The reading of Psalm 118:22, and its interpretation in this way, led to an understanding of Christ
as the cornerstone of the new temple, i.e., the discipleship community. The piecing together of
this scenario was a product of examining scripture. The rejection of the cornerstone was
anticipated in ancient texts. John was writing from the perspective of the 90s. It is quite
possible that when he refers to the discovery of explanations in scripture, he is thinking of
Psalm 118 and its subsequent interpretation by the Christian community.
***********************************************
Appendix to the Commentary
Interpretative Issues
What was the meaning of Jesus’ behavior in the temple? Interpretations vary, but there are two
perspectives representing the most distant poles of the spectrum of opinion. Jesus was either:
1. Prophetically attempting
2. Prophetically symbolizing
to reform the temple.
the destruction of the temple
This dichotomy is captured in the title of an article by C. A. Evans: “Jesus Action Against the Temple:
Cleansing or Portent of Destruction.”[vii]
The traditional way of approaching the incident is to consider Jesus’ action as:
(1) An Attempt to Reform the Jerusalem Temple.
This theme is evident in such titles for the passage as “The Cleansing of the Temple,” used to introduce
the Biblical text (i.e., the Jerusalem Bible and the New Revised Standard Version, for the passage in
John).[viii] The idea is that those who were “set up” in the temple precincts were profaning the temple.
The whole business of trafficking in money changing, and selling of doves, sheep and goats is seen as
the means of contaminating a sacred place. Joseph Fitzmyer, introducing the Lucan version of the
account, writes:
Jesus proceeds directly into the Jerusalem Temple and in a prophetic act purges it of
those who by their mercantile traffic were profaning its character as a house of prayer
(Luke 19:45-46). By this significant act, Jesus as “the king, the one who comes in the
name of the Lord!” (19:38), takes possession of and transforms his “Father’s house”
(2:49).[ix]
This passage from Fitzmyer’s commentary indicates that the problem was the trade itself, and the fact it
took place in the precincts of the temple. Jesus is responding to the concern expressed in the
prophetic announcement in Zechariah 14:21c: “And there shall no longer be traders in the house of the
Lord of hosts on that day.” He was challenging the way the temple was being used and making the
attempt to “return it” to its proper function. This way of reading the text responds in part to what we find in
the text in John’s Gospel. There, Jesus’ consternation seems to be leveled at those who were in the
wrong place for the conduct of business:
In the temple, he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the
moneychangers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out
of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the
moneychangers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves,
“Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a market place!”
(2:14-16)
The only reason given (in John’s Gospel) for this scattering of traders and moneychangers is “Zeal for
God’s house” (John 2:17//Psalm 69:9a).[x]
But Matthew, Mark and Luke quote Jeremiah 7:11, which describes the temple as a “den of robbers.”
And so for other commentators, the nature of the profanation is not simply business per se, but rather,
the manner in which the trade is conducted. The dishonesty of the traders evokes the desecration. We
find both the trading and illicit practice at the core of an interpretation by Joachim Jeremias, in the first
volume of his New Testament Theology:
The cleansing of the temple was a prophetic symbolic act, and was understood to be
such, …In it, Jesus realizes the promise of Zechariah 14:21: ‘And there shall no longer
be a trader in the house of the Lord on that day.’ At that time he threatens judgment on
the caste of priestly nobility, which had organized the haggling in the holy place…This
vivid picture comes from Jeremiah 7: 11: The priests have made the temple a lair
from which they go out again on new sorties. They misuse their calling, to celebrate
public worship to the glory of God, by carrying on business to make profit. And in so
doing, they commit something frightful: they put God at the service of sin.[xi]
This interpretation goes beyond the idea that the location for the conduct of business was the primary
problem. The real issue is the corruption involved in the business being practiced at the temple. Here we
have a distinction between the temple as ordained by God and the abuse of a divine institution.
We have different texts and diverse comments on parallel passages. So we need to ask, what
was the problem?
· Was it the commercial activity in the temple precinct?
· Was it that the trade was corrupt?
Perhaps the context displayed a combination of the two. To deal with these questions, it is necessary to
ask if people in first century Palestine thought of the Jerusalem temple as a locus of corruption.
There is evidence of corruption in association with the office of High Priest. We read of this in a
commentary on Habakkuk, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dated between 120-5 B.C.E. In
QpHab 8, it states:
…The arrogant man (the “Wicked High Priest”) seizes wealth without halting. He widens
his gullet like Hell and like Death he never has enough…’Woe to him who amasses that
which is not his![xii]
Further to this, in QpHab 11-12, we find: For the violence done to Lebanon shall overwhelm you, and the destruction of the beasts shall terrify you, because of the blood of men and the violence done
Having Survived Life East of Equity, Kinda.
LiBbey Joplin.
: Sundown, second week..
: Month's end?
: Bittersweet half way, unsung...
: Folks outta food again.
: Hard to breathe hope once Life's wounds
: Go Social Assistance.
: Madame Citoyen Avec Culotte,
: Save us from depraved socialized indifference?
: October rains a cold,
: Too tired to revel in Life's joy.
: Yes, sleeps the harsh knowings of dreamt direness.
: Awake, awake four walls 2:38 am,
: Hunger..
: Buried alive in penalty,
: After the fact of injury
: Is the hour's chill.
: And the little birds I know say paupers can't be choosers,
: but folks fight to sing, all the same.
: Bones hurt to move/ Ontario Works? No, no and no.
: Then, in a faithful moment,
: Give a dawg a bone,
: A burger may become the good mental health of a small comfort.
: Yet, the hut you crash iz a likely trick done according to Hoyle.
: Yes, sicker-by-the-day desiccates the unfortified.
: Ontario Disability Support Program Act is a legislated lament.
: Nine years Machiavellian-Altruism
: ruined us in untold ways.
: Cupboards bare,
: Kraft-Dinner and do-more-with-less ain't no goodness
: to be named healthy.
: O'Mercy, fiscal conservatism..
: Wounds upon wounds--Misery as dignity?
: Sad, the anxious suffrage of Survivors
: is the measure of "Our" society's worth.
: Poverty, it's a wicked business--Scurrilous, yes?
: Guess, it's the scrooge in each,
: that's the custodian of making crazy.
: So, now some work late to build equity in the Ontario of 2003,
: And counting--There in civility stands: "Injury, Privation, Neglect and
: Disservice,"
: They are the daughters and sons of much misrepresentation.
: Poverty's Survivor,
: In the End and so the Beginning
: it's a 24-7 act of courage!
: And there in umbrella's rat carried on playing in the rain,
: Singing: "Aucune crédibilité sans qualité de la vie--No credibility without quality of the life!"
: Oui,
: Ne lâche pas--Faites, société civile!
: All in confustication,
: just the signs of "Our" times...Those whom are said to be,
: Far upon high,
: Kingdom come,
: Rex Maximus, erat rex nomine,
: sed non postestate.
: A finger'd rebuke for the Kings in name,
: but not in [T]ruth,
: nor power.
: Ah wonder yeass,
: Shine on,
: In praise Poverty's Survivor!
: EnD.
: ©2005 LiBbey Joplin, all rights reserved, Toronto, Canada. End of the Block Ink. Outil édité d'enseignement, institut dans la gestion et développement de la Communauté, Université de Concordia.
: Montréal, Québec.
: This poem is dedicated and written for all those living at or below the poverty cut-off line--Meaning, all the working poor, beat for broke ailing vulnerable and System-Survivors living with disablities,
: who are "Our" Society's disenfranchised living at risk of social assistance, homelessness and/or homeless, everyday.
: Reflection: "I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet I assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by
: getting off his back." - Leo Tolstoy.