Rowe: NT754 (a)

Text Analysis

John 2:13-25

NT754 – Dr. Kavin Rowe, February 13, 2013

I. OUTLINE (John 2:13-25)

A. Tell: Authoritative Paschal Act - Occupy Wall Street Temple Courts. (v.13-16)

• Driving "out" the money-changers, salesmen, and other animals
• Scattering money and capsizing a titanic economic vessel (sacrificial economy?)

B. Reflect: Zeal for and consumption (17)

A. Tell: Authority based on Miraculous Sign (18-20)

• Objection - miracle as authority
• Authoritative Response - resurrection as authority
• Incredulity - authority?

B. Reflect: Authority of Paschal mystery (21-25)

• Body as temple, resurrection as proof of authority ("then they believed")
• Who knows what shadows lurk in the hearts of [humans]? Jesus knows!

II. EXEGETICAL ISSUES

A. Boundaries and placement of the pericope. (2:13-25)

1) Translators of the NIV have segmented this tale in the Temple beginning in v.12 (in the company of his mother, brothers, and disciples), but RSV segments it beginning with v.13 (more or less alone), so there is some disagreement as to how John sets up the scene in the Temple. Furthermore, some editions give a title to the pericope, affecting the reading thereof. Clear, cleanse, and purify do not appear in the text itself, and it is not certain that this is what Jesus is doing.

2) The (assigned) pericope begins with "The Passover" at v.12, and has two two-fold clips; each opens with a story and concludes with an authorial reflection. The first is more narratively focused, the second more reflection-heavy. Each clip is about Jesus' authority to "clear/cleanse/purify" the Temple grounds and how such authority is evidenced. In the first, Jesus occupies the temple and acts in a way that only one with authority may. John then shelves the story for one verse and puts us in the disciples' heads, in order to reflect on Psalm 69. The second clip is a triplet of sayings; 1) Jews demand a sign of Jesus' authority, 2) Jesus challenges them to kill him so that he can be raised from the dead, and 3) the Jews are left incredulous, unaware of Jesus' using the word "Temple" to refer to his body, which we come to understand through the second, more lengthy, and final 3-verse reflection by John concluding where he began, with the Passover. Loosely understood, these 13 verses might form an inclusio structure.

B. Textual Problems. Variant readings exist, especially in terms of political/justified violence. Some interpreters use this pericope to justify Godly wrath, since Jesus took a whip to drive out people from the Temple, a seemingly violent act (exacerbated by the fact that it is only in John where a whip appears – the other Gospels indicate no such 'weapon'). However, the first clip uses more economic terms (money-changers, selling, market, money, coins, trade, etc.) than it does political. The second clip is unique to John, and is used to break down the assumed difference between the institutional place of God (the Temple grounds) and the incarnate dwelling place of God (Jesus body). Put another way, is this pericope about Jesus occupying the Temple, or about God occupying Jesus (and us as well)?

C. Translation problems. [Greek Strongs]

Essential to this passage is the scholarly debate between English translations of the temple courts (v.14 & 15. hieros/hieron [2411] – sacred, including ground and all that is on it), and temple as body (v.19, 20, 21. naos, from naio [3485] – the building itself, the most sacred part of it). Not all English interpretations assign these two distinct Greek words different connotations in English. This is problematic because this word is precisely the one upon which the author is playing to explain "the Jews" inability to understand Jesus' challenge to destroy… (what?)

D. Analysis of Key Words. [Greek Strongs]

1) "Jews/Jewish" etc. vv.13, 18. iudaios [1453] – its use signifies John's attempt to differentiate between his own community and that from which it began. Significance to placing the dates within which he probably wrote. He is notorious for how strongly he contrasts the emerging Christian community with Jewish identity.

2) "money changers" vv.14, 16. kermatistes [2773] – the only place this compound word appears in the NT. They were not always the shrewd capitalists we imagine, but were perhaps in place to enforce honest exchange rates and dealings between (sometimes Roman, sometimes Jewish) sellers and (always Jewish) buyers.

3) miraculous "sign/s" vv.18 & 23. semeion [4592] – a sign with a spiritual end and purpose. "The Jews" demand this in order to satisfy their concern that Jesus has acted inappropriately, while others come to believe in his name for those that Jesus did.

4) "believed" vv. 22 & 23 pisteuo [4411] – from pistis - faith. Jesus' disciples are said to have believed only after he was raised from the dead, whereas "many" believed after more simple signs, apparently prior to his resurrection.

E. Form-critical issues.

Because other Gospels do not elucidate on the occupying of the Temple by Jesus, some question is raised over where (literarily) to place vv.23-25; at the end of v.22 or the beginning of ch.3? The former dovetails more easily into a reflection upon Jesus' reply to those who witnessed his actions and were offended, and seems more likely. The latter depends upon seeing the literary structure of Jesus in Jerusalem stretch into 3:1-21, using 2:23-25 as a kind of interlude between Jesus occupying the Temple (an event with corporate underpinnings) and his activities with Nicodemus (a dialogue with individual connotations). Possible, but unlikely, since the assigned pericope deals from start to finish with Passover at the Temple and the Nicodemian dialogue deals with rebirth.

F. Use of the OT.

1) Direct Usage. The author's direct use of the Old Testament is evident in v.9, where he takes the reader to Psalm 69 ("Zeal for your house has consumed me") via the reflection of Christ's disciples. He also puts to Jesus' lips the words of Isaiah 56:7 ("my house shall be called a house of prayer") and Jeremiah 7:11 ("not a den of thieves").

2) Indirect usage. Other passages are relied upon for the understanding of Passover (Deuteronomy 16:1-16) and also to allude to people's refusal to believe apart from "appearances" or "signs," (the Israelites do not believe in Moses - Exodus 4:1 & 8) and "miracles," (Pharaoh does not believe in Moses - Exodus 7:9) and other wonders.

G. Use of other sources.

Given the late dating of John's Gospel, from where does his non-synoptic material (vv.17, 19-25) derive? If he is the eyewitness he claims to be, how did earlier (synoptic) Gospels miss so much? Seeing as he reflects so much via Jesus' disciples, perhaps he is inserting insights acquired after the event itself, but that would depend upon him actually being a (very old [even by today's standards]) eyewitness.

H. Cultural background.

Those who purchased pigeons or doves (v.16) were unable to afford the prescribed sacrificial animals. It can be speculated that those selling to such families, especially if their virtue was being enforced by the money-changers present, were not inherently exploitative. Some commenters suggest that the pigeon/dove sellers were merely instructed to conduct their business on less hallowed ground, whereas those selling cattle and sheep (animals that could be afforded by more affluent clients) were "driven out" and had their coins scattered. Mary and Joseph were said to have participated in the annual Paschal sacrifices (Luke 2:41), and being as poor as Mary and Joseph would have been, Jesus' family very likely would have relied upon the service of the sellers of doves and pigeons in order to partake in Passover. The "and" that opens v.16 seems to distinguish between traders dealing with the rich and those dealing with the poor (hence Jesus' more lenient treatment thereof).

I. Relation to other NT texts. (Parallels = Matt.21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46)

John is the only writer to put this episode at the very beginning of his gospel. He also has a more detailed exploration about authority and Passover that he links directly and immediately to this pericope. Other Gospels mention Jesus' teaching and the Scribes' interest in destroying Jesus in passing and within a few verses always have them asking not for a sign (semeion), but for evidence of Jesus authority (exousia [1849]). However, even John's story seems to be about authority- whose it is, how it is evidenced, and what happens when those who believe it belongs to them see it as being undermined – but John refuses to frame the occupying story in terms of exousia, a break from other Gospel writers. In other Gospels, the religious leaders ask 'by what authority' Jesus has done this. John, however, remembers this objection as a request not for authority, but for a sign.

J. Problems of history.

The historical Jesus almost certainly can be known to have objected to making the Temple a den of robbers/thieves, as it appears in each of the four Gospel accounts. Furthermore, we know the historical Jesus would have been aware of and well-versed in the Hebrew scriptures. However, it might be disputed whether he actually invited his own death by playing the Temple off as his own body (vv.18-22), which would indeed be destroyed by the worlds standards, upon the cross. The question of timing is also key; had Jesus inaugurated his ministry with this act, as John claims and other Gospels dispute, the religious establishment would almost certainly not have tolerated such an open attack by an un-established young Rabbi such as Jesus. John has no story of Jesus teaching in the Temple as a child or of attending synagogue, acts which would have ingratiated himself with the religious environment and institutions of his day. Sure, he has worked miracles and been vouched for by an eccentric, itinerant holy man (who also happened to be his cousin) – hardly the credentials that would have given some measure of credence with the Temple cult or Pharisaic religiosity.

K. Literary Observations and Questions.

1) The Greek text of vv.14-16 is all one long sentence. Like Jesus, it moves urgently, up-turning our expectations and pre-conceived notions about the nature of Christ and the nature of religion and economy.

2) John seems to go out of his way to exclude any textual hint of authority, though it is hard to read Jesus' actions as anything but. Is there something going on there under the surface, between the lines? Could John be trying to keep our attention on Jesus himself as authority, instead of the sign and wonder of powerful words (like exousia) by which we otherwise can compartmentalize him?

L. History of Interpretation.

1) John Chrysostom notices the violence of this passage and suggests that in submitting to violence, Jesus invites the anger of the retailers but reveals his unity with the Father, "so that they could see how someone who threw himself into such danger for the good order of the house could never despise his master." – Homilies on the Gospel of John

2) Theodore of Mopsuestia claims that Jesus' acts were symbolic; merely concealing within them the truth that he was abolishing not the exploitative economic exercise on holy ground, but the "sacrifices of animals would be abolished." – Commentary on John

3) Augustine pulls v.12 into the pericope and pushes vv.23-25 into the Nicomedian narrative about personal spiritual rebirth. Like John, he draws a hard distinction between Christians and Jews, to whom "sacrifices were given… in consideration of the carnal mind and stony heart yet in them, to keep them from falling away to idols." Similarly, then, he argues that Jesus' allusion to Temple as Christ and movement into Nicodemus' story is integral to understand this pericope. – Tractate 10 on the Gospel of John

4) Contemporary interpreters speculate that the anger displayed here is evidence of Jesus' humanity, of being subject to emotions – here more than anywhere else. John shows Jesus in all his glory – nothing is hidden (even his humanity). He is not anti-Jewish, but profoundly pro-Jewish (and anti-institutionalism if anything, always challenging a system indentured to its own rules such that it becomes closed to a fresh revelation from God). Authority of the institution does not necessarily imply the authority of God.

III. SIGNIFICANCE FOR THEOLOGY AND PREACHING

• Do we seek our own kinds of miraculous signs of Jesus' authority, like personal health, congregational growth, or financial wealth? How is Jesus turning over these expectations in our faith, and in what way do we fail to see what's right before our eyes?
• What is the proper expression of righteous anger, and what if that expression is actually more disruptive and offensive than we are accustomed to?
• This text does not condone violence or coercion; a whip was needed for the animals and nobody was said to have been injured (not their bodies at least. Their egos are another thing). We cannot look here for our justification therefor.
• This passage is marked by economic language of currency and profiting from the Passover. Part of the Paschal mystery, of Jesus being the Temple of God's dwelling, is also reflected upon us his followers, whose consumption is not market-derived, but Jesus-infused; in eating the bread of life and drinking the cup of salvation, we consume to live, we do not live to consume.

IV. SOURCES CONSULTED

Bible Translations

• Revised Standard Edition, Catholic Edition (New York, NY: Oxford, 2004)
• New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009)
• New Living Translation (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2008)
• The International Critical and Exegetical Commentary by John F. McHugh. Edited by Graham N. Stanton (New York: T&T Clark, 2009).
• The New Interpreters Bible, Volume IX by Gail R. O'Day. Edited by Leander E. Keck (Abingdon, 1995).
• Ancient Christian Devotional; A Year of Weekly Readings (Lectionary Cycle B). Edited by Cindy Crosby (IVP, 2011).
• Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm.