Rowe: NT754 (d)
Take These Things Away
The Father's Economy in the Gospel of John
NT754 – Dr. Kavin Rowe, April 17, 2013
In the Gospel of John, the episode variably referred to as the "cleansing" or the "purification" of the Temple is placed quite early.[1] According to John, this scene sets the stage for the rest of Jesus' life and ministry. John's early placement of the Temple episode establishes Jesus' life and ministry as being simultaneously commercial and eschatological, emphasizing the unity of divine and human economies. Though the author does use explicitly business imagery, what is meant by economy here is a more comprehensive connotation than that which deals with pure monetary manipulation and fiscal policy. The original Greek oikonomia held within it implications of the entire household, its management, disposition, and handling. In this paper, I will begin by exploring the unique placement and character of the Johannine pericope in order to make the case for John's framing Jesus' entire life and ministry. Then I will proceed to explore the commercial emphasis of the human economic dimension and how it might challenge more strictly political readings, as though Jesus' actions were interpretable strictly as an act of violence or street theater. In my final section, I will press deeper into the divine economy and show that John includes specifically eschatological imagery to messianically unite his simultaneously human and divine attributes and mission.
Placement & Comparison with Synoptic Gospels
In all three synoptic parallels for the episode in the Temple,[2] the authors place the event well into their narrative of Jesus' life and ministry. John is the only writer to put this episode at the very beginning of his gospel. Peppered throughout the synoptic gospels, we also hear of Jesus teaching as a boy near the Temple, attending synagogue, etc. In each case we thereby come to know he is revisiting familiar geographical and religious topography. In the synoptic gospels, we know that he has had some interaction with the Jews with whom some level of credentialing would have taken place. However, in John, there is none of this. John has no story of any acts that would have ingratiated him with the religious environment and institutions of his day. He has worked miracles in Cana and been vouched for by an eccentric, itinerant holy man (who also happened to be his cousin), but these are hardly the credentials that would have given some measure of credence with the Temple cult or Pharisaic religiosity. The question of timing is crucial; 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. That it takes another sixteen chapters to get to Jesus' arrest is evidence that John has a specific purpose in mind by putting this event at the outset of Jesus' public witness; to place within readers' minds the dual human/divine nature of the Christ from the very get-go.
To be sure, there are other attributes specific to John that merit our attention. Especially since other unique aspects of John have served to distract some interpreters from the ultimately economic undertones in this episode, especially the presence of a whip. Many contemporary and ancient commentators have suggested Jesus' actions were violent, or a rare and unanticipated display of raw emotion.[3] But a close reading reveals Jesus' actions were calculated and precise, going straight for the businesses and their products. In Mark, he actually visits the Temple a day earlier only to find it empty, so he leaves in peace.[4] Confounding the reading further is the frequent appearance of titles for the pericope that include things like "cleansing," "purifying, etc. Such a literary frame does not compliment this passage well, as Jesus leaves more of a mess than before he appeared; coins all over the floor, tables flipped askew, and perhaps a few droppings from scared livestock and wild fowl (and maybe a scribe or two). Finally, all three other Gospels focus their attention on "authority," having the religious establishmentarians incredulously demand proof thereof, for such an upheaval would be unacceptable without some credibility. However, John goes out of his way to exorcise any reference to authority, and for the brevity of this paper, so too shall I. The author has no interest in using this episode to establish Jesus' credibility, but to make clear the simultaneous economies at play in the person and work of Jesus.
Human Economy: Commercial Emphasis (John 2:14-17)
The Greek text of the initial encounter with the merchants is one long sentence.[5] Like Jesus, it moves urgently, up-turning our expectations and pre-conceived notions about the nature of Christ and the nature of religion and economies. In lieu of language about authority, John focuses his attention on imagery of commerce; making fiscal references at least 8 times; words like "selling/sold," (twice) "money-changers" (twice) "business," "coins," "trade," "consume," etc. In fact, the word translated to "money-changers" in the text is the only place that it appears in the entire New Testament.[6] However, it is important to note that they may not have been the shrewd capitalists we imagine, but were perhaps in place to enforce honest exchange rates and dealings between sellers and buyers. In the market one would find affluent Jews with plenty of money to spill on a bull alongside poor Jewish families like Jesus' who only could afford a mere pigeon. Money-changers were there to enforce fair exchange rates between Jews and their occasional Gentile retailers out to make what profit they could. Mary and Joseph participated in the annual Paschal sacrifices,[7] and being as poor as they 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. Those who purchased pigeons or doves did so because they were unable to afford the prescribed sacrificial animals. Some commentators have noticed that Jesus has the pigeon and dove sellers take their business to less hallowed ground ("take these things away"), whereas those selling oxen and sheep were "driven out" and had their coins scattered. The "and" that opens v.16, therefore, would have been included in order to distinguish between traders dealing with the rich and those dealing with the poor, and would explain Jesus' more lenient treatment thereof.
The transactional relationship between worshipers and profiteers is not unlike that which we find in our own day, when churches will often have their own book store and gift shop right outside the sanctuary. The production/consumption paradigm is not foreign to Jesus by any means. It is precisely this that he attacks so ferociously. The exploitation of the poor consumes him; a zeal for his Father's house, the oikonomia of God here on Earth at his very house, the Temple, overcomes the Son. The consumption of the market has overshadowed the fact that the Father's economy is not of this world, not one of profits, but prophets. The author takes the reader to Psalm 69 ("Zeal for your house has consumed me") via the reflection of Christ's disciples. John 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"). Whips aside, to read this episode as strictly, or even primarily, about violence or politics is to miss the point. The economic exchange was necessary in order to make the annual sacrifices, from which the poor should not be excluded. The human economy John describes is not about violence, but accommodation to the poor among us, who must not be marginalized from the practices that constitute us as the people of God. Commerce is as necessary in the diasporic nature of Israel under Rome as it is in the global consumer culture we have in our own day. We must not overlook, however, that all of the sellers are expelled from the Temple, those of oxen and sheep alongside those of pigeons (though less severely). The human economy must always be subordinated to the divine; the exchange of goods must always bow to the Great Exchange of God's righteousness in place of our sins.
Divine Economy: Eschatological Emphasis (John 2:18-22)
In the second part of this pericope, Jesus draws parallels between the Temple and his body, much to the confusion of the incredulous Jews. This is affirmed in Matthew 26:61 and Mark 14:58, when false witnesses accuse Jesus of saying he will destroy the Temple.[8] However, neither of those Gospels have the same account that John does. Instead, John leverages this saying to make a point about Jesus' messianic task; he will be destroyed only to be raised again on the third day. The theological trajectory that John sets up in this pericope, from human to divine, is significant and should not be overlooked. Verses 18-22 follow (theo)logically from verses 14-17 in that the singular emphasis is on cohering the dual human/divine economies at play in Jesus' ministry. Mentions of Passover frame this pericope,[9] which is fitting since it serves as a bridge between the human and divine economies; of God's protective work on Israel's behalf. That chapter three begins a discourse about rebirth confirms a reading of vv.18-22 as moving toward an eschatological focus. It is precisely rebirth and the nature of the divine economy that Jesus elucidates here, but not specifically individuality (in the case of Nicodemus in chapter three). John uses 18-22 to break down the assumed difference between the institutional place of God (the Temple grounds) and the incarnate dwelling place of God. Put another way, this pericope is less about Jesus occupying the Temple than it is about God occupying the body of Christ, which is the Church.
In the already-not-yet nature of the world under the grace of the cross, rebirth is but a foretaste of what is to come in the final days, when the dead will be raised and the house of the Lord, the heavenly city, will be our dwelling place. The oikonomia of God will be the only economy we need. But for now, though we no longer require oxen, sheep, or pigeons to sacrifice, we yet have need for human economies. Jesus accommodated us just as our economies must accommodate the poor. God dwells with us and in us, particularly in the taking of the Eucharist, when we consume God just as zeal consumed Jesus. That Jesus is Lord, a common refrain in John's gospel, means that we must not live to consume, but we consume to live. The distinction between God and humanity dissolves in Jesus, just as the barriers between God and the world will break down in the final days, in the eschaton. John's hope is that by remembering, "that Jesus had said this"[10] that we believe in the scripture and the Word, and thereby be saved.
That John leads with this story keeps the duality of Christ's mission and life present in readers' minds throughout the rest of his gospel. Unlike the other gospels, which incorporate it much later and dilute the urgency somewhat, John insists that the escapade in the Temple is part and parcel to Jesus' identity and colors his entire narrative of Jesus as simultaneously human and God. I have shown that this early placement is critical to fully grasping what John hopes to get at in terms of humanity and divinity existing as one in Jesus Christ. To accomplish this, I highlighted the two major sections of this pericope, the first of being focused on human economy of commerce and exchange and the second of being interested in the divine economy of rebirth and eschatology. By distinguishing the two economies and articulating them inseparably so early in John, the author has set the stage for his entire gospel narrative. This unity of economies, the mystery of the conjugation of divine and human, is as important for John as it should be for us. For "the Word was with God and the word was God."[11]
Footnotes
[1] John 2:13-25, Revised Standard Version (RSV)
[2] Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46
[3] Some use this reasoning to illustrate Jesus' humanity, which is also the intent of the author, but not by the same means.
[4] Mark 11:11
[5] John 2:14-16
[6] kermatistes (verses 14 & 16), Greek Strong's Concordance #2773.
[7] Luke 2:41
[8] Mark 13 does make reference to tearing down the stones of the Temple, but it has a fraction of the force that the John passage has. In John, Jesus confronts the religious elite head on, whereas in Mark, one can read his statement as a cynical, off the cuff remark.
[9] I refrain from substantive exploration of the opening and closing passages (vv.13 and 23-25) because they seem only to delineate this particular story within the Gospel. That vv.23-25 is all one sentence suggests strongly that the mention of Passover simply concludes the pericope, and does not mark a new trajectory for John.
[10] John 2:22
[11] John 1:1
