Logan Isaac

www.iamloganmi.org
Textual Analysis
John 2:13-25
I. OUTLINE (John 2:13-25).
A. Tell: Authoritative Paschal Act - Occupy Wall Street Temple Courts. (v.1316)
i. Driving "out" the money-changers, salesmen, and other animals
ii. 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)
i. Objection - miracle as authority
ii. Authoritative Response - resurrection as authority
iii. Incredulity - authority?
B. Reflect: Authority of Paschal mystery (21-25)
i. Body as temple, resurrection as proof of authority ("then they
believed")
ii. 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 Johns
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 authors 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
peoples 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 Johns 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
todays 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 Johns 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 antiinstitutionalism 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.
A. 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 whats right before our eyes?
B. What is the proper expression of righteous anger, and what if that
expression is actually more disruptive and offensive than we are
accustomed to?
C. 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.
D. 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 Gods 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
a. Revised Standard Edition, Catholic Edition (New York, NY:
Oxford, 2004)
b. New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2009)
c. 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. ODay. 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>.