3rd SUNDAY OF LENT (B)

He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area.

Jn 2: 13-25

v. 13. Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

The Passover of the Jews:

This is thought by many commentators to be a form of words used by John because he also knew of a 'Christian' Passover.

Jesus went up to Jerusalem:

The verb went up is used in all probability on two levels, as it seems to be in Luke. It reflects the common way of talking about going to the capital city, in the same way that modern Englishmen speak of trains going to London as 'up' trains.It also reflects, in all probability, the early Christian usage of referring to Christ's 'going up' at his ascension.

v. 15. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables….

He made a whip out of cords:

These details are not in the synoptic record. The whip was probably one used for driving cattle.

He drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen:

The “all” in the Greek is masculine, and the preposition with is therefore rightly supplied in English.

He spilled the coins of the money-changers:

Temple dues had to be paid in Tyrian coinage, and the money-changers were thus an essential part of the temple traffic. By driving out the animals and disposing of the moneys required, Jesus has, at least for a time, and so as a symbol, made the sacrifices of the temple impossible.

v. 16. And to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”

My Father's house:

The phrase constitutes the highest claim.

v. 17. His disciples recalled the words of scripture, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Zeal for your house will consume me:

The disciples recall a Psalm regarded as Messianic, thus picking up the Messianic allusions of 1:43ff. The verb consume can also mean destroy', and so prepares for the transition to the death and resurrection.

v. 20. The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?”

This temple has been under construction for forty-six years:

The number forty-six presents difficulties. The sentence grammatically means that from the start to the finish of the building of the temple forty-six years elapsed. 

But Herod's temple was begun in 20/19 B.C., and not finished until about A.D. 63. Forty-six years takes the time interval to A.D. 27/28, which would be a not unsuitable year for the conversation recorded here.

Before considering various possibilities it must be pointed out that the evangelist is writing some time after the conversation, and some time even after the completion of the temple, and indeed of its destruction. The possibility of inaccuracy in reference to its dates is thus increased. 

Three possibilities seem open: (1) In spite of the plain grammar of the sentence it must be taken to refer, not to the completion of the building, but to the length of time building so far has taken.

(2) The sentence may be held compatible with some inter- mediate stage being reached, which could account for the phrase implying completeness. In this connection it may be useful to note that the word used in vv. 19-21 for temple differs from that in vv. 14-15. The word used here means the sanctuary or holy place; in vv. 14-15, the word employed refers to the whole complex of buildings.

(3) The author, writing at a later date, may have been misinformed by his source or have made a miscalculation himself. 

On the whole it seems best to adopt the second of these possibilities, since this recognized a not unimportant or unfamiliar theological distinction in the narrative which identifies the person of Jesus with that central body of the temple buildings where the specific sacrifices of Judaism took place. Jesus will, in his own self-giving, replace that and them.

Will you raise it up in three days?:

Another reminder that John is writing his gospel from the perspective of the completed synoptic story. By the time he wrote, the phrase ‘on the third day' had become almost a technical term to refer to the time of the resurrection.

v. 21. But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

John knows that the disciples came to see that the real temple of God, the real place where he dwelt was not in the Jewish temple made with hands, but in the body of their Lord. His body, his flesh, was the place where God dwelt. The Father was in him and he in the Father. Moreover his flesh thus regarded, was the food upon which his followers lived. And in their becoming one with him, so that the Father could be in them and they in the Father, they came to be reckoned as part of his body. Paul also makes use of the figure of the Body of Christ (e.g. Rm 12:4. 5; 1 Cor. 12:27) and of the temple in speaking of believers (I Cor 3:16f; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph. 2:21). The resurrection was not just an event that had happened to Jesus. It was an experience through which every believer passed. Paul similarly interprets Christian baptism (Rom. 6:3. 4; Col. 2:12).

v. 22. Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they came to believe the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken.

They came to believe the scripture:

The singular scripture normally refers to one particular passage, which the evangelist quotes (e.g. 10:35; 13:18; 19:24). But here, and at 20:9, the evangelist fails to quote the particular scripture foretelling the resurrection. It must be assumed either that the scripture in question was so well known as to make its quotation superfluous, or that the evangelist implies that it is the whole Old Testament together to which the Christian looks as the divinely inspired predicter of the resurrection.

v. 23. While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, many began to believe in his name when they saw the signs he was doing.

For the feast of Passover:

The Greek, literally translated, reads 'at the Passover, at the feast', almost an hendiadys. Joachim Jeremias has made a useful and interesting suggestion that the phrase really means 'in the festival crowd', to give the rendering ‘While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover in the festival crowd….’

Hendiadys: the expression of an idea by the use of usually two independent words connected by and (as nice and warm) instead of the usual combination of independent word and its modifier (as nicely warm).

Many began to believe in his name when they saw the signs he was doing.:

For full belief there must be more than a positive response to the wonders which he worked, a response that might eventuate merely in an assertion of thaumaturgic powers. Full belief requires belief in the scripture and in Christ's word (2:22) - a point which Luke also made (cf. Luke 24:6; 25ff; 44ff) at the time of the resurrection. The belief that derives from and confines itself to the works that he did in the world of space and time, in our history, is not the belief in the truth that really sets men free. 

The fact of Christ is not something which is seen simply by observation (cf. Luke 17:20). It requires, for its proper discernment, the witness of scripture and of the Spirit, whether mediated through the witness of man or given by divine inspiration. 

Much of John is concerned to clarify what can be seen, and what, in contrast, cannot be seen. The eternal Word has become flesh in the person of Jesus. So everyone who met him had something to see. Yet what was manifested was not' flesh ' alone, but the glory that belongs to the eternal Father; not everyone 'saw' that.