John 2:13-25
"Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.
When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.
And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!"
Then His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up."
So the Jews answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, since You do these things."
Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"
But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them: and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name and they saw the signs which He did.
But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men,
and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man."

Message:

It is necessary first of all to appreciate the fact that there are two accounts of the cleansing of the temple.

This has led to the most lively discussion in theological circles. The synoptic writers place the incident at the end of the Lord’s public ministry (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45). In contrast to this, John places the incident at the beginning of Christ's ministry.

Obviously a question is sure to arise, Were there one or two cleansings of the temple? Great theologians have argued the question and the shelves of every theological bookshop and the studies of every minister contain many volumes which set forth both sides to the argument. After considering these arguments, I believe it is safe for us to accept as fact two different events that Jesus cleansed the temple.

Verse 12 of the chapter we are now studying says: "After this He went down to Capernaum, He Himself and His mother and His brothers and His disciples, and He stayed there for a few days."

The event recorded in the preceding paragraph probably occurred in late February or early March of the year 27 A.D. Accordingly, when now we read, AFTER THIS, the first thought which occurs to us is that what is about to be recorded took place shortly after the wedding at Cana. This would seem to follow from the very expression that is used, for elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel it indicates an event which followed soon after. This inference receives further corroboration from the very next verse where we read, "And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem."

Now, all of this is very logical: Jesus in February or early March changes the water into wine; from Cana’s wedding He proceeds to Capernaum where He stays a few days; there follows the Passover festival, which was held in early Spring (about April). We cannot agree, therefore with those who are of the opinions that the temple-cleansing here recorded took place at the close of Christ's ministry and is to be identified as the one about which we read in Matthew 21.

***Page break***

(Page Two)

Before we begin the systematic study of the verses describing this event, there is one prerequisite. It is necessary to gain a mental picture of the scene which Christ saw every day He entered the temple courtyards. Writing of this, Godet said, "The temple had three particularly holy courts: that of the PRIESTS, which enclosed the edifice of the temple properly so-called (naos); more to the eastward, that of the MEN; and finally, to the east of the latter, that of the WOMEN. Around these courts a vast open space had been arranged, which was enclosed on four sides by colonnades, and which was called, THE COURT OF THE GENTILES because it was the only part of the sacred place (ieron) into which proselytes were permitted to enter. In this outermost court there were established, with the tacit consent of the temple authorities, a market and an exchange. Here were sold the different kinds of animals intended for the sacrifices; here Greek and Roman money brought from foreign regions was exchanged for the sacred money with which the capitalization-tax determined by Exodus 30:13 for the support of the temple...was paid.

William Barkley writes concerning this temple tax:
"There was a tax that every Jew over nineteen years of age must pay. That was the Temple tax. It was necessary that all should pay that tax so that the Temple sacrifices and the Temple ritual might be carried out day by day.
The tax was one half-shekel. We must always remember, when we are thinking of sums of money, that at this time a working man's wage was about less than 4 pennies a day! Four cents a day! The value of a half-shekel was about six cents, an equivalent to almost two days work.

For all ordinary purposes in Palestine all kinds of currency were valid. But the Temple tax had to be paid either in Galilean shekels or in shekels of the sanctuary. These were Jewish coins, and so could be used as a gift to the Temple; the other currencies were foreign and so were unclean; they might be used to pay ordinary debts, but not a debt to God."

The Savior's statement that His Father's house had become a den of thieves is all the evidence we need to conclude that under the guise of religion, things were being done which were utterly disgraceful. It is not difficult to imagine what transpired, for all international travelers face the same difficulty. Small fortunes are sometimes made by rogues in exchanging the foreign currency of inexperienced people. The Temple ritual represented the heart of the Jewish nation, and although the Jews of the dispersion had been scattered near and far, all who were able to return periodically did so.

Obviously they brought with them the currency of their adopted land, and an offering of any kind could not be purchased until this alien money had been exchanged. The Temple courtyard had become the abode of swindlers; the sweet smelling incense had been overcome by the increasing unpleasantness of a mammoth stable. The Lord watched these things on many occasions but because His hour had not yet come, He walked away sorrowfully. Hitherto He had done nothing to interfere with the outrageous practices of these men. As the Son of Man, He had entered the Temple to worship; now, as the Son of God, He comes to His Father's house with divine authority to attend to His Father's Business. He had the right to act as He did, for He was the representative of the Father.

In our passage under consideration, we note that at the conclusion of the wedding celebration, the Lord and His party went down to Capernaum, and in spite of the comments made by certain early church leaders, the term "brethren" refers to his brothers and not to his cousins. That the Lord had many brothers and sisters there can be no doubt, for Matthew 13:54-56 reads: "And when He was come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said,

***Page break***

(Page Three)

Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not also with us? Whence then, hath this man all these things? Surely, after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph entered into a normal married relationship and children were born to that union. And it seems obvious that after Jesus had performed the first miracle at Cana, His family joined with Him to make the journey to Jerusalem for the Passover.

It was on His arrival at Jerusalem for the feast that He went to the Temple and our text says: "And found in the temple of those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting; and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the Temple...(vv. 13-15).

This striking passage has not found acceptance with liberal interpreters, for they like to believe Christ incapable of any severity. That He should make a whip to strike a fellow man seems incompatible with the compassion revealed throughout His ministry. In estimating the value of their deductions, three vital things must be taken into consideration.

(1) God through His prophet Malachi had foretold: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple...But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for his is like a refiner’s fire…" (Malachi 3:1,2). The prediction that the Lord's presence would test the virtue of individuals, that some might be unable to stand in His presence, hardly suggests the coming of a weakling.

(2) It does not say that the Lord made a scourge of small cords and thrashed the offenders. Whether or not He might have done so if the men had decided to resist Him is another matter. It would seem that the righteous indignation emanating from His soul was sufficient to strike terror to their hearts. They did not wait for the whip to fall. Forsaking their money tables, they ran for the exits.

(3) There is reason to wonder if all men are in need of rediscovering the Bible. Three outstanding facts are evident in all the preaching of the men who established the church:
(a.) The holiness of God
(b.) The sinfulness of sin
(c.) The love of Christ
Somehow, for the most part we seem to have weakened on the first two. Holiness has been superseded by sentiment; sin has been replaced by weakness or undeveloped good. Unfortunately, this attitude has made its appearance in the pulpit, and the clergy who never hurt the congregations are said to be such lovable men! Let me change the word HURT to CONFRONT. The preachers who refrain from speaking of sin and judgment are known as the most tactful ministers. Alas, they forget that the Bible also speaks of THE WRATH OF THE LAMB. "And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and achieve captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitting upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" 
(Rev. 6:15-17)

"And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." (vv. 16, 17) Increasingly throughout His memorable ministry, the Lord identified Himself with His Father…My Father's business, My Father's house, My Father’s will, My Father’s word, My Father’s pleasure!

Much speculating has been done in regard to the moment when Jesus became conscious of His mission. It has been said that if He were truly man, as the babe He would not

***Page break***

(Page Four)

have appreciated the purpose of His mission. The answers to every question are not easily supplied; we must be content to know that even when He was a lad of twelve years He already knew WHO HE WAS and WHY HE CAME TO EARTH. "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not to that I must be about my Father's business? (Luke 2:49).

Possibly the disciples had never witnessed such a manifestation of righteous indignation, and remembering Psalm 69:9, it was easy to associate their Master with the prophecy of a bygone age. The disciples, witnessing this manifestation of the zeal of their Lord for the house of His Father, are filled with fear that Jesus may suffer what David had to endure in his day; namely that this zeal in some way would result in His being consumed.

WE MUST KEEP IN MIND THAT JESUS CAME TO JERUSALEM TO CELEBRATE AND WORSHIP...IT WAS THE FEAST OF PASSOVER.

His heart was excited…His spirit tender to the joy of the feast…and then…to behold His Father's house corrupted by thieves!

LET ME SPEAK TO WORD ABOUT THE PASSOVER. Every male Jew, from the age of twelve and up, was expected to attend THE PASSOVER at Jerusalem, a feast celebrated to commemorate the deliverance of the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage.

The elaborate evening-celebration of the feast in the days of our Lord's sojourn included the following elements:
a. A prayer of thanksgiving by the head of the house; drinking the first cup of wine. Other cups were emptied as the feast proceeded.
b. The eating of bitter herbs, as a reminder of the bitter slavery in Egypt.
c. The son’s inquiry, "Why is this night distinguished from all other nights?" And the father's appropriate reply, either narrated or read.
d. The singing of the first part of the Hallel (Psalm 113, 114) and the washing of hands.
e. The carving and eating of the lamb, together with unleavened bread. The lamb was eaten in commemoration of what the fathers had been commanded to do in the night when the Lord smote all the first-born in Egypt and delivered His people. (See Exodus 12 and 13). The unleavened bread was a memorial of the first days of the journey during which this bread of haste had been eaten by the ancestors. It was also an emblem of purity.
f. The continuation of the meal, each one eating as much as he liked, but always last of the lamb.
g. The singing of the last part of the Hallel (Psalm 1 15-1 18). The day on which the lamb was killed was followed by the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, celebrated from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Nisan (which generally corresponds to our March, though its closing days sometimes extend into our April).

So very close was the connection between the Passover meal proper and the immediately following Feast of Unleavened Bread that the term PASSOVER is frequently used to cover both. Thus, in Luke 22:1--a very significant passage--we read: "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover."

I RETURN NOW TO OUR TEXT AND MAKE THIS OBSERVATION WITH REGARDS TO THE WAY JESUS CLEANSED THE TEMPLE.

vv. 15, 16
"He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

And He said to those who sold doves, Take these things away!…"

Question! "Why did not Christ drive out the doves?" The answer to this is found in Isaiah 52:13, where God through His prophet, declared of the Messiah then to come, "Behold, my servant shall deal prudently." The PRUDENCE of Christ was strikingly evidenced by His mode of procedure on this occasion of the cleansing of the temple.

***Page break***

JESUS AND THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

or

Spring cleaning in the House of God

Section #2, Page 5

The attentive reader will observe that He distinguished, carefully, between the different objects of displeasure. The oxen and sheep HE DROVE OUT, and these were in no danger of being lost by this treatment. The money changers HE THREW ON THE GROUND, and this could be easily picked up again and carried away. The doves He simply ordered TO BE TAKEN AWAY; had He done more with them, they might have flown away, and been lost to their owners! Thus, the perfect One combined wisdom and zeal. No owner suffered any loss, but each knew beyond a shadow of doubt that his being in the temple court was totally unappreciated by Jesus!

BECAUSE OF HIS ACTION, CHRIST IS IMMEDIATELY CHALLENGED.

Verse 18
"So the Jews answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?"

The hostile Jewish authorities (perhaps temple-police) now ask that Jesus vindicate his drastic actions. He has taken it upon himself to act in the capacity of a Reformer. Now let him prove that he had the right to act as he did.

This demand for a "sign" evidenced their blindness, and gave proof of what the Baptist had said--"There standeth one among you whom ye know not" (1:26). To have given them a sign, would only have been to confirm them in their unbelief. Men who could desecrate God's house as they had, men who were utterly devoid of any sense of what was due Jehovah, were judicially blind, and Christ treats them accordingly: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (V. 19).

It is interesting…the Jews do not disputed the righteousness of His action. They were not so much defending the temple traffic as questioning Jesus' implied status. Their demand arose from the facts that the Jews were a very practical race and that they expected God to perform mighty miracles when the messianic age dawned. Thus their test for a messianic claimant was, Can he do the signs of the Messiah?

Paul could think of the Jews as seekers after signs just as typically as the Greeks were pursuers of wisdom (1 Cor. 1: 22). In the temple cleansing the Jews discerned a messianic claimant, and they demanded accordingly that He authenticate Himself by a sign. Consider the reply Jesus gave them..."Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He spoke in language which was quite unintelligible to them. "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was the temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But He spake of the temple of His body." But why should the Lord express Himself in such ambiguous terms? Because, as He Himself said on another occasion, "Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matt. 13:13).

Yet, in reality, our Lords’ reply to these Jews was much to the point. In raising Himself from the dead He would furnish the final proof that He was God manifest in flesh and if God, then the One who possessed the unequivocal right to cleanse the defiled temple which bore His name.

It is very significant to compare these words of Christ here with what we find in Matt. 21:24-27. When challenged as to His authority, Matthew tells us He appealed to the witness of His FORERUNNER, which was primarily designed for the Jews after the flesh. But John mentioned our Lords’ appeal to His own resurrection, because this demonstrated His Deity, and has an evidential value for the whole household of faith.

LET US TAKE A MOMENT AND TRY TO LOOK INTO THE HEART OF JESUS AND SEE WHY HE ACTED AS HE DID AND WHY THE ANGER OVER THE DEFILED TEMPLE.

***Page break***

(Page Six)

(1) He acted as He did because God's house was being desecrated. In the Temple there was worship without reverence. Reverence is an instinctive thing. Worship without reverence can be a terrible thing. It may be worship which is formalized and pushed through anyhow; the most dignified prayers on earth can be read like a passage from an auctioneer's catalog. It may be worship which does not realize the holiness of God, and which sounds as if, in H.H. Farmer’s phrase, the worshiper was "pally with the Deity."

It may be worship in which leader or congregation are completely unprepared. It may be the use of the House of God for purposes and in a way where reverence and the true function of God's house are forgotten. Surely, when Jesus looks down upon church buildings and our world, His heart must break as He views their misuse and the acts of defilement that are allowed. Dances, bingo, parties, raucous music, Ah! what heartbreaking activities in God’s house! His house is defiled by those calling themselves Reverend and yet violate the most sacred commandments for living. What a tragedy to have persons standing behind sacred desks who are sexual deviants! And there is the multitude who are called to preach the "Word" and yet, do not believe in the absolute authority of the Bible. False prophets they are! There is the form of godliness but is totally devoid of any divine power...and it is called religion! This is how the House of God is being desecrated today. "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Jeremiah, the prophet of old, warned:
"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you to in the end." (Jeremiah 5:30-31)

GOD'S HOUSE IS DESECRATED BY OUR TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE HOLINESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.

J. I. Packer, in his book entitled REDISCOVERING HOLINESS, writes: (I will quote a rather lengthy passage.)

A BATTLE IN THE CHURCH TODAY
A battle is being fought in the modern Christian world. It is, from one standpoint, a battle for law, and from another standpoint a battle for conscience. An educated, sensitive conscience is God's monitor. It alerts us to the moral quality of what we do or plan to do, forbids lawlessness and irresponsibility, and makes us feel guilt, shame, and fear of the future retribution that it tells us we deserve, when we have allowed ourselves to defy its restraints. Satan's strategy is to corrupt, desensitize, and if possible kill our consciences. The relativism, materialism, narcissism, secularism, and hedonism of today's Western world help him mightily toward his goal. His task is made yet simpler by the way in which the world's moral weaknesses have been taken into the contemporary church.

Church people who call themselves liberal, radical, modern or modernist, and progressive, labor on principle to baptize into Christ the thoughts and way of each unbelieving society in which the church finds itself anchored. In the West, this means situation ethics (nothing is prescribed save the motives and mood of love), and arising out of this, safe casual sex, serial marriage through repeated divorces, abortion on demand, and legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle (because sexual self-fulfillment through whatever genital activity one favors is nowadays rated among life’s highest values). Evangelicals, charismatics, and orthodox believers generally would not endorse the sexual looseness theoretically, yet they tend to fall into it practically, and in moral matters across the board they rarely do much better than their heretical opposite numbers.

***Page break***

(Page Seven)

Fearing heresy, misbelief, legalism, coldness, and deadness, we spend all our time teaching true doctrine, praising the Lord, defending the faith, and evangelizing the lost, and rarely get around to educating our consciences on matters of basic morality.

A hundred years ago Western culture taught Christian morals through schools, the press, and the weight of public opinion, but that is no longer so. If the Christian community does not teach righteousness today, nobody will! But Western Christians today are scarcely able to teach righteousness, because they themselves have scarcely learned it. With our overall neglect of ethical education for believers, plus our constant exposure to brainwashing by expositors of positive thinking and high self-esteem who cry down all guilt feelings as unspiritual and against the mind of Jesus, it is not perhaps surprising that when it comes to uprightness, integrity, and compassion, conservative Christians are not seen to excel.
(Packer continues)
More fundamentally to blame, however is the corporate decadence that now marks the conservative church--the decadence that concentrates exclusively on upholding the faith and ignores the biblical insistence that those who maintain the doctrines of grace must manifest in their lives the grace of those doctrines.

HIS POINT IS SIMPLY THIS....The church today gives little attention to holiness and righteousness...thus the voice of Christianity has become only a whisper in a decadent, godless world. The church has lost its authority!

Such was the scene into which Jesus entered...the temple was desecrated and religion was worthless.

(2) There is another reason why Jesus acted as He did in cleansing the temple...He did so in order to show that the whole paraphernalia of animal sacrifice was completely irrelevant. For centuries the prophets have been saying exactly that.

"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats...Bring no more main offerings" (Isaiah 11:11-17)

"They love sacrifice; the sacrifice flesh and eat it; but the Lord has no delight in them" (Hosea 8:13).

There was a chorus of prophetic voices telling men of the sheer irrelevancy of the burnt offerings and the animal sacrifices which smoked continuously upon the altar at Jerusalem. Jesus acted as He did to show that no sacrifice of any animal can ever put a man right with God.

(3) There is still another reason why Jesus acted as He did in cleansing the temple. He said: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations." (Mark 11:17). As we have already noted, the Temple consisted of a series of courts leading into the Temple proper and to the Holy Place. There was first the Court of the Gentiles, then the Court of the Women, then the Court of the Israelites, then the Court of the Priests. All this buying and selling was going on in the Court of the Gentiles which was the only place into which a Gentile might come. Beyond that point, access to him was barred. So then if there was a Gentile whose heart God had touched, he might come into the Court of the Gentiles to meditate and pray and distantly touch God. The Court of the Gentiles was the only place of prayer he knew. The Temple authorities and the Jewish traders were making the Court of the Gentiles into an uproar and a rabble where no man could pray. The lowing of the oxen, the bleating of the sheep, the cooing of the doves, the shouts of the hucksters, the rattle of the coins, the voices raised in bargaining disputes--all these combined to make the Court of the Gentiles a place where no man could worship.

The conduct in the Temple court shut out the seeking Gentile from the presence of God!

***Page break***

(Page Eight)

It may well be that this was most in Jesus' mind; it may well be that Mark alone preserved the little phrase which means so much. Jesus was moved to the depths of His heart because seeking men and women were being shut out from the presence of God.

Back to our text!
"Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"
But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. (vv. 19-22)

Did the Lord's own disciples believe in the promise of His resurrection? The answer is, No, they did not! The evidence for this is conclusive. The death of the Savior shattered their hopes. Instead of remaining in Jerusalem until the third day, eagerly awaiting His resurrection they retired to their homes. When Mary Magdalene went to tell His disciples that she had seen the risen Christ, they "believed not" (Mark 16:11). When the two disciples returned from Emmaus and reported unto the others how the Savior had appeared unto them and had walked with them, they were told, "neither believed they them" (Luke 24: 11).

But how is this to be explained? How can we account for the persistent unbelief of these disciples? Ah, is not the answer to be found in the Lord's teaching in the Parable of the Sower? Does He not there warn us, that the great Enemy of souls comes and catches away the "seed" sown! And this is what had taken place with these disciples. They had heard the Savior say He would raise up the temple of His body in three days, but instead of treasuring up this precious promise in their heart and being comforted by it, they had, through their unbelief, allowed the Devil to snatch it away. Their unbelief, we say, for in verse 22 we are told, "When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered He had said this unto them, and they believed the Scriptures, and the word which Jesus had said."

It is always to be remembered that verses 21 and 22 are John's interpretation written long afterwards. He was inevitably reading into the passage ideas which were the product of seventy years of thinking about and experience of the Risen Christ. As Irenaeus said long ago: "No prophecy is fully understood until after the fulfillment of it."

There is no possible doubt that Jesus spoke words which were very like these, words which could be maliciously twisted into a destructive claim. When Jesus was on trial, the false witness borne against him was: "This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." (Matt. 26:61). The charge leveled against Stephen was: "We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered unto us" (Acts 6:14).

We must remember two things and we must put them together. First, Jesus certainly never said He would destroy the material Temple and then rebuilt it. Second, the cleansing of the Temple, as we have seen, was a dramatic way of showing that the whole Temple worship with its ritual and its sacrifice was irrelevance and could do nothing to lead men to God. It is clear that Jesus did expect that the Temple would pass away; and He had come to render its worship unnecessary and obsolete; and that therefore He would never suggest that He would rebuild it.

Finally, John's says that they believed the Scripture. John means that Scripture which haunted the early church--"...or let my godly one see the Pit." (Psalm 16: 10) Peter quoted it at Pentecost (Acts 2:31) and Paul quoted it at Antioch (Acts 13:35).