The Early Cleansing (John 2:13-25/Lent 3B)

As I have mentioned before, I like to check out gospel passages with Darrell Bock’s notes in Jesus According to Scripture in order to see the best possible options for reconciling the various stories.  In this case, I don’t find the results very promising.

The only possible way to reconcile the synoptic tradition, with a cleansing at the end that starts the final conflict and passion week with John, who has this as the first act of his ministry is to posit two separate cleansings.  This requires Bock (pp. 426-430) to argue that the first cleansing of the temple might simply have resulted in a warning, and the furor would have died down in two years.  In addition, he assumes that the witnesses at the trial of Jesus who don’t get the “rebuild this temple” saying quite right may well have been remembering something from some time before, rather than merely a week.

But anyone who has tried to get a story of a current event, even on the same day, has probably experienced the differences in the way people remember things, even minutes or hours from the event, much less a week.  Further, I think Bock severely underestimates the likely results of the sorts of actions Jesus took here.  When they end at the cross, the result is essentially natural.  Stir up rebellion, annoy both the Romans and the Jewish leadership in a major way, and you end up in trouble.

Further, the story in John seems to assume that there is something of a crowd already following Jesus, even though this is his first public act in the gospel, not counting turning water to wine at Cana which was apparently at a friend’s house.  The story refers to signs which were causing people to follow Jesus, even though no such signs have occurred, again assuming that the Cana wedding was a private event.  (Bock notes these issues.  I just don’t think he gives them enough weight.)

But the biggest problem is theological, I think.  In the synoptic gospels Jesus is presented more tentatively–slowly and naturally.  While we have increasing knowledge on the part of the disciples in John as well, the presentation of Jesus, who he is, and what he is about to do starts with a bang.  This passage presents an interesting “bang!”

After being roped into his first miracle by his mother, Jesus essentially announces that he has eschatological authority and is greater than the temple in no uncertain terms.  Historical probability would suggest that he couldn’t do this and then visit the temple a couple more times as John portrays, without bringing down the wrath of the crowd.  But John is less interested in that kind of chronological and historical issue.  For him, Jesus is the one in control from start to finish.  He comes, ministers, and dies, all in triumph.  People may be in doubt, the disciples may not understand, but Jesus is in control.

Compare John 18:1-11 and Luke 22:39-53.  Bock says:  “In sum, John appears to have chosen to supplement what already was known with additional detail, regardless of the more difficult question of whether or not he worked with the Synoptics in this section.”  But I would say that this is a minor issue.  There is summary, and then there is a different picture.  John presents a different picture–the triumphant Jesus, carrying out God’s plan with full knowledge.  I have no problem with the event being the same.  In fact, it must be.  But the portrayal is not designed to present us with the details of “what actually happened.”  Rather, John is portraying a particular, divine view of who Jesus was through what he tells and what he does not.

This triumphal approach fits well with John 2:13-25, and in fact with the whole book of John.  One could almost title the gospel of John “Jesus in Charge.”  There are many other characteristics of the book–more theology, longer sermons, more discussion–but the thread of Jesus the divine savior doing what God set out for him predominates.  There is no room here for asking for this cup to pass from him (Luke 22:42).

I believe this is an important theme in scripture.  We saw it in Romans 4:13-25 as opposed to the description in Genesis 17 (notes here).  In Romans Abraham is the example of faith.  In Genesis, he falls down and laughs (Gen. 17:17).  Think about it!  In these stories as told later from the faith perspective, the participants come out much better than they did in the original story.

When God tells the story of your life seen through the lens of his grace, you too will look much better than a detailed historical telling would actually look.  I think this is one of the blessings of the multiple pictures of Jesus in the gospels.