Category: Exegetical Notes

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.

In dealing with source criticism there are two broad questions for the Biblical exegete, as opposed to the actual source critic.  The first is whether there are identifiable sources at all, or at least in any substantial sense, and the second is how important these sources are for exegesis.  Though I’m not going to go into detail here, for me it is very clear that there are, in fact, extended sources in the Pentateuch, and I’ll go along with the identification of the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deteronomist sources.  I’m a little more hesitant on identifying a Holiness source in what used to be regarded as Priestly material, but there is some pretty good evidence for it.

One of the places we identify such sources is in stories that repeat.  For example, why do we have Abraham’s call in Genesis 12, a presentation of the covenant in Genesis 15, and another covenant story in Genesis 17.  Much of the data in the latter two especially overlap.  Without sources, we may look either to advancing revelation of the covenant, or to repetition for purposes of teaching.  The covenant might indeed be forgotten.  Such explanations are quite workable for much material, and if the repetition of the covenant was the only source of evidence, it would not be adequate to present sources.

But in fact we do have some differences in these stories.  I’m indebted to Gerhard von Rad in his Genesis commentary, pages 197-203 for much of the following.  The major difference is the focus of the Priestly source on theology.  The Yahwist tends to focus on Abraham’s human situation.  For the priests the major concern was God, what he was going to do for Abraham and what his ultimate purpose was.  Note that in Genesis 15 we have several verses of Abraham talking.  He enters into conversation with God, and part of God’s assurance of the covenant results from Abraham’s fear.  In Genesis 17, God speaks, Abraham falls on his face (v.3), and God continues speaking and pretty much takes up the rest of the chapter.  Abraham finally gets involved again when he pleads for Ishmael in verse 18.

I think there is a good likelihood that we have two sources relating essentially the same experience.  You may differ–demonstrating my conclusion would go well beyond the space I intend to use here.  But the second question is just how much does knowing about the sources, if you accept them, help you in understanding the passage?

I find a little bit of help in knowing who’s telling the story each time.  The Yahwist is a great teller of folk tales, and he and his sort likely entertained people around the campfires of early Israel.  They are telling a human story, and it is more story than history.  They ignore chronology and deep theological questions for the most part.  The priests like to keep things straight.  They’re more interested in God than in people, and they’re more interested in historical details, such as chronology.

But in the end, while it’s important to realize that there are two stories, and that their perspective is different, you can get the same emphasis whether you see them as two incidents reported by the same narrator or as the result of different sources.  We can tell the story of God’s interaction with us and with our community from the perspective of people, or from our best try for a divine perspective, yet it still is the story of God with us.  We may have one incident told twice, giving us a more complete picture, or we may have two incidents in which God gave Abraham a bigger picture.

The result is similar, and its available to the student who takes the time to look back and forth, to gather in all the elements of the context, and ask just why such a thing may be there.