This section represents the first miracle Jesus performed, demonstrating His very purpose for coming to earth: to reveal the creative power of God. He had the power to create and produce what was needed to meet man’s need.

   Perhaps you will recall that the first miracle Moses performed had to do with the changing of water, but in his miracle water was changed to blood, typical of the law which could produce only death. But the changing of water to wine evidences the message of grace through Christ and His power to produce life. Thus we see the great truth of new life through Jesus in our Lord’s miracle.

   This section, which carries through the close of chapter four, has been called "the period of consideration," because it narrates certain events by means of which Jesus was presented to the public for their consideration and acceptance.

   These events or appearances of Jesus were selected as representative, in order that His method of appeal to various classes might be plainly seen, and that the reader might be influenced by at least one of them.

   We discussed last week the witness of John the Baptist and the presentation of John's disciples to Jesus.

   We'll begin today with a four-week study of another "cast of characters" and will see their response to Jesus. Each will be approached differently, but the point will be identical: Jesus is the Christ!

This scene, in a way, leaves us up in the air. There are many unanswered questions: What was Mary’s role? What was Nathanael’s relationship to the couple? Who was this couple? Did Jesus know them previously? How? etc. As an eyewitness, John could have answered all these questions. But he chooses to emphasize Jesus. He is the main character of this wedding feast, the only one that really matters.

    Note that Joseph was not mentioned. It is thought by most commentators that he was already dead. In fact, most commentators think he had been dead for years, and that Jesus, being the older child, had stayed home to take care of the family until the other children were old enough to go out on their own.

Thought 1. Note the extreme sufferings of Christ. He had come to bear all the trials of the world for man. He suffered...

·         ·    the death of a parent (see note, pt.3—^§ Matthew 13:53-58).

·         ·    being the child of a one-parent family.

·         ·    having to go to work at an early age to provide for His mother and half-brothers and sisters.

    Customs certainly vary with time and location, but weddings have always had a certain pressure about them. For some reason, they seem to put well-meaning people in awkward situations.

   Our text, John 2:1-11, tells of Jesus' attendance at a wedding where He, too, experienced the tension. Watching what He did at this event tells us a lot about who the Son of Man (1:51) truly is.

   Jesus was a full participant in this celebration. Marriage was a happy time, a time of joy and laughter—a festive occasion. It was one of the largest social events in a community. This tells us two things about Jesus: (1) He was a sociable person...He liked people and people liked Him. He enjoyed the company of people. Do not miss the truth that Jesus chose to attend the wedding! Can you imagine Him there? Can you imagine His relaxed smile as He talked with the other guests? Can you, in short, imagine Jesus having a good time? Does the Jesus you picture in your mind experience joy? Would He be at home at a wedding celebration? The Jesus of this text certainly was!

Man is a social being. Jesus was teaching us to be sociable and not to become too busy to be sociable. However, He expects us to balance our lives, and the truth about our day and time is this: most persons are not alone enough. Most persons are not working, producing, and making their God-called contribution to the world, not as diligently as they should. Most have the problem of socializing too much, whether in recreation, partying, or on the job.

   (2) Jesus honored marriage by His presence. He demonstrated His approval and honor in two ways: by attending the marriage feast and by meeting the urgent need of the bridegroom.

   C. H. Spurgeon, a nineteenth century English preacher, spoke of godly joy:

“ I commend cheerfulness to all who would win  souls; not levity and frothiness,

but a genial, happy spirit. There are more flies caught with honey than with vinegar, and

there will be more souls led to heaven by a man who wears heaven in his face than

by one who bears Tartarus in his looks.'

 Jesus graced and blessed the marriage because He was “called...to the marriage.”

   He has to be genuinely invited into a marriage before He can bless it.

   William Barclay commented, "Jesus never counted it a crime to be happy. Why should His followers do so?”

Jesus, The Master of Quality, 2:1-11

   The first verse sets the time...it has been seven days since the event of John 1:19: “On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee.”

   Cana of Galilee was the home of Nathanael (21:2). Historians try to place the date on Wednesday, since that was the traditional day for marriage of virgins.

   This is interesting because it gives us a date from which to work back; if the wedding took place on Wednesday, it must have been the Sabbath day when Jesus first met Andrew and John and they stayed the whole day with Him.  (For further information, Jewish tradition required that widows be married on Thursday).

   A Jewish wedding ceremony included three major events:

1.                  There was a marriage feast and ceremony, which were held on the same evening

2.                  There was the escort of the couple through the streets to their home. The procession usually took place at night. Flaming torches were used and the longest route to the home was taken to attract more attention and to allow the community to share in the joyful event

3.                  There was the open house which lasted for a week.

   The wedding festivities lasted far more than one day; they usually lasted seven days. After the ceremony the young couple were conducted to their new home.

   By the time it was dark and they were conducted through the village streets by the light of flaming torches and with a canopy over their heads. They wore crowns and dressed in their bridal robes for a week...they didn't go on a honeymoon, but stayed at home, and it was open house for 7 days.

   There, speeches were made and expressions of goodwill publicly declared. They were treated like kings and queens, and were actually addressed as king and queen.

   In a life where there was much poverty and constant hard work, this week of festivity and joy was one of the supreme occasions.  Hospitality was emphasized and the hosts took great care to provide whatever the guests needed.

   “Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and His disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

   At this wedding, we see Jesus in three different roles: the guest, the Son, and the host. Our Lord was not a recluse, as was John the Baptist (Matt. 11:16-19). He accepted invitations to social events, even though  His enemies used this practice to accuse Him (Luke 15:1-2). Our Lord entered into the normal experiences of life and sanctified them by His presence. ("Wise is that couple who invite Jesus to their wedding!")

     Historians feel that Joseph, the husband of Mary, is already dead, as he's not mentioned at any point here or later. It's likely that Mary was a relative to the family where the wedding was taking place, but clearly she was an intimate friend.  She certainly had something to do with the arrangements, and she had authority enough to order the servants to do whatever Jesus wanted them to do.

   The language of the story implies that Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding because of indirect obligation. The word "also" carries a slight connotation that they were extra guests, invited because of their connection with His mother.

    It became clear that the wine was running out, which would present quite an embarrassing moment, and the statement in verse 3 seems to be both a statement of fact and a hint of a request.

   Mary feels some sort of responsibility (she was likely serving) and exercises some authority here. Mary did not tell Jesus what to do; she simply reported the problem.

   Her request to Jesus was at once a testimony to her personal confidence in His powers, of a sense of human glory and pride in her Son, and acknowledgment of the social disaster which threatened the young couple. Had the wine actually failed, the occurrence would have been regarded as an insult to those present, and would have banished the host and hostess to practical isolation.

   Why did Mary feel Jesus could do something about it? We need to remember, first, the words of  Luke 2:19 and 51: “But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart...Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them.  But his mother treasured all these things in her heart."

   With a group of disciples, and a knowledge of what John the Baptist had been teaching, she must have felt he was beginning His ministry and knew He could do  something.

   “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Jesus obviously does not refuse Mary’s “request.” He does, however, scrutinize her motives and expectations. Nonetheless, this is the only command we know that Mary ever gave, “Whatever he says to you, do it.” That is not bad advice!

His brief response to Mary has three parts.

· First, he addresses her as “dear woman” rather than “Mom.” It was a polite title, like “Ma’am,” (cf. Jn 19:26), and yet a definite statement about their relationship. She now must submit to him as Christ rather than leading him as “son.”

· Then Jesus says, “Why do you involve me?” [lit. “what to me to you”]. This is a common Hebrew idiom, roughly meaning, “What business is that of mine?” Essentially, Jesus is asking Mary to carefully consider their relationship.

· Finally, he said his hour has not yet come. In other words, “Mary, don’t expect a public proclamation just yet” (cf. Jn 7:6, 9). Jesus’ life was predestined. The events of his incarnation (Gal 4:4) and ministry were meticulously planned AND TIMED so as to lead to Calvary at the right moment. John’s use of the words “hour” and “time” indicate God’s plan for Jesus (cf. Jn 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1), especially in his death.

   Mary had a social concern but Jesus had a deeper concern: to meet man’s spiritual need for regeneration.

   The Greek word for woman (gunai) carries with it no idea of censure from Jesus toward Mary. The same word is used in John 19:26 (when He left her in the care of John) and 20:13. But the use of "gunai" instead of "meter" (Mother) does show Mary that she can no longer exercise maternal authority and not at all in His Messianic work! (It is a difficult but needed lesson for parents to learn when the have to "let go" of their adult children).

   His statement literally was: "what is it to me and to thee?" It was as if He asked, "is this the time for a public manifestation of My power and person?"

   While we can be certain that Jesus was not being disrespectful or cruel to His mother, I do think that He was expressing frustration over her insistence that He get involved in a situation that could complicate His greater mission.

    It is highly significant that we see Jesus having to cope with the strain and stress of belonging to a human family. Part of His being "flesh" was that He experienced life as a son and a brother.

   Later, in chapter 7, we even see sibling rivalry, for the brothers of Jesus responded to His spreading fame with jealously and hostility. To watch Jesus working out a problem with His mother and listening to His brothers' bad attitudes allows us to get a much better picture of Him than we could ever get otherwise.

   Family, for Jesus and for us, is extremely important. At the same time, family complicates our lives. Family relationships are messy, often confronting us with situations we did not choose. Within our families, we know some of our greatest joys and deepest pains. The relationships are intensely close, constantly changing, and frequently confusing.

   We begin life seeing our parents as godlike creatures who know everything, then proceed to the time when we wonder if they know anything, only to return to a time when we are again impressed with their wisdom. For much of our lives we stand between generations, wondering how much control we should exercise over one while debating how much control we should allow the other to have over us!

   Jesus, at the wedding, was being pulled in different directions by the confusing currents of a family.

   We see Him standing between His love and honor for His mother on one side and His devotion to duty on the other. His was the terribly awkward conflict between "good" and "best." He was forced to balance His mother's wishes and His Father's will.

   While we never get an opportunity to see Jesus as a husband or a parent, we do see Him as an adult son, dealing with a complicated situation brought on by being part of a family. For that, all of us who live in a family can be thankful!

   We know from the words of John 17:1 that Jesus was aware of the "time" element in His ministry: "After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come.  Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you."

   This is consistent with some earlier words of Jesus, when certain Greeks had come, desiring to see Jesus: John 12:22-24: "Philip came^ and told^ Andrew; Andrew and Philip came^, and they told^ Jesus. {23} And Jesus answered^ them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. {24} "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."

   Christ’s hour had to do with His death, burial, and resurrection. It was not time for that yet!

Verse 5 tells us two things:

1. This mother knew her son.

2. She knew He could do something, but it would be independent of her. It also shows she was immediately subservient to Him.

   “Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.” (2:6-7).

   John explains that these jars were there to provide water for the purifying ceremonies of the Jews. Water was required for two purposes: it was required for cleansing the feet on entry to the house; and it was required for the handwashing.  The combined capacity of the waterpots was about 150 gallons. Reckoning a half pint to a glass, these vessels would contain about 2,400 servings of wine--certainly enough to supply a large number of people for days.

 Jesus commands that they be filled with water to the brim. This will indicate (1) a great quantity, and (2) nothing else was “slipped into the punch,” (3) as purification jars, they contained water, not wine. Therefore, there wouldn’t even be any residue of wine in them. In quality and quantity the new-made wine more than satisfied the needs and taste of those who attended the feast.

   (John 2:8-10)  "Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, {9} and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside {10} and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.""

   These verses explain themselves. This first miracle was not a spectacular event that everybody witnessed. Mary, the disciples, and the servants knew what happened; but nobody else at the feast had any idea that a miracle had taken place.

   His first miracle was a quiet event in contrast to His last miracle (cpt. 11), a public event after a funeral. The tablemaster knew nothing of the miracle, and the servants knew the source of the water, but not the power that made the wine.

   Notice that Jesus did not touch the pots or the water or pray openly to God for a miracle. He simply willed the change (this feat is nowhere in the Bible duplicated by prophets or apostles).

Some of the “water” was drawn out of the pots and taken to the “headwaiter” who was responsible for three things:

(1)  Tasting all food and wine to see that it was acceptable

(2)  keeping order in the party (he would break a glass if someone got unruly)

(3)  and officiating over the banquet.

   This fellow was not privy to Jesus’ assistance. When he drank the water/wine he found it delicious. Its “goodness” was not found in its intoxicating ability but in its taste. In fact, Palestinian wine was significantly watered down. Although a person could become drunk with it, there were far more effective liqueurs. Wine was the normal table drink which accompanied meals.

   So good was this wine that the “headwaiter” called the bridegroom and complimented him on his fare. Normally the best is served first, not last.

   The verb ("hotan methusthosin") does not mean that these guests are now drunk, but that this was a common custom to put the worse wine last.

   The Greek word "oinos" means it is real wine, but not necessarily intoxicating wine (there are 13 different Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible to denote the many different kinds of wines).

   Drunkenness was a great disgrace, and they actually drank their wine in a mixture composed of two parts of wine to three parts of water.

   The significance of the miracle lay in the result that it produced: “This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples pout their faith in him.”

Jesus performed many signs and wonders. This is the first of seven that John chooses to record (v. 11). And it was pretty much a private display for the disciples, as are the other six. John’s seven “signs” are not intended to showcase Jesus’ power but to validate his position as God’s Son.

These signs do more than simply validate Jesus or describe some event in his life. If Blomberg is correct, Jesus’ miracles, like his parables, are metaphors for the kingdom. They are, so to speak, enacted parables.  

This is not to say that they are not historically true. Recent scholars have shown that an anti-supernatural bias is scientifically and philosophically indefensible. What it does say is that John chose to describe only certain miracles of Jesus because they pictured what his Messianic ministry was really all about.

Therefore, we must ask, “What does this sign point to?” Toussaint makes a couple of helpful suggestions:

 First, the new wine at the wedding feast points to the coming kingdom. In the OT, it was likened to wine (Isa 25:6; 55:1; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13). In the NT, it is pictured as a banquet, especially at a wedding (Mt 8:11; 22:1-14; Lk 13:29; 14:15-24; Rev 19:7-9). It would be new and different from the old kingdom (cf. Mk 2:21-22).

Second, Jesus goes overboard. He provides much more wine than could possibly be needed. This super-abundance is also characteristic of the kingdom of God (Phil 4:7; Rom 5:20; 1 Pet 1:8; cf. Amos 9:13ff.). Thus, at Mary’s prompting, Jesus inaugurates his miracle working ministry, not publicly, but privately to his disciples. In doing so, he pictured what the coming kingdom was going to be like.

      It marked the beginning of His public ministry; it manifested His glory; it was used to point His disciples to the Divine Son; and it was used to produce faith in His disciples.

   We should also note that this being the first miracle declares as false stories about miracles performed by Jesus as an infant or a young child. They are nothing but superstitious fables and ought to be rejected by anyone who believes the Bible!

   This miracle revealed His glory to the disciples and gave them a stronger foundation for their faith. Though miracles alone are insufficient evidence for declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10: "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, {10} and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved"), the cumulative effect of miracle after miracle should certainly convince them of His deity.

   Without doubt, the belief prompted by the sign was not the fullest that Jesus desired. But it was an advance step beyond the initial belief that was only theoretical. The people had seen the miracle with their own eyes, and were able to draw the conclusion that a superior being was among them who had substantiated His claims by His deed of mercy and power.

   J. Allen Blair writes: "Just as Jesus had saved the best to last (the wine), so the Christian can expect the best to be last. It's great to have the presence of Jesus in our lives daily, but we still have sorrows to bear, with much misery and pain. These are the days of the cross. But the crown and the throne are yet to come."

   Jesus moves from the hill country of Cana to the shores of the Sea of Galilee, the stomping ground of the six disciples who follow him. Along with the six are Jesus’ four brothers and his mother. The fact that their sisters are not present may indicate that they are married and consequently saddled with domestic responsibilities.

   Nine times the brothers of the Lord are mentioned. Six times they are directly connected with Mary (Mt 12:46; 13:55; Mk 3:32; 6:3; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12); three times they are not (Jn 7:3, 5, 10; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19). This is a good indication that these boys are natural sons of Mary rather than nephews or Joseph’s sons by a previous marriage.

    The fact that Jesus entrusts the care of Mary to John from the cross (Jn 19:25-27), may indicate nothing more than his brothers’ rejection of him or the fact that being younger brothers, they were not as committed to her care as John.

As McGarvey notes (p. 120), this brief visit to Capernaum suggests several things:

(1)  It shows how the nobleman, who sought Jesus at Cana, could have become acquainted with him (Jn 4:46-54).

(2)  It shows Jesus’ movement away from Nazareth to Capernaum, which would become his “base of operations” (Mt 4:13; 9:1; Mk 2:1). This further suggests a certain dynamic in the relationship between the Nazarene and his Capernaum disciples as well as Jesus’ subsequent visit to Nazareth.

(3)  And it shows that Jesus did not just cut off his natural family ties, at least not until after the upcoming Passover.

————————————————

A special word study of the word “sign”

   The gospel of John, more than the other three gospels, seeks to share the inner meaning--the spiritual significance--of our Lord's works, so that each miracle is a "sermon in action."   There are four different words used in the gospels relating to “signs, miracles, etc.”

   1. Dunemos: translated “power” or “mighty work.” This word comes from the word "dynamite;" it means and emphasizes "power" and usually is translated "miracle or mighty work." This Greek word is not used in the gospel of John.

   2. Teras: translated “wonders:” Teras simply means a marvelous thing. It is a word with no moral significance at all. This is something that has an extra-ordinary effect on the senses.  It "blows your mind" or "boggles the mind." A conjuring trick might be a teras.

   The New Testament never uses this word alone of the works of God or of Jesus! It is used in John 4:48 but it is used in a chiding sense: "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe."

   This is a comment on hardness of heart. Jesus is saying that unless He does something that just "blows their mind," they're not going to accept His testimony. This was very often the occasion for Him to refuse to do it!

   Jesus does not accept faith just on His ability to feed crowds, walk on water, or "make people's eyes bug out."

   3. Ergon: translated “works” or “deeds.” This is a generic word which refers to the activities of Jesus. In John the word almost always comes of the lips of Jesus (as in John 3:19-21; 4:34); "to the glory of the Father."

   4. Semeion: translated “sign.” The word is pronounced "say-me-on." A "sign" is something that points beyond itself to something greater. It was not enough for people to believe in Jesus' works; they had to believe in Him and in the Father who sent Him (John 5:14-24).

   In chronological order, this "sign" at Cana of Galilee was the first. It indicates a miracle viewed as a proof of divine authority and majesty...hence, it leads attention of the spectator away from the deed itself to the Divine Doer.

   What’s the point? The sign" points away from itself to the One who performed it; it told men something about the person who did it; it revealed something of his character; it was not an end in itself, but points to a reality greater than self. To John, the supreme thing about the miracles of Jesus was that they told men something about the nature and character of God.

   Miracles gave the opportunity for faith; they didn't guarantee it. Did all the Israelites in the wilderness believe? No! Only two were saved, though all saw the miracles. Jesus worked miracles, but most rejected Him than ever believed on Him.

————————————————

   The following comments are offered as summary, with some additional points, from Holman’s Bible Dictionary:

   Events which unmistakably involve an immediate and powerful action of God designed to reveal His character or purposes. Words used in the Scriptures to describe the miraculous include sign, wonder, work, mighty work, portent, power. These point out the inspired authors' sense of God's pervasive activity in nature, history, and people.

    Old Testament the two Hebrew words most frequently used for "miracle" are translated "sign" ('oth) and "wonder" (mopheth). They are synonyms and often occur together in the same text (Ex. 7:3; Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 13:1; 26:8; 28:46; 34:11; Neh. 9:10; Ps. 105:27; Isa. 8:18; Jer. 32:20; Dan. 6:27).

   "Sign" may be an object or daily activity as well as an unexpected divine action (Gen. 1:14; Ex. 12:13, RSV; Josh. 4:6 Ezek. 24:24. The basic nature of a sign is that it points people to God.

   "Wonders" describe God's supernatural activity, a special manifestation of His power (Ex. 7:3), but false prophets can perform actions people perceive as signs and wonders. (Deut. 13:1-3). Wonders can serve as a sign of a future event. Signs seek to bring belief (Ex. 4:5; compare 10:2), but they do not compel a person to believe (Ex. 4:9).

   At times God invites people to ask for signs (Isa. 7:11). The signs He has done should make all peoples on earth stand in awe (Ps. 65:8). They should join the Psalmist in confessing that the God of Israel "alone works wonders" (Ps. 72:18 NAS).

   New Testament. The phrase "signs and wonders" is often used in the New Testament in the same sense as it is found in the Old Testament and also in Hellenistic literature. (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; 15:12; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; 2 Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4).

    "Sign" (semeion) in the New Testament is used of miracles taken as evidence of divine authority. Sometimes it is translated as "miracle" (Luke 23:8 NIV; Acts 4:16,22 NAS, NIV). John was particularly fond of using "sign" to denote miraculous activity (see 2:11,18,23; 3:2; 4:54; 6:2,14,26; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18; 37; 20:30; Rev. 12:1,3,; 13:13,14; 15:1; 16:14; 19:20)

    "Wonders" (teras) translates a Greek word from which the word terror comes. It denotes something unusual that causes the beholder to marvel. Although it usually follows "signs," it sometimes precedes it (Acts 2:22,43; 6:8) or occurs alone (as in Acts 2:19). Whereas a sign appeals to the understanding, a wonder appeals to the imagination. "Wonders" are usually presented as God's activity (Acts 2:19; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; 15:12), though sometimes they refer to the work of Satan through human instruments (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:11-13).

    New Testament writers also used dunamis, power or inherent ability, to refer to activity of supernatural origin or character (Mark 6:2; Acts 8:13; 19:11; Rom. 15:19; 1 Cor. 12:10,28,29; Gal. 3:5; 2 Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4).

    "Work" (ergon) is also employed in the New Testament in the sense of "miracle." John the Baptist heard of the "works" of Jesus while he was in prison (Matt. 11:2). The apostle John used the term frequently (5:20,36; 7:3; 10:38; 14:11,12; 15:24).

   Worldview Considerations. Contemporary philosophical and theological arguments over the possibility and definition of miracle reflect the altered worldview of the last several centuries--from a theistic to a nontheistic concept of the universe.

   The perceived tension between the natural and the miraculous is a by-product of a naturalism that is intent on squeezing out the supernatural realm of reality.

    The people of the bible did not face this problem. The biblical perspective on the universe is that it is created, sustained, and providentially governed by God. The Bible makes no clear-cut distinction between the natural and supernatural. In the "natural" event the Bible views God as working providentially; whereas, in the miraculous, God works in striking ways to call attention to Himself or His purposes.

    How do miracles relate to the natural order? Christian thinkers have responded in different ways throughout the centuries. Some hold that miracles are not contrary to nature (Augustine and C. S. Lewis, for instance). This harmony view contends that human knowledge with limited perspective does not fully understand or comprehend the higher laws that God employs in working the miraculous. Others (like Thomas Aquinas) have maintained miracles stand outside the laws of nature. This approach is called the intervention view, based on their belief that God intervenes in the natural order to do the miraculous.

    One's view of the miraculous is related to one's view of the universe. A mechanistic perspective believes the world is controlled by unalterable natural laws and cannot allow for the possibility of miracles. Christians in every century have refused to have their universe so limited. They have affirmed the continuing miraculous work of God in the universe He created, continues to care for, uses to reveal Himself, and has promised to redeem.

   Tragic news stories bother us deeply and spill over into other areas of our lives. We are shocked when favorite celebrities or respected leaders are suddenly charged with drug use, unethical business dealings, immoral conduct, or domestic violence.

   We begin to wonder if we really know anyone: our spouses, our children, our brothers or sisters, or even ourselves! For this reason, it is important that we experience different situations with the people we long to know well.

   Working as I have in the past with university students who are dating, I often reminded them how important it is that they date long enough to see a prospective husband or wife in a wide variety of life's situations. They need to see each other when life is going well and when it is not. They need to see each other when they are rested and when they are exhausted. They need to see each other when they are successful and when they have failed at something, for it is only from seeing someone in many different settings that we come to know who that person truly is.

   The text of this study, John 2:12-22, allows us to watch Jesus in yet another setting. This time it is at a place which is larger, more intimidating, and more impersonal than the wedding scene in Cana. This passage takes us to the temple in Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish faith and the palace where Jesus would later be sentenced to crucifixion. Watching and listening to Jesus in this hostile setting allows us to see yet another side of the one who claimed to be the Son of  God. What we see in this text will allow us all to know Jesus better than we did before.

Like Josiah and Hezekiah of old, Jesus purifies God’s temple. This is a gutsy move, which may suggest that Jesus is the Messiah (cf. Mal 2:2-3).  The focus of this incident is not on the temple and its corruption so much as it is on Jesus and his person.

Read in conjunction with the wedding at Cana, we get a glimpse of both sides of Jesus’ ministry. On the one hand, he is the great Messiah of the new kingdom with all its lavish and delightful provisions. On the other hand, he is a suffering servant, rejected and destroyed by the Jewish leaders, only to be raised again on the third day.

All four Gospels record the cleansing of the temple. But the Synoptics place it at the end of Jesus’ ministry (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46), not the beginning, like John. It is possible that there was only one cleansing and that John places it here for theological emphasis rather than chronological precision. After all, there are striking similarities (e.g., same place, animals and money changers), for obvious reasons.

There are also considerable differences. For example, only John mentions the whip, the prophecy from Psalm 69:9, and the prediction about destroying the temple. The Synoptics also add the prophecies of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11-14, as well as Mark’s comment about Jesus halting traffic through the temple. This leads us to conclude that Jesus did, in fact, cleanse the temple twice. This bold action serves both to open and to close his public ministry.

John alone allows us to date Jesus’ ministry based on the various feasts he attended: (1) First Passover (2:13); (2) Second Passover (supposedly), (5:1); (3) Third Passover (6:4); (4) Tabernacles (7:2); (5) Dedication (10:22); (6) Fourth Passover (11:55).

Furthermore, John the Baptist’s ministry can be dated in a.d. 26 (Lk 3:1), probably in the fall. Jesus was likely baptized that winter.

He spent forty days in the wilderness (Mt 4:2); seven days gaining his first disciples and going to the wedding at Cana (Jn 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1). He visits Capernaum for a few days (Jn 2:12) and then hot-foots it to Jerusalem for the Passover which would take place on the 15th of Nisan (approximately April), a.d. 27. This is further confirmed by verse 20, since Herod began rebuilding his temple in 19 b.c., forty-six years would place Jesus in a.d. 27.

   "After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.”

     Capernaum was Jesus' hometown, though He was rarely there. When there, He performed many miracles and gave the people every opportunity to believe on Him and follow Him. But the hearts of the people were hardened by unbelief. Thus Jesus denounced them by the words of Matthew 11:23: "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.  If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day." This is also the last mention of His mother until the crucifixion.

————————————————-

   CAPERNAUM (kuh puhr' nay um) (village of Nahum)

   On the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee about 212 miles west of the entrance of the Jordan is located the New Testament town of Capernaum. The origin of the name, Kefar Nahum, indicates a relationship to someone named Nahum. Archaeological evidence indicates a life of the town from Roman times until abandonment in the late Arab period.

    The site currently being excavated is known to the Arabs as Tell Hum, and archaeologists are generally agreed that it is the location of ancient Capernaum.

    Capernaum appears in the biblical record only in the Gospels where it is mentioned 16 times. As an economic center in Galilee it was more significant than tradition has often allowed. The designation "city" distinguishes it from the "fishing village" category. Perhaps the proximity to a major east-west trade route explains the need for a customs station there.

   The importance of the city is further demonstrated by the location of a military installation there under the command of a centurion.

   Fishing and farming were important to the economy and archaeological evidence suggests that there were other light industries contributing to the local prosperity.

    In the New Testament Capernaum was chosen as the base of operations by Jesus when He began His ministry. Teaching in the synagogue (Mark 1:21) and private homes (Mark 2:1) was basic to His work there, but the miracles performed there appear to have precipitated the controversy and opposition. The religious leadership challenged the direction of Jesus' ministry (Mark 2:24, 7:5) and the popular following attempted to take over and force Him into a political position (John 6:15).

   Mark (2:1) referred to Capernaum as Jesus'  home and Matthew (9:1) described it as "his own city." It appears that several of the disciples also lived in that town including Peter, Andrew, Matthew, and perhaps John and James. The populace apparently did not accept His messianic role because they fell under the same condemnation as Chorazin and Bethsaida for failing to repent (Matt. 11:20-24).

    Talmudic sources of the second century refer to Capernaum as the home of some Jewish heretics ("Minim") who are generally taken to have been Jewish Christians. An early Christian traveler, Egeria, in 381-384 reported a church on the site of the home of the apostle Peter, and the pilgrim of Piacenza, 573, reported that the site was then a basilica. It should, however, be noted that Jewish presence remained strong at least through the sixth century.

   These events occurred at the time of the Passover (2:13). This Jewish feast was one of three that every Jewish man was expected to attend each year. It commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt in the time of Moses and served to remind the Jewish people of how they had come into existence.

   The population of Jerusalem would swell to many times its normal size when the Passover guests came to town. Crowds tend to excite people; and as years passed by, the Passover also became a time when expectations of a coming Messiah were raised.' "Will the Messiah come this year?" people would ask each other. For some reason, it was easier at Passover time to imagine that He would!

-----------------------------------------------------

Here we have a very interesting thing.  At first sight John has a quite different chronology of the life of Jesus from that of the other three gospels.  In them Jesus is depicted as going to Jerusalem only once.  The Passover Feast at which he was crucified is the only one they mention, and his only visit to Jerusalem except the visit to the Temple when he was a boy.  But in John we find Jesus making frequent visits to Jerusalem.  John tells us of no fewer than three Passovers-this present one, the one in John 6:4 and the one in John 11:55.  In addition, according to John's story, Jesus was in Jerusalem for an unnamed feast in 5:1; for the Feast of Tabernacles in 7:2, 10; and for the Feast of the Dedication in 10:22.  In point of fact in the other three gospels the main ministry of Jesus is in Galilee; in John Jesus is in Galilee only for brief periods (2:1-12; 4:43-5:1; 6:1-7:14), and his main ministry is in Jerusalem.

The truth is that there is no real contradiction here.  John and the others are telling the story from different points of view.  They do not contradict but complement each other.  Matthew, Mark and Luke concentrate on the ministry in Galilee; John concentrates on the ministry in Jerusalem.  Although the other three tell us of only one visit to Jerusalem and one Passover there, they imply that there must have been many others.  At his last visit they show us Jesus mourning over Jerusalem:  "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!  How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"  (Matthew 23:37).  Jesus could never have spoken like that if he had not made repeated appeals to Jerusalem and if the visit at which he was crucified was his first.  We ought not to talk about the contradictions between the Fourth Gospel and the other three, but to use them all to get as complete a picture of the life of Jesus as possible.

But there is a real difficulty we must face.  This passage tells of the incident known as the Cleansing of the Temple.  John sets it right at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, while the other three gospel writers set it right at the end (Matthew 21:12, 13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45, 46).  This definitely needs explanation and various explanations have been put forward.

(i)  It is suggested that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of his ministry.  That is not very likely, because if he had done this staggering thing once, it is very unlikely that he would ever have had the chance to do it again.  His reappearance in the Temple would have been a sign for such precautions to be taken that a repetition of it would not have been possible.

(ii)  It is suggested that John is right and that the other three are wrong.  But the incident fits in much better at the end of Jesus's ministry.  It is the natural succession to the blazing courage of the Triumphal Entry and the inevitable prelude to the Crucifixion.  If we have to choose between John's dating and the dating of the other three, we must choose the dating of the three.

(iii)  It is suggested that when John died he left his gospel not completely finished; that he left the various incidents written out on separate sheets of papyrus and not bound together.  It is then suggested that the sheet containing the account of this incident got out of place and was inserted near the beginning of the manuscript instead of near the end.  That is quite possible, but it involves assuming that the person who arranged the manuscript did not know the correct order, which is difficult to believe when he must have known at least some of the other gospels.

(iv)  We must always remember that John, as someone has said, is more interested in the truth than in the facts.  He is not interested in writing a chronological biography of Jesus but supremely interested in showing Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah.  It is probable that John was thinking back to the great prophecies of the coming of the Messiah.  "And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight; behold he is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.  But who can endure the day of his coming and who can stand when he appears?  For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap ... he will purify the sons of Levi ... till they present right offerings to the Lord.  Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years" (Malachi 3:1-4).  John had these tremendous prophecies ringing in his mind.  He was not interested to tell men when Jesus cleansed the Temple; he was supremely interested in telling men that Jesus did cleanse the Temple, because that cleansing was the act of the promised Messiah of God.  All the likelihood is that John put this tremendous incident here to set in the very forefront of his story the great fact that Jesus was the Messiah of God come to cleanse the worship of men and to open the door to God.  It is not the date that John is interested in; the date does not matter; his great concern is to show that Jesus's actions prove him to be the promised one of God.  Right at the beginning he shows us Jesus acting as God's Messiah must act.

Now let us see why Jesus acted as he did.  His anger is a terrifying thing; the picture of Jesus with the whip is an awe-inspiring sight.  We must see what moved Jesus to this white-hot anger in the Temple Courts.

The passover was the greatest of all the Jewish feasts.  As we have already seen, the law laid it down that every adult male Jew who lived within fifteen miles of Jerusalem was bound to attend it.  But it was not only the Jews in Palestine who came to the Passover.  By this time Jews were scattered all over the world, but they never forgot their ancestral faith and their ancestral land; and it was the dream and aim of every Jew, no matter in what land he stayed, to celebrate at least one Passover in Jerusalem.  Astonishing as it may sound, it is likely that as many as two and a quarter million Jews sometimes assembled in the Holy City to keep the Passover.

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 4p per day.  The value of a half-shekel was about 6p.  It was, therefore, equivalent to almost two days' wages.  For all ordinary purposes in Palestine all kinds of currency were valid.  Silver coins from Rome and Greece and Egypt and Tyre and Sidon and Palestine itself all were in circulation and all were valid.  But the Temple tax had to be paid either in Galilaean 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.

Pilgrims arrived from all over the world with all kinds of coins.  So in the Temple courts there sat the money-changers.  If their trade had been straightforward they would have been fulfilling an honest and a necessary purpose.  But what they did was to charge one ma'ah, a coin worth about 1p, for every half-shekel they changed, and to charge another ma'ah on every half-shekel of change they had to give if a larger coin was tendered.  So, if a man came with a coin the value of which was two shekels, he had to pay 1p to get it changed, and other 3p to get his change of three half-shekels.  In other words the money-changers made 4p out of him-and that, remember, was one day's wage.

The wealth which accrued from the Temple tax and from this method of money-changing was fantastic.  The annual revenue of the Temple from the Temple tax has been estimated at £75,000, and the annual profit of the money-changers at £9,000.  When Crassus captured Jerusalem and raided the Temple treasury in 54 B.C. he took from it £2,500,000 without coming near to exhausting it.

The fact that the money-changers received some discount when they changed the coins of the pilgrims was not in itself wrong.  The Talmud laid it down:  "It is necessary that everyone should have half a shekel to pay for himself.  Therefore when he comes to the exchange to change a shekel for two half-shekels he is obliged to allow the money-changer some gain."  The word for this discount was kollubos and the money-changers are called kollubistai.  This word kollubos produced the comedy character name Kollybos in Greek and Collybus in Latin, which meant much the same as Shylock in English.

What enraged Jesus was that pilgrims to the Passover who could ill afford it, were being fleeced at an exorbitant rate by the money-changers.  It was a rampant and shameless social in-justice-and what was worse, it was being done in the name of religion.

Besides the money-changers there were also the sellers of oxen and sheep and doves.  Frequently a visit to the Temple meant a sacrifice.  Many a pilgrim would wish to make thank-offering for a favourable journey to the Holy City; and most acts and events in life had their appropriate sacrifice.  It might therefore seem to be a natural and helpful thing that the victims for the sacrifices could be bought in the Temple court.  It might well have been so.  But the law was that any animal offered in sacrifice must be perfect and unblemished.  The Temple authorities had appointed inspectors (mumcheh) to examine the victims which were to be offered.  The fee for inspection was 1p.  If a worshipper bought a victim outside the Temple, it was to all intents and purposes certain that it would be rejected after examination.  Again that might not have mattered much, but a pair of doves could cost as little as 4p outside the Temple, and as much as 75p inside.  Here again was bare-faced extortion at the expense of poor and humble pilgrims, who were practically blackmailed into buying their victims from the Temple booths if they wished to sacrifice at all-once more a glaring social injustice aggravated by the fact that it was perpetrated in the name of pure religion.

It was that which moved Jesus to flaming anger.  We are told that he took cords and made a whip.  Jerome thinks that the very sight of Jesus made the whip unnecessary.  "A certain fiery and starry light shone from his eyes, and the majesty of the Godhead gleamed in his face."  Just because Jesus loved God, he loved God's children, and it was impossible for him to stand passively by while the worshippers of Jerusalem were treated in this way.

We have seen that it was the exploitation of the pilgrims by conscienceless men which moved Jesus to immediate wrath; but there were deep things behind the cleansing of the Temple.  Let us see if we can penetrate to the even deeper reasons why Jesus took this drastic step.

No two of the evangelists give Jesus's words in precisely the same way.  They all remembered their own version.  It is only by putting all the accounts together that we get a true picture of what Jesus said.  So then let us set down the different ways in which the writers report the words of Jesus.  Matthew gives them as:  "My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of robbers" (Matthew 21:13).  Mark has it:  "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.  But you have made it a den of robbers" (Mark 11:17).  Luke has it:  "My house shall be a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers" (Luke 19:46).  John has it:  "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade" (John 2:16).

There were at least three reasons why Jesus acted as he did, and why anger was in his heart.

(i)  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.  Edward Seago, the artist, tells how he took two gipsy children on a visit to a cathedral in England.  They were wild enough children at ordinary times.  But from the moment they came into the cathedral they were strangely quiet; all the way home they were unusually solemn; and it was not until the evening that they returned to their normal boisterousness.  Instinctive reverence was in their uninstructed hearts.

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 catalogue.  It may be worship which does not realize the holiness of God, and which sounds as if, in H. H.  Farmer's phrase, the worshipper 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.  In that court of God's house at Jerusalem there would be arguments about prices, disputes about coins that were worn and thin, the clatter of the market place.  That particular form of irreverence may not be common now, but there are other ways of offering an irreverent worship to God.

(ii)  Jesus acted as he did in order to show that the whole paraphernalia of animal sacrifice was completely irrelevant.  For centuries the prophets had 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 vain offerings" (Isaiah 1:11-17).  "For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices" (Jeremiah 7:22).  "With their flocks and herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they will not find him" (Hosea 5:6).  "They love sacrifice; they sacrifice flesh and eat it; but the Lord has no delight in them" (Hosea 8:13).  "For thou hast no delight in sacrifice; were I to give a burnt offering, thou wouldst not be pleased" (Psalm 51:16).  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.

We are not totally free from this very tendency today.  True, we will not offer animal sacrifice to God.  But we can identify his service with the installation of stained glass windows, the obtaining of a more sonorous organ, the lavishing of money on stone and lime and carved wood, while real worship is far away.  It is not that these things are to be condemned-far from it.  They are often-thank God-the lovely offerings of the loving heart.  When they are aids to true devotion they are God-blessed things; but when they are substitutes for true devotion they make God sick at heart.

(iii)  There is still another reason why Jesus acted as he did.  Mark has a curious little addition which none of the other gospels has:  "My house shall be called the house of prayer for all the nations" (Mark 11:17).  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 mediate 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.  It may well be that this was most in Jesus's 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 were being shut out from the presence of God.

Is there anything in our church life-a snobbishness, an exclusiveness, a coldness, a lack of welcome, a tendency to make the congregation into a closed club, an arrogance, a fastidiousness-which keeps the seeking stranger out?  Let us remember the wrath of Jesus against those who made it difficult and even impossible for the seeking stranger to make contact with God.

“In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.”

As Jesus walked into the temple it looked and smelled like a hybrid stockyard/circus. There would be blood spattered about the altar, oxen and sheep lowing, birds cooing, squawking, and flitting about when they were manhandled. The people were cosmopolitan (as well as neapolitan), from all over the Roman world. They brought with them vacation money in a desire to make a sacrifice to their God. For the wealthy pious, this was an annual affair. For the poorer class it may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. How disappointing for them this scene must have been.

The whole spectacle came to be known as the “Bazaar of Annas.”  He was the Jewish high priest. His power was only exceeded by his avarice and greed. He was revered and feared. He had set up quite a profitable venture for himself in the courts of the sacred temple.

It worked something like this (cf. Edersheim, I:369): If a worshiper brought in an animal to be sacrificed the officiating priest would undoubtedly find something wrong with it and offer to buy it off him at a devalued price. The animal would then be taken back to the pens of the priests, blessed and sold to another worshiper for an inflated price. The original worshiper then had to purchase a “kosher” animal at an exorbitant price, sometimes four or five times its actual value. When he pulled his money out of his pocket, if it was not Palestinian coinage, he would have to visit the money changer to get the proper currency. When he did, he was charged a fifteen to twenty percent fee for the exchange. It was quite a scam.

In addition to the sacrifices, every Jew was required to submit a half-shekel temple tax annually (Exod 30:13; Mt 17:24). Jews from other areas (e.g., Persia, Tyre, Syria, Egypt, Greece, and Rome), who used different coinage, would also have to pay the exchange fee. Hamilton observes that the temple in Jerusalem, like the pagan religious temples of the day, served as the central bank of the area (cf. 2 Macc. 3:6-15). There were a lot of financial moguls running around taking advantage of these pious pilgrims.

All this made the visitors bitter. But they had no other choice if they wanted to fulfill their pious inclinations. To make matters worse there were no set fees for the animals. It was all up for grabs. Thus there was constant and heated haggling going on over prices. Faces were red, fists were clenched, and voices were raised … all for the worship of God.

    Their suspicion and jealousy were revealed through His cleansing the temple, which was His protest against their commercializing of the temple, which was His Father's house. 

      The temple Jesus found when He arrived at Jerusalem was actually the third temple in Israel's history. Following temples built by Solomon and Zerubbabel, this one was known as Herod's Temple, taking its name from Herod the Great, who was responsible for its construction. When Jesus entered the temple on this occasion, it had already been under construction for forty-six years (2:20) and would not be completed for another thirty-five years, in A.D. 64. The temple grounds were actually a large area of vast courtyards and walls leading to the temple itself.

   Upon entering the temple grounds, the first courtyard was the Court of the Gentiles. Anyone could enter this area. Beyond this was the Court of the Women, where only Jews could enter. The next gate led to the Court of Israel, where only Jewish men could go. Finally, there was a court where only Jewish priests were allowed. This was the location of the building most of us think of when we say the word "temple."

   Because the Court of the Gentiles was the one place in the temple where everyone could go, it became the place where merchants and moneychangers set up shop.

   Worshipers coming from far away would need to buy an animal to sacrifice, so there was a brisk business in selling sheep, doves, and cows.

   Every Jewish man over twenty years of age was expected to pay a temple tax, creating a business opportunity for moneychangers at the temple grounds. All this activity probably produced a lot of noise and a fair amount of chaos in the temple courtyard, but in time people had come to accept it all as normal. Then came Jesus.

    When Jesus walked into the temple, He saw what was going on differently than everyone else there.

   “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. {16} To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

   Jesus revealed His zeal for God first of all by cleaning the temple. The tragedy, of course, is that the business being conducted was in the court of Gentiles, the place where the Jews should have been meeting the Gentiles and telling them about the true God. Any Gentile searching for truth would not likely find it among the religious leaders in the temple.

   Jesus had come to assert the claims of God upon His own nation, and He felt keenly the spiritual indifference which had turned worship into a means of profit!  His act presupposed authority as the representative of God. His resurrection would be the chief proof of His ministry!

   Jesus was careful not to destroy anyone’s property (He did not release the doves, for instance); but He made it clear that He was in command.

How is it that Jesus got away with this when he is so totally outnumbered? There may be several explanations:

(1)  Even in his incarnate state, Jesus’ purity and passion were divine. That, in itself, is intimidating.

(2)  The money changers are hirelings. They run in the face of danger. Besides, some of them likely have a deep sense of guilt about what they are doing—they know it is not right.

(3)  The people must have been cheering as Jesus turned over tables and spilled change all over the floor. It was a popular move and in his angry zeal the people would no doubt support him.

(4)  There is a Roman garrison watching the proceedings of the feast from the Tower of Antonia. Jesus has already captured their attention. The last thing the Sadducees want to do is to fan it into flame. They could lose their positions and possibly even their lives. These are perilous times. People are looking for a savior and are willing to fight if they find one.

Thought -- The temple (church) can be abused by...

·    forgetting what worship is all about.

·    misusing the facilities and buildings of God’s house.

·    ignoring God’s holiness and forgetting one’s duty to reverence God.

·    allowing questionable, non-worshipful activities.

   He says to them “Stop making my Father’s house a house of commerce.” John weaves into the narrative his own commentary in v. 17. The disciples remember Psalm 69:9a, “Zeal for thy house will consume me.”

   That is an interesting quotation for several reasons.

   First, Psalm 69 is Messianic (cf. v. 21). This is part of their very early understanding of Jesus.

   Second, the word “consume” is literally “eaten up.” This verse does not merely mean to suggest that Jesus had a driving passion for the temple. In its original context it is a cry of pain and desperation. Like David, Jesus’ passion for God is going to get him into trouble.

   Third, the verb tense of this word “consume” has been changed from the past in the LXX to the future here in John.

   Historically, as David wrote Psalm 69, he had already experienced suffering because of his zeal for God. Jesus, however, was looking for it in the future. Even now, he was challenging the authority of both the High Priest and the Procurator, both of whom claimed control of the central bank of the temple.

   The condition of the temple was a vivid indication of the spiritual condition of the nation. Their religion was a dull routine, presided over by worldly minded men whose main desire was to exercise authority and get rich.

   This was the beginning of a struggle that continued for three years. The rulers hardly let it rest for a moment from this time forth!

   When Matthew, Mark, and Luke related the story of the cleansing of the temple, they indicated that Jesus objected to the way the merchants had made the temple a "robbers' den," indicating that Jesus was angry about dishonest business.

   John, however, indicated that Jesus was objecting to the presence of any business in the temple. The temple was designed as a house of prayer, a place where people from all nations could come and worship God.

   What Jesus saw looked more like an emporium or a marketplace than a spiritual retreat. He must have been impressive, even frightening, as He took control of the situation and ran the merchants and the animals out of the temple.

   Anger as a way of life is condemned by both Jesus and Paul; but Jesus, on occasion, did become angry--and was able to do so without sinning."

   What is the difference between these two types of anger? One apparently is anger that springs from human pettiness, insecurity, or frustration. Godly anger, on the other hand, is anger that arises when people are being hurt or kept from God by the actions of others.

   Jesus saw that the transactions in the temple were keeping people away from God, and that could not be tolerated!

   One simple application of the scene at the temple has to do with the way we treat our brothers and sisters when we gather for worship. I have known many people, particularly medical doctors and business owners, who have trouble worshiping because people insist on asking them business questions before and after church. They want to come to a "house of prayer" but find only "a house of commerce."

   Periodically, we all need to be reminded to leave business outside our church assemblies so that everyone can worship unhindered.

   In our lives, the major application of Jesus' behavior in the temple comes from asking ourselves, "Do we get angry over the situations that would anger Jesus'"

   The temptation is for us to become angry over matters that do not anger Jesus and then to be calm over problems such as the one that led Jesus to cleanse the temple. Jesus' anger was appropriate, positive, and focused. It was always an outgrowth of His love, leading Him to act in the interest of others.

   Most of us have an anger problem. For some it is the presence in our lives of far too much of the wrong kind of anger. For others it is the near-absence of godly anger.

   For example, do you get angry enough about the moral decline in our country to vote? In the 1990 U.S. national elections, 90 percent of confessed homosexuals voted while only 35 percent of those who confessed to following Jesus did the same. Such apathy reflects the need for godly anger.

Thought 1. The temple is not to be used as a commercial center. It is not to be a place for buying and selling, marketing and retailing, stealing and cheating. It is not to be profaned. The temple is the House of God, God’s House of worship. It is to be a place of sanctity, refined and purified by God Himself. It is to be a place of quietness and meditation, a place set aside for worship, not for buying and selling where man gets gain.

   “His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me." {18} Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" {19} Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." {20} The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" {21} But the temple he had spoken of was his body. {22} After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."

   Jesus’ power to erect a new temple. Note four things.

     1.   The religionists questioned Jesus’ authority. What right did He have to do what He was doing? He claimed that the temple was His Father’s. They knew that He was claiming to be the Messiah; therefore, they wanted proof that His claim was true. They wanted some spectacular sign.

     2.   His sign was to be given in the future. He was going to build a new meeting place for God. Note His exact words: “[You] destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”

     3.   His puzzling statement was misunderstood . They could not understand how He could possibly build a temple in three days. The present temple had taken forty-six years to build.

     4.   His puzzling statement had a symbolic meaning. Jesus was speaking of His body, of His death and resurrection.

a.  The proof that He was the Son of God with authority over God’s house was to be given. The sign was to be His body, His death and resurrection. The resurrection was to be the supreme proof of His Messiahship. They were to destroy (kill) Him, but He would be raised from the dead after three days.

b. His death and resurrection was to provide a new temple, a new meeting place for God and man. It was to be in Him that men would thereafter meet God. The temple of His body was to become the temple of men, the temple whereby men would worship and be reconciled to God.

The Jews (i.e., Sadducean priests) were in a pickle. They were about to lose a bunch of money, which was one of their greatest loves.

    On the other hand, they were about to get beat up if they oppose this Jesus. They address him with cautious cordiality. They do not deny his identity but they do ask for proof of it. They ask for a sign. According to popular Jewish expectations the Messiah would come with great signs and wonders. Thus, these Sadducees, who did not even believe in a literal Messiah, were coddling to the crowd.

Jesus doesn’t want to play their game. The only sign Jesus offers is the resurrection. They misunderstand him because they take his words literally (cf. Jn 3:3-4; 4:14-15; 4:32-33; 6:51-52; 7:34-35; 8:51-52; 11:11-12; 14:4-5). They can’t see how Jesus could rebuild an edifice in three days that it took construction crews forty-six years to build.

This will come up again at Jesus’ trial (Mt 26:61; Mk 14:58) as well as at Stephen’s (Acts 6:14), when they are charged with threatening to destroy the temple. And yet it would appear that the Pharisees understood what Jesus intended when they put guards at the tomb (Mt 27:62-66).

It is significant that the word “temple” of v. 14, is changed in v. 19-21. This latter word, strictly speaking, is the “shrine” where a god dwells. It is used in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 6:19 to refer to the body of the Christian. Obviously, Jesus was speaking about his own body as the dwelling place of God. The disciples later remembered this very discussion and it sparked in them even greater faith in Jesus.

This incident is not about the temple edifice, but the person of Jesus. Nevertheless, Jesus’ death did, in fact, make the temple obsolete. The final sacrifice had been made and the veil was torn in two. God was no longer in the Holy of Holies. Instead, God dwells in the hearts of men through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).

Furthermore, God’s judgment fell upon the Jews and their temple for killing Jesus. It would be destroyed in a.d. 70. To this day OT worship in the temple has not been restored.

   Psalm 69 is clearly a messianic psalm that is quoted several times in the New Testament: vs. 4 (John 15:25); vs. 8: (John 7:3-5); vs. 9 (John 2:17, Romans 15:3); vs. 21 (Matt. 27:34, 48); and vs. 22 (Rom. 11: 9-10).

   When He cleared the temple, Jesus declared ‘war’ on the hypocritical religious leaders (Matt. 23), and this ultimately led to His death.

   According to Jewish tradition, the arrival of the Messiah was to be heralded by great wonders and upheavals. They thought this may be part of it...when they asked for a sign, verse 19 talks of the destroyed temple being raised in three days.

   Certainly, they misunderstood (1 Cor. 2:14) Him, but remembered His statement years later. The temple was an important element of the Jewish faith, for in it God was supposed to dwell. All of the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Jewish religion centered in the temple. When Jesus suggested that their precious building would be destroyed, their angry reaction was predictable. After all, if His body is the temple, then the Jewish temple would be needed no more!

   It had taken more than 46 years to build the Temple, and their statement must have been associated with the reign of Herod, who began his reign in 37 B.C., and according to Josephus, began construction in the 18th year of that reign, in the year 19 B.C.

   Thus the Jews could say 46 years to that date, though it was not completed (it was not completed until 64 A.D., or 34 years after Jesus' crucifixion, just a few years before being destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70.  And, in reality, Jesus predicted the end of the entire Jewish religious system, for in A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed, it did end.

   Remember, too, that this gospel was written after the Temple was destroyed. Titus, the Roman general, came during the Passover season, and some three million Jews were there at the time, Josephus tells us.

   By the temple cleansing, Jesus: attacked the secularizing spirit of the Jews. One should not tamper with holy things.  He exposed their graft and greed, in addition to assailing their anti-missionary spirit. The court of the Gentiles had been built as an invitation for them to worship the God of Israel (Mark 11:17). But Annas and his sons were using it for selfish purposes.

   This act also fulfilled Messianic prophesy. (Psalm 69 and Malachi 3). His "sign" was the greatest miracle of all, which changed the course of all history and mankind! Matthew 21:21f, Mark 11:15-17, and Luke 10:45f record a second cleansing of the temple, at the close of Jesus' ministry.

   It was logical for the religious leaders to ask Him to show the source of His authority. After all, they were the guardians of the Jewish faith, and they had the right to test any new prophet who appeared.

   "The Jews require a sign" was a phrase we see often in the gospels. He almost always refused to do so, except for the sign of Jonah (Matt. 12:39ff), which was his death, burial and resurrection.

   Verses 17 and 22 indicate John's thoughts for us "after the facts." These events served to anger the traders, but aided in reminding the  disciples. But it came slowly, only after the resurrection were they convinced!  While His disciples remembered this after He was raised from the dead, his enemies also remembered it and used it at His trial (Matt. 26:59-61)! And some of the people mocked Him with it when He was dying on the cross (Matt. 27:40).

   A special notation here: In writing this gospel, John included a number of vivid pictures of the death of the Savior. The first is the slaying of the Lamb in John 1:29, indicating that His death would be that of a substitute for sinners.

   The second is here, the destroying of the temple, suggesting a violent death that would end in victorious resurrection. The third is that of the serpent lifted up (3:14), a reference to Numbers 21:5-9.

   The Sav