Published in the September 2011 issue of
the Record of the Free Church of Scotland
As
we noted when considering in last month’s Record the miracle of Jesus
when he changed water into wine, John selects several incidents from the life
of Jesus and uses them to point to features of Jesus that were important for
the readers to recognize about him. The incident of cleansing the temple is the
only one of his selected signs that is not a miracle, although John uses it to
point to the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
This
is not the only occasion when Jesus cleansed the temple. Luke tells of another
occasion when this kind of action took place, in the last week of Jesus’ life
before he died. At the very least, this tells us that the temple authorities
restored the wrong practice after the first eviction, and probably did so after
the second one as well. Another conclusion that can be made from the two
incidents is that Jesus sometimes gives further opportunities to people for
repentance, and each of us knows that is the case from our own experience. John’s
Gospel was the last of the Gospels to be written, so it is likely that John’s
readers would have already known about the second occasion from the Gospel of
Luke. If that was the case, they would have realised how strong the opposition
of the authorities was against Jesus, and how determined they were to destroy
his influence.
The
situation he encountered
When
Jesus went to the temple, he observed those who sold animals and doves for
sacrifice and those who exchanged the money of pilgrims from foreign countries.
Both roles were needed: worshippers required animals to offer as sacrifices and
they had to use Jewish coins for paying the temple taxes. So why did Jesus
object to their actions?
One
probable reason was that the noise of the animals disturbed the worshippers and
the smell of the animals polluted the temple. They should have been sold
outside the temple area. As far as the exchange of coins was concerned, this
practice should have also taken place in a situation before the pilgrims
reached the temple (the tax was an addition to biblical requirements; the
biblical method was voluntary offerings). The temple was designed for the
worship of God and not for having queues of individuals lining up to change
money (there would be thousands of worshippers from abroad attending the
Passover and for some reason only the currency connected to Tyre was accepted).
These reasons can be deduced from the Saviour’s comment that the temple was his
Father’s house and not a location for merchandise.
There
was also a more serious sin being committed by the temple authorities. They had
authorised the location of the sellers and money-changers in order to obtain
profit from these activities. In a way similar to how an owner can charge extortionate
rates for a building, so these religious leaders were raking in the money from
those who rented the available spaces. Instead of ensuring that the temple
functioned as a place where God was worshipped, they made it into a place of
commerce. Perhaps initially they had convinced themselves that the permission
was justified because it obtained income for the temple. If that was the case,
they had forgotten that, as far as God is concerned, the end does not justify
the means.
The
spirit of Jesus
The
first detail to note from this incident is that Jesus gladly participated in
the biblical feasts of Israel. Once a year, the Israelites made their way to
Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, the feast that recalled their deliverance
from Egypt by God many centuries before. The reason that event was recalled was
not primarily because it was a significant historical event in the development
of their national life. Rather, it was remembered because it was an act of God
in which he revealed his faithfulness to his promises to Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. There is no doubt that Jesus would have rejoiced in the wonderful
reality that the heavenly Father kept his promises, including the particular
promises that had been made to him.
The
Passover also stressed that God was a redeemer who delivered his people from
bondage by the blood of a substituted animal and by the power of miracles.
Surely the Saviour must have thought of his own role as the Redeemer of
his people, which was going to be accomplished by him at Calvary as the
Substitute of sinners. He went to the Passover because it was a sign to him of
his own purpose in coming into the world, a visible reminder of the great agony
and suffering he would endure personally on the cross.
A
second feature of Jesus that is seen in this incident is that he was horrified
at actions that dishonoured his Father’s glory or obscured his Father’s
intentions. What kind of person would be appalled by such behaviour? One who
loved the Father, one who had come to serve the Father, one who put the Father’s
interests first. Let the words of Jesus say it: ‘But that the world may know
that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, so I do’ (John
14:31). Instead of noticing people worshipping God and praying to his Father, Jesus
heard the bellowing of cattle, bleating of sheep, and tinkling of coins. And he
was angry, and removed the money tables and animals from the temple court.
His
disciples do not seem to have been offended by what was going on in the temple,
which shows how much they had to learn. Yet they were quick learners at
that time because, after they had seen him remove the objectionable items, they
immediately thought of Psalm 69:9, in which the Messiah is described as saying,
‘Zeal for your house has eaten me up.’ Usually new disciples are quick learners
in spiritual things. In that psalm, it is interesting that this zeal for God’s
house was the reason why the Speaker was rejected by his own family: ‘I have
become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s children; because
zeal for your house has eaten me up, and the reproaches of those who reproach
you have fallen on me’ (Ps. 69:8-9).
In
addition, the area of the temple that was used for these commercial dealings
was the court of the Gentiles, perhaps an indication of the contempt Jews had
for Gentiles. The space that they required was reduced, so inevitably
decreasing the number of Gentiles who could participate. Given that the Saviour
had come to deliver sinners from all the nations, and indeed many of the psalms
that would have been sung in the temple concerned the ingathering of the
nations, it is likely that this was another reason why Jesus was angry at the
priorities of the temple authorities.
An
obvious application to ourselves is whether or not we are guilty of things that
Jesus would regard as preventing the worship of God. Just as he was disgusted
by what went on in the temple, so he was sickened by what went on in some of
the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 2–3). The fact is that Jesus knows if we have
practices that are inappropriate or practices that prevent others worshipping
God.
The
sensation he caused
The
action of Jesus inevitably caused a response among the authorities. They seemed
to recognise that his actions were those of a prophet, but in order to be sure
that their assessment was right, they demanded that he perform a miracle that
would authenticate his actions. Instead of giving them an immediate sign, Jesus
pointed them to a future event – his resurrection (which, of course, was a past
event to John’s readers).
The
response of Jesus may seem obscure at first. Yet our puzzlement can be removed
if we think to where Jesus was pointing when he answered. If he had pointed to
the temple when he said ‘Destroy this temple’, his answer is not explicable
because he did not erect the literal temple in three days. But if had pointed
to himself when he said, ‘Destroy this temple’, then his answer, which was
obscure at the time, became clear when his resurrection occurred.
We
have to remember that when John writes this account, he is not concerned about
the response of the temple authorities. They were no longer on the scene,
because he is describing an event that took place sixty years previously. The
ones about whom he is concerned are his actual and potential readers, which
include us. John wants us to grasp from this incident a lesson which was also
taught in the previous sign of changing the water into wine. The lesson is that
we should pay attention to the words of Jesus. In the previous incident, Mary
had said to the servants, ‘Whatever Jesus tells you to do, do it.’ She wanted
them to pay attention to his words. Similarly, in this incident, the
authorities had not paid attention to the words of Jesus and thus missed the
point. John, in his Gospel, is going to detail large amounts of the teaching of
Jesus, and he is telling his readers in advance that they will have to pay
attention to what Jesus taught.
The
sign that he gave
In
response to the authorities’ request for a sign, Jesus pointed to himself. He
was telling them that he was the great Sign that God had given. They were not
to think of signs apart from the worker anymore. With regard to other miracle
workers such as the prophets, they could be separated from their signs. Jesus in
himself is the Sign that God will bless sinners. When we think about this fact,
we can see its wonder. Jesus is both God and man, and this reality of two
natures in one person is a greater sign than all other possible signs.
Therefore, we have to focus on who he is as well as on what he does.
Although
they did not notice it, Jesus included the authorities in the sign. He informed
them that they would destroy him. While we can understand why they might have
been a bit puzzled at his words, they should have had one of two responses. The
first possible response should have been to ask him to explain what he meant.
John’s readers are going to discover that Jesus often made such statements and
then explained them to his listeners. The other response that they could have
made was to remember his words when they were fulfilled as he suffered on the
cross. Humanly speaking, he was there because these leaders delivered him into
the hands of Pilate; indeed, a distorted version of this saying was used at his
trial before the Sanhedrin and resulted in his condemnation (Matt. 26:61). Yet
even then, if they had responded aright to what Jesus had said on this
occasion, they would have remembered that their wrong actions would be followed
by his resurrection. Perhaps some of them did, because we are told in Acts 6:7
that many of the priests became believers.
The
actual aspect of his person and work that Jesus highlighted here was his
resurrection. This is the great sign that has been given to the world. In 1
Corinthians 15, Paul presents irrefutable evidence of its reality. The fact of
the resurrection of Jesus cannot be denied without ignoring the evidence;
therefore we need to know its significance. Its meaning has many aspects, but I
would mention three. First, it declares to us that God accepted the sacrifice
of Jesus on the cross for the sins of his people. Second, it informs us that we
can have a living relationship with Jesus as he builds the true temple of God,
which is composed of those who trust in him. Third, as Paul told the Athenian
philosophers at the Areopagus, the resurrection is a sign for all peoples on
the Day of Judgement when Jesus will act as Judge of the earth (Acts 17:31).
John
reminds his readers that, while the disciples did not understand this prediction
at first, they did so after the resurrection. This is another reminder that
further light is given to those who continue to listen to Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment