Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Well, let's turn to John, chapter two, please, as we continue our study of this fourth gospel.
I'm really enjoying it and profiting from my own study of this.
And I have to admit, though, it's a little frustrating, because what I learn and
benefit from myself, I so much want to be able to convey to you folks.
But I find my inadequacy really comes to the forefront.
This is a wonderful book.
And as I've said before, I think the Gospel of John is perhaps the most difficult book in the Bible to
interpret and to teach rightly.
But may the Lord help us.
By the way, at the top of each notes that we give out each week, I have words for
children.
Some of the little children, of course, whose minds wander, I found years ago, sometimes if I give them
certain words that I know I'll be repeating, and I count those, and I
mark it down on a piece of paper or something, it keeps them attentive and
focused.
And so I did a little bit of word search and saw how many times I use these words in
today's notes alone.
Jesus, 155 times.
Temple, 127 times.
Sign, 53 times.
So these are words that are used and repeated, and they're significant.
But that's why I include that every week.
Well, last week we began to address the first of seven signs that John the Apostle
recorded in his Gospel.
And each sign, each of these seven signs reveals and displays the glory of the Lord Jesus.
But the meaning of these signs, as we sought to point out,
speak more than just revealing a miracle that proved who Jesus was, that he's the
eternal Son of God, who took upon himself human nature, became the God -man, and
served and lived among us.
These signs in John's Gospel speak more of simply who Jesus
is, but these signs also reveal what God is doing through Jesus
Christ in history, in the history of redemption.
And so the word sign is significant.
It's more than simply the word miracle.
And so the sign points to more than just Jesus's identity.
It also points to his work.
The sign signified, and that's what sign means, doesn't it, signify what God
was doing through Jesus Christ in the context of the history of redemption.
And so there's depth to these signs, and many
consider these signs, but they don't see the significance and the depth that was intended by the
Spirit of God when he moved John the Apostle to write this Gospel.
And so last week, we considered how Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana,
and how through this sign, God was revealing that through Jesus Christ, the
promised messianic age had arrived, the promised age of the Messiah, foretold and
proclaimed in the Old Testament.
Jesus Christ was replacing the old ceremonial, traditional beliefs and practices of
Judaism, which foreshadowed God's promise of his kingdom, and
that was revealed in those stone water pots that were used
to be filled with wine.
And so that old tradition of the elders, Old
Testament Judaism was replaced with celebration
of the wine that the Lord Jesus created, and so it's really setting forth Jesus
as the one who is bringing in the new covenant and replacing the old covenant.
And so it was not just a sign that revealed the person, the identity of Jesus as the God man,
but it also spoke about the work that he was doing.
And so as we stressed last Lord's Day, in the presence of Jesus, a collection of pure stone
water jars for the ceremonial washing of many people serves to herald the fulfillment.
They were filled to the brim.
Every word is inspired of God.
They were filled to the brim of the entire ceremonial purification of Second Temple Judaism.
And we're gonna talk a little bit about that a little later, explain that.
In the person and work of Jesus, the purification jars and their water become useless
and only suitable to contain celebratory wine.
And so there's a depth of meaning in these signs that we must not miss.
Well, today we wish to continue our study by addressing the next episode.
And commonly in biblical commentaries, biblical literature, an
episode say in the gospel will be referred to as a pericope.
And this pericope is contained in John 2, 13 through 25.
And so here's the passage and we're reading from the New King James Version.
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And he found in the temple, those who sold oxen and sheep and doves and the money changers doing
business.
When he had made a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple with the sheep and the oxen and poured out
the money changers money and overturned the tables.
And he said to those who sold doves, take these things away.
Do not make my father's house a house of merchandise.
And then his disciples remembered that it was written, zeal for your house has eaten me up.
That's a quote from Psalm 69.
So the Jews answered and said to him, what sign do you show to us since you do these things?
And Jesus answered and said to them, destroy this temple and in three days I
will raise it up.
And then the Jews said, it has taken 46 years to build this temple and will you raise it up in three days?
But he was speaking of the temple of his body.
And therefore when he had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this to them and they believe
the scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
And when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover during the feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he
did.
But Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew all men
and had no need that anyone should testify of man for he knew what was in man.
Now this is a rich episode, a rich pericope and there is a lot of points that we want to be
able to unfold and disclose before us.
Now, although John had mixed reference to people seeing the signs which Jesus did, we read that in
verse 24.
Actually, there is nothing in this episode that Jesus did which was a sign to the people even as
Jesus cleared the temple, that was not a sign.
Later in John 4 .54, the evangelist, that is John the apostle,
identified the second sign that Jesus displayed.
So we know that this was not a formal sign, this cleansing of the temple.
There we read this again is the second sign Jesus did when he had come out of Judea into Galilee.
Well, this verse of John 4 .54 is a summary statement appended to the
pericope or the episode in which Jesus healed the son of a noble man.
That was the second sign.
The first sign was changing the water into wine at the wedding.
The second sign is later on in John 4.
But in the pericope, which we are considering today, the Lord Jesus does foretell a future sign
that he would give to this generation.
And we read of that future sign in verses 18 and 19.
Jesus answered, said to them, destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise
it up.
And so he didn't do a sign, but he foretold a sign that one day would be set
before them.
And so our Lord's future resurrection from the dead would be a sign to the Jews.
In fact, what the Lord Jesus was doing in this episode was foretelling the seventh sign
and the greatest sign in John's gospel, even the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Now in our consideration of this portion of the word of God, we'll address the details of the account before us.
That's gonna take some time.
And then secondly, we'll address the major problem of interpreting this episode.
And I'll just give you a foretaste of that.
The Synoptic Gospels place a cleansing of the temple at the end of his ministry.
John puts it at the beginning of a ministry.
How do we deal with that?
We'll address that.
And then lastly, we'll consider the theological meaning and implications that this account presses
upon us.
And once again, I learned some things in this episode I had never seen before.
And I hope that we have the ability and the time to convey that.
And so let's first consider the details of the account.
Now last week, we sought to give some principles for interpreting narrative portions of the
Holy Scriptures.
I remember years ago, I'm talking about back in the 80s, I felt pretty competent in teaching
and working through Paul's epistles, the way the letter is laid out in its argumentation.
But I felt very inadequate when I came to the Gospels.
How do you preach or teach an episode, a pericope?
And so here's one of the keys of interpreting episodes or
pericopes.
And we tried to point this out last week.
There are certain definitive characteristics that may be identified.
There are four stages commonly in a pericope.
And so commonly, there's an introduction or setting established for the pericope.
And here there is commonly, say, a statement of time.
And then the place where the event took place.
And usually there's an introduction of the main characters involved.
That's the introduction to the pericope.
And then the second stage of that pericope is generally a description of something or some form of
conflict with an accompanying reaction or response of Jesus.
That's the second stage.
And really, this can be regarded as the climax of the pericope.
And then following this, there is a resolution, which commonly has a
response that is given by Jesus himself.
And in narrative portions, say, of the Gospels, one of the keys to finding the point of emphasis is
finding the words in direct discourse.
It is within the quotation marks in this stage of the episode.
That's usually a point of focus or emphasis.
And then fourth and last, the pericope ends with a conclusion, which is often an interpretation of the
event for the reader or the outcome of it or the result of it or the implications of it.
And we showed last week how this four -stage structure could be applied to
that miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine at the wedding of Cana.
But we can see it here, too, in this episode.
And so we have an introduction, verses 13 through 17.
We have a conflict or difficulty established in verses 18 to 20.
We have a resolution of the conflict.
He was talking about his human body.
And then, fourthly, we have a conclusion or interpretation of the event.
And so, as we did last week, we use this four -point structure and we attempt to draw an outline of our
episode.
And so, first, we have the introduction or setting.
And this is found in verses 13 through 17, in which we read of Jesus clearing
the temple.
And so I wanna read these verses again.
Now, the Passover of the Jews was at hand and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And he found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves and the money changers doing
When he had made a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple with the sheep and oxen and poured out
the changers' money and overturned the tables.
It's eaten me up.
Yeah, Mark, I just remembered to turn on my switch.
Sorry about that.
And so our Lord and his disciples had only recently arrived in Capernaum.
They had been in Judea.
They came up to Cana in Galilee, where they had that wedding.
They arrived at Capernaum, the fishing village on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee.
And Jesus, his disciples, as well as his mother, his brothers,
his sisters, traveled there with him.
The evangelist, that's John the Apostle, who wrote the gospel, the evangelist would not write again of Mary, the mother of
Jesus, until the end of his gospel, even at the crucifixion of Jesus.
Now, the mention of Jesus' brothers and sisters should be best understood as sons and daughters born
to Mary and Joseph after the crucifixion after Jesus had been born to Mary when she was a virgin.
Joseph did not know his wife, Mary, until after Jesus was born, implying that
after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage and they had children, sons and daughters.
Others have argued that these brothers and sisters, in our English translation, were
perhaps sons and daughters of Joseph in a previous marriage, and he was
widowed and then married Mary when she was a virgin.
That's quite a creative assertion, for there seems to be no historical, grammatical, or vocabulary evidence
that underscores this claim.
The simplest way to understand the identity of these brothers and sisters is that they were half brothers
and sisters.
Mary was their mother, Joseph was their father.
Mary, of course, being the mother of Jesus, her firstborn son, she gave birth to Jesus as a
virgin.
The Roman Catholics argue, well, they were his cousins, and obviously
because they have a false doctrine where they declare Mary is a perpetual
virgin, but that's just not what the scriptures teach.
Now, the evangelists recorded that they did not stay there many days.
That is, they didn't stay in Capernaum many days.
And then in verse 13, we read, now the Passover of the Jews was at hand.
The Passover celebration was one of three great annual feasts in which Jewish males
were to travel to Jerusalem to worship at the temple.
It was about 90 miles away from the Sea of Galilee.
Actually, the other two was the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Well, the Feast of Unleavened Bread was followed at the end by the Passover.
That was the first feast.
And then secondly, there was the Feast of Weeks, or sometimes called the Feast of Harvest or
Pentecost, which was 50 days after the barley harvest or after
roughly Passover.
That was in May or June.
And then the third feast was the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths commemorating their
wilderness journey.
And this would take place in September or October.
And so after having been in Galilee a short time, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Jerusalem's up over 2 ,000 feet in elevation, and it was a high place, of course, and the most
significant place in Judea.
So everybody spoke of going up to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration.
Now, whereas the synoptic gospels, and that would be Matthew, Mark, and Luke, because they have a parallel
in the events that they cover in a similar order in which they cover them, they're synoptic gospels,
record only one Passover.
However, the Gospel of John records at least three, possibly even a fourth Passover.
And really, it's largely from John's gospel that the duration of Jesus's earthly ministry is determined to have
lasted three or perhaps three and a half years.
But actually, this is not an easy matter to determine.
The length of our Lord's ministry, we take it for granted, well, it was three and a half years.
J .C. Ryle, who was a Church of England bishop, a good man, at the end of the 19th century wrote
the summary of this matter.
The exact number of Passovers which our Lord kept, and consequently, the exact length of his ministry from his
baptism to his crucifixion are points on which there is much difference of opinion.
For myself, I can see no better view than the old one, that our Lord's ministry lasted three years.
It evidently began shortly before Passover and ended with the Passover.
But whether it included only three Passovers, and in that case, lasted between two and three years, or four
Passovers, and in that case, lasted between three and four years, I think that we have no materials for
deciding positively.
In other words, we can't be certain.
If I must venture on opinion, I think it most likely our Lord only kept three Passovers.
But it is an open question, and one happily not of deep moment.
In other words, it's not all that important.
Three Passovers are distinctly named by John, the one before us, the one in chapter six,
the one at which our Lord was crucified.
If the feast mentioned in John chapter five, verse one was a Passover, it may have been, then
our Lord kept four Passovers.
But this last point cannot be settled.
And it's just one of those things we presume, assume is true, everybody knows it, but
actually proving it may be more difficult.
Now, upon arriving to the temple in Jerusalem, we read in verse 14, and he found in the temple those who
sold oxen and sheep and doves and the money changers doing business.
A commentator named Moffat translated this clause, my father's house should not be turned into a shop.
And that really concisely describes what the issue was.
Within the large area of the temple grounds, there were different courts of the temple, the building itself, the temple being
in the center of this large temple area.
The outer court was the largest, and it was called the court of the Gentiles.
Gentiles were allowed to come into that court, but no closer to the temple proper.
And so here the Gentiles would gather, and apparently it was in this large court of the Gentiles where
all of these tables were set up, money changing, as well as
sacrificial animals.
It must've been like a barn.
And it probably resulted in the ability, lesser ability for
Gentiles to actually be there, gather there and have a part.
Now, most Jewish worshipers who traveled to Jerusalem from any distance did not travel with their sacrificial
animals.
Oftentimes they would sell them at their home, take the cash, come to Jerusalem, and then purchase sacrificial
animals that had been raised for this purpose.
The sheep that were often sacrificed in the temple were raised around the
fields of Bethlehem, about seven miles south of Jerusalem.
And so they would purchase the animals for sacrifice.
And so every Jewish male was required also to pay a temple tax annually.
As one wrote, Donald Carson, he gave some good comments on this passage.
People from all over the Roman empire gathered to Jerusalem for the high festivals, bringing many different coins with them.
But the temple tax to be paid by every conscientious Jewish male of 20 years of age
and over had to be deposit in Tyrian coinage.
In other words, from Tyre, because the high purity of the silver in that coin, it was rather
stable and consistent.
And so everyone was required to pay the tax with that kind of coin.
This annual half shekel, to use the language of the Old Testament, was equal to half
a stater or tetradrachm.
And so often two Jews, two Jewish men, joined together to pay the tax in one
coin.
The money changers would charge interest.
And I read that this was upward sometimes to 12 and a half percent interest for exchanging money in
order to pay the temple tax in one form of currency accepted by the Jewish leadership.
And so all kinds of currency from all over would come and they would have to exchange it.
In John's gospel only, we read that Jesus calmly, methodically, made a whip to drive them all
out.
Verse 15, when he had made a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple.
Leon Morris, a commentator of the 20th century, is clear that it was not so much the physical force as the
moral power he employed that emptied the cords.
He drove the animals out and the ones that were selling the animals and the money changers.
Now, this is an important point.
It's important to note that Jesus did not charge these sellers of sacrificial animals or the money changers
of gouging their patrons.
There's no word of that in John's account.
And by the way, later we'll talk, I believe there were two cleansing at the beginning of Jesus's ministry and at the end.
At the end of Jesus's ministry with the second cleansing, that's one of the charges Jesus levels.
You've made this place a den of thieves.
No word about that here in John's account at the beginning of his ministry.
Here, Jesus was objecting to the fact that business itself was taking place within the environs of
And so again, we read, he found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves and the money
changers doing business.
That's what irritated him.
And so he declared in verse 16, take these things away, do not make my father's house a house of merchandise.
And so Jesus's concern is not with trade itself, but the location of the trade.
People had to buy sacrificial animals.
They had to have money exchanges.
He was concerned about it being brought in though.
It was displacing spiritual worship with a business operation
and that upset him.
Notice also the play on words Jesus used.
Here's my father's house and a house of merchandise.
They changed the very function of the house.
So in contrast to the synoptics cleansing at the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus here is
not objecting to their dishonesty, but rather to their presence.
There's a significant difference between the two cleansings.
As one wrote, instead of solemn dignity and the murmur of prayer, there is the bellowing of cattle and the bleeding of sheep.
Instead of brokenness and contrition, holy adoration and prolonged petition, there's noisy commerce.
It is in this sense that Bockham is right.
What he calls Jesus's demonstration in the temple was an attack on the whole of the
financial arrangements for the sacrificial system.
And thus it was an enormous threat to the priestly authorities.
There was a conflict that's gonna result from this.
Some have viewed this clearing of the temple as a cleansing of the temple by Jesus.
I like the word clearing better.
And so they would argue it was the cleansing of the temple in order to reestablish proper worship or
right worship in the temple.
And they argued that this cleansing therefore was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
And one could perhaps make that argument from Malachi chapter three, verse one and following.
Here you have a prophecy.
Behold, this is God speaking.
I'll send my messenger.
He'll prepare the way before me.
And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant
in whom you delight.
Behold, he's coming says the Lord of hosts, but who can endure the day of his coming?
Who can stand when he appears?
And then here it is.
For he is like a refiner's fire and like launderers soap.
He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver.
He'll purify the sons of Levi, purge them as gold and silver that they may offer to the Lord an
offering in righteousness.
And then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to the Lord as in the days of old as in
former years.
And so they see that as a prophecy of Jesus cleansing the temple here in John chapter two.
They also quote Zechariah 14, 21 out of the ESV.
And there shall be no longer a trader in the house trader as one who trades goods in the house
of the Lord of hosts on that day.
Interesting.
I'm somewhat hesitant, however, to accept these assertions for it does not seem that in our
gospel account, our Lord was restoring legitimate worship as much as he was declaring
that the existing temple was being replaced by himself.
He was the real temple, the true temple and this old temple was
passing away.
That is the message, one of the messages of this cleansing or clearing rather of the temple court.
However, FF Bruce, a good scholar of the 20th century made a good point that may
suggest he was basically setting back on a right course, the worship in the temple.
What Jesus did is best classified as an act of prophetic symbolism.
If he had Zechariah 14, 21 in his mind when he protested against his father's house being turned into
a supermarket, we may recall the preceding verses of Zechariah 14 tell how all nations will
go up to Jerusalem to worship.
The only place within the temple precincts which was open to people of all nations apart from the Israelites
and his Gentiles was the outer court, sometimes called the court of the Gentiles.
If this area were taken up for trading, it could not be used for worship.
Jesus's action reinforced his spoken protest.
He may have a point there.
We then read of the reaction of his disciples in verse 17.
Then his disciples remembered that it was written, zeal for your house has eaten me up.
This is a quotation of Psalm 69, verse nine.
In that Psalm, King David was calling upon God because of the terrible treatment he had been receiving
from his enemies.
And one of the major issue that was stirring up his enemies to persecute David
is they couldn't understand or sympathize with David's intense concern and devotion for the Jewish temple.
And so David, it would seem, was consumed with concern.
The zeal consumed me, the zeal for your house, the temple has eaten me up.
And his zeal apparently resulted in David being rejected, experiencing
a lot of shame, malignment on the part of those who saw him.
Well, what's being conveyed in John's gospel is that this was a prophecy of David's greater son, Jesus Christ,
whose great zeal was for the house of God.
It was a prophecy.
And the disciples remembered this scripture.
As one said, Jesus's cleansing of the temple testifies to his concern for
pure worship, a right relationship with God at the place supremely designated to serve
as a focal point of the relationship between God and man.
Now, I'm gonna just interject a word here.
There's not here in your notes, as I know what's coming.
Nobody understood what Jesus was doing.
And nobody agreed with what Jesus did.
They asked for a sign to validate what he was doing.
And basically he didn't come up with one.
He didn't intend to.
Nobody, the Jewish leaders, the people watching, even his own disciples must have been
very confused and troubled when Jesus cleared that court of those tables and of those
sacrifices.
They didn't know what was going on.
And when opportunity was given to Jesus to substantiate the reason for it, give us a sign
that you've got this kind of authority, Jesus didn't produce one.
Jesus was rejected or misunderstood by everybody there.
He experienced shame, the same shame that David experienced that's reflected
in Psalm 69.
And so back in Psalm 69, verse seven, King David wrote of his personal shame he experienced from
so many who were opposed to him.
We read, for it is for your sake I have borne reproach that dishonor has covered
my face.
That's what happened when David became so zealous for the temple.
Nobody agreed with him.
Nobody appreciated what David was doing.
And nobody appreciated what Jesus was doing, frankly.
Even his disciples didn't really understand.
Later, they remembered the scripture.
Oh, I see.
And then we read in verse eight of Psalm 69.
I've become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.
Again, this was King David writing of his own experience of being shamed and rejected for having defended the
Lord's house.
It was as though no one was concerned for the glory of the Lord but David.
And when he had sought to correct this terrible deficiency among the people, they rejected him for his zeal of the Lord.
The zeal of the Lord has eaten me up.
And so again, it's important to note that all, including his disciples, were taken back by our Lord's actions
in the temple.
The Jewish leaders were outraged and indignant and opposed him.
Who gave you authority to do this?
Show us a sign.
Show us your legitimacy in doing this.
But his disciples also must have been mystified as they observed our Lord sitting down methodically,
fashioning a whip, and then proceeded to clear the courtyard of animals, or handlers, and money changers.
And so yes, we read, then his disciples remembered that it was written, zeal for your house has eaten me up.
But two more points may be said to what the disciples remembered here.
First of all, there's really no word as to when they remembered this.
It may have been much later after the incident.
Verse 17 simply declares that they remembered.
As one wrote, it's difficult to know if this statement is suggesting the disciples remembered the Old Testament text at the moment
or only later.
In light of verse 22 and chapter 12, verse 16, however, this is almost
certainly a later reflective statement.
In other words, the disciples also were probably disillusioned.
What is he doing?
Don't you realize the consequences that this is gonna bring upon you and us?
And so verse 17 does not state when his disciples remembered the scripture, which would have assured them that Jesus
was the promised son of David, cleansing the temple as the promised Messiah.
And second, if they did remember this Psalm 69, verse seven, even as Jesus was
purging the temple courtyard, it might have assured them of Jesus's action, but it may have
unsettled them further.
Look what happened to David when he defended the court, the temple, and what's gonna happen to you, Jesus?
What kind of retaliation is gonna come upon you and us as we're your disciples?
This could be bad.
This may not turn out well for him.
It must have troubled the disciples as they witnessed
this, what appeared to be an aggressive, perhaps even semi -violent action.
As one wrote, the disciples witnessing this manifestation of zeal of their Lord for the house of his father are
filled with fear that Jesus may suffer what David had to endure in his day, namely that his
zeal in some way would result in him being consumed.
And that's how David described the reaction to him back in Psalm 69.
Note again in verse 17 that the disciples remembered what was written.
Here's a subtle point here, but a significant point.
The evangelist, that would be John the Apostle, who wrote the gospel, puts forward the truth that the Holy Scriptures are
the only authoritative interpreter of the events of Jesus's life and the ministry
of the Holy Spirit.
They remembered the scripture.
Then it made sense to them.
Then they understood it.
The scripture then becomes the interpretive grid through which the actions of Jesus are to be understood.
And so everywhere in scripture, and here in John chapter two, the Holy Scriptures are set forth as the final
authority for understanding the work of God and Jesus Christ.
Here you have sola scriptura, scripture alone on display.
They didn't understand what was happening, but then they remembered the scripture.
Ah, that's what's happening.
Matthew Henry wrote of this.
Observe, the disciples came to understand the meaning of what Christ did by remembering the scriptures.
They remembered now that it was written.
Note the word of God and the works of God do mutually explain and illustrate each other.
Dark scriptures are expounded by their accomplishment in providence.
Good word.
And difficult providences are made easy by comparing them with the scriptures.
See what great use it is to the disciples of Christ to be ready and mighty in the scriptures and to have
their memories well stored.
With scripture truths.
By which they will be furnished for every good work.
That's a good word.
Sola scriptura.
Well, now we come to the second stage of this pericope in which we see the conflict.
One might say, hey, this was already conflict.
No, no.
In the episode, the conflict or difficulty is set forth in verses 18 through 20.
And Jesus answered and said to them, destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.
And the Jews said, it has taken 46 years to build this temple and will you raise it up in three days?
Now the apostle Paul had written of the Jews, the Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom.
But we preach Christ crucified a stumbling block for the Jews and folly to Gentiles.
And here we read the Jews demanded a sign from Jesus.
Just like Paul said, Jews seek a sign.
Herman Ritterboss wrote of this, the Jews, a term here is often in the fourth gospel refers to the Jewish authorities
in their hostile attitude toward Jesus.
React by asking Jesus for a sign of legitimation, a supernatural demonstration of his
authority.
Such a sign was repeatedly demanded of Jesus and was indeed characteristic of Jewish thinking,
but Jesus never met such requests.
He wouldn't jump through their hoops, would he?
And he didn't hear.
And so the Jewish leaders, which perhaps included not only members of the Sanhedrin, but also the scribes and perhaps
temple police, Jewish temple police, demand a sign from Jesus.
Verse 18 reads, so the Jews answered, said to him, what sign do you show to us since you do these things?
And so they were saying, he's taken this action as if he were some great leader or prophetic
reformer.
He must now prove that he had the right and authority to do this.
He must show us a great sign to prove that God was with him.
But as one wrote of them, but this request was stupid.
The temple cleansing itself was a sign.
It was a definite anticipatory fulfillment of Malachi 3, one through three, which we read earlier.
And also as was shown under verse 17 of Psalm 69, the majestic manner in which
Jesus performed this task so that none seeing him even dared to resist was proof sufficient
that the Messiah had entered the temple and was purging it as had been predicted.
What additional sign should one ask for?
He went on to write, the request for a sign was not only stupid, however, it was also wicked.
It was a result of unwillingness to admit guilt.
The authority should have been ashamed by all this graft and greed.
Now he's wrong in talking about graft there.
Instead, within the temple court, instead of asking Jesus by what right he had cleansed the temple,
they should have confessed their sin and thanked him.
And that's absolutely right.
But that wasn't their attitude or their reaction.
Now take careful note of the precise language that Jesus used in verse 19.
Jesus answered, said to them, destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up.
When we read that, we might read something else, assuming we're reading it correctly.
He did not say, if you destroy this temple, rather he stated it more directly.
He actually gives them a command.
It's as if he said to them, go ahead, destroy this temple, in three days, I'll raise it up.
Verse 21 tells us that Jesus was referring specifically to his body as the new
temple of God, but his hearers would have only perceived him to be speaking of the physical temple that he just
cleared.
And so this is important.
The language Jesus used was very precise.
And here's a good setting forth of the matter.
Here in John, Jesus does not say, I will tear down this temple, but destroy this
temple.
The imperative, and that means a command, has a much fiercer sound than a conditional,
if you destroy this temple.
It has the character of an ironic provocation.
Destroy this temple, as in prophetic utterances in Amos and Isaiah.
Go ahead, destroy this temple.
As you're already doing, apparently love to do, and in three days, I'll raise it up again.
I mean, he's confronting them directly.
And so tearing down the temple is not the judgment of God or of Jesus on the temple,
which the violent cleansing of the temple might suggest, but the manner
in which the Jews themselves were disturbing God's dwelling among them.
Jesus announces that what they are apparently consciously tearing down, he'll build up in three days
in a way that is not conceivable to them.
Viewed in this light, the connection with the temple in which they're standing, and what Jesus is cleansing of it, is
maintained, even given the evangelist's explanation.
There lay the starting point of the entire confrontation.
This temple, the Jews, by their unspiritual management of the house of God, were in the process of
tearing down.
It had become a place of business.
It was no longer doing what it should have been doing.
And as it's already clear now, Jesus himself, in his zeal for God's claims upon the temple, was
to fall victim of that attitude.
But the sign that they demanded of him and Jesus held out to them would not consist, as the Jews
thought later charged in a new building made with hands.
Remember the false witnesses at Jesus's trial?
He said he'd destroy this temple in three days, rebuild it.
He never said that, of course.
But rather, in the miracle of his resurrection, both as a proof of his authority and as the new
way in which God would make his dwelling among his people, by the way of this new focus in which the entire
dispute with the Jews is laced under the heading of that future, all the words about the temple in this
context gain a new meaning and are placed on a new level.
And this temple, in verse 19, is seen as a transition, the ambiguity of which
later emerges.
And so Jesus was speaking of himself as the true temple.
And that's the point of emphasis of the episode.
There had been two temples, of course, in Israel's history.
The Jewish temple that Solomon had originally built, and then that temple was later rebuilt
after the Babylonian exile.
First temple, second temple.
And of course, both temples were types of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ was the New Testament anti -type to which the Old Testament types pointed.
They were figures, they were analogies, they were illustrations pointing to the reality in Christ.
The temple, although a physical building, was not the true temple.
It was a shadow of the true temple, which is Jesus Christ himself who was promised to come.
Speaking of the Old Testament types of shadows, of that which was coming, we might illustrate in this way.
If you were standing, say, outside on the sidewalk and it was a sunny day, and you saw
the shadow of a person at your feet, even though you may not have actually seen the person casting the shadow, you knew someone
was approaching you.
That shadow betrayed somebody's coming.
And virtually everything in the Old Testament that was connected with the worship of God in ancient Israel
were types or prophetic shadows of the true reality coming one day in history.
And this is why we advocate very strongly the biblical method, the right way to interpret the Old
Testament is not literally, as so many evangelicals claim, but
rather we should interpret the Old Testament Christologically.
And there's a difference.
As the Lord Jesus himself declared to the Pharisees, you search the scriptures because you think in searching them, you have eternal
life.
But they bear witness of me, Jesus said, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
Now our dispensational friends, and I have some, many, are at terrible fault here.
They argue and give great emphasis to the idea there will be a future physical Jewish temple in Jerusalem,
a temple in which the worship of God will once again be received by God.
They say this because they interpret the Old Testament literally.
This is their claim.
This is error.
The temple foreshadowed Jesus Christ.
And when he was hanging on the cross, when he said it's finished, one of the matters he was addressing was that everything
in the Old Testament that was typological and prophetic had come to completion in him
at his death.
On the cross.
And therefore, the apostle Paul could write to the Christians at the Church of Colossae.
Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in question of food and drink, or with regard to festival or a new moon or
a Sabbath.
These are shadows of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Everything in the Old Testament were shadows, types, and the realization is in
Christ.
And that's why you cannot understand the Old Testament until you look for and find Christ
in all of its teachings.
And by the way, the Jews interpreted the Hebrew Scripture literally, and they ended up rejecting Jesus.
They didn't see him for who he was because they were spiritually blind and ignorant to what was
pointing to him.
Even when God instructed Moses in the building of the Old Testament tabernacle, God told him everything he'd construct was a shadow of
the reality, not the real thing.
And therefore, what Moses would construct was temporary in nature.
Hebrews 8 declares this.
They serve, that is, everything in the tabernacle served as a copy and shadow of the heavenly things,
the real things.
The things you see are not real, they're temporary.
They'll vanish.
The things you don't see, the things in heaven, those are the real things that are gonna abide for
eternity.
And so the writer to the Hebrews later wrote of the temporary nature of these Old Testament ceremonial
laws.
For since the law is but a shadow of good things to come, instead of the true form of these realities,
it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
And so when Jesus said to these Jewish leaders in response to their demand, show us a sign, he said, destroy this
temple in three days, I'll raise it up.
He was speaking of his own body as the true temple.
That temple standing there that he just cleared was prophetic of himself
and his own body, but they didn't see it.
They failed to see the spiritual reality of Jesus Christ, which everything they had given themselves had pointed.
And in their stupid spiritual blindness, they rejected the promised Messiah of Israel.
They did not perceive the real sign to which Jesus was directing them.
Consider these words of, I'm really appreciating this commentator, Edward
Klink.
And it's a fairly recent commentary on John.
Interestingly, the real sign given to the Jews and the disciples as well is here declare
the destruction of this temple and its resurrection in three days.
That is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In the gospel, the death and resurrection of Jesus cannot be separated.
They are one unified event, his glorification.
Since six signs are explicitly such, the sign about which Jesus explicitly foretells here
must be the seventh and final sign which Jesus reveals his glory.
It is the final and conclusive proof of Jesus's identity and authority.
And thus the death and resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate temple cleansing.
And the temple of his body is a full replacement of the temple of the Jews.
That's what John, that's what the Holy Spirit through John the Apostle is conveying here in John
chapter two.
And so it's similar to the turning the water into wine.
It wasn't just proving Jesus is eternal God who became man.
It's proving what he was doing too.
He's the reality.
He is replacing that which was old and temporary and was foretelling and
foreshadowing the coming of Jesus.
Well, he had arrived.
Well, when he responded to this, I'll raise it, I'll rebuild it in three days.
We read of the response of the Jewish leaders.
They were absolutely clueless.
So were his disciples, by the way.
Everybody was clueless.
Verse 20, then the Jews said, it has taken 46 years to build this temple.
Will you raise it up in three days?
Several matters that suggested by this verse and we have to explain them or else might be confusion.
First, we should understand the identification of this temple.
Prior to the first century, there were two physically constructed temples in Jerusalem.
The first temple was built in the days of King Solomon and then destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon in
586 BC.
Of course, God in his mercy brought a remnant of Jews back from the Babylonian captivity after 70 years.
And a second temple was built under the leadership of Ezra, the second temple.
And second temple Judaism is found within that second temple that began to be,
or was built in 516 BC and destroyed by the Roman armies in AD 70.
Well, what about the Jews say, this temple has been being built for 46 years.
Well, they're describing not an actual original complete
construction of the temple, but rather a very extensive renovation of the temple that King
Herod had been doing for some 46 years, or at least when he was alive and then his
son followed him.
In fact, history tells us that he began to reconstruct the
temple in either 20 or 19 BC.
And here the Jews are saying, hey, it's been being built for 46 years.
And this actually serves as one of the most important evidences
of the actual time when our Lord Jesus was ministering on earth.
46 years from 20 or 19 BC puts this to about AD 27 or
28, when Jesus cleansed this temple at the beginning of his earthly ministry.
And so he was probably crucified around AD 30.
The temple wasn't completely renovated at this point, but rather the
construction continued and it wasn't completed until AD 63 or 64.
So all the way from 20 BC to AD 63 or 64, it took over 80 years.
And finally the temple was complete and only lasted six or seven years and then Rome destroyed it in AD 70.
But that's the explanation of the 46 years.
And that's being under construction.
I know the time is running late, but we're just now getting to the good stuff, folks.
I need to wrap it up, I understand that.
And we'll do so.
But now we come to the third stage of this pericope, which is the resolution of the conflict.
And we read in verses 21, 22, that Jesus was speaking about his body, not the physical temple.
And so we have the narrator, John the Apostle, saying he was speaking of the temple of his body.
And therefore, when he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered he had said this to him.
See, they were clueless too until after the resurrection and they believe, and here's again, another affirming word
of the scripture.
They believe the scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
And so this explanation by the evangelist resolves the difficulty.
Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body, but they were all clueless.
I've got a long paragraph there that talks about every aspect of the temple picturing Jesus.
And you can read that in your own time.
But everything in the temple was a shadow, a portrayal, a
prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ.
Drop down to the bottom of page 10.
Here in verse 23, as we saw in verse 17, the holy scriptures again come into view.
This pericope emphasizes that the disciples made connections between what they were seeing and hearing in
Jesus and what had been recorded in the scriptures.
These are not insignificant comments.
Verse 22 even suggests that the disciples were putting their faith in the scriptures, not just Jesus, but in the scriptures.
That is, they were beginning to trust the proof that though attested long ago was only now
being made manifest.
The disciples had come to see as authoritative and complimentary, the word of God and the word,
capital W, word of God.
Although God was fully and decisively revealed himself in the word, his son, he had always revealed himself
through his word, the scriptures.
The scriptures then are depicted as revealing in their subject matter the person and work of Jesus Christ.
And so you have the authority of Jesus being portrayed, but you also have the authority of the holy scriptures
set forth as really the only source of authoritative information to interpret
who Jesus is and what he did rightly.
And then we have this pericope concluding with verses 23 through 25.
Although many believed on him, Jesus was guarded about committing himself to them.
When he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in his name when they saw the
signs which he did.
But Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew all men and had no need that anyone
should testify of man for he knew what was in man.
John declares there were many who believed when they saw the miracles that Jesus did.
But it's clear that the evangelist was saying their believing was not true saving faith because
Jesus would not entrust himself to them.
Their faith was a kind of believing.
They were nominal, like so many professing Christians in churches today.
They were nominal.
They claimed they believed, but when push came to shove, they did not
embrace who Jesus was and everything that he taught.
Here we see that Jesus was reserved with regard to who it was.
He entrusted himself.
Even his own disciples at this time had a very limited understanding of his person throughout the
three -year ministry.
And so apparently what many thought they were really saying, they weren't understanding.
They were greatly impressed, but they were not truly transformed.
And so here we see the darkness that envelops people even when the glory of Christ is before them.
And that's the case with so many who claim to be Christian.
They're blind to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
We won't go through that next section that's basically arguing for two cleansing, not one.
Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of his ministry and at the end.
And then page 12, just a few concluding statements here.
And to me, this is one of the most important, and this was one that
really impacted me when I was reading others commenting on it.
And this is the willingness of our Savior to suffer in order to bring glory to his father.
That's what happened here in this episode.
In order for us to understand better what was taking place, listen to these words.
The culture of the first century world was built on the foundational social values of honor and
dishonor.
It is almost certain that during the first century, all people from the most powerful to the utmost average person
regarded honor and shame or dishonor as their primary axis of value.
Today, the primary concern is money.
What do you have it or don't?
Gain it or lose it.
Then it was honor.
And today you'll hear stories of dads killing their daughters as an honor killing.
That's so strange to us, but that more probably typified the biblical world.
For this reason, honor was a desired and contested form of currency, like financial currency in the modern Western
world.
And just as money could be gained or lost in the marketplace today, so also could honor be gained or lost.
Honor could be won or lost in public confrontations or social context situations familiar to the gospels.
And so either by a question or an action, someone was making a claim to have additional honor.
Drop down to the next block quote.
This is what Jesus was essentially doing.
This is how they would have perceived him.
When he cleansed that temple, to them he was making a claim for honor, that
he had the honor, the authority to do this.
Jesus claimed honor by his actions in the temple.
It was a claim to a very high honor, at least prophetic honor, if not divine honor.
The argument is that the Jews responded to his challenge by asking for a sign.
What happens next is significant.
Jesus' statement was deemed unsatisfactory and the challenge of the Jews is assumed to have been victorious.
In other words, at the end of the day, nobody legitimized Jesus for what he had
done.
He didn't produce a sign.
He actually received dishonor by what he did.
His own disciples didn't render him the honor.
They didn't understand it.
Certainly the Jewish leaders did, the people who watched it.
What in the world is he doing?
Cleansing the temple and he didn't substantiate that he had the honor, authority to do so.
And so what really happened here in this episode is the
value of the person of Jesus underwent a great deal of diminishment in the
eyes of the people.
Nobody had regard for Jesus.
His disciples continued to believe on him, but he was taken down a notch or two in their eyes.
Well, this is true to the Psalm, Psalm 69.
David saying, the zeal of thy house has consumed me.
And then he said, as a result of this, shame has covered my face.
And here the Lord Jesus came in defense of the glory of his father.
And he did right, of course, and his father was pleased with him.
Nobody else was pleased with him.
And the Lord Jesus suffered great shame and dishonor.
We talk about dishonor and shame of the Lord Jesus when he hung upon the cross.
Everybody thought that he was rejected of God, cursed of God.
And yet we see that that was the glory of Christ, don't we, when he died upon the cross.
Only God saw it.
His disciples didn't, they forsook him.
Everybody thought he was forsaken of God.
And everybody here had a lower opinion of Jesus because of what he did.
But this is what Jesus came to do, to suffer shame.
Isaiah 53, he was a man of sorrows acquainted with grief.
We esteemed him not.
And that's just not on the cross.
It was his entire public ministry.
Nobody gave him regard.
John the Baptist even sent some disciples.
Are you the one that we should be looking for someone else?
His own mother and brothers thought he was insane.
At one point, nobody gave him regard.
And even his disciples had doubts.
But this is what the Lord Jesus was doing.
He took upon himself our shame.
And he endured it and was obedient to his father, seeking to glorify his father,
regardless of the consequences that it would bring upon him and his life.
And you and I are to do similar in our lives.
We are to be willing to suffer shame and rejection, even as we take up our cross and daily follow him.
This is how he ministered.
We might think that this is contrary to the gospel, that it isn't.
It's at the very heart of the gospel.
The Lord Jesus, the glory of the Father, came into a fallen world and he suffered rejection,
misunderstanding, suffering, and terrible shame.
And it wasn't until the resurrection of Jesus Christ that God the Father vindicated him.
And the early church transformed that emblem of the cross,
which was a certain sign of God's rejection, ignominy of his character.
And they turned it about as a very center and basis
of his glory.
And so you and I are also called, I emphasize that, you'll have to read it on your own, that we too
should be willing to suffer shame in our lives.
We're gonna be standing out there in the water in a little while and baptizing four people.
They're gonna be non -Christians there.
And don't you think they're gonna be looking at us as though we're stupid, foolish, ignorant?
And I'm gonna stand there and declare to them that these four men and
women are standing forward to confess Christ because they believe what the gospel says about Jesus.
That he suffered, he died, was buried, but glorified.
He's Lord, he's King.
And they're acknowledging that and confessing that openly before you all.
And that we as a church make that declaration that Jesus is Lord in spite of what you think, your
heart thinks, the world says, we know it's true because the scriptures tell us so.
Amen?
Let's pray.
Father, thank you for these words.
We pray that you would give us an enhanced understanding of these matters, our God, and understand the
implications.
Help us, our Lord, not be ashamed of you in this fallen dark world.
For you tell us in your word if we're ashamed of you and your words, you'll be ashamed of us when we
stand before you on the day of judgment.
But rather, our God, help us to be willing to suffer even rejection and shame, if so be it,
as the Lord Jesus himself did, if we are able to bring glory to you in our lives.
For we ask these things, Father, in Jesus' name, amen.