EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES
John 2:12. Capernaum.—Cod. א, B, read καφαρ ναούμ, i.e. the kaphar or village of Nahum. Two sites especially have been fixed upon as the best representatives of the ancient Capernaum. The ruins at Tell Hûm are now considered to have the best claim to represent the Saviour’s city. His brethren.—The controversies which have raged round this subject have centred on the question of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Setting aside the conjecture of Jerome, that these brethren were in reality first cousins, children of Mary (the wife of Cleophas, John 19:25), sister of our Lord’s mother, as incapable of being sufficiently proved, there are two positions which should be noted:
(1) that of Helvidius, that the brethren are actual brothers, the sons of Joseph and Mary; and
(2) that of Epiphanius, that these brethren were children of Joseph by a former marriage. But as the latter position rests for its proof only on the statement of an apocryphal gospel, those who do not feel it necessary to maintain the somewhat sentimental notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity will be shut up to accept the position of Helvidius. Indeed in this casual mention of our Lord’s brethren may be found an indirect confirmation of His recognition of the sanctity of lawful marriage. Dr. Reynolds well says: “Christ, who honoured marriage by His first display of miraculous power, and this at the suggestion of His own mother, and in the society of those who passed undoubtedly as His brothers, would not feel that the faintest shadow of a shade fell on the lofty purity of His mother by this hypothesis.” (But see Hom. Note on John 7:3.)
John 2:12-13. These verses furnish us, in connection with John 2:20-21, an important time-note (vide in loc.). It was the first year of our Lord’s public ministry, i.e., according to the best authorities, A.D. 28, and in that year the 15th Nisan fell on March 30th. Caspari gives the following dates: Baptism by John, February 1st (about); return to Bethania, forty days later (about March 12th); Cana, March 15th; Capernaum, March 17th; Jerusalem, March 29th (14th Nisan).
John 2:14-16. “The same or a similar fact is narrated by the Synoptists on the occasion of the last passover (Matthew 21:12-16, etc.). Here, then, there are three cases possible: either the Lord performed the cleansing of the sanctuary twice, or He did so only once at the beginning of His ministry; or, finally, only once, but at the end of His ministry. No slight grounds may be adduced in favour of the repetition. The cleansing of the sanctuary was a symbolical act, by which our Lord represented that which He desired, and at which He aimed; it was thus entirely in place at the very outset of His public ministry, and equally so at the close of His labours.” Probably John and Andrew alone accompanied our Lord to Jerusalem on this occasion, the other disciples remaining in Galilee until their final call (Luke 6:13). Thus we can understand why John alone narrates this first cleansing, and the Synoptists only the second. A reason why John especially accompanied Him on this occasion may be found in John 18:15 (vide Introduction). At these great feasts a stock-market was held in the court of the Gentiles; and it may be that the moneychangers were driven even into the court of the people of Israel, which was held to be almost as sacred as the sanctuary. Changers of money, who exchanged current and foreign moneys for the sacred half-shekel, in which alone the customary annual temple tax required from every adult Israelite could be paid. A scourge of small cords.—σχοινίον = a cord made of bulrushes—from the litter scattered about the court. And He said to those who sold doves, etc.—Our Lord did not wish to cause the traders any loss. This traffic was necessary; but it was not to be carried on in His Father’s house. The reason why our Lord was not interfered with in this striking and bold action was the fact that all the pious, and even the ceremonial Israelites, secretly acknowledged that He was right. Temple here = ἱερόν, i.e. especially the outer courts, not ναός, the sanctuary.
John 2:17. “The zeal of Thine house shall eat Me up” (Psalms 69:9).—Westcott points out here, “on the occasion of the first public act of Christ, as throughout St. John, the double effect of the act on those who already believed, and on those who were resolutely unbelieving.” It is written.—γεγραμμένον ἐστίν—instead of the simpler γέγραπται. Καταφάγεταί με—not in reference to Christ’s passion, but to His present burning, consuming desire for His Father’s honour, and the honour of His Father’s house.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— John 2:13-17
The cleansing of the temple.—The incident recorded in these verses occurred on the first visit of the Redeemer (during His public ministry) to Jerusalem at the passover feast. Hitherto His teaching had been confined to the rural district of Galilee. Among the quiet Galilean villages, or at most in some of the towns situated on the margin of the inland lake, He had preached the word of the kingdom gently and lovingly to those who had “ears to hear,” and had “manifested His glory” in miracle, so that the faith of His disciples was strengthened and confirmed. But the passover was nigh, and, in accordance with the customs of the law, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And there in this incident He began to unfold the spiritual nature of His office and work, experiencing in consequence the first open symptoms of antagonism from the rulers of the Jewish people.
Consider, first, the incident itself, and then its general and individual lessons.
I. The incident.—On reaching the holy city the Saviour’s steps were soon directed to the temple; and there He found a state of things utterly intolerable. The temple area appears to have been divided into three enclosures or courts. In the inner enclosure lay the temple building itself, with the court of the priests surrounding it; beyond that was the court of the people; and then, divided off from that by what was known as the middle wall of partition, lay the court of the Gentiles. It was in the last of these enclosures that the traffic which led to this incident was carried on. It was no doubt meant for the convenience of the people. At the passovertide tens of thousands of Jews from every country almost in the then known world thronged the holy city. It was necessary for them to exchange their foreign moneys for current coin, etc.; hence the tables of the money-changers. Then, considering the immense number of sacrifices offered at the feast, in addition to those required for the daily and ordinary sacrifices, the necessity for a kind of stock market was undoubted. But it certainly showed how little real reverence the Jewish leaders had for the worship of God when they permitted all this to go on within the enclosures of the temple area. And it needs only a slight acquaintance with exchanges and cattle markets to conceive how every sight and sound, how the turmoil within the sacred precincts, must have hindered the worship of God’s house. Then all this was done in the court of the Gentiles—the nearest point to the temple the Gentiles could reach. Thus not only was their space curtailed, but what must have been the feeling of earnest men among them when they observed this buying and selling, chaffering and trading, in the courts of that house which was to be an house of prayer for all nations? The Gentiles were admitted to the court named after them so that they might become attracted to the religion and worship of Jehovah. But what was there in that clamouring, chaffering crowd, bleating of sheep, etc., to lift their thoughts heavenward? What likelihood was there that in that scene of traffic the prayer of Psalms 67. would be answered? We do not wonder, then, that Jesus, consumed with the zeal of His Father’s house, should have acted as He did. Making a scourge—probably of materials lying scattered about—He drove the animals out of the court, overturned the tables of the money-changers, producing silence and order where formerly noise and confusion had prevailed. Notice should be taken of the language used by the Saviour in doing this action. When a boy in that same temple, while sitting among the doctors, hearing, etc. (Luke 2:46), He had declared that He was about His Father’s business. In this incident He showed the source of His authority in asserting that the temple was His Father’s house. Here we have His distinct and clear claim from the beginning of His ministry to be the divine Son and the Messiah. The Jewish leaders well knew He meant to assert this claim. Hence their demand for a sign, some miraculous or extraordinary manifestation of the power He professed to wield. In this question we seem anew to detect Satan, the adversary, attacking Christ as he did before on the pinnacle of the temple: “If Thou be the Son of God,” etc. (Matthew 4:6), give an evident sign of your divine Sonship, and the people will believe and follow. But in this very incident, had they not been blinded, those Jews might have found the sign they desired. The Messiah had suddenly appeared in His temple to be “as a refiner and purifier,” etc. (Malachi 3:3). And the rejection by those men of such comings in mercy, etc., ushered in the day when His judgments were made manifest in the withdrawal of their privileges as a race.
II. The spiritual meaning of the incident.—The ministry of our Lord was not ended at His ascension. His work on earth was in a great measure the opening and typical prelude of His work as mediator in heaven. He still
‘Pursues in heaven His mighty plan,
The Saviour and the Friend of man.”
He still sits as a refiner and purifier of silver; still the prophetic promise holds good that He shall come suddenly to His temple to purge and purify. He has done so, and will do so until the end. See how true this is in the history of the Church. It was not long after His ascension that the warning voice again was heard. In the case of the Church at Laodicea, and others of the Churches in Roman Asia, we hear Him saying, “Take these things hence.” Then those who disregarded the warning voice had their light as Christian Churches quenched, just as the Jewish temple and worship were destroyed and the disobedient people scattered. Later in the Church’s history, when new empires had risen on fallen Rome’s broad foundations, there followed for the Church a long period of outward prosperity. But along with this much of evil was mingled. The world and the world’s traffic and pleasure penetrated even to the inner sanctuary, whilst the noise and clamour of it all drowned the voice of praise and prayer, crushed down the aspirations of devotion and worship. Therefore the great Purifier again appeared, and in the turmoil and overturning of the Reformation period He swept away much of the worldliness and materialism which was hindering the Church’s spiritual life, awakening men to a higher spiritual life and purer worship. He is ever watchful. He has the same zeal now for the purity of His Father’s spiritual temple. “His fan is in His hand,” etc. (Matthew 3:12). When Churches become selfish, material, worldly, forgetting their true mission, let them beware! To-day outward success is greatly sought—increasing numbers, overflowing coffers. The world is stealing in on the Church in many ways. There is much danger of the spiritual life being neglected through men being engrossed in this material progress. Then the Lord may have to come in judgment to purify before He can come to bless.
III. Lessons of the incident.—This incident brings personal and individual lessons. “There is but one temple in the universe,” says Novalis, “and that is the body of man.” “Ye are the temple of God” (2 Corinthians 6:16), said St. Paul. In these bodies of ours, when our life has been yielded to Christ, God’s Holy Spirit dwells. Let Christian people beware lest they fall into the careless and irreverent conduct of the Jewish priests, and permit the sacred precincts to become a mart of business, a den of thieves, of sinful thoughts, feelings, etc., so that the noise of the world’s voices overpowers the accents of devotion. Into our churches—those places sacred to worship—no sounds of the world’s business, etc., should be permitted to come. So should it be with Christian people as with reverent hearts they bow in God’s holy house of prayer. Their public and private worship should be as far as possible free from the inroads of the business of life. Our Redeemer in this also gave us an example that we should follow in His steps (John 4:15; Matthew 14:23, etc.). But how often is the worship of God’s house profaned with worldly thoughts, vain imaginations, etc., and prayer stifled in its very inception! And is not the heart—the temple of God for the individual—often so crowded with other things that the sounds of the world predominate, and the voice of God is unheard and unheeded in the multitudinous roar? There is no true holy of holies in such hearts. To those in such case spiritual worship is unknown. They are immersed in the traffic of the market-place, warehouse, etc. The sights and sounds of places of amusement are oftener before them than the sanctities of worship. Let Christian people be jealous for the honour of God’s spiritual house, the Church; and let that temple be not profaned which He hath chosen to dwell in—the temple of “a broken and contrite heart,” etc.
HOMILETIC NOTES
John 2:15. On the peace-breakers lies the burden of war.—
1. Shall we consider the superficial objection as to whether it was right or not to disturb the honest trade of those people, since animals for the temple sacrifices were indispensable, and to “pour out” the exchangers’ money without concern as to whether any of the pieces should be lost? Or shall we reply to the opinion that the indignation seen in Christ’s eye and the scourge in His hand seem to indicate the presence of passionateness?
2. If a breach of the peace took place, the blame lay on the shoulders of the temple authorities. If the order of the house was to be maintained, who could better carry out the doing of it than the Son in the Father’s name? Here certainly there is no passionateness, but on the contrary holiness, and a merciful, sympathetic heart for souls in danger. Here we find reformative action in the footsteps of Jeremiah the prophet (Jeremiah 7:2-11). Here is the angel of the covenant foretold by Malachi (Malachi 3:1-5). Here is the obedience that eighteen years previously had asked, “Must I not be about My Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49).—Dr. R. Kögel.
John 2:17. “The zeal of Thine house.”—The disciples who heard Jesus had also heard Him speak of the heavenly ladder—Himself—on which the angels of God should ascend and descend. They had been witnesses of the wondrous change of water into wine at His command. Thus so little were they perplexed at the action of our Lord, that they saw in it the fulfilment of the Psalmist’s words, “The zeal of Thine house,” etc. (Psalms 69:9).
John 2:15-17. The distinction of this incident from the similar incident recorded in the Synoptists.—I. The Synoptists narrate a cleansing of the temple as having taken place on the day of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem before the last passover (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15 ff.; Luke 19:45). Of such an incident there is no trace in St. John (John 12:12 ff.), and curiously the Synoptists have no trace of an earlier cleansing. It has been supposed that the event has been transposed in the synoptic narratives owing to the fact that they give no account of the Lord’s ministry at Jerusalem before the last journey; but a comparison of the two narratives is against the identification.
1. The exact connection of the event is in each case given in detail.
2. There is a significant difference in the words used to justify the acts (John 2:16; Mark 11:17).
3. In the record of the later incident there is no reference to the remarkable words (John 2:19) which give its colour to the narrative of St. John, though the Synoptists show that they were not unacquainted with those words (Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58).
II.
1. There is no improbability in the repetition of such an incident. Both were connected with the revelation of Jesus as Messiah—first when He claimed His royal power at the entrance of His work, and again at the close.
2. In the interval He had fulfilled the office of a simple prophet. In the first case, so to speak, the incident was doubtful; in the second it was decided. Hence the difference in details, e.g. the force of the addition “a house of prayer for allnations” in prospect of the Passion and His rejection by the Jews, which has no place in the first incident, when He enters as a son His Father’s house. Again, the words a house of merchandise are in the second incident represented by its last issue: “a den of thieves.” John records the incident which occurs at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, because it was the first crisis in the separation of faith and unbelief. The Synoptists, from the construction of their narratives, included the later incident; and as the latter was virtually included in the former, St. John does not give it.—A bridged from Westcott.
ILLUSTRATIONS
John 2:14-15. Christ cleansing His Church.—For us this cleansing of the temple is a sign. It is a sign that Christ really means to do thoroughly the great work He has taken in hand. Long ago had it been said, “Behold, the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple; and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver.” He was to come to sift the true from the false, the worldly and greedy from the devoted and spiritual. He was not to make pretence of doing so, but actually to accomplish the separation. To reform abuses such as this marketing in the temple was no pleasant task. He had to meet the gaze and defy the vindictiveness of an exasperated mob; He had to make enemies of a powerful class in the community. But He does what is called for by the circumstances: and this is but a part and a sample of the work He does always. Always He makes thorough, real work. He does not blink the requirements of the case. We shrug our shoulders and pass by where matters are difficult to mend; we let the flood take its course rather than risk being carried away in attempting to stem it. Not so Christ. The temple was shortly to be destroyed, and it might seem to matter little what practices were allowed in it; but the sounds of bargaining and the greedy eye of trade could not be suffered by Him in His Father’s house: how much more shall He burn as a consuming fire when He cleanses that Church for which he gave Himself that it might be without spot or blemish? He will cleanse it. We may yield ourselves with gladness to His sanctifying power, or we may rebelliously question His authority; but cleansed the house of God must be.—Dr. Marcus Dods.
John 2:17. True zeal.—Let us take heed we do not sometimes call that zeal for God and His gospel which is nothing else but our own tempestuous and stormy passion. True zeal is a sweet, heavenly, and gentle flame, which maketh us active for God, but always within the sphere of love. It never calls for fire from heaven to consume those that differ a little from us in their apprehensions. It is like that kind of lightning (which the philosophers speak of) that melts the sword within, but singeth not the scabbard; it strives to save the soul, but hurteth not the body. True zeal is a loving thing, and makes us always active to edification, and not to destruction. If we keep the fire of zeal within the chimney, in its own proper place, it never doth any hurt—it only warmeth, quickeneth, and enliveneth us; but if once we let it break out, and catch hold of the thatch of our flesh, and kindle our corrupt nature, and set the house of our body on fire, it is no longer zeal, it is no heavenly fire—it is a most destructive and devouring thing. True zeal is an ignis lambens, a soft and gentle flame, that will not scorch one’s hand; it is no predatory or voracious thing: but carnal or fleshly zeal is like the spirit of gunpowder set on fire, that tears and blows up all that stands before it. True zeal is like the vital heat in us that we live upon, which we never feel to be angry or troublesome; but though it gently feeds upon the radial oil within us, that sweet balsam of our natural moisture, yet it lives lovingly with it, and maintains that by which it is fed; but that other furious and distempered zeal is nothing else but a fever in the soul.—R. Cudworth.