Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 2:14
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
14 22. The First Cleansing of the Temple
14. in the temple ] i.e. within the sacred enclosure, in the Court of the Gentiles. The traffic would be very great at the approach of the Passover. The account is very graphic, as of an eyewitness. Note especially ‘the changers of money sitting: ’ the sellers of cattle, &c., would stand.
changers of money ] Not the same Greek word as in Joh 2:15. There the word points to the commission paid on exchanges; here the word indicates a change from large to small coins.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Found in the temple … – The transaction here recorded is in almost all respects similar to that which has been explained in the notes at Mat 21:12. This took place at the commencement of his public ministry; that at the close. On each occasion he showed that his great regard was for the pure worship of his Father; and one great design of his coming was to reform the abuses which had crept into that worship, and to bring man to a proper regard for the glory of God. If it be asked how it was that those engaged in this traffic so readily yielded to Jesus of Nazareth, and that they left their gains and their property, and fled from the temple at the command of one so obscure as he was, it may be replied,
- That their consciences reproved them for their impiety, and they could not set up the appearance of self-defense.
- It was customary in the nation to cherish a profound regard for the authority of a prophet; and the appearance and manner of Jesus – so fearless, so decided, so authoritative led them to suppose he was a prophet, and they were afraid to resist him.
- Even then, Jesus had a wide reputation among the people, but it is not improbable that many supposed him to be the Messiah.
- Jesus on all occasions had a most wonderful control over people. None could resist him. There was something in his manner, as well as in his doctrine, that awed men, and made them tremble at his presence. Compare Joh 18:5-6. On this occasion he had the manner of a prophet, the authority of God, and the testimony of their own consciences, and they could not, therefore, resist the authority by which he spoke.
Though Jesus thus purified the temple at the commencement of his ministry, yet in three years the same scene was to be repeated. See Mat 21:12. And from this we may learn:
- How soon people forget the most solemn reproofs, and return to evil practices.
- That no sacredness of time or place will guard them from sin. In the very temple, under the very eye of God, these people soon returned to practices for which their consciences reproved them, and which they knew that God disapproved.
- We see here how strong is the love of gain – the ruling passion of mankind. Not even the sacredness of the temple, the presence of God, the awful ceremonials of religion, deterred them from this unholy traffic. So wicked men and hypocrites will always turn religion, if possible, into gain; and not even the sanctuary, the Sabbath, or the most awful and sacred scenes, will deter them from schemes of gain. Compare Amo 8:5. So strong is this grovelling passion, and so deep is that depravity which fears not God, and regards not his Sabbaths, his sanctuary, or his law.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 14. Found in the temple those that sold oxen, c.] This is a similar fact to that mentioned Mt 21:12 Mr 11:15; Lu 19:45. See it explained on Mt 21:12. If it be the same fact, then John anticipates three years of time in relating it here; as that cleansing of the temple mentioned by the other evangelists took place in the last week of our Lord’s life. Mr. Mann, Dr. Priestley, and Bp. Pearce, contend that our Lord cleansed the temple only once; and that was at the last passover. Calvin, Mr. Mede, L’Enfant and Beausobre, Dr. Lardner, Bp. Hurd, and Bp. Newcome, contend that he purged the temple twice; and that this, mentioned by John, was the first cleansing, which none of the other evangelists have mentioned. Let the reader, says Bp. Newcome, observe the order of events.
“Jesus works his first miracle at Cana of Galilee, Joh 2:11; then he passes a few days at Capernaum, which bring him on his way to Jerusalem, Joh 2:12. The passover being near, he goes up to Jerusalem, Joh 2:13, and casts the traders out of the temple, Joh 2:15-16, At the passover he works many miracles, Joh 2:23. While he is in Jerusalem, which city he does not leave till, Joh 3:22, Nicodemus comes to him by night, Joh 3:1-2. Joh 3:2 contains a reference to Joh 2:23. After these things, Jesus departs from Jerusalem, and dwells and baptizes in Judea, Joh 3:22. And all these incidents take place before John was cast into prison, Joh 3:24. But the second cleansing of the temple happens most clearly during the last week of our Lord’s life, after the death of the Baptist, and at a time when it would be absurd to say that afterwards Jesus dwelt and baptized in Judea.”
The vindication of God’s house from profanation was the first and the last care of our Lord; and it is probable he began and finished his public ministry by this significant act.
It certainly appears that John directly asserts an early cleansing of the temple, by the series of his history; as the other three evangelists assert a later cleansing of it. And though the act mentioned here seems to be nearly the same with that mentioned by the other evangelists, yet there are some differences. St. John alone mentions the scourge of rushes, and the casting out of the sheep and oxen. Besides, there is a considerable difference in our Lord’s manner of doing it: in the cleansing mentioned by the three evangelists, he assumes a vast deal of authority, and speaks more pointedly concerning himself, than he appears to do in this cleansing mentioned by St. John: the reason which has been given is, In the first cleansing he was just entering upon his public ministry, and therefore avoided (as much as was consistent with the accomplishment of his work) the giving any offence to the Jewish rulers; but, in the last cleansing, he was just concluding his ministry, being about to offer up his life for the salvation of the world, in consequence of which he speaks fully and without reserve. For answers to all the objections made against two cleansings of the temple, see the notes at the end of Bp. Newcome’s Greek Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 7-9.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mat 21:12; Luk 19:45, is a piece of history so like this, that some have questioned whether it mentions not the same individual matter of fact; but it is apparent that it doth not:
1. Because St. John mentions it as done three years before it, at the first passover; all the other evangelists mention what they report as done at the fourth passover.
2. The circumstances of the narrative make it appear.
a) John mentions only the ejection of the sellers; all the others mention the ejection both of the buyers and sellers.
b) Here, he only saith they had made his Fathers house a place of merchandise; the others say, that whereas it was written, it should be called a house of prayer, they had made it a den of thieves.
c) Here he only bids them that sold doves take their goods away; the others say he overturned the seats of them that sold doves: so as our Saviour plainly appeareth to have done this twice, at his first passover and at the last.
For the more full explication of the parts of this history, See Poole on “Mat 21:12“. See Poole on “Mar 11:15“. See Poole on “Luk 19:45“. The reason of their bringing oxen, and sheep, and doves into the temple, was to supply those that came afar off, and could not bring their sacrifices with them, with such sacrifices as the law required in several cases. The money changers were there, to change the peoples money into half shekels, every one being obliged to offer his half shekel, Exo 30:13. Our Saviour did not condemn this course of accommodating of people; but blames the covetousness of the priests, who for their private lucre had made the temple their marketplace, whenas there was room enough elsewhere.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14-17. in the templenot thetemple itself, as Joh2:19-21, but the temple-court.
sold oxen, &c.forthe convenience of those who had to offer them in sacrifice.
changers of moneyofRoman into Jewish money, in which the temple dues (see on Mt17:24) had to be paid.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And found in the temple,…. Not in the holy place itself, nor in the court of the priests, where the sacrifices were offered, nor in the court of the women, nor in the court of the Israelites, where the people worshipped; but in the court of the Gentiles, or the outward court, even all that space of ground which was between the wall which divided the whole from common ground, and the buildings of the temple, and which was open to the air; for the whole sacred enclosure, or all within the wall, went by the name of the temple. Into this all strangers might come; and the passover now being at hand, here were
those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves: the oxen, or bullocks, were for the Chagigah, or feast kept on the second day of the passover; [See comments on Joh 18:28]; and the sheep, or lambs, as the Persic version reads, for the passover supper; and the doves were for the offerings of the poorer sort of new mothers: with these they were supplied from the Mount of Olives. It is said c,
“there were two cedar trees on the Mount of Olives, and under one of them were four shops of them that sold things for purification; and out of one of them they brought forty bushels of young doves every month: and out of them the Israelites had enough for the nests, or the offerings of turtle doves;”
[See comments on Mt 21:12];
and the changers of money sitting: who changed foreign money into the current coin of the Jews, strangers coming, at this feast, from several parts of the world; and sometimes there was need of changing shekels into half shekels, which, at certain times, were paid for the ransom of Israelites; see the note on the place above mentioned.
c Echa Rabbati, fol. 52. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Those that sold ( ). Present active articular participle of , to sell. They were in the Court of the Gentiles within the temple precinct ( ), but not in the or temple proper. The sacrifices required animals (oxen, , sheep, , doves, ) and “changers of money” (, from , to cut into small pieces, to change money, only here in N.T., late and rare). Probably their very presence in his Father’s house angered Jesus. The Synoptics (Mark 11:15-17; Matt 21:12; Luke 10:45) record a similar incident the day after the Triumphal Entry. If there was only one, it would seem more natural at the close. But why could it not occur at the beginning also? Here it is an obvious protest by Christ at the beginning of his ministry as in the Synoptics it is an indignant outcry against the desecration. The cessation was only temporary in both instances.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The temple [] . The temple inclosure : not the sanctuary [] . See on Mt 9:5; Mr 11:16.
Those that sold [ ] . The article defines them as a well – known class.
Changers of money [] . Only here in the New Testament.
The kindred noun kerma, money, which occurs only in ver. 15, is from keirw, to cut into bits, and means therefore small coin; “small change,” of which the money – changers would require a large supply. Hence changers of money means, strictly, dealers in small change. Matthew and Mark use lubisthv (see ver. 15), of which the meaning is substantially the same so far as regards the dealing in small coin; but with the difference that kollubov, the noun from which it is derived, and meaning a small coin, is also used to denote the rate of exchange. This latter word therefore gives a hint of the premium on exchange, which John’s word here does not convey. The money – changers opened their stalls in the country towns a month before the feast. By the time of the first arrivals of passover – pilgrims at Jerusalem, the country stalls were closed, and the money – changers sat in the temple (see on Mt 17:24; Mt 21:12; Mr 11:15). John’s picture of this incident is more graphic and detailed than those of the Synoptists, who merely state summarily the driving out of the traders and the overthrow of the tables. Compare Mt 21:12, 13; Mr 11:15 – 17; Luk 19:45, 46. 21
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And found in the temple,” (kai heuren en to hiero) “And in the temple he found,” in the outer court of the temple, the court of Gentiles of the heathen, not in the temple proper or inner sanctum of the temple, Rev 11:2; Mat 21:2.
2) “Those that sold oxen and sheep and doves,” (tous polountas boas kai probata kai peristeras) “Those who were selling oxen, sheep and doves,” for sacrificial animals for those worshippers who had come there too far to bring these sacrificial animals with them. They dared not bring or drive the sacrificial animals from afar, then have rejected by the priest as unfit for sacrifice from blemish or injury or impurity, Lev 22:19-25; Exo 30:12-13; Mar 11:15.
3) “And the changers of money sitting:- (kai tous kernmatistas kathemenous) “And the coin dealers sitting,” commercializing there, like lions or leopards, waiting to pounce upon their prey, or like a coiled serpent, waiting for the kill. Advantage was taken by greedy, unscrupulous merchants over devout worshippers, to the extent that the high cost of worship came to be hateful to the people. The priests could enter collusion or agreement with the money changers and merchants, to condemn the use of sacrifices brought by the people as being unlawful to offer, and in conflict with “blemish laws,” as described in Lev 22:12-25. This they evidently were doing.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. Found in the temple Doubtless it was after the solemn performance of the Passover sacrifice (which was on the first day) that Jesus, as Lord of the temple, proceeded to this stern act. He enters the temple as a visitation of God. He finds abominations there which he must chastise with a terrible significance.
In the temple Not in the Holy Place, (see temple plan;) neither in the courts either of the priests, the Israelites, or the women. But in the court of the Gentiles, which was at most separated from the outer world by a single wall. This court was divided by lattice-work from the inner courts. Over the entrance through the lattice, which was reached by a flight of three or four steps, was the inscription, “Let no foreign-born enter.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he found in the Temple those who sold oxen, and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers sitting there.’
Entering the Temple He found in the court of the Gentiles, set apart for Gentile worship, men who were selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others who were at tables exchanging currencies. This money exchanging was necessary because the Temple tax, which was required of every Jew, had to be paid in Tyrian coinage which had no idolatrous images on it, and many had come from afar bringing ‘tainted’ money. Jesus was not attacking the service provided, but the whereabouts of its taking place which was basically an insult to the Gentiles who worshipped there
Prior to Passover Jews were expected to ensure that they were ritually clean. Great efforts were made to prevent the possibility of uncleanness. Graves would be painted white in order to ensure that Jews did not come into contact with death just prior to the Passover, for if they were unclean Jews could not participate in the Passover. So there was a great emphasis on ritual purity. Thus Jesus may well have had this in mind when He saw what He considered to be a degrading of the Temple, especially when He saw ‘tainted money’ being brought into the Temple containing its idolatrous images, and the noise of cattle disturbing the peace, while their droppings also polluted the Temple. The hypocrisy of it seemingly came home to Him. Conscious of His new ministry He was thus angered at this use of His Father’s house, which He saw as a place for prayer and worship even for Gentiles.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 2:14. And found in the temple Moses, in Deu 14:24-25 from considering the necessity of the Jews resorting to the capital of their country, and the inconveniences which would attend the driving the cattle which were to be offered, and could be offered only there, gave them liberty, under the direction of Jehovah, to carrymoney with them, and purchase their victims on the spot. When, therefore, the Jews were dispersed among all nations, this injunction seemed not only convenient and prudent, but even necessary; and therefore it was appointed that those animals which were used in sacrifices, should be sold without the temple near the gates. This institution whichwas so convenient, was in process of time turned into abuse; and the market was at length kept in the very court of the Gentiles, the only place which was allotted to the Gentiles to worship in. The noise of the cattle, and the hurry of the place, were great obstacles to worship, especially when we consider that the numbers who thronged this court, amounted at one passover to no less than 3,000,000; when, according to Josephus, no less than 256,500 victims were offered. But the abuse did not rest here; for it is generally supposed that the priests let out this part of the temple for profit; and that the sellers, to enable themselves to pay the rent of their shops and stalls, demanded an exorbitant price for their commodities. Nay, it is said, that the priests and Levites very often sold the animals which they had received for sacrifices, to the dealers in cattle at a lower rate, that they might sell them again with profit; so that the same sacrifice was often sold to different persons, and the spoils or gains of the sacrifices were divided between the priests and the salesmen. In order to expedite this traffic, there were money-changers at hand, who gave the Jews of foreign countries the current money of Judea, in lieu of the money of the countries whence they came; and for this service they took a premium, which upon the whole became very considerable. Thus was the temple profaned by the avarice of the priests, and literally made a den of thieves. When our Lord viewed this scene of iniquity, we need not wonder at his indignation; for it was a zeal, which shewed his high regard to religion, and his implacable enmity to vice; while at the same time it illustrated the character given him by the prophet Mal 3:1.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
Ver. 14. And found in the temple ] The Talmudists tell us that it was grown to a custom to set up tables in the temple, and money changers at them, that those who ought to offer half a shekel might have those at hand who might change their bigger money, or take to pledge what else they brought. Here also they might buy oxen, sheep, doves, for sacrifice, which the covetous priests often received, and then sold them again to others.
Sitting ] The Jews of this day being great usurers, and through much sitting and not stirring about, are thought to stink, so as they are said to do: sedentary lives are subject to diseases. Plerique omnes mensarii sunt, faeneratoriam exercentes, ideo foetent. (Beza, Armor.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14. ] On the distinctness of this cleansing from that related in Mat 21:12 ff., see note there.
] In the court of the Gentiles, the , as distinguished from the , the inner temple. This market appears to have sprung up since the captivity, with a view to the convenience of those Jews who came from a distance, to provide them with the beasts for offering, and to change their foreign money into the sacred shekel, which alone was allowed to be paid in for the temple capitation-tax (Mat 17:24 ff.). This tax was sometimes, as in Matt. l. c., paid elsewhere than in Jerusalem; but generally there, and in the temple. The very fact of the market being held there would produce an unseemly mixture of sacred and profane transactions, even setting aside the abuses which would be certain to be mingled with the traffic. It is to the former of these evils that our Lord makes reference in this first cleansing; in the second , to the latter .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 2:14 . On reaching Jerusalem Jesus as a devout Jew visited the Temple , that is, in the outer court of the Temple, the court of the Gentiles. , cattle and sheep and doves, the sacrificial animals. It was of course a great convenience to the worshippers to be able to procure on the spot all requisites for sacrifice. Some of them might not know what sacrifice was required for their particular offence, and though the priest at their own home might inform them, still the officiating examiner in the Temple might reject the animal they brought as unfit; and probably would, if it was his interest to have the worshippers buying on the spot. That enormous overcharges were sometimes made is shown by Edersheim, who relates that on one occasion Simeon, the grandson of Hillel, interfered and brought down the price of a pair of doves from a gold denar, 15s. 3d., to half a silver denar, or 4d. This Temple tyranny and monopoly and these exorbitant charges naturally tended to make the Temple worship hateful to the people; and besides, the old charm of sacrifice, the free offering by a penitent of what he knew and cherished, the animal that he valued because he had watched it from its birth, and had tested its value in the farm work all this was abolished by this “convenient” abuse. That the abuse was habitual is shown by John Lightfoot, who quotes: “Veniens quadam die Bava Ben Buta in atrium, vacuum pecoribus illud reperit,” as an extraordinary thing. It was not the presence of oxen and sheep which was offensive, for such animals must pass into the Temple with their usual accompaniments. But it was an aggravation to have these standing all day in the Temple, and to have the haggling and chaffering of a cattle market mingling with the sounds of prayer. But especially was it offensive to make the Temple service a hardship and an offence to the people of God. Not only were there those who provided sacrificial animals but also , money changers seated , at their tables, for a regular day’s business not a mere accidental or occasional furnishing with change of some poor man who had hitherto not been able to procure it. is a small coin, from , to cut short. used collectively in the next verse would be in Attic . is one who gives small change, a money changer (such as may be seen sitting on the open street at a table in Naples or elsewhere). In the fifteenth verse they are called , from , a small coin, this again from , docked, snipped short. Maimonides, quoted by Lcke, says the was the small coin given to the money changer for exchanging a shekel into two half-shekels. The receiver of the change “dat ipsi aliquid superabundans,” gives the changer something over and above, and this aliquid superabundans vocatur collybus. In fact the word was transliterated, and in the Hebrew characters was read “kolbon”. This kolbon was about 2d., which was pretty high for providing the sacred half-shekel, which could alone be received into the Temple treasury and which every Jew had to pay. It was not only on the exchange of foreign money brought up to Palestine by Jews of the dispersion these money changers must have made a good percentage; but especially by exchanging the ordinary currency of Galilee and Judaea into the sacred half-shekel, which was the poll-tax or Temple tribute exacted from every Jew. This tax was either paid a week or two before Passover in the provinces or at the Passover in the Temple itself. To Jesus the usage seemed an intolerable abuse. . is the Latin flagellum . Many commentators represent the matter as if Jesus made a whip of the litter ; but John does not say , “of rushes,” but , of ropes made of rushes. In the account of Paul’s shipwreck (Act 27:32 ) are the ropes which held the boat to the ship; so that it is impossible on this ground to say with Dr. Whitelaw that “the whip could only have been designed as an emblem of authority”. It is quite probable it was not used; as Bengel says: “neque dicitur hominibus ictum inflixisse; terrore rem perfecit”. . Holtzmann and Weiss consider that the following clause is epexegetical of the , as, grammatically, it is; and that therefore refers to the sheep and oxen, not to the men. In the Synoptical Gospels certainly refers to the men, and as the masculine is here retained it is difficult to refer it to the . After driving out the oxen and their owners, , or as W.H [36] read . were specifically “bankers’ tables,” hence , bankers, so that we might translate “counters”. These He overturned, and poured the coin on the ground. We cannot evacuate of forcible meaning these plain terms. It was a scene of violence: the traders trying to protect their property, cattle rushing hither and thither, men shouting and cursing, the money changers trying to hold their tables as Jesus went from one to another upsetting them. It was indeed so violent a scene that the disciples felt somewhat scandalised until they remembered, then and there, not afterwards, that it was written: , words which are found in the sixty-ninth Psalm, the aorist of the LXX being changed into the future. In ordinary Greek has for its future , but in Hellenistic Greek it has for its future. See Gen 3:3 , Luk 17:8 . The disciples saw in their Master’s act a consuming zeal for God’s house. It was this zeal which always governed Christ. He could not stand by and wash His hands of other men’s sins. It was this which brought Him to this world and to the cross. He had to interfere. It might have been expected that the words of Malachi would rather have been suggested to them, “The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple: but who may abide the day of His coming? for He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver”. Their interpretation of His act was suggested by His words: . At His first visit to the Temple He had called it His Father’s house. There is, no doubt, in the an appropriation from which others are excluded. He does not say “your Father’s house” nor “our Father’s,” but “my Father’s”. In this word and in His action His Messiahship was implied, but directly the act and even the word were no more than a reforming prophet might have felt to be suitable. Weiss ( Life of Jesus , ii., 6) says: “He felt Himself to be the Son of Him who in a unique way had consecrated this place for His temple, and He exercised the authority of a Son against the turmoil which defiled His Father’s house. Those who looked deeper must ultimately have seen that the Messiah alone had a right to feel Himself in this sense the Chosen of Jehovah. As yet, however, there were no such observers. The followers by whom He was already surrounded did not require to deduce His Messiahship from this: they knew He was the Messiah.” Make not my Father’s house . In Mar 11:17 the words are given as running, “Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves”; which seems to be a combination of Isa 56:7 , “Mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people,” and Jer 7:11 , “Is this house which is called by my name become a den of robbers in your eyes?” In the there may be a reminiscence of Zec 14:21 .
[36] Westcott and Hort.
At Joh 2:18 the cleft begins to open between faith and unbelief. In the act in which the disciples had seen the fulfilment of a Messianic Psalm, the Jews see only an unauthorised interference and assumption, of authority. Characteristically they ask for a sign. , as frequent in John, means “the Jewish authorities”; and is used as elsewhere of a reply to what has been suggested or affirmed not by word but by deed. , ; on is used similarly in Joh 9:17 = . The blindness of the Jews is enough to put external evidence for ever out of repute. They never will see the sign in the thing itself. The fact that Jesus by one blow accomplished a much needed reform of an abuse over which devout men must often have sighed and which perhaps ingenuous Levites had striven to keep within limits, the fact that this unknown youth had done what none of the constituted authorities had been able to do, was surely itself the greatest . Might they not rather have said: Here is one who treats things radically, who does not leave grievances to mend themselves but effectively puts His hand to the work? But this blindness is characteristic. They never see that Jesus Himself is the great sign, but are always craving for some extraneous testimony. This Gospel throughout is an exhibition of the comparative value of external and internal evidence. To their request Jesus could not answer, “I am the Messiah”. He wished that to be the people’s discovery from their knowledge of Him. He therefore answers (Joh 2:19 ), , . The saying was meant to be enigmatical. Jesus spoke in parables when He wished to be understood by the spiritual and to baffle the hostile. Those who cross-question Him and treat Him as a subject to be investigated find no satisfaction. John tells us (Joh 2:21 ) that here He spoke of the “temple of His body”. Bengel suggests that He may have indicated this, “adhibito nutu gestuve”; others suggest that He may have given such an emphasis to as to suggest what He intended; but this is excluded by Joh 2:22 , which informs us that it was only after the resurrection that the disciples themselves understood what was meant. Those who heard considered it an idle challenge which He knew could not be put to the proof. He knew they would not destroy their unfinished Temple. His words then had one meaning for Himself; another for those who heard. For Himself they meant: “Destroy this body of mine in which dwells the Father and I will raise it in three days”. He said this, knowing they would not now understand Him, but that this would be the great sign of His authority. Paul refers the resurrection of Christ to the Father or to the Spirit; John here, as in Joh 10:17-18 , refers it directly to Christ Himself.
Holtzmann suggests, as had previously been suggested by others, that “to do anything in three days” merely meant to do it quickly. Reference is made to Hos 6:2 , Mat 13:40 . This may be. Holtzmann further maintains that such an announcement as Jesus is here represented as making was impossible at so early a period of the ministry, that it must have been uttered on some other occasion and have been inserted here to suit John’s purpose. The origin of the expression he finds in the Pauline-Alexandrian conception of the body as the temple of God. If this was believed of ordinary men much more must that body be the temple in which dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9 ).
That the saying itself was historical is put beyond doubt by its quotation at the trial of Jesus, Mar 14:58 ; cf. Mar 15:29 . There were those who had heard Him say that He would destroy the Temple; which gives this saying with just the kind of misunderstanding and perversion one would expect. But if the saying itself is historical, can Jesus have meant anything else by it than John tells us He meant? That He considered His body the Temple of God goes without saying.
It is indeed extremely unlikely that Jesus should at the very beginning of His ministry have spoken of His death and resurrection openly . Hence even Weiss seems to think that the words meant: Destroy this Temple, as you are doing by allowing such abuses in it, prohibit me from those reforms on the Temple which can alone save it, and eventually this Temple must be completely destroyed, its purpose gone, and its services extinct. But I will in its place raise a spiritual temple, the living Church. But if already Jesus had thought out the Messianic career, then He already was sure both that He would die and that He would rise again. Being in perfect fellowship with the living God He knew that He must be hated of men, and He knew that He could never fall from that fellowship but must conquer death. At no time then after His baptism and temptation could it be impossible to Him to speak covertly as here of His death and resurrection. On this point see Schwartzkopff, Die Weissagungen Christi .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
temple. Greek. hieron. See note on Mat 23:16. those. Denoting a class.
changers of money. Greek. Plural of kermatistes. Occurs only here.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
14.] On the distinctness of this cleansing from that related in Mat 21:12 ff., see note there.
] In the court of the Gentiles, the , as distinguished from the , the inner temple. This market appears to have sprung up since the captivity, with a view to the convenience of those Jews who came from a distance, to provide them with the beasts for offering, and to change their foreign money into the sacred shekel, which alone was allowed to be paid in for the temple capitation-tax (Mat 17:24 ff.). This tax was sometimes, as in Matt. l. c., paid elsewhere than in Jerusalem; but generally there, and in the temple. The very fact of the market being held there would produce an unseemly mixture of sacred and profane transactions, even setting aside the abuses which would be certain to be mingled with the traffic. It is to the former of these evils that our Lord makes reference in this first cleansing; in the second, to the latter.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 2:14. , oxen, and sheep, and doves) which were used in sacrifices.-, sitting) in the very act of negotiation: [going on so much the more briskly, as the Passover festival was at hand.-Harm., p. 161.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 2:14
Joh 2:14
And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves,-The children of Israel came to Jerusalem to observe the Passover in the temple. The law was that certain animals-oxen, sheep, goats, doves, and pigeons-must be slain at the door of the temple and offerings made on the brazen altar outside the door. Coming from distant parts in Judea, and even from distant lands, they must purchase the animals in Jerusalem. This created a demand for these animals and traders brought them here to supply the demand and they were brought into the court of the temple.
and the changers of money sitting:-They were required to make offerings of money, all in the coin of the sanctuary. This created the demand, and the traffic in these animals and coins was carried on for gain. The Jews were required to contribute the half shekel to the temple expenses. They could not contribute coin with idol images. Money of this character was in general circulation. So the money-changers exchanged with them for profit.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Deu 14:23-26, Mat 21:12, Mar 11:15, Luk 19:45, Luk 19:46
Reciprocal: Deu 14:26 – bestow Ezr 7:17 – buy speedily Psa 26:8 – Lord Psa 69:9 – zeal Mal 3:1 – and
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
See notes on Mat 21:12-13.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 2:14. And he found in the temple-courts those that sold oxen and sheep and doves. The scene of this traffic was the outer court, commonly spoken of as the court of the Gentiles, but known to the Jews as the mountain of the house. This court (which was on a lower level than the inner courts and the house or sanctuary itself) occupied not less than two-thirds of the space inclosed by the outer walls. Along its sides ran cloisters or colonnades, two of which, Solomons porch on the east, and the Royal porch on the south, were especially admired: to these cloisters many of the devout resorted for worship or instruction, and here, no doubt, our Lord often taught (chap. Joh 10:23). In strange contrast, however, with the sacredness of the place was what He now found in the temple-courts. At all times, and especially at the passover, the temple was frequented by numerous worshippers, who required animals that might be offered in sacrifice. The law prescribed the nature of each sacrifice, and enjoined that all animals presented to the Lord should be without blemish (Lev 22:19-20),a requirement which the tradition of the elders expanded into minute detail. Hence sacrifice would have been well-nigh impossible, had not facilities been afforded for the purchase of animals that satisfied all the conditions imposed. The neighbouring Quarter of the city naturally became a bazaar for the purpose; but unhappily the priests, yielding to temptations of gain, had suffered such traffic to be carried on within the precincts of the temple itself. At what period this abuse took its rise we do not know. Some have supposed that the last words of Zechariah (chap. Joh 14:21) refer to similar practices, the verse being rendered: In that day there shall be no more the trafficker in the house of the Lord of hosts. The book of Nehemiah shows examples of the spirit of disorder and irreverence from which such usages naturally spring; and the representations of Malachi make it easy to understand that the priests would be only too readily accessible to the allurements of a gainful traffic. In the court of the Gentiles, then, stood those who offered for sale oxen and sheep,also doves (for the poor. Lev 14:22, and for women, Lev 12:6). The wording of this verse (those that sold, etc.) shows that the trade was now an established custom. The discordance between a cattle-mart and a place for sacred worship and converse need not be drawn out in detail. But this was not all.
And the changers of money sittingat their tables in the sacred place. The annual tribute which every man of Israel was bound to pay to the temple treasury could be paid only in the half-shekel of the sanctuary (see Mat 17:24-26). All who came from other lands, therefore, or who had not with them the precise coin, must resort to the exchangers, who (as we learn from the Talmud) were permitted to do their business in the temple during the three weeks preceding the passover. Their profits (at a rate of interest amounting to ten or twelve per cent) were very great.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Joh 2:14. And found in the temple those that sold oxen, &c. Used for sacrifice. It seems the officers, whose province it was to take care of the temple, permitted a market of these animals, and other things necessary for sacrifice, to be kept in the court of the Gentiles, in order that the worshippers might be supplied with victims requisite for the altar. The consequence of which was, that there was often such a bustle and confusion there, that the proselytes who came to worship could not but be much disturbed in their devotions; as the reader will easily believe, when he is informed that, according to Josephus, no fewer than two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred victims were sometimes offered at one passover. But the abuse did not rest here; for it is generally supposed that the priests let out this part of the temple for profit, and that the sellers, to enable themselves to pay the rent of their shops and stalls, demanded an exorbitant price for their commodities. Nay, it is said that the priests and Levites very often sold the animals they had received for sacrifices to the dealers in cattle, at a lower rate, that they might sell them again with profit; so that the same sacrifices were often sold to different persons, and the spoils, or gain of them, were divided between the priests and the salesmen. In order to expedite this traffic, there were money-changers at hand, who gave the Jews who came from foreign countries the current money of Judea, in lieu of the money of the countries from whence they came; and for this service they took a premium, which, upon the whole, became very considerable. Thus was the temple profaned by the avarice of the priests, and literally made a den of thieves. When our Lord viewed this scene of iniquity, we need not wonder at his indignation; for it was an honest zeal, which showed his high regard to religion, and his implacable enmity to vice; while, at the same time, it illustrated the character given of him by Malachi, (Mal 3:1,) and established the pretensions he made of being the messenger mentioned by that prophet. See Josephus, Bell., Joh 6:9, and note on Mat 21:12-13.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ver. 14. And he found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting.
The article the before the terms designating the sellers and money-changers, which Ostervald omits with other translators, sets forth this office as a known one; they are the habitual, and in a sense licensed sellers and money-changers. The three sorts of animals mentioned were the ones most habitually used for the sacrifices., money-changer, from , piece of money.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 14
In the temple; in one of the courts, or outer enclosures of the temple. The oxen, sheep, and doves, were for sacrifices. The changers of money were men who furnished the kind of coin necessary for offerings. (Exodus 30:13.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:14 {4} And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
(4) Christ being ordained to purge the Church with great zeal begins his office both of Priest and Prophet.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus witnessed the buying and selling going on in the temple courtyard (Gr. hieron). This was undoubtedly the outer Court of the Gentiles, not the temple building (Gr. naos). [Note: See the diagram "Jerusalem in New Testament Times" at the end of these notes.] Probably the custom of selling sacrificial animals and exchanging various types of silver and copper money (e.g., Persian, Syrian, Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman) for temple coinage began as a convenience for pilgrims. The priests accepted only Tyrian coins because of the purity of their silver. By Jesus’ day this practice had escalated into a major business for the priests and had replaced spiritual worship in the courtyard during the Passover season. [Note: See Edersheim, 1:367-70.] The priests transformed this area from a place of quiet prayer into a noisy bazaar. It was virtually impossible for Gentiles to worship there, the only courtyard accessible to them, with all the business going on. This was probably where the Ethiopian eunuch (Act 8:27) and other Gentiles like him worshipped when they came to Jerusalem. The priests set up tables for the moneychangers only for about three weeks leading up to Passover. [Note: Mishnah Shekalim 1:1, 3.]
Jesus responded to this situation actively and verbally. He claimed that God was His Father and that He acted for God in what He did. John’s vivid description has inspired many painters who have drawn what they believed this action-packed scene must have looked like. John gave the reason for Jesus’ deeds as His concern for the misuse of the temple. He did not mention the corruption that may have been going on as the priests bought and sold and changed money. Jesus’ action constituted a major threat to the financial arrangements for the sacrificial system. [Note: Richard Bauckham, "Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple," in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, pp. 72-89.]
"The Talmud also records the curse which a distinguished Rabbi of Jerusalem (Abba Shaul) pronounced upon the High-Priestly families (including that of Annas), who were ’themselves High-Priests, their sons treasurers (Gizbarin), their sons-in-law assistant-treasurers (Ammarkalin), while their servants beat the people with sticks.’ (Pes. [Pesiqta] 57 a) What a comment this passage offers on the bearing of Jesus, as He made a scourge to drive out the very servants who ’beat the people with sticks,’ and upset their unholy traffic!" [Note: Edersheim, 1:372.]
By claiming God as His Father, Jesus was citing authority for His action, not claiming equality with the Father, which He did another time (Joh 5:18). To those present, the issue was clearly Jesus’ authority, not His identity (Joh 2:18).
Though Jesus’ action was violent, it evidently did not constitute a threat to the peace in the temple area. Roman soldiers from the adjoining Antonia Fortress would have intervened quickly if it had. Jesus was forceful but not cruel. There is no indication that He injured anyone with His fairly harmless scourge of cords (Gr. phragellion ek schoinion). The Greek masculine plural pantas ("all") argues for Jesus driving the traders out, not just the animals, which the neuter plural panta would identify. Schoinion ("cords") elsewhere describes the ropes on a ship (Act 27:32).
"It is clear that it was not so much the physical force as the moral power he employed that emptied the courts." [Note: Morris, p. 171.]
The Old Testament predicted that Messiah would come and purify the Levites (Mal 3:1-3; cf. Zec 14:21). Jesus’ action perhaps recalled these prophecies to the godly in Israel who may have wondered if Jesus was the Messiah. His actions did not fulfill these prophecies, however, which appear in millennial contexts. Jesus will yet return to the temple that will be standing in Jerusalem when He returns at His second coming and purify the Levites serving there then. This will be preparation for His messianic reign that will follow. Another view is that Jesus’ first coming to the temple did fulfill Malachi’s prophecy. [Note: Bailey, p. 164.]