Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 2:16
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.
16. said unto them that sold doves ] The doves could not be driven out. He calls to the owners to take the cages away. Comp. Luk 2:24.
my Father’s house ] A distinct claim to Messiahship: it reminds us of ‘about My Father’s business’ (which may also mean ‘in My Father’s house’) spoken in the same place some 17 years before, Luk 2:49. Possibly some who heard the Child’s claim heard the Man’s claim also.
an house of merchandise ] Two years later things seem to have grown worse instead of better; the Temple has then become ‘a den of robbers’ or ‘a bandits’ cave.’ See notes on Mat 21:13 and Mar 11:17.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
At this his first coming, he gives them that sold doves a liberty to take their goods away; but at the last coming, Mat 21:12, it is said, he overturned their seats. Those that think this precedent sufficient to vindicate private persons tumultuous pulling down images, seem not to consider, that Christ was no private person, (though so esteemed), and did what he did as Lord of his house. Those who urge it as inferring magistrates and superiors duty in this case, urge it well; for it may well be from hence concluded, that it is the will of Christ, that places set apart for public worship, should neither wickedly be made dens of thieves, nor yet indecently made places for men to buy and sell in; though we can ascribe no such holiness to any place as to the temple, which had not only a particular dedication, but was built by Gods order, his acceptation of it declared, and had peculiar promises annexed to it; besides its prefiguration of Christ (of which we shall speak more afterward); yet even nature itself teacheth, that there is a decent reverence and respect due to such places. This action of Christs also, before he had published the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us, that those who have authority are not always to refrain from removing instruments of superstition and idolatry, or gross and indecent corruptions, until people be first by the preaching of the true doctrine persuaded willingly to part with them. But if this were to make Gods house a place of merchandise for men, there to sell oxen, and sheep, and doves, and keep shops for changing money; what do papists make such houses, by their showing their relics and images to people, thereby to get money for their priests, and for selling pardons, indulgences, &c.? Never were Gods houses to that degree made places of merchandise, and dens of thieves, if every one that cheateth for his profit be (as he is) a thief.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. my Father’s houseHowclose the resemblance of these remarkable words to Lu2:49; the same consciousness of intrinsic relation to thetempleas the seat of His Father’s most august worship, and sothe symbol of all that is due to Him on earthdictating bothspeeches. Only, when but a youth, with no authority, He wassimply “a SON IN Hisown house”; now He was “a SONOVER His own house” (Heb3:6), the proper Representative, and in flesh “the Heir,”of his Father’s rights.
house of merchandiseTherewas nothing wrong in the merchandise; but to bring it, for their ownand others’ convenience, into that most sacred place, was ahigh-handed profanation which the eye of Jesus could not endure.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And said unto them that sold doves,…. For as these were kept in coups, or cages, they could not be drove, as the sheep and oxen, nor could they be let out, and fly, without the loss of the owners: and therefore Christ said to them,
take these things hence; not only the doves, but the pens, coups, or cages, in which they were, and both together:
make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise; so he calls the temple, which was built as an house for God, and where he took up his residence; where were the symbols of his presence; where his worship was kept, and sacrifices offered to him: and he asserts God, whose house this was, to be his Father, and himself to be his son, as none of the prophets that went before him did; and in such sense as neither men nor angels are; and which carries in it a reason why he was so much concerned for the honour of God, and so much resented the profanation of his house, because he was his Father. A like action with this, done by Christ at another time, is recorded in
Mt 21:12. This was at the beginning of his ministry, that at the close of it, in which he expressed himself with more warmth and severity than here: here he only charges them with making his Father’s house an house of merchandise, but there with making it a den of thieves; since they had not only slighted, and despised his first reproof, but had returned to their evil ways, and might grow more wicked and audacious. This instance of Christ now coming into the temple as a public minister, and which was the first time of his entrance into it, after he had taken this character, was a further accomplishment of Mal 3:1, for he now went into it, as the Lord and proprietor of it; and which this action of his in driving out the merchants, with their cattle, shows; and was a surprising instance of his divine power; and is equal to other miracles of his, that a single person, a stranger, one of no power and authority in the government, unassisted and unarmed, with only a scourge of small cords, should carry such awe and majesty with him, and inject such terror into, and drive such a number of men before him, who were selling things for religious uses, and were supported in it by the priests and sanhedrim of the nation.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Take these things hence ( ). First aorist active imperative of . Probably the doves were in baskets or cages and so had to be taken out by the traders.
Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise ( ). “Stop making,” it means, and the present active imperative. They had made it a market-house (, here only in N.T., old word from , merchant, one who goes on a journey for traffic, a drummer). Note the clear-cut Messianic claim here (My Father as in Lu 2:49). Jerome says: “A certain fiery and starry light shone from his eyes and the majesty of Godhead gleamed in His face.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
My Father ‘s house. See on Father ‘s business, Luk 2:49, and compare Mt 23:38, where Jesus speaks of the temple as your house. The people had made God ‘s house their own.
Merchandise [] . Only here in the New Testament. The Synoptists say a den of robbers.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And said unto them that sold doves,” (kai tois peristeras plousin eipen) “And he said to those who sold doves,” for purposes of sacrificial offerings, yet with a personal and prevailing intent of excessive profit making.
2) “Take these things hence;- (arate tauta enteuthen) “Take these things thence,” out of there, elsewhere, these doves and perhaps dove cages, feed, water, and dove litter. Clean and clear them out of this door or entrance to the temple of Divine worship. He sought a temporary reform of their worship.
3) “Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.” (me poieite ton oikon tou patros mou oikon emporiou) “Do not make my Father’s house an house of merchandise,” or make not my Father’s residence a residence of profiteering commercialism. In referring to this place as “my Father’s house,” not “our Father’s house,” He alludes to His Divinity, claiming to be the Son of The Most High God, the Holy One of Israel, or The Eternal, Luk 2:49.
While He here charged the hypocritical priests, Pharisees, and Jewish commercializers, of making the temple court area an “house of merchandise,” as He cleaned up the area, He later, on another occasion, charged them with being a “den of robbers,” thugs and bandits, Mat 22:13.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. At the second time that he drove the traders out of the Temple, the Evangelists relate that he used sharper and more severe language; for he said, that they had made the Temple of God a den of robbers, (Mat 21:13😉 and this was proper to be done, when a milder chastisement was of no avail. At present, he merely warns them not to profane the Temple of God by applying it to improper uses. The Temple was called the house of God; because it was the will of God that there He should be peculiarly invoked; because there He displayed his power; because, finally, he had set it apart to spiritual and holy services.
My Father’s house. Christ declares himself to be the Son of God, in order to show that he has a right and authority to cleanse the Temple. As Christ here assigns a reason for what he did, if we wish to derive any advantage from it, we must attend chiefly to this sentence. Why, then, does he drive the buyers and sellers out of the Temple? It is that he may bring back to its original purity the worship of God, which had been corrupted by the wickedness of men, and in this way may restore and maintain the holiness of the Temple. Now that temple, we know, was erected, that it might be a shadow of those things the lively image of which is to be found in Christ. Thai; it might continue to be devoted to God, it was necessary that it should be applied exclusively to spiritual purposes. For this reason he pronounces it to be unlawful that it should be converted into a market-place; for he founds his statement on the command of God, which we ought always to observe. Whatever deceptions Satan may employ, let us know that any departure — however small — from the command of God is wicked. It was a plausible and imposing disguise, that; the worship of God was aided and promoted, when the sacrifices which were to be offered by believers were laid ready to their hand; but as God had appropriated his Temple to different purposes, Christ disregards the objections that might be offered against the order which God had appointed.
The same arguments do not apply, in the present day, to our buildings for public worship; but what is said about the ancient Temple applies properly and strictly to the Church, for it is the heavenly sanctuary of God on earth. We ought always, therefore, to keep before our eyes the majesty of God, which dwells in the Church, that it may not be defiled by any pollutions; and the only way in which its holiness can remain unimpaired is, that nothing shall be admitted into it that is at variance with the word of God.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) My Fathers house.Some among those present now (Joh. 2:18) may have been present in that same house when He, a lad of twelve years, was there at the Passover, and after questions and answers, higher and deeper than these doctors could grasp, claimed God as His true Father (Luk. 2:49). What that repeated claim meant now must have been clear to all. Their own messengers had brought them Johns witness; later reports must have come before, and come with, the crowd of Galilan pilgrims; the disciples are themselves with Him (Joh. 2:17), and their hearts are too full for silence; but there was more than all this. Those expounders of the oracles of God who remembered that Elijah was to come before the day of the Lord, must have remembered, too, that the Lord was to come to this Temple, like a refiners fire, and like fullers soap (Mal. 3:1-3; Mal. 4:5). That fire was in their midst, and from that Presence buyers and sellers and changers shrunk back in awe, none daring to resist; that cleansing was then taking place, and the Son was claiming the sanctity and reverence due to His Fathers house. He has before claimed to be Son of Man. The Messianic title is publicly claimed before the official representatives of the people at the great national festival, in the Temple, at Jerusalem. If, while this scene is fresh is our minds, we think again of the marriage at Cana, we shall feel how different the manifestations are, and that this latter was not, and was not intended to be, a public declaration of His person and work. Now we understand what seemed hard before, that the assertion Mine hour is not yet come (Joh. 2:4) immediately precedes the first sign. This sign was at a family gathering known only to few, probably not to all who were there, for the ruler knew not whence it was (Joh. 2:9), and no effect is described as resulting from it, except that the little band of disciples believed (Joh. 2:11). The forth, which in the English version seems to mark an effect upon others, is not found in the Greek. It is within the circle of the other Gospel narratives, but is included in none of them. It left no such impression in the mind of St. Peter as to lead him to include it in the Gospel of his interpreter, St. Mark, or upon Mary herself as to lead her to include it in the answers she must have given to the questions of St. Luke. It was, indeed, the first sign in Cana of Galilee, but the scene before us is the announcement to the world.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. My Father’s house As in his childhood, (see note on Luk 2:49,) so now, Jesus claims the temple as his Father’s; and as his own, therefore, by heirship. In the most natural and spontaneous manner, yet with a profound significance, he claims to be God’s son.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 2:16. Make not my Father’s house, &c. It is remarkable, that at this ejection of those who profaned the temple, our Saviour says, Make not my Father’s house, &c. but when he repeated this miracle towards the close of his life, when he had proved his divinity by a variety of miracles, he says My house, (Mat 21:13.) and rises in his expression there, respecting the abuse of this house; in which the Jews were the more inexcusable, and therefore deserved severer rebuke the second time, on account of this first experience of his holy indignation.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
Ver. 16. And said to the dove sellers ] These (belike, as more tractable, and not so gross offenders) he deals more gently with, but bids them be packing. I expect not (saith Rev. Rolloc) a plenary and perfect reformation of the Church, after so horrible an apostasy under antichrist, till Christ come again to judgment. a And yet that Church of Scotland is said to have this rare privilege above many others; that since the Reformation there wrought, they have, without heresy, or so much as a schism, retained unity, with purity of doctrine. b
An house of merchandise ] So he calls it, for all their goodly pretexts of good intentions. So the churchwarden of Ipswich was much trounced and troubled in the High Commission, for writing over the place where the spiritual court was kept, “My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves,” Nov. 6, 1635.
a Non expecto plenam perfectamque reformalionem Ecclesieo, &c.
b Est Ecclesiae Scoticanae privilegium rarum, prae multis, quod sine schimsate, nedum haeresi, unitatem cum puritate doctrinae retinuerit. Sic in Elog. praefator, de Confess. in princip. Syntag. Confess. p. 6, edit. Geneva.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] The coincidence with Luk 2:49 is remarkable. By this expression thus publicly used, our Lord openly announces His Messiahship. Nathanael had named Him ‘the Son of God’ with this meaning see on ch. Joh 1:50 , and these words, coupled with the expectation which the confession of John the Baptist would arouse, could leave no doubt on the minds of the Jews as to their import: see on ch. Joh 3:2 .
. . ] Not yet , as at the end of His ministry: see above on Joh 2:14 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
John
CHRIST CLEANSING THE TEMPLE
JOHN ii. 16
The other Evangelists do not record this cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, but, as we all know, tell of a similar act at its very close. John, on the other hand, has no notice of the latter incident. The question, then, naturally arises, are these diverse narratives accounts of the same event? The answer seems to me to be in the negative, because John’s Gospel is evidently intended to supplement the other three, and to record incidents either unknown to, or unnoticed by, them, and, as a matter of fact, the whole of this initial visit of our Lord to Jerusalem is omitted by the three Evangelists. Then the two incidents are distinctly different in tone, in setting, and in the words with which our Lord accompanies them. They are both appropriate in the place in which they stand, the one as the initial and the other as all but the final act of His Messiahship. So we may learn from the repetition of this cleansing the solemn lesson: that outward reformation of religious corruptions is of small and transient worth. For in three years-perhaps in as many weeks-the abuse that He corrected returned in full force.
Now, this narrative has many points of interest, but I think I shall best bring out its meaning if I remind you, by way of introduction, that the Temple of Jerusalem was succeeded by the Temple of the Christian Church, and that each individual Christian man is a temple. So there are three things that I want to set before you: what Christ did in the Temple; what He does in the Church; what He will do to each of us if we will let Him.
I. First, then, what Christ did in the Temple.
The abuse had many practical grounds on which it could be defended. It was very convenient to buy sacrifices on the spot, instead of having to drag them from a distance. It was no less convenient to be able to exchange foreign money, possibly bearing upon it the head of an emperor, for the statutory half-shekel. It was profitable to the sellers, and no doubt to the priests, who were probably sleeping partners in the concern, or drew rent for the ground on which the stalls stood. And so, being convenient for all and profitable to many, the thing became a recognised institution.
Being familiar it became legitimate, and no one thought of any incongruity in it until this young Nazarene felt a flash of zeal for the sanctity of His Father’s house consuming Him. Catching up some of the reeds which served as bedding for the cattle, He twisted them into the semblance of a scourge, which could hurt neither man nor beast. He did not use it. It was a symbol, not an instrument. According to the reading adopted in the Revised Version, it was the sheep and cattle, not their owners, whom He ‘drove out.’ And then, dropping the scourge, He turned to the money-changers, and, with the same hand, overthrew their tables. And then came the turn of the sellers of doves. He would not hurt the birds, nor rob their owners. And so He neither overthrew nor opened the cages, but bade them ‘Take these things hence’; and then came the illuminating words, ‘Make not My Father’s house a house of merchandise.’
Now this incident is very unlike our Lord’s usual method, even if we do not exaggerate the violence which He employed. It is unlike in two respects: in the use of compulsion, and in aiming at mere outward reformation. And both of these points are intimately connected with its place in His career.
It was the first public appearance of Jesus before His nation as Messiah. He inaugurates His work by a claim-by an act of authority-to be the King of Israel and the Lord of the Temple. If we remember the words from the last prophet, in which Malachi says that ‘the Messenger of the Covenant . . . shall suddenly come to His Temple, and purify the sons of Levi,’ we get the significance of this incident. We have to mark in it our Lord’s deliberate assumption of the role of Messiah; His shaping His conduct so as to recall to all susceptible hearts that last utterance of prophecy, and to recognise the fact that at the beginning of His career He was fully conscious of His Son-ship, and inaugurated His work by the solemn appeal to the nation to recognise Him as their Lord.
And this is the reason, as I take it, why the anomalous incident is in its place at the beginning of His career no less than the repetition of it was at the close. And this is the explanation of the anomaly of the incident. It is His solemn, authoritative claiming to be God’s Messenger, the Messiah long foretold.
Then, further, this incident is a singular manifestation of Christ’s unique power. How did it come that all these sordid hucksters had not a word to say, and did not lift a finger in opposition, or that the Temple Guard offered no resistance, and did not try to quell the unseemly disturbance, or that the very officials, when they came to reckon with Him, had nothing harsher to say than, ‘What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things’? No miracle is needed to explain that singular acquiescence. We see in lower forms many instances of a similar thing. A man ablaze with holy indignation, and having a secret ally in the hearts of those whom He rebukes, will awe a crowd even if he does not infect them. But that is not the full explanation. I see here an incident analogous to that strange event at the close of Christ’s ministry, when, coming out from beneath the shadows of the olives in the garden, He said to the soldiers ‘Whom seek ye?’ and they fell backwards and wallowed on the ground. An overwhelming impression of His personal majesty, and perhaps some forth-putting of that hidden glory which did swim up to the surface on the mountain of Transfiguration, bowed all these men before Him, like reeds before the wind. And though there was no recognition of His claim, there was something in the Claimant that forbade resistance and silenced remonstrance.
Further, this incident is a revelation of Christ’s capacity for righteous indignation. No two scenes can be more different than the two recorded in this chapter: the one that took place in the rural seclusion of Cana, nestling among the Galilean hills, the other that was done in the courts of the Temple swarming with excited festival-keepers; the one hallowing the common joys of daily life, the other rebuking the profanation of what assumed to be a great deal more sacred than a wedding festival; the one manifesting the love and sympathy of Jesus, His power to ennoble all human relationships, and His delight in ministering to need and bringing gladness, and the other setting forth the sterner aspect of His character as consumed with holy zeal for the sanctity of God’s name and house. Taken together, one may say that they cover the whole ground of His character, and in some very real sense are a summary of all His work. The programme contains the whole of what is to follow hereafter.
We may well take the lesson, which no generation ever needed more than the present, both by reason of its excellences and of its defects, that there were no love worthy of a perfect spirit in which there did not lie dormant a dark capacity of wrath, and that Christ Himself would not have been the Joy-bringer, the sympathising Gladdener which He manifested Himself as being in the ‘beginning of miracles in Cana of Galilee’ unless, side by side, there had lain in Him the power of holy indignation and, if need be, of stern rebuke. Brethren, we must retain our conception of His anger if we are not to maim our conception of His love. There is no wrath like the wrath of the Lamb. The Temple court, with the strange figure of the Christ with a scourge in His hand, is a revelation which this generation, with its exaggerated sentimentalism, with its shrinking, by reason of its good and of its evil, from the very notion of a divine retribution based upon the eternal antagonism between good and evil, most sorely needs.
II. Now, secondly, notice what Christ does in His Church.
That being so, let us take the lesson that that house, too, may be desecrated. There may be, as there were in the original Temple, the externals of worship, and yet, eating out the reality of these, there may be an inward mercenary spirit.
Note how insensibly such corruption creeps in to a community. You cannot embody an idea in a form or in an external association without immediately dragging it down, and running the risk of degradation. It is just like a drop of quicksilver which you cannot expose to the air but instantaneously its brightness is dimmed by the scum that forms on its surface. A church as an outward institution is exposed to all the dangers to which other institutions are exposed. And these creep on insensibly, as this abuse had crept on. So it is not enough that we should be at ease in our consciences in regard to our practices as Christian communities. We become familiar with any abuse, and as we become familiar we lose the power of rightly judging of it. Therefore conscience needs to be guided and enlightened quite as much as to be obeyed.
How long has it taken the Christian Church to learn the wickedness of slavery? Has the Christian Church yet learned the unchristianity of War? Are there no abuses amongst us, which subsequent generations will see to be so glaring that they will talk about us as we talk about our ancestors, and wonder whether we were Christians at all when we could tolerate such things? They creep on gradually, and they need continual watchfulness if they are not to assume the mastery.
The special type of corruption which we find in this incident is one that besets the Church always. Of course, if I were preaching to ministers, I should have a great deal to say about that. For men that are necessarily paid for preaching have a sore temptation to preach for pay. But it is not only we professionals who have need to lay to heart this incident. It is all Christian communities, established and non-established churches, Roman Catholic and Protestant. The same danger besets them all. There must be money to work the outward business of the house of God. But what about people that ‘run’ churches as they run mills? What about people whose test of the prosperity of a Christian community is its balance-sheet? What about the people that hang on to religious communities and services for the sake of what they can make out of them? We have heard a great deal lately about what would happen ‘if Christ came to Chicago.’ If Christ came to any community of professing Christians in this land, do you not think He would need to have the scourge in His hand, and to say ‘Make not My Father’s house a house of merchandise’? He will come; He does come; He is always coming if we would listen to Him. And at long intervals He comes in some tremendous and manifest fashion, and overthrows the money-changers’ tables.
Ah, brethren! if Jesus Christ had not thus come, over and over again, to His Church, Christian men would have killed Christianity long ago. Did you ever think that Christianity is the only religion that has shown recuperative power and that has been able to fling off its peccant humours? They used to say-I do not know whether it is true or not-that Thames water was good to put on board ship because of its property of corrupting and then clearing itself, and becoming fit to drink. We and our brethren, all through the ages, have been corrupting the Water of Life. And how does it come to be sweet and powerful still? This tree has substance in it when it casts its leaves. That unique characteristic of Christianity, its power of reformation, is not self-reformation, but it is a coming of the Lord to His temple to ‘purify the sons of Levi, that their offering may be pleasant as in days of yore.’
So one looks upon the spectacle of churches labouring under all manner of corruptions; and one need not lose heart. The shortest day is the day before the year turns; and when the need is sorest the help is nearest. And so I, for my part, believe that very much of the organisations of all existing churches will have to be swept away. But I believe too, with all my heart-and I hope that you do-that, though the precious wheat is riddled in the sieve, and the chaff falls to the ground, not one grain will go through the meshes. Whatever becomes of churches, the Church of Christ shall never have its strength so sapped by abuses that it must perish, or its lustre so dimmed that the Lord of the Temple must depart from His sanctuary.
III. Lastly, note what Christ will do for each of us if we will let Him.
So engrossed, and, as we should say, necessarily engrossed-or, at all events, legitimately engrossed-are we in the pursuits of our daily commerce, that we have scarcely time enough or leisure of heart and mind enough to come into ‘the secret place of the Most High.’ The worshippers stop outside trading for beasts and doves, and they have no time to go into the Temple and present their offerings.
It is our besetting danger. Forewarned is forearmed, to some extent. Would that we could all hear, as we go about our ordinary avocations, that solemn voice, ‘Make not My Father’s house a house of merchandise,’ and could keep the inner sanctuary still from the noises, and remote from the pollutions, of the market hard by!
We cannot cast out these or any other desecrating thoughts and desires by ourselves, except to a very small degree. And if we do, then there happens what our Lord warned us against in profound words. The house may be emptied of the evil tenant in some measure by our own resolution and self-reformation. But if it is not occupied by Him, it remains ‘empty,’ though it is ‘swept and garnished.’ Nature abhors a vacuum, and into the empty house there come the old tenant and seven brethren blacker than himself. The only way to keep the world out of my heart is to have Christ filling it. If we will ask Him He will come to us. And if He has the scourge in His hand, let Him be none the less welcome a guest for that. He will come, and when He enters, it will be like the rising of the sun, when all the beasts of the forest slink away and lay them down in their dens. It will be like the carrying of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of the whole earth into the temple of Dagon, when the fish-like image fell prone and mutilated on the threshold. If we say to Him, ‘Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest, Thou and the Ark of Thy strength,’ He will enter in, and by His entrance will ‘make the place of His feet glorious’ and pure.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
not. Greek. me. App-105. Not the same word as in verses: Joh 2:2, Joh 2:9, Joh 2:12, Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25.
My Father’s house. This was at the beginning of His ministry. At the end He called it “your house” (Mat 23:38).
My Father’s. A characteristic expression in this gospel. Occurs thirty-five times. See p. 1511.
merchandise. Greek. emporion = market-place (not emporia, which = the traffic itself). On the later occasion the words naturally differ. Compare Mat 22:5.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16. ] The coincidence with Luk 2:49 is remarkable. By this expression thus publicly used, our Lord openly announces His Messiahship. Nathanael had named Him the Son of God with this meaning-see on ch. Joh 1:50,-and these words, coupled with the expectation which the confession of John the Baptist would arouse, could leave no doubt on the minds of the Jews as to their import: see on ch. Joh 3:2.
. .] Not yet , as at the end of His ministry: see above on Joh 2:14.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 2:16. , My Father) Surprising authority! [The Saviour proved Himself on this occasion Lord of the temple, and of all the feasts connected with it; therefore there was no reason why men should wonder, if either then He did not wait on to the end of the feast, or if afterwards He did not frequent all the feasts, or if he neglected to be present at the beginning of the feast.-Harm., p. 162.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 2:16
Joh 2:16
and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house a house of merchandise.-He now gives his reason for cleansing the temple. On a later occasion he found the same shameless profanation of the temple, and quoted Isa 56:7 : For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. And then adds, But ye make it a den of robbers. (Mat 21:13). He condemns and denounces their course with severity. It is a worse crime to make merchandise of the gospel of Christ, or to traffic in the privileges of the church of God-that is, to corrupt and defile the spiritual temple of God.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
make: Isa 56:5-11, Jer 7:11, Hos 12:7, Hos 12:8, Mat 21:13, Mar 11:17, Act 19:24-27, 1Ti 6:5, 2Pe 2:3, 2Pe 2:14, 2Pe 2:15
my: Joh 5:17, Joh 8:49, Joh 10:29, Joh 20:17, Luk 2:49
Reciprocal: Gen 34:23 – General Lev 19:30 – reverence Isa 23:11 – the merchant city Eze 28:16 – the multitude Zep 1:11 – all the Zec 14:21 – no more Rev 18:11 – buyeth
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Joh 2:16. And said unto them that sold the doves, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise. We must not suppose that the sellers of doves were more leniently dealt with. The oxen might be driven away, the tables overturned, but the cages of birds must be carried out by their owners: hence it is to these alone that Jesus directly addresses words which were really spoken to all, and which explained his action. Any zealous reformer, who understood the faith of Israel, might have done as much: indeed, the first treatise in the Talmud contains regulations for the due reverence of the temple which utterly condemn such profanations as are related here. But though the action of Jesus might imply no more, His words declare that He vindicates the honour of His Fathers house. Thus He at once honours His Father and declares Himself. He offers Himself to Israel as the Son of God. In this deed, as in all His acts and words (comp. Mat 13:11-15), there is a mingling of revelation and reserve: the declaration of Sonship is combined with an act which no true Israelite could fail to approve. Those who, yielding to the impulse of right, and listening to the voice of conscience, accepted the act, would be led to ponder the words; in them would be fulfilled the promise, To him that hath shall more be given. Those who hardened their heart against the act lost the revelation which was given with it, and were in danger of losing all.John does not speak of the cleansing of the temple as miraculous, but the Saviours words themselves mark it as a sign; and it is only by thinking of a divine awe attending the words (comp. chap. Joh 18:6) that we can explain the immediate submission of the traffickers. The following verses describe the twofold effect of the act of Jesus on the disciples and on the Jews.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 16. And he said to those that sold the doves: take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.
With regard to the sellers of doves Jesus limits Himself to speaking. He cannot drive out the doves, as one drives oxen or sheep; and He does not wish to overturn the cages, as He has overturned the tables of the money-changers. He is perfectly master of Himself. If He had really struck the dealers in oxen and sheep, we cannot see why He should have spared the sellers of pigeons. The command take away is addressed only to these last; the following words, make not,… to all the traffickers. The defining phrase, of my Father contains the explanation of Jesus’ act. He is a son who avenges the honor of the paternal house. When He was in the temple at the age of twelve, it was already the same filial feeling which animated Him; but on this day He is sustained by the distinct consciousness of His duty as Messiah, involved henceforth for Him in His position as Son. It is very remarkable that in the Synoptics (the scene of the baptism), no less than in John, the feeling of His filial relation to God takes the lead in Jesus of that of His office as Messiah. He does not feel Himself to be Son because He is Christ; He knows Himself to be Christ because He is Son (comp. my Comment. on Luke I., p. 235). Here is an indication which is incompatible with the opinion of Renan, who represents Jesus as exalting Himself by degrees and raising Himself by degrees from His Messianic consciousness to the consciousness of His divinity.
The outward success of this judicial act is explained by the majesty of Jesus’ appearance, by the irresistible ascendency which was given to Him by the consciousness of the supernatural force which He could exert at need, by the feeling of His sovereignty in that place, as it betrays itself in the expression my Father, and, finally, by the bad conscience of those who were the objects of such a judgment.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 16
An expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the temple, very similar to this, is described by the other evangelists as taking place near the close of our Savior’s ministry. (Matthew 21:12; Luke 19:45,46.) It is perhaps not quite certain whether Jesus repeatedly performed this work, or whether this is the same transaction, related, as is often the case in St. John’s history, out of the order of time.