Knock the temple down?

John 2.18-22.

During the first Passover we read of in the gospel of John, our Lord goes into temple, sees people selling animals in the Gentile Court, makes a whip, and drives the merchants out.

In the synoptic gospels, Jesus got critiqued for it either the next morning, Mk 11.27-33, Mt 21.23-27 or days later. Lk 20.1-8 But in John it seems he got pushback immediately. Now it could’ve happened much later; John wasn’t always too worried about chronology. (As you’ll see when he briefly talks about Jesus rising from the dead.) John preferred to stick to themes, not timeline.

Nevertheless here’s the story.

John 2.18-22 KWL

18 So in reply, the Judeans tell Jesus,

“What milestone do you show us that you can do this?”

19 In reply Jesus tells them, “Break down this shrine.

In three days I’ll raise it.”

20 So the Judeans say, “This shrine took 46 years to build.

And you, in three days, will raise it?”

21 This Jesus is speaking of the shrine of his body,

22 so when he’s raised from the dead,

his students will remember he says this,

and believe the scripture, and the word Jesus says.

Okay. So Jesus shows up in temple, starts knocking stuff over, starts bossing people around. And in the context of the Judean culture and Hebrew religion, this means one of three things:

• This guy legitimately hears the LORD and was ordered to speak for him, and is telling them to do this stuff because the LORD said so.
• This guy works for the Romans, or the Judean senate, or some other civic authority with the power to actually decree these things.
• This guy’s a nut.

Same as if he showed up in one of our churches and ordered the pastors to shut down the bookstore. Either the LORD decreed it, or he’s from the city or county and thinks they’re breaking the law, or he’s a nut.

Now if Jesus worked for the Romans, they’d probably do everything he told them. And protest a lot, because the priests had Roman citizenship and would demand their rights, and a fair trial, and maybe get the governor fired if they could.

But if Jesus works for the LORD… well, they figured they likewise worked for the LORD, and surely they could figure out whether the LORD had decided to upset their comfortable status quo by sending ’em a prophet or judge. So they wanted proof Jesus was a prophet of the LORD: Give us something which might confirm you’re legitimate.

And that… is actually a valid request. We’re supposed to test prophets. Not just accept they’re prophets because they have a website, and business cards printed up, and introduce themselves as “Prophet Whatshisname” whenever they say hello to people. All sorts of people claim that title, and way too many of them are talking to mental sock puppets instead of God. We need evidence. ’Cause if it’s really God, he can stand up to scrutiny. And fakes can’t.

Now no, they weren’t asking for a trick. Like Moses turning his staff into a snake, or spontaneously sprouting leprosy, or turning water to blood. Ex 4.1-9 Any illusionist can create one of those; the Egyptian illusionists certainly did. They were looking for a σημεῖον/simeíon, “milestone,” an event which couldn’t be self-fulfilling or coincidental. Typically this’d be an event which would happen in the near future.

And… well, Jesus gave ’em one. His own resurrection. Break him down, and in three days he’ll rise again. Which they did; which he did.

“Who put you in charge?”

Now the other question we gotta ask about this story, is whether the Judeans who asked for confirmation, legitimately wanted confirmation. They might not have.

Back in college, my resident adviser caught one of the new students breaking a rule, and corrected him. In so doing, he didn’t inform the freshman he was an RA… so the freshman’s response was, “Who’re you?”

Oh, it’s a common attitude in our culture. Even at Christian schools like this one. The freshman didn’t care about the rules. He only cared whether this was an authority figure, and he was in trouble. And if this guy reprimanding him wasn’t an authority figure, to hell with him.

My RA told me this story over lunch, and capped it with, “I don’t understand that attitude.”

“Oh, I do,” I said. “It’s the same as the guy who told Moses, ‘Who made you judge over us?’ ” Ex 2.14

My RA was likely raised by people who taught him, to some level, Christian ethics—that Jesus defines morality; that what he says is right; and that it doesn’t matter whether someone is Christian or not, is in leadership or not, or can get you in trouble or not: When they correctly deduce you’re in the wrong, accept reality. Hopefully repent.

But more often people are taught no such thing. Usually they follow the ethics of self-interest: If it feels good to them at this moment, it’s right; if not, it’s wrong. If it might get ’em into trouble, so long that nobody in authority catches them, it’s right. If caught, they’re free to use any available loophole to get out of the consequences, and if successful, they win! Yeah it’s immoral, but that’s how selfishness works.

Whereas with the Judeans, their ethics were more partisan. Instead of Jesus or the LORD defining right or wrong for them, they went with a party. If their party says it’s right, it is! If your party tells you to do evil, it’s good. If you do something evil to the opposition party, it’s okay; they should’ve known better and joined your party. Partisan Sadducees would figure if it was Sadducee it was right; if it was Pharisee, doubtful. Partisan Zealots would figure if it was Roman it was definitely wrong.

So if the priests felt it was okay to sell animals in temple, and Pharisees didn’t have an issue with it, what really was the problem? Why’s Jesus getting all whippy about it?

And Jesus could’ve explained, as he had in the synoptics, that this was a house of prayer; Mk 11.17, Mt 21.13, Lk 19.46 that they were robbing God of his worship by selling animals in the gentile prayer space. But they didn’t ask Jesus for a rational explanation. They wanted confirmation—meaning they wanted evidence he had God’s authority to do this. In the other gospels, they straight-up ask him “By what authority doest thou these things?” Mk 11.28, Mt 21.23, Lk 20.2 but in John they ask him the same thing—just more subtly.

Wasn’t about morality. It was about power. Wasn’t about righteousness, goodness, fairness, compassion, love; wasn’t about good fruit in the slightest. Nobody cared why. They only cared about whether Jesus heard from the one guy they all acknowledged had the power to overrule Sadducees, Pharisees, and Romans. And if Jesus heard nothing from the LORD he’s a nut; give him to the Romans.

You already know why we humans get this way: We’re wrong. When we’re in the right, we defend the behavior on moral grounds. When we’re in the wrong, we condemn the authority figures for doing their job.

When we’re in the right, our behavior is totally defensible: We’re doing good! We’re helping people. We’re standing up for the weak, or helping the needy. Even if we’re breaking the law to do it; we’d rather not, but it’s an immoral law.

It’s only when we’re in the wrong we have no defense, and have to switch tactics to ad hominem: “You’re not the boss of me,” or “You have no moral authority over me.” And yep, that’s the attitude the Judeans had when they challenged Jesus for confirmation.

Which really means there was no point in giving them any confirmation. They’d simply say, “Oh, the devil empowered that,” or the modern equivalent, “Impressive, but there’s gotta be something behind that trick.” Even if they can never find a rational, scientific explanation for the “trick,” that’s the unthinking belief people regularly fall back upon. You’re wrong; you gotta be wrong; confirmation or no confirmation.

Since they never actually expected Jesus to do something, he cleverly gave ’em something which required a massive act of faith on their part first: “Break down this shrine.” Which they interpreted as meaning the temple—and they’d never do that to their temple.

“This shrine took 46 years to build,” they pointed out. In 20BC, Herod 1 had ordered a full renovation of the third temple. (The first was Aaron’s tabernacle, the second was Solomon’s temple, and the third was Zerubabel’s temple. The renovations turned it into Herod’s temple.) Pointing out this temple had been under construction for 46 years actually nails the date this Passover took place: Thursday, 14 Nisan, in the year 27 (which’d put it on 10 April in the Julian calendar). And the renovation wouldn’t be complete for another 36 years—in the year 63. Break it down? They were only 56 percent done putting it up!

So as far as they could tell, Jesus wouldn’t show ’em a sign till they knocked down their temple, which they would never do. Stalemate. A silly stalemate, but they started it with their silly challenge.

The shrine of Jesus’s body.

Or so the sign seemed silly. After Jesus himself was broken down—i.e. executed—in three days he rose again. An odd coincidence? Or was this a prophecy of his death and resurrection?

John figured this was a prophecy: “This Jesus is speaking of the shrine of his body.” It’s a metaphor; Jesus constantly teaches in metaphor and parable and apocalyptic vision. He didn’t mean the literal temple at all. Jesus’s students lumped this saying of his, together with all their other Old Testament prophecies about Jesus. Jn 1.22

Y’see, one of the major themes of John’s gospel is proof. He wrote his gospel to prove Jesus is Messiah, Jn 20.31 and this story was included ’cause it’s one of the proofs. Jesus prophesied his own death and resurrection. Here it is. His students saw him say it. So’d the Judeans. They’re all witnesses.

Years later, at Jesus’s trial, a few of the Judean witnesses managed to mangle this story to testify against Jesus.

Mark 14.55-59 KJV

55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. 56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. 57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59 But neither so did their witness agree together.

As John reveals, Jesus said no such thing. He told them to destroy the temple. He never threatened to do it himself.

This event took place at the very beginning of Jesus’s ministry. It shows us (if the students are right, and they likely are) Jesus knew of his coming death from the very beginning. It wasn’t a realization he came to in the middle of it, like certain Historical Jesus scholars like to claim. To hear them talk, it’s like Jesus naïvely thought he’d receive God’s kingdom without first dying for it.

But alluding to his death here, and his resurrection three days after, is evidence Jesus foreknew everything. Again, this happens to be another one of the themes of John: Jesus knows exactly what’s going on, and little catches him by surprise. Still true.