Joh 2:14-22 | RWP | e4.org | Those that sold ( τους πωλουντας ). Present active articular participle of πωλεω , to sell. They were in the Court of the Gentiles within the temple precinct ( εν τω ιερω ), but not in the ναος or temple proper. The sacrifices required animals (oxen, βοας , sheep, προβατα , doves, περιστερας ) and "changers of money" ( κερματιστας , from κερματιζω , 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 ( ; .; .) 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.

‏ John 2:14-22

Those that sold ( τους πωλουντας ). Present active articular participle of πωλεω, to sell. They were in the Court of the Gentiles within the temple precinct ( εν τω ιερω ), but not in the ναος or temple proper. The sacrifices required animals (oxen, βοας, sheep, προβατα, doves, περιστερας ) and "changers of money" ( κερματιστας, from κερματιζω, 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 (Mr 11:15-17; Mt 21:12f.; Lu 10:45f.) 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.

A scourge of cords ( φραγελλιον εκ σχοινιων ). The Latin flagellum. In papyri, here only in N.T. and note Latin l becomes ρ in Koine. Σχοινιων is a diminutive of σχοινος (a rush), old word for rope, in N.T. only here and Ac 27:32.

Cast out ( εξεβαλεν ). Second aorist active indicative of εκβαλλω. It is not said that Jesus smote the sheep and oxen (note τε κα, both and), for a flourish of the scourge would answer.

He poured out ( εξεχεεν ). Second aorist active indicative of εκχεω, to pour out.

The changers' money ( των κολλυβιστων τα κερματα ). "The small pieces of money ( κερματα, cut in pieces, change) of the bankers ( κολλυβιστης from κολλυβος, clipped, late word see on Mt 21:12)." Perhaps he took up the boxes and emptied the money.

Overthrew their tables ( τας τραπεζας ανετρεψεν ). First aorist active indicative of ανατρεπω, to turn up, though some MSS. have ανεστρεψεν from αναστρεφω, also to turn up.

Take these things hence ( Αρατε ταυτα εντευθεν ). First aorist active imperative of αιρω. 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 ( μη ποιειτε τον οικον του πατρος μου οικον εμποριου ). "Stop making," it means, μη and the present active imperative. They had made it a market-house ( εμποριου, here only in N.T., old word from εμπορος, 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."

Remembered ( εμνησθησαν ). First aorist passive indicative of μιμνησκω, to remind, "were reminded." Westcott notes the double effect of this act as is true of Christ's words and deeds all through John's Gospel. The disciples are helped, the traders are angered.

That it is written ( οτ γεγραμμενον εστιν ). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of γραφω retained in indirect discourse (assertion).

The zeal of thine house ( ο ζηλος του οικου σου ). Objective genitive. "The zeal for thy house."

Shall eat me up ( καταφαγετα με ). Future middle indicative of κατεσθιω, defective verb, to eat down ("up" we say), perfective use of κατα-. This future φαγομα is from the second aorist εφαγον. It is a quotation from Ps 69:9, frequently quoted in the N.T.

What sign shewest thou unto us? ( Τ σημειον δεικνυεις ημιν; ). They may have heard of the "sign" at Cana or not, but they have rallied a bit on the outside of the temple area and demand proof for his Messianic assumption of authority over the temple worship. These traders had paid the Sadducees and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin for the concession as traffickers which they enjoyed. They were within their technical rights in this question.

Destroy this temple ( λυσατε τον ναον τουτον ). First aorist active imperative of λυω, to loosen or destroy. It is the permissive imperative, not a command to do it. Note also ναος, not ιερον, the sanctuary, symbol of God's ναος, in our hearts (1Co 3:16f.). There is much confusion about this language since Jesus added: "And in three days I will raise it up" ( κα εν τρισιν ημεραις εγερω αυτον ). Those who heard Jesus, including the disciples till after the resurrection (verse 22), understood the reference to be to Herod's temple. Certainly that is the obvious way to take it. But Jesus often spoke in parables and even in enigmas. He may have spoken of the literal temple as a parable for his own body which of course they would not understand, least of all the resurrection in three days.

Forty and six years was this temple in building ( Τεσσερακοντα κα εξ ετεσιν οικοδομηθη ο ναος ουτος ). "Within forty and six years (associative instrumental case) was built (first aorist passive indicative, constative or summary use of the aorist, of οικοδομεω, without augment) this temple." As a matter of fact, it was not yet finished, so distrustful had the Jews been of Herod.

And wilt thou? ( κα συ; ). An evident sneer in the use of συ (thou, an unknown upstart from Galilee, of the peasant class, not one of the Sanhedrin, not one of the ecclesiastics or even architects).

But he spake of the temple of his body ( εκεινος δε ελεγεν περ του ναου του σωματος αυτου ). Emphatic he ( εκεινος ) and imperfect tense (he had been speaking). This is John's view as he looks back at it, not what he understood when Jesus spoke the words.

When therefore he was raised from the dead ( Hοτε ουν ηγερθη εκ νεκρων ). First aorist passive indicative of εγειρω, to raise up. And not at first then, but only slowly after the disciples themselves were convinced. Then "they believed the Scripture" ( επιστευσαν τη γραφη ). They "believed" again. Dative case γραφη. Probably Ps 16:10 is meant (Ac 2:31; 13:35).

And the word which Jesus had said ( κα τω λογω ον ειπεν ). Dative case λογω also, but ον (relative) is not attracted to the dative. Clearly then John interprets Jesus to have a parabolic reference to his death and resurrection by his language in 2:19. There are those who bluntly say that John was mistaken. I prefer to say that these scholars are mistaken. Even Bernard considers it "hardly possible" that John interprets Jesus rightly in 1:21. "Had he meant that, He would have spoken with less ambiguity." But how do we know that Jesus wished to be understood clearly at this time? Certainly no one understood Christ when he spoke the words. The language of Jesus is recalled and perverted at his trial as "I will destroy" (Mr 14:58), "I can destroy" (Mt 26:61), neither of which he said.