No one knows why John places the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, whereas the other three Gospels place it at the end. Perhaps John has access to a long-standing tradition that has Jesus visiting Jerusalem more than once, and that this action took place then. Or perhaps John wishes to connect the Cleansing with the miracle which precedes it: turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana. This certainly provides quite a contrast, as one scholar observes:
- Galilee vs Judea
- Cana vs Jerusalem
- Home vs Temple
- Wedding vs Passover
- Transformation of water into wine vs transformation of house of prayer into a marketplace.
Interestingly, John’s account has Jesus’ sparing the sellers of doves (the sacrifice of poor people – doves/pigeons being cheap and plentiful) while he whips those selling cattle and sheep (expensive animals, and therefore the sacrifice of choice for the rich). Perhaps Jesus (once again!) sides with poor and powerless.
One can easily sympathize with the market traders. After all, this is a simple case of supply and demand. Pilgrims would find it almost impossible to travel long distances with their own animal sacrifices. It was much easier to simply purchase them upon arrival in Jerusalem. And, given the graven pagan images found on the Roman denarii and Greek drachmas, they could not possibly be used to purchase items in the Temple. Such coins would be a desecration of the holiness of the place! And so, moneychangers would exchange unclean coinage for “clean” temple coins. And, if the folks selling animals, and the folks changing money, made a profit, where’s the harm in that!
The clue to the ‘harm’ is found in the final section of this week’s text. If the as-yet unfinished Temple is destroyed (note that the Greek actually reads, “If you destroy the temple…”) Jesus will rebuild it in three days (vs. 19f). Clearly, Jesus is alluding to the destruction of his body. And so, once again, the real meaning of what Jesus says and does is dependent upon understanding his crucifixion and resurrection. In that light, the corruption of “House of God” into “House of Market” (as the text literally reads) offers a dire warning that the temple of the body (human beings), and the body of Christ (the Church) should not likewise be corrupted. Such godly, wondrous things, as one scholar observes, ought not be subject to “market valuation and practices.” They are made for higher things than that.
