Yohanes 2:14-16

2:14 ¹ He found in the temple courts ²  those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting at tables. ³  2:15 So he made a whip of cords ⁴  and drove them all out of the temple courts, ⁵  with the sheep and the oxen. He scattered the coins of the money changers ⁶  and overturned their tables. 2:16 To those who sold the doves he said, “Take these things away from here! Do not make ⁷  my Father’s house a marketplace!” ⁸ 

Yohanes 3:19-20

3:19 Now this is the basis for judging: ⁹  that the light has come into the world and people ¹⁰  loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 3:20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed.

Yohanes 5:30-47

5:30 I can do nothing on my own initiative. ¹¹  Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, ¹²  because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me. ¹³ 

More Testimony About Jesus

5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 5:32 There is another ¹⁴  who testifies about me, and I know the testimony he testifies about me is true. 5:33 You have sent to John, ¹⁵  and he has testified to the truth. 5:34 (I do not accept ¹⁶  human testimony, but I say this so that you may be saved.) 5:35 He was a lamp that was burning and shining, ¹⁷  and you wanted to rejoice greatly for a short time ¹⁸  in his light.

5:36 “But I have a testimony greater than that from John. For the deeds ¹⁹  that the Father has assigned me to complete – the deeds ²⁰  I am now doing – testify about me that the Father has sent me. 5:37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me. You people ²¹  have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time, ²²  5:38 nor do you have his word residing in you, because you do not believe the one whom he sent. 5:39 You study the scriptures thoroughly ²³  because you think in them you possess eternal life, ²⁴  and it is these same scriptures ²⁵  that testify about me, 5:40 but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.

5:41 “I do not accept ²⁶  praise ²⁷  from people, ²⁸  5:42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God ²⁹  within you. 5:43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept ³⁰  me. If someone else comes in his own name, you will accept ³¹  him. 5:44 How can you believe, if you accept praise ³²  from one another and don’t seek the praise ³³  that comes from the only God? ³⁴ 

5:45 “Do not suppose that I will accuse you before the Father. The one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. ³⁵  5:46 If ³⁶  you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. 5:47 But if you do not believe what Moses ³⁷  wrote, how will you believe my words?”

[2:14]  ¹ sn John 2:14-22. Does John’s account of the temple cleansing describe the same event as the synoptic gospels describe, or a separate event? The other accounts of the cleansing of the temple are Matt 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; and Luke 19:45-46. None are as long as the Johannine account. The fullest of the synoptic accounts is Mark’s. John’s account differs from Mark’s in the mention of sheep and oxen, the mention of the whip of cords, the Greek word κερματιστῆς (kermatisths) for money changer (the synoptics use κολλυβιστῆς [kollubisths], which John mentions in 2:15), the scattering of the coins (2:15), and the command by Jesus, “Take these things away from here!” The word for overturned in John is ἀναστρεφω (anastrefw), while Matthew and Mark use καταστρεφω (katastrefw; Luke does not mention the moneychangers at all). The synoptics all mention that Jesus quoted Isa 56:7 followed by Jer 7:11. John mentions no citation of scripture at all, but says that later the disciples remembered Ps 69:9. John does not mention, as does Mark, Jesus’ prohibition on carrying things through the temple (i.e., using it for a shortcut). But the most important difference is one of time: In John the cleansing appears as the first great public act of Jesus’ ministry, while in the synoptics it is virtually the last. The most common solution of the problem, which has been endlessly discussed among NT scholars, is to say there was only one cleansing, and that it took place, as the synoptics record it, at the end of Jesus’ ministry. In the synoptics it appears to be the event that finalized the opposition of the high priest, and precipitated the arrest of Jesus. According to this view, John’s placing of the event at the opening of Jesus’ ministry is due to his general approach; it was fitting ‘theologically’ for Jesus to open his ministry this way, so this is the way John records it. Some have overstated the case for one cleansing and John’s placing of it at the opening of Jesus’ public ministry, however. For example W. Barclay stated: “John, as someone has said, is more interested in the truth than in the facts. He was not interested to tell men when Jesus cleansed the Temple; he was supremely interested in telling men that Jesus did cleanse the Temple” (John [DSBS], 94). But this is not the impression one gets by a reading of John’s Gospel: The evangelist seems to go out of his way to give details and facts, including notes of time and place. To argue as Barclay does that John is interested in truth apart from the facts is to set up a false dichotomy. Why should one have to assume, in any case, that there could have been only one cleansing of the temple? This account in John is found in a large section of nonsynoptic material. Apart from the work of John the Baptist – and even this is markedly different from the references in the synoptics – nothing else in the first five chapters of John’s Gospel is found in any of the synoptics. It is certainly not impossible that John took one isolated episode from the conclusion of Jesus’ earthly ministry and inserted it into his own narrative in a place which seemed appropriate according to his purposes. But in view of the differences between John and the synoptics, in both wording and content, as well as setting and time, it is at least possible that the event in question actually occurred twice (unless one begins with the presupposition that the Fourth Gospel is nonhistorical anyway). In support of two separate cleansings of the temple, it has been suggested that Jesus’ actions on this occasion were not permanent in their result, and after (probably) 3 years the status quo in the temple courts had returned to normal. And at this time early in Jesus’ ministry, he was virtually unknown. Such an action as he took on this occasion would have created a stir, and evoked the response John records in 2:18-22, but that is probably about all, especially if Jesus’ actions met with approval among part of the populace. But later in Jesus’ ministry, when he was well-known, and vigorously opposed by the high-priestly party in Jerusalem, his actions might have brought forth another, harsher response. It thus appears possible to argue for two separate cleansings of the temple as well as a single one relocated by John to suit his own purposes. Which then is more probable? On the whole, more has been made of the differences between John’s account and the synoptic accounts than perhaps should have been. After all, the synoptic accounts also differ considerably from one another, yet few scholars would be willing to posit four cleansings of the temple as an explanation for this. While it is certainly possible that the author did not intend by his positioning of the temple cleansing to correct the synoptics’ timing of the event, but to highlight its significance for the course of Jesus’ ministry, it still appears somewhat more probable that John has placed the event he records in the approximate period of Jesus’ public ministry in which it did occur, that is, within the first year or so of Jesus’ public ministry. The statement of the Jewish authorities recorded by the author (this temple has been under construction for forty-six years) would tend to support an earlier rather than a later date for the temple cleansing described by John, since 46 years from the beginning of construction on Herod’s temple in ca. 19 b.c. (the date varies somewhat in different sources) would be around a.d. 27. This is not conclusive proof, however.

[2:14]  ² tn Grk “in the temple.”

[2:14]  sn The merchants (those who were selling) would have been located in the Court of the Gentiles.

[2:14]  ³ tn Grk “the money changers sitting”; the words “at tables” are not in the Greek text, but are implied.

[2:15]  ⁴ tc Several witnesses, two of which are quite ancient (Ì^66,75 L N ˹ 33 565 892 1241 al lat), have ὡς (Jws, “like”) before φραγέλλιον (fragellion, “whip”). A decision based on external evidence would be difficult to make because the shorter reading also has excellent witnesses, as well as the majority, on its side (א A B Θ Ψ Ë¹³ Ï co). Internal evidence, though, leans toward the shorter reading. Scribes tended to add to the text, and the addition of ὡς here clearly softens the assertion of the evangelist: Instead of making a whip of cords, Jesus made “[something] like a whip of cords.”

[2:15]  ⁵ tn Grk “the temple.”

[2:15]  ⁶ sn Because of the imperial Roman portraits they carried, Roman denarii and Attic drachmas were not permitted to be used in paying the half-shekel temple-tax (the Jews considered the portraits idolatrous). The money changers exchanged these coins for legal Tyrian coinage at a small profit.

[2:16]  ⁷ tn Or (perhaps) “Stop making.”

[2:16]  ⁸ tn Or “a house of merchants” (an allusion to Zech 14:21).

[2:16]  sn A marketplace. Zech 14:20-21, in context, is clearly a picture of the messianic kingdom. The Hebrew word translated “Canaanite” may also be translated “merchant” or “trader.” Read in this light, Zech 14:21 states that there will be no merchant in the house of the Lord in that day (the day of the Lord, at the establishment of the messianic kingdom). And what would Jesus’ words (and actions) in cleansing the temple have suggested to the observers? That Jesus was fulfilling messianic expectations would have been obvious – especially to the disciples, who had just seen the miracle at Cana with all its messianic implications.

[3:19]  ⁹ tn Or “this is the reason for God judging,” or “this is how judgment works.”

[3:19]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “and men,” but in a generic sense, referring to people of both genders (as “everyone” in v. 20 makes clear).

[5:30]  ¹¹ tn Grk “nothing from myself.”

[5:30]  ¹² tn Or “righteous,” or “proper.”

[5:30]  ¹³ tn That is, “the will of the Father who sent me.”

[5:32]  ¹⁴ sn To whom does another refer? To John the Baptist or to the Father? In the nearer context, v. 33, it would seem to be John the Baptist. But v. 34 seems to indicate that Jesus does not receive testimony from men. Probably it is better to view v. 32 as identical to v. 37, with the comments about the Baptist as a parenthetical digression.

[5:33]  ¹⁵ sn John refers to John the Baptist.

[5:34]  ¹⁶ tn Or “I do not receive.”

[5:35]  ¹⁷ sn He was a lamp that was burning and shining. Sir 48:1 states that the word of Elijah was “a flame like a torch.” Because of the connection of John the Baptist with Elijah (see John 1:21 and the note on John’s reply, “I am not”), it was natural for Jesus to apply this description to John.

[5:35]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “for an hour.”

[5:36]  ¹⁹ tn Or “works.”

[5:36]  ²⁰ tn Grk “complete, which I am now doing”; the referent of the relative pronoun has been specified by repeating “deeds” from the previous clause.

[5:37]  ²¹ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to clarify that the following verbs (“heard,” “seen,” “have residing,” “do not believe”) are second person plural.

[5:37]  ²² sn You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time. Compare Deut 4:12. Also see Deut 5:24 ff., where the Israelites begged to hear the voice no longer – their request (ironically) has by this time been granted. How ironic this would be if the feast is Pentecost, where by the 1st century a.d. the giving of the law at Sinai was being celebrated.

[5:39]  ²³ tn Or “Study the scriptures thoroughly” (an imperative). For the meaning of the verb see G. Delling, TDNT 2:655-57.

[5:39]  ²⁴ sn In them you possess eternal life. Note the following examples from the rabbinic tractate Pirqe Avot (“The Sayings of the Fathers”): Pirqe Avot 2:8, “He who has acquired the words of the law has acquired for himself the life of the world to come”; Pirqe Avot 6:7, “Great is the law for it gives to those who practice it life in this world and in the world to come.”

[5:39]  ²⁵ tn The words “same scriptures” are not in the Greek text, but are supplied to clarify the referent (“these”).

[5:41]  ²⁶ tn Or “I do not receive.”

[5:41]  ²⁷ tn Or “honor” (Grk “glory,” in the sense of respect or honor accorded to a person because of their status).

[5:41]  ²⁸ tn Grk “from men,” but in a generic sense; both men and women are implied here.

[5:42]  ²⁹ tn The genitive in the phrase τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ (thn agaphn tou qeou, “the love of God”) could be translated as either a subjective genitive (“God’s love”) or an objective genitive (“love for God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, the emphasis would be on the love God gives which in turn produces love for him, but Jesus’ opponents are lacking any such love inside them.

[5:43]  ³⁰ tn Or “you do not receive.”

[5:43]  ³¹ tn Or “you will receive.”

[5:44]  ³² tn Or “honor” (Grk “glory,” in the sense of respect or honor accorded to a person because of their status).

[5:44]  ³³ tn Or “honor” (Grk “glory,” in the sense of respect or honor accorded to a person because of their status).

[5:44]  ³⁴ tc Several early and important witnesses (Ì^66,75 B W a b sa) lack θεοῦ (qeou, “God”) here, thus reading “the only one,” while most of the rest of the tradition, including some important mss, has the name ({א A D L Θ Ψ 33 Ï}). Internally, it could be argued that the name of God was not used here, in keeping with the NT practice of suppressing the name of God at times for rhetorical effect, drawing the reader inexorably to the conclusion that the one being spoken of is God himself. On the other hand, never is ὁ μόνος (Jo mono") used absolutely in the NT (i.e., without a noun or substantive with it), and always the subject of the adjunct is God (cf. Matt 24:36; John 17:3; 1 Tim 6:16). What then is to explain the shorter reading? In uncial script, with θεοῦ written as a nomen sacrum, envisioning accidental omission of the name by way of homoioteleuton requires little imagination, largely because of the succession of words ending in -ου: toumonouqMuou. It is thus preferable to retain the word in the text.

[5:45]  ³⁵ sn The final condemnation will come from Moses himself – again ironic, since Moses is the very one the Jewish authorities have trusted in (placed your hope). This is again ironic if it is occurring at Pentecost, which at this time was being celebrated as the occasion of the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai. There is evidence that some Jews of the 1st century looked on Moses as their intercessor at the final judgment (see W. A. Meeks, The Prophet King [NovTSup], 161). This would mean the statement Moses, in whom you have placed your hope should be taken literally and relates directly to Jesus’ statements about the final judgment in John 5:28-29.

[5:46]  ³⁶ tn Grk “For if.”

[5:47]  ³⁷ tn Grk “that one” (“he”); the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.