We do have a few fill in the blanks tonight, and we have touched on this before, but more involved tonight than we have been in the past. John 2, verse 13 through 25.

“The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away. Do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.”

Two Cleansings of the Temple

Now as you know, we’ve been dealing with the liberal assertions that the Gospel of John is historically unreliable or inaccurate. And tonight we touch on the question of whether there were two cleansings of the temple.

The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all have the cleansing of the temple at the end of Jesus’ ministry, one week before his death. John has it here at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. If you will remember, verse 11 of chapter 2 says, “This is the first of his signs that Jesus did in Cana of Galilee.” So this is at the beginning of his ministry, according to John’s chronology. But the other Gospels have it at the end of his ministry.

And the argument was, by the liberals, if there was only one event of a cleansing, then John has either fabricated the second cleansing or he has moved the sequence from the end of Jesus’ ministry to the first of Jesus’ ministry. And this is unacceptable to the minds of some liberals.

And so we want to look at two questions tonight, really. What is the evidence for two cleansings? And then the second question, what difference would it make? If there were only one and John has moved it to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, why should that be an issue?

Evidence for Two Cleansings

So we begin with what is the evidence for the two cleansings? And I have five different items here to get through.

Different Sayings

First, there are different sayings attributed to Jesus in the two accounts. Here in John, we find different responses and statements. We’ll come back to the synoptic examples in a little bit. But notice verse 16, Jesus told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away. Do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” The chapter, verse 19, “Destroy this temple in three days, I will raise it up.” This is something you don’t find in the other Gospels. They don’t make any mention of it. And then also John includes this statement about a zeal for your house, which will consume me. Now, and that is something John has said, not Jesus.

So first off, you have two different sayings. Again, we come back to the synoptics later. But this, you’ll see they’re different. And so the argument is, he says something different because it’s a totally different event that happens.

Now, this verse is based on “zeal for your house will consume me.” It’s based on Psalm 69, 9. And this gives a little bit different perspective on how Jesus views the temple. Remember, at the end of his ministry, he’s viewing it really with contempt because it has been corrupted and he predicts its destruction. But here, it seems like he’s defending the temple.

George Beasley-Murray, in his commentary, says that Jesus’s action in the temple can be characterized as “zeal for your house,” suggests a positive attitude to the temple and not one of total rejection. And this is, again, a contrast. By the end of his ministry, his attitude about the temple is one of dismay and abandonment. He predicts the destruction. In fact, when we look at Matthew, we won’t read the whole chapter, but in Matthew’s account of the cleansing is where it really begins to ramp up the conflict between himself and the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And he repeatedly says, this is the end of the temple.

So what is the difference between the two times? If there were two cleansings, why should he be defending the temple the first time and only two years later predict its demise? Why should there be a difference in that little bit of time between his attitude about the temple?

Well, you can see it’s on your outline. D.A. Carson says, until the purpose of the temple is fulfilled, the worshipers there, who are sincerely trying to worship the Lord, should not be taken advantage of. And this is what is happening. And Jesus, as God, is concerned for the people. D.A. Carson said, it was important that the worship of God in the temple precepts be pure. Jesus first cleansed the temple and then replaced it. And this again suggests that there was a time period between the two events. And the first one, John is recording a separate cleansing of the temple. He’s not just changing the details of the time of when this was done.

You can also see that concept. It’s not brought out deeply on your outline, but what Jesus said to the woman at the well. She says, where do we worship? He says, right now, it’s not going to be Jerusalem or where you worship on this mountain of Samaria. It’s going to be worship from the heart. So he, but he doesn’t say the temple is no good. Again, that’s at the beginning of his ministry. He just says there’s a time coming when worship at the temple will no longer be important or the focus of worshiping God.

So the first thing you have then is these different sayings. John has sayings that Jesus speaks where the other Gospels have completely different sayings. And this suggests there were two cleansings.

Different Reactions

The second thought is that when you look at the passages directly, and we’re not digging in by looking at all of them, but when you do, you find the responses are a bit different. Yes, here they also ask him, who gives you the authority to do this? But that’s kind of where it ends. And John doesn’t give us any more, this answer that Jesus gives, and he moves on. When you go to the other Gospels, you see much more contentiousness between Jesus and the leaders of the temple. And this suggests again that this is at the beginning of his ministry. John has not fabricated it, and he hadn’t moved it. It’s actually a separate act of cleansing the temple. In John, you see a relative indifference on the part of the leadership, but in the synoptics, they’re angry with him for doing this, and they want to take him out and kill him.

Different Scriptures

Thirdly, there are different Scriptures quoted. In John, Jesus is quoted from Zechariah. And I didn’t realize this was a quote from Zechariah, but Zechariah 14, 21, as a matter of fact, the last verse in the book of Zechariah that we’ve noted many times is very messianic, says there shall no longer be a [provisioner] in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day. And this is the verse Jesus is quoting. But in the other Gospels, in the other cleansings of the synoptics, such as one on your outline from Matthew 21, we read this. Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple. And he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer,” which is a quotation from Isaiah 56, “but you make it a den of robbers,” which is a quotation from Jeremiah chapter 7.

So you have completely different Scriptures being quoted by Jesus. And this again suggests it’s two different events. And John and Jesus are making a different, slightly different point the first time and not, then he does the second.

By the way, John is the only one to mention a whip. None of the others. They all say he drove the people out. John makes a point of saying he made a whip to do this. And that suggests that either John is focused on the idea of him making a whip or that he only made the whip in the first cleansing and didn’t do that at the time that the synoptics have.

Why the Differences Might Not Be Decisive

Now, we got another thing here that we’ll come back to. But why might all of these differences be non-decisive? Why might all of these things, we just looked at four things that suggest there could be two different cleansings, why might that not be true? What could we say to explain that there still would be only one cleansing of the temple?

It’s really very simple. But I know how much you all like to fill in the blanks, so I have tried to structure this for your enjoyment. Let me walk back through it. There are different sayings, different responses, different Scriptures quoted, and John includes a detail that is not found in the other Gospels. Why might all three of these, or four now, all four of these be just non-decisive? It wouldn’t be the final word.

It might have been that John just abbreviated, that it was the same event, that Jesus said all of these things. Remember, we’ve made this point again and again. The Gospels do not give us every detail. And Matthew, Mark, and Luke select details to record. You’ll see another example of this in a moment. So it could be that it was much longer, that Jesus, for example, back there in Matthew again, in Matthew’s cleansing, Jesus drives out the money lenders and everything. And does anybody know what he does next? It’s in Matthew chapter 21. He heals people. The Scripture says he starts healing people. And it’s the next day before they ask, before they say to him, who gave you the authority to do this? So you see then, what my point is, that you see Jesus in a prolonged period of time in the temple.

John’s Gospel makes it sound like he kind of sweeps in and sweeps out again, and that’s the end of it. But Matthew lays it out in a way that Jesus is in the temple. And by the way, let’s clarify that. In the temple, there was, it was a big area. And there was what was called the court of the Gentiles. And the only Gentiles could go into that part of the temple. And then it was the court of the women. Only women could go that far. And then it was the court of the men for the men. And then you came to the temple proper where the priests do all their stuff. So when it says Jesus was in the temple and He was healing people, it probably means in the court of the Gentiles where all these people were at. And men, women, Gentiles, and Jews could all be there where He’s doing this.

The point is that it suggests He was there for a period of time. He just didn’t come in, drive out the people, and then leave. He did some miracles. He healed some people. He did some teaching. That means He probably said a lot more than John has Him saying. And therefore it could be that all John has picked out these specific points that he’s wanted to emphasize just as Matthew, Mark, and Luke have pointed out different things. So could be that it really is only one event despite the evidence here to suggest two cleansings.

“Destroy This Temple, and in Three Days I Will Raise It Up”

But there’s another one that is a distinction with this one. It makes it a little more, in my mind, a little more likely that there were two cleansings. One’s at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and one at the end. And that is that there is a saying here that is not found in the synoptics but is validated by them. And it’s on your outline. Verse 19, John 2, verse 19. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”

Now, this prediction is not found in any of the synoptic Gospels. They don’t make that statement. However, this statement is referred to at Jesus’ trial, and on your outline you can see Mark 14, 56 through 59 is the section. This is what Jesus was on trial for. Some stood up and bore false witness against Him saying, “We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands.” Yet even about this, their testimony did not agree.

Now, you can see that they’re obviously referring to this statement that Jesus makes about destroy the temple and three days I will raise it up. They’re obviously talking about the same thing. So what are they talking about? It has to be this statement that Jesus makes.

But now notice, and I have to stay with my outline here, why is it a false witness what they say? Why is it a false witness? They said, “We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple.” But they are false witnesses. They bore false witness when they said this. Well, what’s false about it?

That’s correct. But I’m looking for something more. Let me read it again. “We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple.” He doesn’t say, “I will destroy it.” John chapter 2, verse 19. Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple.” He didn’t say, “I will destroy it.” You destroy the temple. And He’s talking about His body, which is what they’re going to do. They’re going to kill Him. He says, “Destroy this temple in three days. I will raise it up.” So it is true He’s talking about His body. It is true that those other considerations that were offered.

But another point is, He doesn’t say, “I will destroy it.” That would be totally contrary to what He came to do. They’re going to take His life from Him. Destroy this temple. They think He’s talking about this temple. And He’s talking about the temple of His body. Now that’s where the little footnote comes in to say that they didn’t understand this until He was raised from the dead. And then thinking back on what He had said there, they realized He was talking about His body. They did not realize it at that moment. So that’s why it’s a false witness because that’s not what He said. It’s close.

But what might have caused their inability to agree? It says they couldn’t agree on it. They couldn’t agree on this. Let me read it again. “We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands.” That’s not what He said. He said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” But even about this, their testimony did not agree. How could you explain the fact that their testimony didn’t agree?

The most logical answer is that there was a period of time that had passed between Him saying this. If He said it four days ago at the beginning of the week, it seemed like they would be able to know, yeah, this is exactly what He said. But this distortion in what He says would have been more natural over a two-year period. Two years ago, He said it, but this is what we remember about what He said two years ago because people would have dismissed what He said then as unimportant. He’s this guy, he’s rambling, he’s just making these kind of wild predictions and we really didn’t pay attention, but we think this is what He said. But it was false and it was because two years had passed. So that becomes another reason why some scholars believe that there were two cleansings.

By the way, most of the church fathers believed there were two cleansings. Most modern commentators say there was only one. And this becomes the debate of why, and this is where the liberals step in and say, well, John fabricated it and he’s made stuff up and that means his Gospel is not dependable, reliable because it’s not accurate.

The Extra Day: Mark, Matthew, and Luke

Now, let’s talk about what doctrinal difference, if any, is made by moving the cleansing to an earlier date. Now, I always run out of room on my outline, but you don’t have to turn there. If you want to, you can, to Mark chapter 11, because I want you to see something: this moving of things around for the purpose of the writer is nothing new. It happens because they’re trying to make a theological point.

So, in chapter 11 of Mark, and then I will call your attention to Luke 19, which is the same event. Luke is recording different details and stressing different points about it. Verse 1, when they drew near Jerusalem to Bethpage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, and verse number 7 is where they throw their coats over Jesus. It’s the triumphal entry. And then, verse 11, he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. He went into the temple, and when he looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry, and seeing in the distance a fig tree with leaves, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, “may no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it, and they came to Jerusalem, and he entered the temple and began to drive out all those who sold and those who bought, and so on.

Notice, by the way, real quickly, there’s another detail that Mark has here. Verse 16, he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. This again suggests what? That he was there for a little bit longer, as opposed to John’s cleansing, which seems to be bang, bang, and he’s got other stuff to do.

But, note this, in verse 11, he entered Jerusalem, on the day of the triumphal entry, he entered Jerusalem, went into the temple, and when he looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. On the following day, he comes back, and he does this cleansing.

Now listen to Luke, chapter 19, verse 37 and 45. As he was drawing near, already on the way down the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen. This is the triumphal entry. And verse 45, he entered the temple, and began to drive out those who sold, and those who did such and such.

Did you pick it up? In Luke and in Matthew, Jesus goes into the temple the day of the triumphal entry. In Mark, he goes in the day after the triumphal entry. There’s another day there. In Matthew and Luke, the implication is, by the clear reading, he goes into Jerusalem, he goes into the temple, he drives everybody out. Mark doesn’t say it that way. Mark’s got Jesus coming in. He goes into the temple, he looks around, and then he goes back to Bethany for the night, and the next day he comes in and cleanses the temple.

Now, this gives us the illustration of how the writers of the Gospel tailored their Gospel to the theological points they’re trying to make. Mark is trying to make a point about the cursing of the fig tree, which is a symbol of the temple being destroyed. Mark places between the two the story of the cursing of the fig tree, which some commentators see as a reference to the rejection of the temple and its corrupt practices. Matthew also places the cursing of the fig tree after the cleansing in a context of increasing conflict with religious leadership that culminates in the predictions of the temple’s destruction in Matthew 24.

In this case, Mark has arranged his Gospel to make a theological point about how the temple has served its purposes, and this is why he stresses that it was the day after the triumphal entry. Luke and Matthew apparently have conflated these things into one day. But they’re not doing anything ethically or morally wrong. They’re trying to stress different points than Mark is doing.

Now, did I lose anybody in that extra day argument? Do you follow me? Mark says it was the day after the triumphal entry. He hasn’t added another day because he’s only got that many days in the week. The other two Gospels have conflated it to drive home the point they’re trying to make.

Now, this is a typical thing so that even if John had moved the cleansing of the temple from the end of Jesus’ ministry to the beginning of the ministry to make a theological point, he hasn’t done anything different from what the other Gospel writers have done.

So let me summarize it like this. There was a triumphal entry celebration. All three of the synoptics affirm that. Shortly after Jesus entered, he cleansed the temple, cleared it, drove out the money changers in a way that seems to be a little different than the other Gospels. And then the cursing of the fig tree becomes an acted parable, that he’s not just going to say, “your house is left to you desolate,” which is what he says, by the way, when you read Matthew 23.

An Acted Parable: The Cursing of the Fig Tree

And when you get over to the end, chapter 23, Jesus pronounces all these woes on the Pharisees and the hypocrites. And then when he gets down to the end of chapter 23, verse 37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it, how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings and you were not willing. See, your house is left to you desolate.” Note the contrast between the earlier cleansing where you don’t have any of those kind of statements and this statement.

Because then the next thing you see, Jesus left the temple and his disciples said, “when will this happen? When will this temple be destroyed? When will the end of time come?” And it’s a natural progression of the cleansing of the temple.

And it may be that this is why, if John moved it, this may be why. He wanted to make different theological points at the end of Jesus’ life, really focusing on that, so he puts the cleansing at the beginning. But some of the other considerations would say that there was a separate cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

The Pillar New Testament commentary says that like the prophets who had on occasion dramatized the particularly trenchant message by action, Jesus dramatizes the end of the temple by an enacted parable. He curses the fig tree, which was a symbol of the nation of Israel. He curses it, and it’s meant to say the same thing which I just read. “Your house is left to you desolate.” It bore no fruit. You’ll never have a chance to bear fruit again as a nation.

Now, where have we seen recently an enacted parable? Happened a lot in the Old Testament prophets. Ezekiel chapter 5. God says, shave your head, take the hair, and take a third and throw it to the wind to symbolize scattering, and take a third and burn it in the center of the city, and take a third, and I can’t remember what it was supposed to do with that third, but he was acting out. It wasn’t just, now here’s what the Lord says. They acted out what the Lord said.

Now, you see that a lot in Ezekiel where God says, I want you to lay on your right side for 90 days. I want you to lay on your left side for 90 days. Is it in Ezekiel where God says, I want you to cook your dinner? Don’t you just love the Word of God? I want you to cook your dinner over a fire of human dung. And the prophet says, Lord, I can’t do that. And God says, okay, you can use different manure to cook your dinner. He was acting out. He didn’t just say, here’s what God says. He acts out what God says. And this is called an acted parable. And this is what Jesus is doing when He curses the fig tree.

So let me just take a moment to make sure. It says there was no, it was not the time for figs. But there are fruits on the fig tree that you can eat earlier. That there was none of that meant there would not be any figs later in the year. And so when Jesus curses the fig tree, He’s not cursing a tree that could produce fruit. It is already shown that it will not have any fruit. And Jesus uses that then to demonstrate that the nation of Israel has not borne fruit as they were called to do. And therefore, your house is left to you desolate. And this becomes an acted parable that Jesus is teaching. And Mark is making that point.

Again, you don’t see in Matthew, Matthew makes reference of it, but he doesn’t deal with this idea of it connected to the temple like Mark does. And this is the consideration. It’s an acted parable. And because Mark has a different purpose, he has the proper sequence of the triumphal entry. Jesus goes home, comes back the next day and cleanses the temple. Matthew and Luke, trying to make their theological points, skip over Him going home, and they just pick it up and they go forward with that understanding.

It Still Happened

So, then we would say, despite the liberal critics and pundits, we would say that there is no difference whether it happened at the end and John moved it to the beginning. It still happened. He’s not changing history. He’s just rearranging his Gospel to convey theological points. We’ve seen Matthew and Luke do the same thing. Therefore, we shouldn’t think there’s something strange or unethical or malevolent for what John does by putting the cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

I think there were two. It doesn’t matter whether there were two or not. The point is that Jesus had a regard for the temple and He cleansed it and drove out the people that were misusing the temple.