Thoughts on John 2:14

One or Two Cleansings of the Temple?

John 2:14 recorded a cleansing of the Temple. John says it happened at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. However, in the Synoptics it is located at end of His ministry and leads directly to His death (cf. Mark 11:15-18). This leads us to the question of how many times did Jesus cleanse the temple—once or twice?  Because John places the event at the beginning of His ministry, while the gospels place it toward the end, after the triumphal entry, there seems to be two. This question is much debated. Those who hold to one cleansing of the temple contend:

·         No gospel records two cleansings, only one. It may well be that each writer omits the second cleansing because both did not fit their purpose.

·         Borchert says the problem may be one of perspective and false expectation.^[1] Many hold that it is because John is writing topically, not chronological and one should not try to harmonize with the Synoptics. It is assumed that John is to be read chronologically.

·         Hamblin takes the gospel as more of a Platonic dialogue or a sequence of plays than a modern history or biography. He sees it as theme oriented indicating the account is Messianic presenting Him as the Lord of the Temple.^[2]

There are with the view problems:^[3]

·         The bias of scholars who do not see anything as double in Scripture.

·         It is argued that if Jesus cleanses the temple once, the leadership and temple police would never have allowed it again. However, the two cleansings are separated by 3 years. Since His other visits were peaceful, it likely the expectation had subsided. Jesus visited the temple a number of times and there was no other such occurrence until His passion at the end of His ministry.

·         In spite of the time references (the next day, on the third day, etc) in John’s record of the event, these are ignored and downplayed. They hold to the synoptic order and that holding to the time references is to miss the point as a picture of Messianic leadership and authority.^[4] (This view lends itself to the spiritualization of the text as the expense of the literal facts).

·         In addition, I have found the one cleansing view seems to skip over the differences between the two accounts.

Two cleanings are possible based on the following facts:

·         The historical placement of the two accounts.

·         The event is placed in the non-Synoptic section of John. Morris points out “Apart from the work of the Baptist nothing else in the first five chapters of this Gospel is to be found in any of the Synoptics.”^[5]

·         The differences in wording and setting. There are some things that only John mentions—e.g. the oxen, sheep the birds, and the whip.

·         The words “after this” in verse 12, as well as the words “a few days” indicate the time and the nearness of this event to the wedding in Cana. These time references do not interfere with the focus on Messianic authority. It is consistent with a literal view of the text.

·         Only John records three Passovers, the Synoptics record only two. This is the one that is not recorded in the Synoptics.

·         Unlike the Synoptic cleansings, there is no hint in John that this cleansing immediately leads to Jesus’ death (cf. Mark 11:15-18).

While the difficulty is not settled. I see the weight of the evidence being with the two cleansing view as being the most natural way to see the text. To harmonize the differences of the cleansing in John with that of the Synoptics is impossible, whether one sees John adapting the event for his purpose or not. This failure adds somewhat to the support they are not the same events. Blum reflects the two view position well, saying,

Probably there were two cleansings, for there are differences in the narrations. John was undoubtedly aware of the Synoptics, and he supplemented them. The first cleansing caught the people by surprise. The second cleansing, about three years later, was one of the immediate causes of His death (cf. Mark 11:15-18).^[6]

---

[1]  Gerald Borchert, NAC: JOHN 1-11.

[2]  William Hamblin, John 2:13-25. THE PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE, paper, Academic.edu, Feb 1, 2011, 2

[3]  D.A. Carson, PNTC: JOHN, 177-178.

[4]  R.T. France, “Chronological Aspects of ‘Gospel Harmony’,” VOX EVANGELICA 16,(1986), 30-66.

[5]  Leon Morris, NICNT: JOHN, 190.

[6]  Edwin A. Blum, BKC: “John,” 279.

The Epistle of James

INTRODUCTION to JAMES

There is some confusion as to the place of the General Epistles. This is especially true of the book of James. It is caused by three factors:

·         The date of these epistles.
·         The subject of these epistles.
·         The receivers of these epistles.

Dispensationalists see a conflict with the Epistles of Paul, especially a conflict between grace and works. These as Circumcision Epistles are distinct from the Church Epistles of Paul. The receivers are Hebrews consisting of the believing Jewish remnant. Hunter observes “much of James sounds like the kingdom teaching of the Lord Jesus and His disciples before the resurrection”[1]  James is addressed to “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (1:1).[2] Paul says the Jewish remnant, “Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come” (Acts 26:7). There are several Jewish references in this epistle (cf. 1:18; 2:21-22; 5:4, 7). It does not profess to be addressed to Gentile churches, nor is it addressed to a single church; but to a people or nationality.  This is vital to understanding the book of James.

Author

It is generally believed that James, the half-brother of Jesus is the author (Gal. 1:19; 2:9). This can be traced back to the time of the church fathers in the very early church. Early Christian writing refers to him as “James the Just.” There are three features that fit James as the author:

·         The historical circumstances reflect the time in which James was in Jerusalem. He was the head of the Jewish church at Jerusalem. James fits the portrait gained from Acts (15;13-21; 21:18ff). James maintains Jewish vocabulary and truths. All but thirteen words are found in the Greek Old Testament (LXX). The style is Semitic.

·         The theological concepts fit the early Jewish remnant. Moo calls it a “primitive Christian theology.”[3] This is contrary to the claim that James has no theology. Part of this problem is James is written on a practical level, not a theological one. However, we must not downgrade nor dismiss the theological thoughts in James.  His theology includes (1) God, who is one (1:5; 2:19), the judge (4:11), giver of grace (4:6) and jealous (4:5). (2) The Law of God which is the law of liberty (1:25). The unity of the Law (2:10-11). The royal law needs to be obeyed (2:8). However, “James reveals little concern about obedience to the ritual law.”[4] (3) Eschatology. The main characteristics are the Jewish teaching of the end times. The eschatological judgment is given to stimulate right attitudes and behavior (1:10-11; 2:12-13; 3:1; 5:1-6, 9, 12). The eschatology involves the promised kingdom (2:5). Surely, the letter is not void of theology.

·         There are resemblances to James’ speech in Acts 15 and the letter.

JAMES	RESEMBLANCE	ACTS 15 SPEECH
1:1	He wrote Letters	15:23
1:16, 19	To the Brethren	15:25
1:27	Keep yourself, Holy	15:14, 29
2:5	Choice of God	15:14, 25
2:7	Name of God	15:17
5:19-20	Conversion	15:19

Date

The letter shows the evidence of being written early, even before Paul penned his epistles. The traditional date of James’s death is 62 AD and had to be written before that time. At the other end, it had to be written after the crucifixion, resurrection, and Pentecost. There is no evidence in the letter concerning the conversion of Gentiles or the issues raised by their conversion. There is no evidence that the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) had taken place.

There are four views of authorship and date (which go together):[5]

·         The work is pseudonymous, written by a Jewish proponent in the second century. This is to be rejected. This takes a low view of Scripture, denying supernaturalism and divine inspiration.
·         It was written by committee and assembled after the death of James. On the same grounds as above, we reject this view.
·         It was written after Paul’s letters. However, one must reject the authorship of James to hold this view.
·         The best view is that it was written by James before Paul’s letters. This clearly puts the epistle during the apostle’s lifetime. There are a number of reasons for the early date: (1) There is little or no connection to the tradition found in the Gospels. It was likely written before the standardization of the Gospels.[6] (2) The manner of the letter is strongly Jewish. Mayor long ago pointed out that, “No less confirmatory of an early date is the Judaic tone of the Epistle.”[7] (3) The primitive nature of the meetings of the Jewish believers. Most scholars put the date in the 30’s to late 50’s. It is most likely the first written document in the New Testament. As such, it cannot be a polemic against Paul since it was written before Paul penned his letters. Blue dates it between 45 to 48 AD.[8] However, Zane suggests a date of 34-35 AD.[9] It is clear that it was written sometime before Jerusalem Council in 48-49 AD.[10]

Unique Features

·         There is no personal reference to any specific individuals among the recipients.
·         One out of two verses are imperatives (commands).
·         James alludes to over 20 Old Testament books. It “has a more Jewish cast than any other writing of the New Testament.”[11]
·         Many references to nature which was a Jewish teaching characteristic. Jesus used this method as well.
·         There are many allusions to the Sermon on the Mount. If Matthew had not been in existence at the time of this letters writing, makes little difference. James was associated with Jesus’ ministry thus it is probable that he heard the sermon, recalling it from memory.[12] Porter gives 45 parallel statements between James and the sermon (e.g. James 1:4 and Matthew 5:48).[13] There are numerous connections between the two, indicating a strong influence of Jesus’ preaching on James. Jesus presented three great truths: (1) Jesus taught on the behavior of believers (cf. Matthew 5:20). (2) Jesus clarified the believer’s goal (Matt. 5:48). (3) Jesus illuminated the method by which to reach maturity (Matt 6:1). These are “the hidden framework on which James hung his challenges to his readers.”[14]
·         The letter is NOT used to teach doctrine, but to lead into an appreciation of what they already knew.
·         Stress is on morality and ethics of the teaching of Jesus.
·         Probably written to Hellenistic Jewish synagogue. Some suggest it was the synagogue of dispersion Jews in Jerusalem, which is referred to in Acts 6:9.

Purpose of James

There is one key word for the purpose of James—edification. James wants to encourage the Jewish remnant to bear their trials with patience and to exhort them to maturity and holiness. He encourages maturity through compassionate service, speech, contriteness, and concern for others. He does so through the Jewish practice of the time, yet there is much that can be applied today. Hill gives this warning:

“I want to make it very clear that we should teach and preach the practical truth found in them [i.e., the circumcision epistles]. As we rightly divide the truth, we must rightly handle the truth and allow the Holy Spirit to apply it to our lives.”[15]

---

[1]  Finley Hunter, “The Circumcision Epistles,” unpublished paper.

[2]  King James Version is used unless footnoted.

[3]  Douglas J. Moo, PNTC: THE LETTER OF JAMES, [Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2000], 11.

[4]  Ibid, 31.

[5]  Dan G. McCartney, BECNT: JAMES, [Grand Rapids, Baker, 2009], 14-20.

[6]  Ibid, 15.

[7]  Joseph B. Mayor, THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES [Grand Rapids, Baker, reprint 1978], cxxiv.

[8]  J. Ronald Blue, BKC: “James,” [Wheaton IL, Victor, 1983], 816.

[9]  Zane C. Hodges, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, [Irving TX, Grace Evangelical Society, 1994], 12.

[10] Douglas J. Moo, PNTC: JAMES, 26.

[11]  Joseph B. Mayor, JAMES, ii.

[12]  Virgil V. Porter Jr, “The Sermon on the Mount in the Book of James, Part 1,” BIBIOTHECA SACRA, July-September 2005, 346. James Adamson, NICNT: JAMES [Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1976], 22.

[13]  Virgil V. Porter Jr, “The Sermon on the Mount in the Book of James, Part 1” 347-352. I will point out some of these paralells in our notes.

[14]  Thomas L. Constable, NOTES ON JAMES, [Soniclight.org, 2015], 7.

[15] Bob Hill, THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO GOSPELS, [Commerce City CO, Biblical Answers Ministry, 1999], 101

Book Review on Church & Discipline

40 QUESTIONS ABOUT CHURCH MEMBERSHIP AND DISCIPLINE.

By Jeremy M. Kimble, Kregel Academic, 2017.

This is another 40 Question book that is published by Kregel Academic. The author, Jeremy Kimble is a professor at Cedarville College. He has written a clear and concise work on the local church and discipline. As in earlier publications in the series, each chapter answers a question on the subject matter.

He begins with why Church membership and discipline is important and ends with what is their significance in the Christian life. He sees the importance of church membership as preserving the truth of the Gospel; what he calls covenant commitment; and the church is its membership. In the church discipline is necessary because of the mandate of Scripture; it is a proper demonstration of love, and persevering its members in the faith and edification.

He goes on from this starting point to:

Define church membership as a formal commitment.     

Define discipline as the exercise of authority.

He sees the church in relation to the New Covenant and an extension of the Kingdom which he argues from the gospels. To me, this is one weakness in the heavy alliance on Jesus’s earthly ministry and the covenant. Little is said about the church as earthy fined by Paul and his epistles. To him, church membership is linked with the act of water baptism and the Lord’s supper.

After dealing with his Biblical view of the church and discipline, he turns to answers on practical matters including:

1.      Why do some churches not believe in membership?

2.      What kind of church should one join? The characteristics he suggests are somewhat broad and not specific.

3.      On the question who should become a member, he has a good point and emphasis on regenerated people.

4.      Age of becoming a member he says is indicated by maturity and discernment rather their years.

5.      When should some be removed? The unrepentant sin in the life of a believer. He warns that this is not to be hastily, haphazardly, or unlovingly done. The real goal of discipline is restoration, not punishment. (I am afraid in most cases punishment is the true motive).

6.      Benefits of membership is one of the better chapters. Sees the benefits as discipleship, service opportunities, to give structure for your life, and being a witness.

7.      What are the responsibilities? Membership brings responsibilities of submission, helping other grow, and attendance.

He then moves onto questions about church discipline. He looks at several passages on the subject. How it has been practiced in history. He deals with Old Testament discipline of God’s people, not fully recognizing the difference between Isreal and the church. This is the weak and confusing chapter. The Old Testament had an element and authority the church does not have, i.e. the killing of the offender. This is caused by failing to see the Isreal as a theocracy; the church is not. In the Old Testament discipline applied to the nation, not only the individual.

Today in the church discipline is not just corrective but provides growing as a disciple. Discipleship is a call to discipline to accomplish the goal of maturity in Christ. Church leadership has the role of positive and negative discipline in the local church. Discipline is a complex issue because we are sinful people dealing with other sinful people. However, discipline is not always practiced in some churches, but he notes its benefits. Its aim is always restoration. The trouble is we tend to throw out the baby with the bath water. We are quick to punish, slow to restore.

Overall this is a helpful book in simulating one to think. It is a starting point for these issues. It is broad and what I would call a startup book to deeper study on these important subjects. It is a good survey on the issues. It gives much food for thought to the Pastor and church leadership. It is a welcome guide and survey on these subjects. It is readable, understandable, and helpful in spite of a few weaknesses.  

 I received this book from Kregel Academic in exchange for this review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”