Reading the Gospels Together The Cleansing of the Temple – Part 3 Turning to John’s gospel we run immediately into a challenge. John does not tell the story of the cleansing of the Temple as an event that happened near the end of Jesus’ life but rather as one of the very first things that Jesus did in his public ministry. Of course we need to ask some questions at this point. Is it possible that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice – once at the beginning of his ministry as John reports and once again at the end as the synoptic writers report? Of course, that may be possible but it is very unlikely – especially when we consider the report that Jesus did this at the end of his public ministry. It is much harder to explain why John would have omitted it at that point in the story if he knew that the event happened twice than it is to accept the idea that John moved the story. It is very unlikely that John would have been unaware of the cleansing at the end of Jesus’ ministry. After all, the gospel of John does claim to have an actual participant in the story at the foundation of this gospel – the beloved disciple. And we have already seen how Luke, begrudgingly it seems, includes the story because he must since it was so ingrained in the tradition. If the event happened a second time near the end of Jesus’ life John would have reported it. So we can likely answer the first question by saying that the event happened only once. That leaves us with two more questions. First, was it Mark who moved the story from early in the ministry of Jesus to this point? A case could be made that this is exactly what Mark did. Mark has taken great lengths to construct his story with Jesus’ ministry taking place exclusively in Galilee with one journey to Jerusalem at the end of Jesus’ ministry in which he is crucified and raised from the dead. There would be no room in Mark’s gospel to tell the story of the cleansing of the Temple at any other point than at the end. In fact, if there were two cleansings the whole structure of Mark’s storyline would begin to crumble. And if there was only one cleansing at the beginning then if Mark wanted to include the story he would have needed to move it to the end. Even though a case might be made that it is Mark who moved the story it is very unlikely that this is what took place. It is almost certain, given what we have noticed, that Mark, in fact, tells this story in the right place and at the right time – near the end of the life of Jesus at that climatic moment when the conflict comes to a head and Jesus becomes the Crucified Messiah. So, that leaves the last question to be answered. Was it John who moved the story forward in his gospel? And if he did that, why did he do it? To answer the first question in the affirmative is the most sensible answer to the challenge of why the gospel of John tells this story near the beginning of his gospel and why the synoptic gospels place it at the end. It is almost certainly John who moved the story. So, why might John have done that? Getting at an answer to that question is not easy. There may be several factors involved. First of all readers of John’s gospel have noticed a kind of “replacement theory” in John’s theological understanding. Jesus replaces the feasts and the heart of Judaism. So, in his telling of the cleansing of the Temple, John is telling his readers that Jesus replaces the Temple as the locus of God’s presence. The Temple is no longer the place to locate God but Jesus is. This makes a lot of sense in John’s theology and likely is part of the reason he tells the story at all. But there may well be another reason behind why John moved the story. In all four gospels the cleansing of the Temple is connected with the feast of Passover. And we will be spending time looking at Jesus and the Passover shortly. The synoptic gospels tell of only one Passover. John tells of three Passovers. But, to anticipate what will be discussed later, the striking thing is that John tells about one element of what happens at Passover in each of the three stories and the synoptic gospels tell of those three events all happening in the one Passover. In the first Passover in John’s gospel Jesus cleanses the Temple. In the second Passover in John’s gospel Jesus speaks of Holy Communion. And in the third Passover in John’s gospel Jesus is crucified. What the synoptic gospels include in the one Passover John separates into the three. Could it be that John is communicating something through this arrangement? If that is the case then John’s construction of a three year ministry of Jesus which conflicts with the one year ministry as told by the synoptic gospels can be explained on theological grounds. That does not end the questions around why the gospel writers assume the length of Jesus ministry in different ways but it may help move a little further down the road to discussing that reality. But we will need to come to that later. So in conclusion it is likely Mark, Matthew, and Luke who are historically correct in placing the story of the cleansing of the Temple at the end of Jesus’ life and connected with the Triumphal Entry. Before leaving John’s telling of the story of the cleansing of the Temple we should note that while John tells basically the same story he has included some differences. John does not mention directly the quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah but he does include a quotation from Psalm 69. And John includes the saying of Jesus that he will build again the temple in three days after it has been destroyed. Interestingly it is this very accusation that is falsely used again Jesus in his trial in the synoptic gospels. We will say more about that later. As we read these gospels together we discover that perhaps there is more to the story than can be seen reading them alone.