How many times did Jesus clear the temple? Once

 In the Synoptics Jesus clears the temple in the last week of his life; in John it seems to happen right at the start of Jesus’ ministry.

 What’s going on?

 We have three options.

 1. A mistake

 Either John or the Synoptic writers have made a mistake. There was one clearing of the temple, the Synoptics say it was in the last week of Jesus’ life; John says, that’s wrong, it was very early on in his ministry.

 I don’t think either John or the Synoptic writers would have made such a massive mistake. It is clear that there can be minor mistakes over details in the Gospels, and indeed in the Bible. For example go to the resurrection stories and try and work out how many angels were around. In Matthew there is one, in Mark there is a young man, in Luke and John there are two angels. We should not let these small differences worry us, the main point is that there are angels in an empty tomb.

 But what we have here in John is not a small mistake. To have the clearing at the start of the Jesus story when in fact it happened at the end of Jesus’ life is a big mistake. I do not believe the author is that careless. John is very careful about names and places. Look at the detail he gives in John 5 about where the healing of the lame man happened. Nor are the writers of the Synoptics careless. Luke said he investigated everything carefully. (Luke 1:3)

 The mistake option is not strong..

 2.Two separate events

 There were two cleansings of the temple. One is as John has it, at the start of Jesus’ ministry, the other, with the Synoptics, at the end. So, there are no mistakes. Some scholars like D.A Carson believe this. Many, quite rightly, are not convinced.

 Historically anyone creating mayhem in the temple would be arrested – immediately. The Jews and the Romans had soldiers right there in the temple to do this. In the Synoptics Jesus is not arrested, and we can easily understand why. Josephus tells us that the population of Jerusalem swelled to two million over Passover. That might be Middle Eastern exaggeration, but we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people. And these vast crowds have just welcomed him into Jerusalem calling Jesus the Son of David. Jesus is the true King.  And we are told that the authorities did not want to risk a riot by arresting him in public.

 So, it makes sense for Jesus to be able to clear the temple in the last week and not be arrested. To say it also happened at the start of his ministry makes no sense at all. Jesus was then only well known in Galilee. He did not have a vast following in Jerusalem. So he could have easily been arrested and probably put in prison for a long time.

 Connected to this historical problem, is the competence of the Synoptic writers.  I cannot see how a writer like Luke, who made a ‘careful investigation’ into Jesus’ life, would say nothing about this first clearing of the temple when he wrote about the second one.

 Jesus knows very well that his protest will not change anything. Ultimately it is gesture politics, a definitive statement that the whole system is rotten. Such a dramatic protest only needs to happen once, not twice. If we say Jesus did it twice it means he is the sort of person who likes protest for the sake of pointless protest. That should surely make us a little uneasy.

 There is also an artistic problem. For it is clumsy for there to be two clearings of the temple. It is a massive event. It needs to stand alone. The drama in the Synoptics is perfect. Jesus enters Jerusalem and looks around the temple. Then the next day he clears out the money changers and the traders There is an element of surprise. All that drains away if we think he has already done this at the start of his ministry.

 It's not difficult to understand why most people don’t think it happened twice

 Let’s go to the third option.

 3. John has moved the event forward.

 The clearing happened in the last week, as recorded in the Synoptics; but John has deliberately moved the story forward. This is the option that makes the most sense.

 First of all it’s important to note how close the stories are in both John and the Synoptics, especially Mark. Both take place near the time of the Passover, both have tables being overturned and after the incident, in both accounts the authority of Jesus is challenged.

 And then there is something else that ties this story in John to the Synoptics. More than once in the Synoptics we have the Jews asking Jesus for a sign, even though Jesus has performed many miracles. Jesus refuses to give them a sign and calls them ‘an evil and adulterous generation’.

 They are not sincere. We have the same here in John, 2:18, the Jews say, what sign have you done to give you this authority, but look at v. 23. It’s obvious Jesus has been performing many miracles. So many that Nicodemus talks about them at the start of chapter 3, and the Galileans who were in Jerusalem remember them in chapter 4. So – we have a similar request with a similar background.

 There is something else that shows this is one story, not two. In both the Synoptics and John Jesus refuses to give a sign. But once in reply to the demand for a sign Jesus had given an enigmatic response. He said the only sign they would be given would be the sign of Jonah who spent three nights in the belly of a whale. This is a reference to his death and resurrection. That is the basis of his authority. Now look what we have in John. Another enigmatic response about building a temple in three days – but  it is exactly the same meaning as what we have in the Synoptics. It’s about Jesus’ death and resurrection.

 There is one last point that – for me – settles the matter that what we have here in John 2 is the same story that we have in Mark 11. For in John 2:19 Jesus says, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will rise it up’.

 In Mark 14: 53 – 65 we have an account of Jesus’s first trial before the Sanhedrin. We are told that many people are standing up and speaking against Jesus. We don’t know exactly what they are saying until we come to v. 58. It is almost exactly what we have in John 2. ‘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.’

 In Mark we are not told when Jesus said this, but the idea this was said three years earlier is surely not true. No, this is hot, up to date evidence. Jesus has come to Jerusalem and has said the temple is going to be destroyed – not three years ago, but just a few days before this trial. He has challenged the whole system in front of a vast crowd. The authorities are determined to snuff this out.

 All the evidence points to there being one cleansing of the temple which happened in the last week of Jesus’ life. There was no cleansing of the temple three years earlier at the start of his ministry.

 Someone might say: but it is not right to change the dates even if the author has good reasons.

 But the writer does not change any dates. Look at the text carefully. He never says when the clearing of the temple happened. Unlike in chapter one there is no ‘the next day here’. We just read that the Passover of the Jews was near. And we know from the Synoptics that this was indeed the case. The writer is not changing the chronology at all, in fact he is trusting that his readers know that the story happened at the end of Jesus’ ministry and will understand that he wants emphasize something by placing it by the account of the water changing into wine.

 What then is he wanting to emphasize? The body and blood of Jesus Christ

 Chapter Two is the start of Jesus’ public ministry. And so this is the writer telling us what is at the heart of all Jesus’ ministry. This is the writer telling us how to view all of Jesus’ ministry. This is the lens from how we should view things. The writer is saying – don’t get lost in the detail of this healing or that teaching, remember the big picture. I gave it to you in chapter two.

 And what is that big picture? The story of the wedding in Cana was all about wine, the blood of Jesus. The story of the temple is all about Jesus’ body, how it will be destroyed and raised up after three days. What is the author wanting to say? That the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ stands at the heart of the Gospel story. It is what we had at the heart of the prologue. He came to his own, he was rejected, but to all who believed in him, he gave the right to become children of God. It’s what we had with John the Baptist. Not once, but twice – ‘Behold the lamb of God’. The best wine. The best bread. The death and resurrection. This is the story. This is the anchor. This is where everything beings and where everything ends. God’s love for sinful mankind in the blood and body of his beloved Son Jesus Christ. Lose this and we lose everything. No wonder the writer wants to move the story to the start.

 The actual text, the historical context, the artistry, and above all the theology all point to there being one cleansing of the temple a few days before Jesus’ execution. John has moved it to the start of his account of Jesus’ life confident that his readers will understand that he wants them to see all that happens through the prism of Christ’s death and resurrection.