John 2: 13-16
When it was time for the annual Jewish Passover celebration, Jesus went to Jerusalem. In the Temple area he saw merchants selling cattle, sheep, and doves for sacrifices, and moneychangers behind their counters. Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out, and drove out the sheep and oxen, scattering the moneychangers’ coins over the floor and turning over their tables! Then, going over to the men selling doves, he told them, “Get these things out of here. Don’t turn my Father’s House into a market!
Recently we have touched a few times on the importance of context when reading scripture – Where did it happen? Who was there? Who is speaking? What do the words mean in that particular context? One day I was reading over something I had written several years ago and it provided a perfect example of why context can be so important.
It was particularly referring to the differences and the similarities between John’s gospel and the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke – the three Synoptic or ‘seeing with one eye’ gospels. Over the years we’ve done a lot more talking about the differences rather than the similarities, but when I had written this I had thrown in a brief list of the things that John does the same, more or less, as the synoptics. These include:
But, even when John recounts the same stories, he usually tells them very differently. Remember, this account was written 60 to 70 years after the life of Jesus – and John, apparently, was not pulling from the same sources as the other gospel writers. In fact, New Testament scholars don’t seem to have any clear idea of whether or not John had direct access to the previously written down Mark or Matthew or any of the same sources they used. We simply don’t know where John comes from, aside from the supposition that he is a Hellenized Jew.
Anyone reading John looking for a straight-line historical account of the life of Jesus is going to be befuddled. Even when John tells the same stories as the synoptics, he places them differently in the timeline. For instance, in John’s version Jesus’ very first public act comes at the wedding at Cana - turning water into wine - a story that’s told only in John, by the way.
He does have disciples, at this early point, but not because he called them to him a couple at a time, as in the synoptics - they’re there because John the Baptist pointed him out to them and said, “there, that’s the one you’re looking for. Go and follow him.” At Cana he isn’t out preaching or teaching, or in any way already in the public eye – in fact, he appears to be distinctly annoyed with his mother for forcing him to act at all out where others can watch him – so Cana was definitely his first public appearance.
But the very next story recounted by John – in chapter 2 – is that of the cleansing of the Temple. This story is told in the synoptics, but it is always placed into the last week of Jesus’ life - at the end of his ministry instead of as only the 2nd public thing Jesus does. And in the synoptics it is presented as the “last straw,” the thing that Jesus does that forces the authorities to act publicly against him – the act that convinces them that he needs to be shut down.
If we think of it at all, I bet we think of this story as something that happens around Holy Week – just before or after Palm Sunday, because that’s where it comes in any other gospel. It’s a ‘sign-off’ for Jesus’ time here on earth with us, a signal that he has tried everything he can think of and has just finally “had it.”
In John, though, it becomes an opening gambit, a “Here I am, world” move rather than a move designed to actually force an ending. Its different placement changes its meaning. Its shift in perspective makes it a very different story.
This depicts someone who is newly arrived in Jerusalem, a man who is appalled at what he sees in ‘his Father’s house.” And what he sees is the injustice happening within where the sellers are price gouging -- charging double prices for the smallest offerings – those that are all the poorest people can afford.
It is the same story, but told in two different places that give it two different meanings. One is a demand for justice, one is a cry of desperation and finality. Same story, different settings.
How often do we run into this and not notice, maybe missing one writer’s intended meaning because in our heads we still hear it in another person’s words? another storyteller’s context?
This is why we should not read scripture casually and assume we completely understand what this particular scripture actually is trying to tell us. I can tell you – sometimes it’s just hard work!
And maybe it isn’t only a situation we find ourselves facing while reading our bibles. Maybe it applies to the rest of our lives, as well.
How often have we met a situation that we automatically thought was an ending – because that’s what it’s always been called? What if we take the time to think about the context for this particular event? Is it possible it might have meant something very different in another setting? Sometimes we actually find, perhaps much later, that it was really a new beginning.
Different times, different situations, different interpretations.
Same story.
It was particularly referring to the differences and the similarities between John’s gospel and the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke – the three Synoptic or ‘seeing with one eye’ gospels. Over the years we’ve done a lot more talking about the differences rather than the similarities, but when I had written this I had thrown in a brief list of the things that John does the same, more or less, as the synoptics. These include:
- the stories of Jesus’ public life all start with his interaction with John the Baptist
- his public life begins in Galilee
- all 4four gospels tell the story of the storm at sea and Jesus walking on water
- the multiplication of the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude is in all four gospels with slight variations
- Jesus gives sight to a blind man – not exactly the same stories, but similar
- and he heals a paralytic, again not exact, but similar
But, even when John recounts the same stories, he usually tells them very differently. Remember, this account was written 60 to 70 years after the life of Jesus – and John, apparently, was not pulling from the same sources as the other gospel writers. In fact, New Testament scholars don’t seem to have any clear idea of whether or not John had direct access to the previously written down Mark or Matthew or any of the same sources they used. We simply don’t know where John comes from, aside from the supposition that he is a Hellenized Jew.
Anyone reading John looking for a straight-line historical account of the life of Jesus is going to be befuddled. Even when John tells the same stories as the synoptics, he places them differently in the timeline. For instance, in John’s version Jesus’ very first public act comes at the wedding at Cana - turning water into wine - a story that’s told only in John, by the way.
He does have disciples, at this early point, but not because he called them to him a couple at a time, as in the synoptics - they’re there because John the Baptist pointed him out to them and said, “there, that’s the one you’re looking for. Go and follow him.” At Cana he isn’t out preaching or teaching, or in any way already in the public eye – in fact, he appears to be distinctly annoyed with his mother for forcing him to act at all out where others can watch him – so Cana was definitely his first public appearance.
But the very next story recounted by John – in chapter 2 – is that of the cleansing of the Temple. This story is told in the synoptics, but it is always placed into the last week of Jesus’ life - at the end of his ministry instead of as only the 2nd public thing Jesus does. And in the synoptics it is presented as the “last straw,” the thing that Jesus does that forces the authorities to act publicly against him – the act that convinces them that he needs to be shut down.
If we think of it at all, I bet we think of this story as something that happens around Holy Week – just before or after Palm Sunday, because that’s where it comes in any other gospel. It’s a ‘sign-off’ for Jesus’ time here on earth with us, a signal that he has tried everything he can think of and has just finally “had it.”
In John, though, it becomes an opening gambit, a “Here I am, world” move rather than a move designed to actually force an ending. Its different placement changes its meaning. Its shift in perspective makes it a very different story.
This depicts someone who is newly arrived in Jerusalem, a man who is appalled at what he sees in ‘his Father’s house.” And what he sees is the injustice happening within where the sellers are price gouging -- charging double prices for the smallest offerings – those that are all the poorest people can afford.
It is the same story, but told in two different places that give it two different meanings. One is a demand for justice, one is a cry of desperation and finality. Same story, different settings.
How often do we run into this and not notice, maybe missing one writer’s intended meaning because in our heads we still hear it in another person’s words? another storyteller’s context?
This is why we should not read scripture casually and assume we completely understand what this particular scripture actually is trying to tell us. I can tell you – sometimes it’s just hard work!
And maybe it isn’t only a situation we find ourselves facing while reading our bibles. Maybe it applies to the rest of our lives, as well.
How often have we met a situation that we automatically thought was an ending – because that’s what it’s always been called? What if we take the time to think about the context for this particular event? Is it possible it might have meant something very different in another setting? Sometimes we actually find, perhaps much later, that it was really a new beginning.
Different times, different situations, different interpretations.
Same story.
RSS Feed