Luther the dog was all fur, fun and family. He was a Bernese-Mountain-Dog-and-White-German-Shepherd mix, and he topped the scale at 120 pounds (at the time, our two boys combined didn’t weigh that much!), and most of that was pure love. See, Luther loved to play, go for walks, cuddle up on the couch with us and let the boys crawl all over him. In other words, he was part of the family. But that was the problem. When we weren’t with Luther, Luther went bonkers. Luther didn’t suffer from separation anxiety. He suffered from separation panic. And when a 120-pound dog panics, a dog who is alone in your house, you can be sure there will be damage in his wake. A few examples. When left alone, Luther ate a library book, a plant, a pillow, a couch cushion, a green-magic marker, a baby-gift for a friend, three-quarters of a twenty-dollar bill and much, much more. We quickly learned we could not leave Luther alone in the house. And that is how Luther ended up in my parents’ garage. We were visiting them and we needed to go somewhere; and leaving him alone in my parents’ house was not an option and so, the garage it was. Of course, we made it comfy cozy for him and removed any dangerous substances, but I closed that garage door with trepidation for what we might find when we returned (that was the reason we left him in the garage and not in our minivan!). The garage door was a heavy tilt-up retractable and we knew he couldn’t push it open, but just in case we put a cinder block in front of it. Wouldn’t you know it, while we were gone, Luther huffed and puffed and pushed that door open and made his escape. To our horror, when we returned two hours later, the cupboard was bare and Luther was not there. You know where he was supposed to be. You know where you left him. But he was not there. Our hearts sank. Thankfully, this story has a happy ending, but it took us an hour or so to find him safe and sound. He didn’t seem any the worse for wear, but we were all nervous wrecks. When someone you love isn’t where he should be, it’s time to panic. I just had a flash of insight: Luther must have caught his separation panic from me!

We are playing “Spot the Differences” with the gospel accounts of Holy Week (because sometimes, it’s not the accounts that tell the story, it’s what’s different about the accounts that reveal the full story). And one of the great stories of Holy Week is when Jesus cleanses the temple. It has everything—action, animals, advancing the cause of justice, righteous indignation, zeal and putting an end to corruption and vice. And you have to think that hundreds of stampeding sheep and goats running through the temple grounds at full speed with their owners hot on their trail trying desperately to corral them might have brought forth a few laughs. In other words, it’s a great story. It is so good, in fact, that all four gospel writers include it in their gospels.

Now, Mark is the most comprehensive of the three synoptics. His version of the story has 88 words. Matthew has only 59 and Luke only has 37, but those differences are primarily editorial (do Matthew and Luke need to tell us that Jesus would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts since Mark did (see Mark 11:16)? The real differences are in the conclusion of the story. Take a look:

  • Mark has (11:17): And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
  • Matthew has (21:13): “It is written,”he said to them, “ ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’” (And then Matthew goes on and says that the blind and the lame came to him after all the dust had settled and Jesus healed them to the resentment of the authorities.
  • Luke has (19:46): “It is written,”he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”

Mark adds “a house of prayer for all nations” and has it in the form of a question while Matthew and Luke make it a statement and delete “for all nations.” Mark and Luke have Jesus say that the sellers and the coin changers have made the temple a house of prayer, while Matthew says they are “making the temple” a den of robbers. Nothing real significant there, but it is always interesting.

So, let’s turn to John. John has the triumphal entry in chapter 12 (vv. 12-19); and while the cleansing of the temple did not happen until Monday of Holy Week, we should expect to find John’s account after verse 19. But it is not there. We have the famous encounter between some Greeks and Philip and Andrew that concludes in the famous verse (Jn. 12:21): “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.” And this leads into Jesus hearing the “voice from heaven” (vv. 23-33) and a discussion on belief and unbelief (vv. 34-50). But no account of the cleansing of the temple. So, it must be in chapter 13. But chapter 13 takes place on Thursday of Holy Week where Jesus celebrates the Last Supper with his disciples. Again, no cleansing of the temple. And it is not in chapters 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 or 21 either. In short, it is not there. The cleansing of the temple cupboard is bare. So, where, oh where is our cleansing extraordinaire? It has to be somewhere. But where is a little shocking. It is in John 2.

Now, some will argue that there must have been two temple cleansings: the first at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (one of the very first things he does) and the second at the end of his ministry (one of the last things he does). But most scholars today feel that is unlikely. It seems more likely that John felt free to arrange things thematically (and not chronologically). That means that the gospel writers did not just include stories of Jesus because they happened and are wonderful. No. They had a purpose behind including them. They told this story because it served their purpose to communicate a particular point, and they included that story because they felt it would serve the needs of their audience the best. The writers always evaluated every story of Jesus by what would serve their intent for writing best. In other words, if the story of the cleansing of the temple advanced John’s reason for writing better in chapter 2 than in chapter 12, then chapter 2 it is! And that is what we see. John’s concern in the ‘signs’ section (chapters 1-12) is to show that “Jesus has fulfilled and transcended the feasts and cultic worship of Israel” (Grant Osborne). By placing Jesus cleansing the temple here, John is showing that Jesus is greater than the temple. Plus, Jesus’ comments when questioned about what he was doing in cleansing the temple (Jn. 2:19: “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days”) answers some of the questions raised by John the Baptizer’s comments in chapter 1 (namely, John’s words in John 1:29 and 36 that Jesus is the “Lamb of God.”). In short, it seems John wants his readers to know that he is not just providing a biography of a great Jewish prophet. He is proclaiming Jesus as the Savior of the Word who has come from God and who is God. And that is why he felt compelled to insert the account of the cleansing of the temple (which he know happened at the beginning of Holy Week) at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Suddenly, the account of the cleansing of the temple becomes more of a protest about the misuse of God’s Temple and more of story about who Jesus truly is and a call to see this sign and believe in his name.

Here’s John’s account of the cleansing of the temple. The Greeks asked Philip, “we want to see Jesus.” Here, we see Jesus (Jn. 2:13-22):

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves,
and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts,
both sheep and cattle;
he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
To those who sold doves he said,
“Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
His disciples remembered that it is written:
“Zeal for your house will consume me.”

The Jews then responded to him,
“What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

Jesus answered them,
“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,
and you are going to raise it in three days?”
But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said.
Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

 The power is seen in the difference. The real question is this: In the story of the cleansing of the temple, do we see the temple or do we see Jesus?