rwp - John:2:12-25

rwp@John:2:12 @{He went down to Capernaum} (\kateb eis Kapharnaoum autos\). Second aorist active indicative of \katabain\. Cana was on higher ground. This brief stay ({not many days}, \ou pollas hmeras\) in this important city (Tell Hum) on the north shore of Galilee was with Christ's mother, brothers (apparently friendly at first) and the six disciples, all in the fresh glow of the glory manifested at Cana. Surely Mary's heart was full.

rwp@John:2:13 @{The passover of the Jews} (\to pascha tn Ioudain\). The Synoptics do not give "of the Jews," but John is writing after the destruction of the temple and for Gentile readers. John mentions the passovers in Christ's ministry outside of the one when Christ was crucified, this one and one in strkjv@6:4|. There may be another (5:1|), but we do not know. But for John we should not know that Christ's ministry was much over a year in length.

rwp@John:2:14 @{Those that sold} (\tous plountas\). Present active articular participle of \ple\, to sell. They were in the Court of the Gentiles within the temple precinct (\en ti hieri\), but not in the \naos\ or temple proper. The sacrifices required animals (oxen, \boas\, sheep, \probata\, doves, \peristeras\) and "changers of money" (\kermatistas\, from \kermatiz\, to cut into small pieces, to change money, only here in N.T., late and rare). Probably their very presence in his Father's house angered Jesus. The Synoptics (Mark:11:15-17; strkjv@Matthew:21:12f.; strkjv@Luke:10:45f.|) record a similar incident the day after the Triumphal Entry. If there was only one, it would seem more natural at the close. But why could it not occur at the beginning also? Here it is an obvious protest by Christ at the beginning of his ministry as in the Synoptics it is an indignant outcry against the desecration. The cessation was only temporary in both instances.

rwp@John:2:15 @{A scourge of cords} (\phragellion ek schoinin\). The Latin _flagellum_. In papyri, here only in N.T. and note Latin _l_ becomes \r\ in _Koin_. \Schoinin\ is a diminutive of \schoinos\ (a rush), old word for rope, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:27:32|. {Cast out} (\exebalen\). Second aorist active indicative of \ekball\. It is not said that Jesus smote the sheep and oxen (note \te kai\, both and), for a flourish of the scourge would answer. {He poured out} (\execheen\). Second aorist active indicative of \ekche\, to pour out. {The changers' money} (\tn kollubistn ta kermata\). "The small pieces of money (\kermata\, cut in pieces, change) of the bankers (\kollubists\ from \kollubos\, clipped, late word see on ¯Matthew:21:12|)." Perhaps he took up the boxes and emptied the money. {Overthrew their tables} (\tas trapezas anetrepsen\). First aorist active indicative of \anatrep\, to turn up, though some MSS. have \anestrepsen\ from \anastreph\, also to turn up.

rwp@John:2:16 @{Take these things hence} (\Arate tauta enteuthen\). First aorist active imperative of \air\. Probably the doves were in baskets or cages and so had to be taken out by the traders. {Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise} (\m poieite ton oikon tou patros mou oikon emporiou\). "Stop making," it means, \m\ and the present active imperative. They had made it a market-house (\emporiou\, here only in N.T., old word from \emporos\, merchant, one who goes on a journey for traffic, a drummer). Note the clear-cut Messianic claim here (My Father as in strkjv@Luke:2:49|). Jerome says: "A certain fiery and starry light shone from his eyes and the majesty of Godhead gleamed in His face."

rwp@John:2:17 @{Remembered} (\emnsthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \mimnsk\, to remind, "were reminded." Westcott notes the double effect of this act as is true of Christ's words and deeds all through John's Gospel. The disciples are helped, the traders are angered. {That it is written} (\hoti gegrammenon estin\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \graph\ retained in indirect discourse (assertion). {The zeal of thine house} (\ho zlos tou oikou sou\). Objective genitive. "The zeal for thy house." {Shall eat me up} (\kataphagetai me\). Future middle indicative of \katesthi\, defective verb, to eat down ("up" we say), perfective use of \kata-\. This future \phagomai\ is from the second aorist \ephagon\. It is a quotation from strkjv@Psalms:69:9|, frequently quoted in the N.T.

rwp@John:2:18 @{What sign shewest thou unto us?} (\Ti smeion deiknueis hmin;\). They may have heard of the "sign" at Cana or not, but they have rallied a bit on the outside of the temple area and demand proof for his Messianic assumption of authority over the temple worship. These traders had paid the Sadducees and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin for the concession as traffickers which they enjoyed. They were within their technical rights in this question.

rwp@John:2:19 @{Destroy this temple} (\lusate ton naon touton\). First aorist active imperative of \lu\, to loosen or destroy. It is the permissive imperative, not a command to do it. Note also \naos\, not \hieron\, the sanctuary, symbol of God's \naos\, in our hearts (1Corinthians:3:16f.|). There is much confusion about this language since Jesus added: "And in three days I will raise it up" (\kai en trisin hmerais eger auton\). Those who heard Jesus, including the disciples till after the resurrection (verse 22|), understood the reference to be to Herod's temple. Certainly that is the obvious way to take it. But Jesus often spoke in parables and even in enigmas. He may have spoken of the literal temple as a parable for his own body which of course they would not understand, least of all the resurrection in three days.

rwp@John:2:20 @{Forty and six years was this temple in building} (\Tesserakonta kai hex etesin oikodomth ho naos houtos\). "Within forty and six years (associative instrumental case) was built (first aorist passive indicative, constative or summary use of the aorist, of \oikodome\, without augment) this temple." As a matter of fact, it was not yet finished, so distrustful had the Jews been of Herod. {And wilt thou?} (\kai su;\). An evident sneer in the use of \su\ (thou, an unknown upstart from Galilee, of the peasant class, not one of the Sanhedrin, not one of the ecclesiastics or even architects).

rwp@John:2:21 @{But he spake of the temple of his body} (\ekeinos de elegen peri tou naou tou smatos autou\). Emphatic he (\ekeinos\) and imperfect tense (he had been speaking). This is John's view as he looks back at it, not what he understood when Jesus spoke the words.

rwp@John:2:22 @{When therefore he was raised from the dead} (\Hote oun gerth ek nekrn\). First aorist passive indicative of \egeir\, to raise up. And not at first then, but only slowly after the disciples themselves were convinced. Then "they believed the Scripture" (\episteusan ti graphi\). They "believed" again. Dative case \graphi\. Probably strkjv@Psalms:16:10| is meant (Acts:2:31; strkjv@13:35|). {And the word which Jesus had said} (\kai ti logi hon eipen\). Dative case \logi\ also, but \hon\ (relative) is not attracted to the dative. Clearly then John interprets Jesus to have a parabolic reference to his death and resurrection by his language in strkjv@2:19|. There are those who bluntly say that John was mistaken. I prefer to say that these scholars are mistaken. Even Bernard considers it "hardly possible" that John interprets Jesus rightly in strkjv@1:21|. "Had he meant that, He would have spoken with less ambiguity." But how do we know that Jesus wished to be understood clearly at this time? Certainly no one understood Christ when he spoke the words. The language of Jesus is recalled and perverted at his trial as "I will destroy" (Mark:14:58|), "I can destroy" (Matthew:26:61|), neither of which he said.

rwp@John:2:23 @{In Jerusalem} (\en tois Ierosolumois\). The form \Ierosoluma\ as in strkjv@2:13| always in this Gospel and in Mark, and usually in Matthew, though \Ierousalm\ only in Revelation, and both forms by Luke and Paul. {During the feast} (\en ti heorti\). The feast of unleavened bread followed for seven days right after the passover (one day strictly), though \to pascha\ is used either for the passover meal or for the whole eight days. {Believed on his name} (\episteusan eis to onoma autou\). See on ¯1:12| for this phrase. Only one has to watch for the real import of \pisteu\. {Beholding his signs} (\therountes autou ta smeia\). Present active participle (causal use) of \there\. {Which he did} (\ha epoiei\). "Which he was doing" (imperfect tense). He did his first sign in Cana, but now he was doing many in Jerusalem. Already Jesus had become the cynosure of all eyes in Jerusalem at this first visit in his ministry.

rwp@John:2:24 @{But Jesus did not trust himself to them} (\autos de Isous ouk episteuen hauton autois\). "But Jesus himself kept on refusing (negative imperfect) to trust himself to them." The double use of \pisteu\ here is shown by strkjv@Acts:8:13| where Simon Magus "believed" (\episteusen\) and was baptized, but was unsaved. He merely believed that he wanted what Philip had. {For that he knew all men} (\dia to auton ginskein pantas\). Causal use of \dia\ and the accusative case of the articular infinitive \to ginskein\ (because of the knowing) with the object of the infinitive (\pantas\, all men) and the accusative of general reference (\auton\, as to himself).

rwp@John:2:25 @{And because he needed not} (\kai hoti chreian eichen\). Imperfect active, "and because he did not have need." {That any one should bear witness concerning man} (\hina tis martursi peri tou anthrpou\). Non-final use of \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \marture\ and the generic article (\peri tou anthrpou\) concerning mankind as in the next clause also. {For he himself knew} (\autos gar eginsken\). Imperfect active, "for he himself kept on knowing" as he did from the start. {What was in man} (\ti n en ti anthrpi\). Indirect question with \estin\ of the direct changed to the imperfect \n\, a rare idiom in the _Koin_. This supernatural knowledge of man is a mark of deity. Some men of genius can read men better than others, but not in the sense meant here.