John mentions in John 2:18 that another group, the Jewish authorities, were also watching what Jesus said and did. We must not think that Jesus’ actions here in the Temple in John 2:13-16 were unconnected with the implied 40 days of John’s purification jars (John 2:6), spelled out in more detail in Luke 4:14 to 7:1. On the contrary, the Temple was the gathering place of those who rejected Christ in Galilee, many of whom were important visitors from Jerusalem (Luke 5:17; 6:17). Rather, it would have been surprising, had the Temple practices been pure and without a need for cleansing. In fact, a point might be made from the Gospel narrator’s wording in John 2:13. There, he describes the time as that of the Jews’ Passover, rather than the Lord’s Passover (Exodus 12:11, 27; Leviticus 23:5). In fact, he uses the same phrase in John 11:55, and similar ones elsewhere (John 5:1; 6:4; and 7:2). No other writer in the Bible describes the annual holy days in this manner, so it is likely that the writer intends for us to understand that something is awry with the manner in which these holy days were kept, and this would also include the Temple practices.
Notice, that the Jewish authorities didn’t challenge what Jesus did. They knew what he did was a righteous act. So, why did they permit such practices, much less profit by them? Rather than challenge what Jesus did, they challenged his authority to do what he did! Not everyone has such authority, whether or not it should be done. The point Jesus made here was the same point he made in Galilee six months prior. There, a question arose about the Sabbath and Temple practices (Luke 6:1-5). Matthew describes the same event, but in different words (Matthew 12:1-8). The point was that just as David showed himself to be lord over the Temple by taking the shewbread to feed his men, which by Law only the priests could eat (Luke 6:3-4), the Son of David, the Messiah, who was greater in authority than David (Matthew 22:44-45; Luke 20:42-44), would logically be Lord over the Temple (Matthew 12:3-4, 6). In other words, Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple was a public claim to his being the Messiah.[1]
It was Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah, not necessarily what he did, that the Jewish authorities challenged. They wouldn’t accept his claim without showing them a miracle (John 2:18). Now, Jesus’ miracles, which he had done in Galilee, vis-à-vis healing a man who was full of leprosy (Luke 5:12-16), one who was a paralytic (Luke 5:17-26), one who had a withered hand (Luke 6:6-11) etc., were well known and uncontested by the authorities, both local and those visiting from Jerusalem (Luke 5:17; 6:17). Yet, these authorities expected miracles to be done especially for their benefit and at their command, as though Jesus was their court-jester. In other words, they wished to be in authority over the Messiah, who was, in fact, the Authority over all. Nevertheless, they were the ‘authorities’ in place, and they were not about to abdicate such power in favor of a relatively unknown Prophet come from Galilee (cp. John 7:52).
Jesus said he would, indeed, give them the sign they wanted, but they considered it foolishness (John 2:19-20). Moreover, when Jesus’ sign would be given, it come too late for their approval. In fact, it would expose their unrighteousness and uncleanness, in that his resurrection would show they had murdered their Messiah (John 2:21). Therefore, they would seek to hide the sign for fear of incrimination in an evil deed and be stoned by the people (John 2:19; cp. Matthew 28:11-15). Thus, the need to be cleansed persisted in the fact that the authorities would never accept Jesus as the Messiah, even when the sign they asked for was given them. However, Jesus’ disciples, who witnessed it all, remembered this exchange, after Jesus had arisen from the dead, and they believed (John 2:22).
As an aside, Jesus did do many convincing miracles, while he was in Jerusalem (John 2:23), but nothing was enough for the Jewish authorities, apparently due to the fact that they couldn’t cause Jesus to react to the strings they pulled.
Nevertheless, although many people believed on him, Jesus wouldn’t commit himself to them, because people are fickle and can be intimidated by authority. In the end, the same folks, who came out of Jerusalem to greet their King (John 12:12-13) and bring him into the city, would cry out for his execution only a few days later (Mark 15:11-15). As the text says, Jesus knew what was in man, as that pertained to his Messianic claim. They simply couldn’t discern the spiritual meaning in Jesus’ words (John 2:24-25). Therefore, he wouldn’t unveil more of himself, simply because they believed on him, because Jesus didn’t have faith in their faith. They had absolutely no spiritual discernment (Matthew 7:6; cp. Proverbs 11:22).
_______________________________________________
[1] See my earlier study: David’s Greater Son.
Smoodock's Blog 