Temple Cleansing 'Contradiction.'

[Jemand]

So you disagree with what is written in the Book of Daniel.

I neither said nor implied that. Please stop replying to my posts.

[glad4mercy]

I neither said nor implied that. Please stop replying to my posts.

Ok, last time... what did you mean to imply by this statement?

I did not say that I agree with what is said in the Book of Daniel, I was only using a manner of speaking—very much like Jesus was when he spoke of “the days of Noah.”

I do not require an answer to this, just pointing out what you obviously said. I already know that you do not believe the flood happened. I will not again respond to your posts, no need to worry. You asked me to stop responding to you and I will honor your request. I request that you do not respond to my posts as well, and it will be settled. No emnity, no hard feelings, just doing what's best for the forums.

[glad4mercy]

OK, the reason for the fact that Matthew puts the cleansing of the temple before the cursing of the fig tree, and Mark puts it after the cursing of the fig tree is because Matthews Gospel does not follow a strict chronology. The following passages demonstrate that Mathew was not concerned in putting everything in chronological order, but was following topical or thematic lines is demonstrated by the following passages.

Matthew 26: 1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Notice that this event took place two days at passover. Now let's look at another passage...

Matthew 26: 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

This event is recorded later in Matthews gospel, but it happened earlier than the event in Matthew 26:1-2, according to John.

John 12: 1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

So Matthew wrote an event that happened two days before the passover first in Matthew 26:1-2, and an event that happened earlier, ( six days before the passover) beginning in verse 6. Matthew's gospel is not a strict chronology, because Matthew is writing along thematic lines.

"A good part of the time the Gospel appears to be a seamless succession of pericopes, alternating presentations of deeds and words of Jesus that have usually been collected and arranged topically - seldom is there an interest in chronology - for the sake of the impact on the reader- 9] Donald Hagner, Matthew 1-13: Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), p.liii.

[Cyberseeker]

We already know from the Synoptics that the gospel writers freely rearrange events for theological reasons. Ancient Greco-Roman biographies, the genre in which the gospels belong, did not necessarily require having every event in the 'right' order. In Matthew Jesus says something here, in Luke he says the same thing over there. The temple 'cleansing' is the same event in all four cases.

How do you deal with the "46 year" comment in John 2:20? In other words, are you comfortable with an AD27 crucifixion date?

[glad4mercy]

We already know from the Synoptics that the gospel writers freely rearrange events for theological reasons. Ancient Greco-Roman biographies, the genre in which the gospels belong, did not necessarily require having every event in the 'right' order. In Matthew Jesus says something here, in Luke he says the same thing over there. The temple 'cleansing' is the same event in all four cases.

I agree with this concept of non-chronological biographies and writings. The Gospels were not always in perfect chronology, and the writers probably didnt intend for them to be. The only point of difference in my opinion is that I do believe in two temple cleansings, one near the beginning of Jesus' ministry and one near the end.

[markedward]

How do you deal with the "46 year" comment in John 2:20? In other words, are you comfortable with an AD27 crucifixion date?

I'm fine with it either way. The exact year of Jesus' crucifixion is not an issue for me, simply the fact that he was crucified. (No, I don't believe Daniel 9 has anything to do with Jesus.)

[glad4mercy]

I wish to apologize to Jemand and everyone else for the tone of some of my posts in this thread. I do not apologize for speaking for the veracity and trustworthiness of the Bible and it's writers, but I do apologize for the manner in which I did so. I stand firmly behind the points I was attempting to make, but I regret that I was argumentative in the manner in which I did.

Blessings

[Beckrl]

I tend to side on that the gospel of John 2 as being parital misaligned. Whether that was intentionally or not I'm not sure. My biggest concern in the placement of the cleansing of Jesus in his early ministry is that John never mentions another cleansing in the latter part of Jesus ministry. If John found it needful to mention a first cleansing one without much trouble why wouldn't John mention a latter cleansing that brought about his arrest? Therefore it can only be a assumption that there were two cleansings.

I guess that's a argument from silence as is if one considered that Jesus can to Jerusalem for three passovers why not a third cleansing of the temple?

[divaD]

I tend to side on that the gospel of John 2 as being parital misaligned. Whether that was intentionally or not I'm not sure. My biggest concern in the placement of the cleansing of Jesus in his early ministry is that John never mentions another cleansing in the latter part of Jesus ministry. If John found it needful to mention a first cleansing one without much trouble why wouldn't John mention a latter cleansing that brought about his arrest? Therefore it can only be a assumption that there were two cleansings.

I guess that's a argument from silence as is if one considered that Jesus can to Jerusalem for three passovers why not a third cleansing of the temple?

The more I think about it, it seems somewhat strange, assuming His ministry was 3 and a half years, that at the beginning of it He is seen cleansing the temple. Then during the next 3 and a half years, this is not a problem, but somehow becomes a problem once again 3 and a half years later give or take. What kept them out for this 3 years or so? What caused them to want to return doing the same thing 3 years later when it didn't work out for them the first time around?

[Cyberseeker]

... What caused them to want to return doing the same thing 3 years later when it didn't work out for them the first time around?

This is only a thought but maybe the first cleansing had more impact than what is recorded. The reason I wonder is because no cattle are mentioned being whipped out of the temple on the later occasion. Im figuring they partially reformed the way did things by taking the cattle stalls out of the temple precincts. That would also explain why no whip was made on the last occasion.

Never the less, the doves and money changing continued as before. Hence a final judgement on the practice at the end of Jesus' ministry.

[Beckrl]

The more I think about it, it seems somewhat strange, assuming His ministry was 3 and a half years, that at the beginning of it He is seen cleansing the temple. Then during the next 3 and a half years, this is not a problem, but somehow becomes a problem once again 3 and a half years later give or take. What kept them out for this 3 years or so? What caused them to want to return doing the same thing 3 years later when it didn't work out for them the first time around?

The assumption is that Jesus didn't go to Jerusalem [enter the city and temple] until it was required of all men to come to Jerusalem for the three feastivals. That would require Jesus to be at Jerusalem for a period of four to five months or leave and return for each feastival within that year.

That would be at least one years time for the feastivals according to Mark, Matthew and Luke or as much as three to nine times according to John. So according to John Jesus was free to go in and out of the city until what happened? John records the triumphal entry and him teaching, but never mention of Jesus cleansing the temple. The way John gives the account it was only by Judas that they were able to fine and grab Jesus to bring him before the counsel.

[Cyberseeker]

If there really was a contradiction between John and the other gospels concerning the clearing of the temple, it would be a single error about timing. John says it happened at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry but Matthew, Mark and Luke say at the end. Now, when an author makes a mistake, he is unlikely to combine three or four errors for good measure. However, timing wasn’t the only difference in this case. So, when the reader notices not one but several differences, we may be excused for wondering if there might be a different explanation. Could it be there was no mistake made at all and Jesus cleared the temple twice?

Take, for example, the route Jesus used to get to Jerusalem. In the closing weeks of his ministry he came up via Jericho, having travelled on the eastern side - modern day Jordan. This is explained in the synoptic gospels due to his wish to avoid Samaria. However, in the first year he used the direct north-south route. John says concerning his journey home, “So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. Now he had to go through Samaria.” (John 4:3-4)

It might also be worth noting how, when he arrived home, his ‘temple cleaning’ episode was the ‘talk of the town’ among the Galileans. “When he arrived in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, for they also had been there.” (John 4:45) These folk were particularly vulnerable to the sacrificial temple trade because of cattle transport distance.

Of course, the journey back from Jerusalem highlights an even more obvious difference between the two ‘cleansings.’ On the second occasion Jesus never got back; he was arrested! On the first occasion after he cleansed the temple, he left, spent some time baptising, (John 3:22) then proceeded home as we have noted.

There are other difference too as some posters have mentioned.