Just How Many Times Did Jesus Cleanse the Temple?

The four Gospels tell of Jesus Christ clearing out moneychangers from the temple in Jerusalem. The Synoptic Gospels¹ set the temple cleansing after the triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the end of His public ministry (Matt. 21:1-27; Mk. 11:1-11, 15-19; Lk. 19:28-48). However, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus cleansing the temple after the first miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana and the beginning of His public ministry (Jn. 2:1-22). John is chronologically dissimilar to the Synoptic Gospels.

Other dissimilarities exist as well. For example, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus rebukes money changers, saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations?’ But you make it a den of robbers” (Mk 13:17; cf. Matt. 21:12-17; Lk. 19:45).² The Lord’s reprimand draws from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. On the other hand, in the Gospel of John, Jesus says to those doing business in the temple, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” John notes that disciples witnessed Jesus disrupting the money changers doing business inside the temple, and they remembered the words from the Psalms: “Zeal for your house will consume me” (Jn. 2:17; cf. Psa. 69:9) John also preserves Jesus’ teaching the temple would be destroyed and that raise it up in three days, although the disciples came to realize the Lord was speaking of the temple being His own body (Jn. 2:18-22).

Do the Synoptic Gospels contradict the Gospel of John?

I believe there were two temple cleansing incidents, the Gospel of John mentioning the first and the Synoptic Gospels the second; however, I am aware of the fact that there are those with a difference of opinion.

Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is critical of those “with a view that the Bible is completely, absolutely, one hundred percent without error,” and insists it contains “mistakes” and “inconsistencies” in the Bible.³ Pointing to the temple cleansings in Mark and John, Ehrman says, “Some readers have thought that Jesus must have cleansed the temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once at the end. But that would mean that neither Mark nor John tells the ‘true’ story, since in both accounts he cleanses the temple only once. Moreover, is this reconciliation of the two accounts historically plausible? If Jesus made a disruption in the temple at the beginning of his ministry, why wasn’t he arrested by the authorities then?”⁴ He then concludes, “Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable.”⁵

I doubt that the dissimilarities between the four Gospels actually add up to “mistakes” and “inconsistencies” that render them historically irreconcilable.

None of the Gospels say that Jesus cleared the money changers from temple once and only once. Neither does two temple cleansings require each of the four witnesses to mention the occurrence of both in order to tell the “true story.” Even the Gospel of John tells us: “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:30-31). Our Gospel writers selected, edited, and arranged their material on the life of Christ; however, that is a far cry from saying their end products are historically inaccurate. Historians, biographers, and reporters select, edit, and arrange material for their works, and the fact they do such never really means they are inaccurate about the people, places, things and events they have written about. More is needed to deem a given work historically inaccurate. The biblical writer can tell of one event without mentioning the other yet still convey a trustworthy historically accurate account.

What we have with the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels is the recounting of two very similar yet distinct happenings. For example: If a gal named Jen X says, “It was totally cool to catch Joe Cocker performing the Beatles tune “With a Little Help from My Friends” at Woodstock in 1994. Later on, Bob the Boomer says, “Joe Cocker’s cover of the Beatles tune “With a Little Help from My Friends” at Woodstock in 1969 was far out!” Who’s got the true story? Both. Joe Cocker performed “With a Little Help from My Friends” at the Woodstock concerts in 1969 and 1994. Jen X and Bob the Boomer are relaying reliable and trustworthy information about seeing the iconic rock star one of his hits on stage, but neither are really required to mention both events in order to tell the “true story.”

Jesus used an act of disruption to get a message across to the worshipers in the temple but the message was also worth repeating. R.C. Sproul points out that “repetition is a mark of a teacher” and “if you know anything about ministers, you know that they often give the same message more than one time.”⁶ The Lord wanted to teach something about the sacredness of worship through the clearing out of the money changers from the temple, but the problem still persisted, and the Lord repeated the same message to get it to stick. Sproul explains,

I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that when Jesus came to this Passover celebration, the first one during His public ministry, that He was provoked to cleanse the temple by what He saw. He drove out the merchants, drove out the livestock, turned over the tables of money changers and so on. But I ask you, how long was it before those tables were upright once more and the money changers were back in business? Can we safely assume that when Jesus cleansed the temple on this occasion that that was the end of the problem? I don’t think so. I believe it is perfectly consistent to conclude that when Jesus came to Jerusalem for the Passover right before His death, and when He saw the same things going on that He’d condemned three years earlier, that He took action to cleanse the temple again.⁷

Why was not Jesus arrested after the temple incident at the beginning of His ministry? One can respond, “If there were two cleansings, they were separated by two years, possibly three. During that interval Jesus visited Jerusalem several times for other appointed festivals, without attempting another temple-cleansing. The authorities could not possibly be expected to keep their guard up indefinitely. If he was not arrested the first time, it may well be because a certain amount of public feeling sided with Jesus: is not that suggested by 2:23?”⁸ Favorable public sentiment towards the Lord’s ministry made it difficult for the antichrist religious leaders to secure an arrest. Even towards the end of Jesus public ministry, Luke informs us that “the chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people were seeking to destroy him, but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were hanging on his words” (Lk. 19:47-48). The fact that crowds of Jews believed Jesus to be a prophet that the Pharisees found it difficult to arrest the Lord (Matt. 22:45). John indicates that those who wanted to arrest Jesus were unable to lay a hand upon Him because it was not the appointed time (Jn. 4:30).

Christians are even wise to remember the longstanding legacy of biblical interpreters who contended for two temple cleansings. Examples include: Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430),⁹ John Chrysostom (344/354-407),¹⁰ and John Calvin (1509-1564).¹¹ Such a threefold chord is not easily broken.

It should also be noted that the Synoptic Gospels never relay the temple cleansing in the exact same way. For example, the unique elements from Matthew’s account include the overturning the seats of the pigeon sellers (Matt. 21:12), the healing of the blind and lame (Matt. 21:14), the chief priest and scribes becoming “indignant” after witnessing the Jesus performing miracles and children crying out “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matt. 21:15), Jesus’ quotation from the Psalms: “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise” (Matt. 21:16; cf. Psa. 8:2), and the Lord departing and lodging at Bethany (Matt. 21:17). Unique to Mark is the mention of Jesus not allowing anything to be carried through the temple (Mk. 11:15). Unique to Luke is the mention of Jesus teaching daily in the temple (Lk. 19:47). Only Mark and Matthew mention the overturning of the tables of the moneychangers (Matt.21:12; Mk. 11:15). Only Mark and Luke mention of religious leaders seeking to destroy Jesus (Mk. 11:18; Lk. 19:47b). There are then both noticeable similarities and differences in the way the Synoptic Gospels relay the temple cleansing incident. All this is hardly a cause for any concern, and it actually bolsters the reliability of the individual witnesses.

The Gospel writers were either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or they were preserving eyewitness testimonials.¹² When it comes to the Synoptic Gospels, the differences in the telling of events, such as the temple cleansing, actually bolsters the reliability of eyewitness testimony. In The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel observes, “Ironically…if the gospels had been identical to each other, word for word, this would have raised charges that the authors had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance, and that would have cast doubt on them,” to which New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg replies, “That’s right…if the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting.”¹³ If Matthew, Mark, and Luke stated the same thing about the temple cleansing in the exact same way, they would likely be guilty of collusion. The preserving of the nuances between the three attests to the reliability of the individual testimonies. This same principle applies if by some chance the four Gospels are telling of a single temple incident.¹⁴ Even with two cleansings, the dissimilarities between the Synoptic Gospels actually serve as evidence for the reliability of the witnesses. The evangelists that produced the four Gospels were never colluding together to get the story straight; rather, they were presenting the eyewitness testimonials either as they witnessed them happen or as they received them from those who witnessed them happen.

There is even still a striking synergy between the four Gospels. What one evangelist communicates about Jesus Christ actually compliments another. For example, Mark mentions that during the Sanhedrin trial some individuals brought up a false accusation about Jesus saying, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands” (Mk. 14:58). Matthew, likewise, tells us of two individuals testifying that Jesus said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days” (Matt. 26:61). The trial witnesses got wrong the Lord’s teaching about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple. Jesus never really said that He would destroy the Jerusalem temple and rebuild it in three days. Neither did such a thing ever really happen. John provides the historical backdrop and corrective to Lord’s teaching about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple. Jesus was actually referring to the temple of his body (Jn. 2:19, 21-22). Christ was put to death, but He rose again on the third day, and He is alive forevermore. Simply put: “the Fourth Gospel here provides a detail that corroborates the Synoptic evidence.”¹⁵ Indeed, the four Gospels are synergistic, complimenting one another on what they pass on to us about the Messiah.

When it comes to the clearing of money changers from the temple, the four Gospels provide us testimonials of two similar but distinct events. The first cleansing is preserved in the Gospel of John and the second in Synoptic Gospels. Although there are dissimilarities between the way each evangelist recalls the event, there are complimentary but not contradictory. It is really an over exaggeration and distortion of the truth to say our Gospels contain “mistakes” and “inconsistencies” which make them historically irreconcilable.

— WGN

---

1. The Synoptic Gospels are “Matthew, Mark and Luke,” which are “notable for their similarities (they use much of the same material), and thus they ‘see together’ the story of Jesus” (Arthur G. Patzia and Anthony J. Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002], 110).
2. All Scripture cited from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), unless noted.
3. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New YorkL HarperOne, 2009), 6-7.
4. Ibid., 7.
5. Ibid.
6. R.C. Sproul, St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary: John (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009), 26.
7. Ibid. 27.
8. D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MIL William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991) 178.
9. Augustine wrote, “This account of the multitude of sellers who were cast out of the temple is given by all the Evangelists, but John introduces it in a remarkably different order. After recording the testimony borne by John the Baptist to Jesus and mentioning that he went into Galilee at the time when he turned the water into wine, and after he has also noticed the sojourn of a few days in Capernaum, John proceeds to tell us that he went up to Jerusalem at the season of the Jews’ Passover, and when he had made a scourge of small cords, drove out of the temple those who were selling in it. This makes it evident that this act was performed by the Lord not on a single occasion, but twi7ce over. Only in the first instance was it recorded by John, but in the last by the other three” (Harmony of the Gospels, 2.67). Augustine cited from Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998).
10. Commenting on Luke 19:46 and John 2:16, John Chrysostom writes, “They do not in this contradict each other, but show that he did this a second time, and that both these expressions were not used on the same occasion, but that He acted thus once at the beginning of His ministry, and again when He had come to the very time of His Passion. Therefore, (on the latter occasion,) employing more strong expressions, He spoke of it as (being made) “a den of thieves,” but here at the commencement of His miracles He does not so, but uses a more gentle rebuke” (Homilies on the Gospel of John 23.2). Chrysostom cited from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. G. T. Stupart, vol. 14 (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889).
11. John Calvin writes, “The Evangelist passes to an additional narrative; for having resolved to collect a few things worthy of remembrance which the other three had left out, he states the time when the occurrence which he is about to relate took place; for the other three also relate what we here read that Christ did, but the diversity of the time shows that it was a similar event, but not the same. On two occasions, then, did Christ cleanse the temple from base and profane merchandise; once, when he was beginning to discharge his commission, and another time…when he was about to leave the world and go to the Father” (John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, vol. 1, trans. William Pringle [Edinburgh: The Edinburg Printing Company, 1847], 90. Accessed at t.ly/waAk)
12. For further reading on the Gospels being the embodiment of eyewitness testimonials, cf. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006).
13. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidences for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 45.
14. It is plausible that the temple incident chronologically occurs at the end of Christ’s public ministry per the Synoptic Gospels, but the Gospel of John employs nonsequential narration and arranges the episodes topically. There are examples of nonsequential narration in the Old Testament, the obvious being Ezra 4 and The Book of Daniel. Ezra 4 “begins (vv. 1-5) with the opposition to the rebuilding of the temple that was encountered during the reign of Cyrus in the late sixth century B.C. In verses 6-23, the narrator then describes opposition to the rebuilding of the walls of the city that occurred in the fifth century. The narrator then concludes in verse 24 by returning back to the sixth century scene: ‘Then the work on the house of God in Jerusalem ceased, and it was stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia’ (i.e., in 520)” (Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline, “The Framework View,” in The Genesis Debate, ed. David G. Hagopian[Mission Viejo, CA: Crux, 2001], 221). Chapters 1-4 of the Book of Daniel are set during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. Chapter 5 is set on the last day of the reign of Belshazzar king of Babylon. Chapter 6 is set during the reign of Darius the Mede. Chapter 7 is set during the first year of the reign of Belshazzar. Chapter 8 is set during the third year of the reign of Belshazzar. Chapter 9 is set during the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede. Chapter 10 is set during third year of Cyrus king of Persia. Chapters 11-12 are set during the first year of Darius the Mede. The Fourth Gospel then places the testimonial of the moneychangers being expelled from the temple at the beginning of Christ’s ministry for a literary purpose. “The positioning of the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus,” writes Donald Hagner, “almost certainly results from the evangelist’s concern to emphasize Jesus’ break with Judaism from the outset of the Gospel” (Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 14-28, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Baker [Dallas, TX: Word, 1995], 600). Nonlinear narration is an alluring possibility. It is adequate to counter any charge of “mistakes” and “inconsistencies.” However, there is only the mention of a “few days” between leaving Cana to Capernaum, and then pilgrimaging to Jerusalem for the Passover, when the temple cleansing takes place (Jn. 1:12-13). This makes reading of nonsequential narration in the fourth Gospel with respect to the temple cleansing somewhat subjective. Time settings are more specified in Ezra and Daniel. The question of whether or not the fourth evangelist employed topical arrangement is really debatable. The better answer is then to go with two cleansings.
15. Carson, 181.