Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
not a comparison, more of a quoteI'm not sure that's the best analogy for Jesus going to the temple twice... In any case, an analogy isn't reason.
not a comparison, more of a quote
2 Peter 2:20-22
you mean, the other way2 Peter 2:20-22 doesn't have anything to do Jesus returning to the temple a second time to "cleanse" it. 2 Peter 2:20-22 is about false believers returning to their sinful ways....so, it doesn't look like very good analogy for Jesus returning to the temple. So more directly, your analogy makes Jesus out to be a dog returning to his vomit. Or, based on 2 Peter 2, he's a false believer returning to his sin. Not the best analogy, imo.
in any case, an analogy isn't the same as a reason.
you mean, the other way
Jesus cleansed the temple once
but the falsely pious TEMPLE returned to its sinful ways within two years (1st to 3rd Passovers)
if so Jesus cost the temple economy a year of income !
John 2:20 gives a hard historical dateI should clarify that I don't think the temple incident was a "cleansing;" I just use the term because it's the popularly used term. I think it was a prophetic sign-act of judgement on the temple, in much the same manner that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel acted out their prophecies.
In any case, it looks to me like the temple episode in the beginning of John and the end of the synoptics are describing the same incident. So I think there was only one. It looks to me as if you think there were two incidents at the temple - one at the beginning of his career and one at the end. Though you may label them differently, for whatever reason, it seems you have to say he did the same activity in the temple twice. I just don't see a good reason to think this is the case and see reason to think there was one temple incident, that it was at the end of his career, and that therefore John didn't arrange his material chronologically.
John 2:20 gives a hard historical date
28 ad in agreement with Luke
if anything, JOHN remembered the correct chronology
NIV First-Century Study BibleIf this is understood as 46 years from the 18th year of Herod the Great's reign, then John would put the temple episode in AD 27 or 28. I'm not sure what bearing this has on the discussion.
John 2:20 could also be read to say that the temple simply took 46 years to complete, which wouldn't necessarily indicate the date of Jesus' temple episode. In this case, the temple's construction was completed in 27/28 AD, but Jesus' incident in the temple could have been later. This would be consistent with Jesus' claim that he could do in 3 days what took Herod and his resources 46 years.
Or it could be read to say that the temple was constructed 46 years ago as well.
It should also be noted that Pilate wasn't made Prefect of Judea until AD 26.
NIV First-Century Study Bible
2:20 Forty-six years. Herod the Great started renovating the temple in 20 bc, which puts this scene in the late 20s ad. The work was actually completed by Herod’s grandson Agrippa II just before the temple was destroyed by the Romans in ad 70.
construction continued until 70adI'm not sure what this quote from the NIV First-Century Study Bible is supposed to prove.
construction continued until 70ad
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?