[1803] Jerus. Chag. 78 a.
[1804] It is, however, quite certain that Baba ben Buta had not been the first to introduce' (Dr. Farrar) this traffic. A perusal of Jer. Chag. 78 a shows this sufficiently.
[1805] Jer. Sheq. i. 7, last 4 lines, p. 46 b.
[1806] Rosh haSh. 31 a, b.
[1807] Siphré on Deut. § 105, end. ed. Friedmann, p. 95 b; Jer. Peah i. 6.
[1808] St. Matt. xxi. 12.
[1809] Ant. xx. 9. 2-4.
[1810] Pes. 57 a.
[1811] Pes. u. s.
[1812] St. Matt. xxi. 12, &c.; St. Mark xi 11, &c.; St. Luke xix. 45 &c.
[1813] It must, however, be admitted, that even Luther had grave doubts whether the narrative of the Synoptists and that of the fourth Gospel did not refer to one and the same event. Comp. Meyer, Komment. (on St. John), p. 142, notes.
[1814] And so He ever does, beginning His Ministry by purifying, whether as regards the individual or the Church.
[1815] Canon Westcott calls attention to the use of two different terms for money-changers in vv. 14, 15. In the latter only it is kollubists, of which the Aramaic form is qolbon. It is this qolbon-taking against which the Hand of Christ is specially directed.
[1816] Yet Renan ventures to characterise this as a sudden, ill-advised outburst of ill-humour.
[1817] Acts xxi. 31, 32.
[1818] St. Matt. xiii. 11-15; St. Mark iv. 11, 12.
[1819] St. Matt. xii. 38-40.
[1820] I cannot see in the words of Jesus any direct reference to the abrogation of the material Temple and its services, and the substitution of the Church for it. Of course, such was the case, and implied in His Crucifixion and Resurrection, though not alluded to here.
[1821] From the expression (St. John ii. 20) Forty and six years was this Temple in building,' it has been inferred by most writers that this Passover was of the year 791 a.u.c., or 28 a.d., and not, as we have argued, of the year 780 a.u.c., or 27 a.d. But their calculation rests on an oversight. Admittedly the rebuilding of the Temple began in the autumn of the eighteenth year of Herod's reign (Jos. Ant. xv. 11. 1-6). As Herod's reign dates from 717 a.u.c., the Temple-building must have commenced in the autumn of the year 734-35. But it has already been explained that, in Jewish reckoning, the beginning of a new year was reckoned as a year. Thus if, according to universal opinion (comp. Wieseler, Chronolog. Synopse, pp. 165, 166), the Temple-building began in Kislev 734, forty-nine years after it would bring us to the autumn 779, and the Passover of 780, or 27 a.d., would be regarded and spoken of as forty and six years.' If a Jew had calculated the time at the Passover 781, he would not have said forty-six' but forty-seven years' was this Temple in building.' The mistake of writers lies in forgetting that a fresh year had begun after the autumn - or at any rate at the Passover. It may here be added, that the Temple was not finally completed till 63 a.d.
[1822] Acts xiii. 41. __________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER VI. THE TEACHER COME FROM GOD AND THE TEACHER FROM JERUSALEM - JESUS AND NICODEMUS
(St. John iii. 1-21.)
But there were those who beheld, and heard His words, and did in some measure understand them. Even before Jesus had spoken to the Temple-officials, His disciples, as silently they watched Him, saw an old Scripture-saying kindled into light by the halo of His glory. It was that of the suffering, self-forgetful, God-dedicated Servant of Jehovah, as His figure stood out against the Old Testament sky, realising in a hostile world only this, as the deepest element of His being and calling: entire inward and outward consecration to God, a burnt-offering, such as Isaac would have been. Within their minds sprang up unbidden, as when the light of the Urim and Thummim fell on the letter graven on the precious stones of the High-Priest's breastplate, those words of old: The zeal of Thine house eateth me up.' [1823] Thus, even in those days of their early learning, Jesus purging the Temple in view of a hostile rulership was the full realisation of that picture, which must be prophetic, since no mere man ever bore those lineaments: that of the ideal Nazarite, whom the zeal of God's house was consuming. And then long afterwards, after His Passion and Death, after those dark days of loneliness and doubt, after the misty dawn of the first recognition, this word, which He had spoken to the rulers at the first, came to them, with all the convincing power of prediction fulfilled by fact, as an assured conviction, which in its strong grasp held not only the past, but the present, because the present is ever the fulfilment of the past: When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.'