I am wondering if this exercise would be help in raising a few issues in terms of how we look at Scripture:

How many cleansings of the temple occured?

Some options:

None - the whole story is made up for the benefit of the legend/myth

One - John places the cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry for the benefit of his narrative purposes, while the Synoptics place it near the end of Jesus’ ministry, and it is probably when it did occur.

Two - John and the Synoptics are each speaking about two separate times when Jesus cleansed the Temple.

More than two - Jesus did this action a number of times, and the Gospel writers only used the event that fit with their individual purposes.

It is not so much that I want arguments about which is correct. I’d rather see how you reflect on your deepest reason for believing the way that you do. This helps me to reflect on what I mean when I say the Bible is authoritative, while at the same time accepting the “one” option. I don’t believe the Bible has to be “history textbook-like” to be authoritative. I believe the standard of “history textbook-like” is a modern standard imposed on a pre-modern text. [Try to resist arguing with my position until you have stated and reflected on your own position].

Charlie Clauss - 25 July 2009 03:02 PM

I am wondering if this exercise would be help in raising a few issues in terms of how we look at Scripture:

How many cleansings of the temple occured?

Some options:

None - the whole story is made up for the benefit of the legend/myth

One - John places the cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry for the benefit of his narrative purposes, while the Synoptics place it near the end of Jesus’ ministry, and it is probably when it did occur.

Two - John and the Synoptics are each speaking about two separate times when Jesus cleansed the Temple.

More than two - Jesus did this action a number of times, and the Gospel writers only used the event that fit with their individual purposes.

It is not so much that I want arguments about which is correct. I’d rather see how you reflect on your deepest reason for believing the way that you do. This helps me to reflect on what I mean when I say the Bible is authoritative, while at the same time accepting the “one” option. I don’t believe the Bible has to be “history textbook-like” to be authoritative. I believe the standard of “history textbook-like” is a modern standard imposed on a pre-modern text. [Try to resist arguing with my position until you have stated and reflected on your own position].

I have never really tried to think this through, so at this point I can’t give a clearer answer than “at least once”. I am enough of an inerrantist to rule out the possibility that the incident was made up out of whole cloth. The Gospels may not be “history books”, but I believe they are historical in the sense that they record the real actions and real words of real people. They’re not novels, with imaginary characters and made-up plot lines. To forestall a possible objection, one real activity in which real people sometimes engage is the telling of stories with invented characters and incidents—I’m not arguing that merchant who sold everything to buy a pearl, or the wise and foolish bridesmaids, or the man who had one ewe lamb must be actual historical individuals because they appear in the Bible. But I think that generally it is clear who is historical and who isn’t. And the Bible may also accurately record the telling of lies, e.g. Peter’s denial of Jesus during his trial.  I also believe that the Bible contains material other than history, such as poetry and prophecy, but when I see what looks like a straightforward narrative account, I expect it to record events that actually happened, and to be in at least roughly the same order in which those events occurred, perhaps deviating here and there to tie up loose ends or complete a thought before continuing. To me, the idea that the Bible contains flat-out mistakes, like recording Jesus as doing things he actually never did, is incompatible with it’s being an authoritative guide. Who would use a dictionary which they believed to contain misspelled words or inaccurate definitions?

If I wanted to make up my mind between the other three answers, here is what I would look at.
1) Is there enough information in the Bible to answer the question with certainty? I think people sometimes argue beyond the biblical data and claim it’s possible to be certain about some things when it really isn’t. Maybe saying that Jesus cleansed the Temple “at least once” is as much as it is possible to be sure of. Going beyond what the Bible says produces just as false conclusions as omitting parts of it. Article XX is one of my favorites: “...it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written…yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same it ought not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.”

2) Do any of the Gospels say that they are “history”? Well, Luke says his gospel is an “orderly account” (the NASV even has him write that he has set everything down “in consecutive order”), based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Luke also includes points at which his Gospel may be compared with other historical records, and to the best of my knowledge these have all been found consistent with history as known from extra-Biblical sources, as far as it is possible to check them. So, if it came down to a question of the chronological order in which events occurred, I think I would give greater weight to Luke.

3) Do any of the Gospels say, or contain evidence, that they are arranged other than chronologically? I don’t have a complete answer here. None of the Gospels, IIRC, say in so many words that they are arranged other than chronologically, but I am not enough of a scholar to know if there are other sorts of tipoffs in the text that would lead a more knowledgeable person to expect something other than chronological order in one or more of the Gospels.

But before those questions I think I would ask, how important is this question really? Does any important doctrine hinge on whether the Temple was cleansed once, twice or many times, or upon exactly when it happened? Are people being led into sin by erroneous teaching on this point? And if the answer was “no” (which I think it is in this case), deciding between the three possible answers would be a low priority for me.

Karen

At the end of John, the extra voice says that vouches for John’s account and then tantalizes us, “There was much else that Jesus did, if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written.”  What John records “are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name.”

So John has selected with a purpose…to lead us to believe….not to write a twentieth century or twenty first century news account type history.  The real question then is why does Jesus cleanse the temple, what is the point of it?  How does it illustrate that he is the Christ?  What does it tell us of the nature and mission of the Christ?

Bigger questions are why is John’s chronology so different?  Why is Jesus so discursive? Why is he so free about naming who he is?  What does all that have to do with us knowing he is Christ?

John experiences the Christ differently than the synoptic writers.  So what?  The truth of the Christ is not in the harmonization of the documents, it does not depend on that.  What we have are four (and perhaps more) witnesses who explain him to us in four different ways; while John teases us that there is much much more that we simply won’t be told!

(I think he cleansed the temple because the money changing and approved sacrificial animal selling made it difficult for the common folks to fulfill their obligations under the law.  Liturgical accoutrements should not interfere with the dispensing of grace.)

I can’t say with absolute certainty, but my best guess is that it happened once, as told in synoptics. This is based on several factors:
1) It is when three of the four gospels place the event
2) The author of John admits that his purpose is to bring the reader to belief, not give an orderly account (as Luke) - as Michael says above. This gives John more leeway in the construction of his narrative.
3) I find it unlikely that Jesus would be allowed to approach the merchants again after having overturned the tables the first time. Would they not have recognized him?

Ultimately, the historical details are interesting but of lesser import to me. As Mike said, the real question is what can we learn from it. And I’ve agreed with Mike twice in one post!

Scott Kammerer - 27 July 2009 11:49 AM

snip

Ultimately, the historical details are interesting but of lesser import to me. As Mike said, the real question is what can we learn from it. And I’ve agreed with Mike twice in one post!

Isn’t this a hopeful sign Scott?  That we can agree on several principles of interpretation of scripture….which is the actual heart of the conflicts in the communion?

We can disagree on polity (points to the other thread) even as we agree on Scripture!  At least reasonable people can.

Well we disagree on labor law, too. Ahem**signup cards**ahem. Let’s not get carried away!

Scott Kammerer - 27 July 2009 02:50 PM

Well we disagree on labor law, too. Ahem**signup cards**ahem. Let’s not get carried away!

*laughs* Well the only labor action I know of in scripture is the sabotage done by Jacob after Laban cheats him with respect to their contract. Ok there is the strike we call Exodus too.  Scripture mostly sides with labor against oppressive employers. 

So the sign=up card disagreement is sooooooo adiaphora as to be a pretty unremarkable difference with respect to Communion issues.

Michael Russell - 27 July 2009 03:13 PM

So the sign=up card disagreement is sooooooo adiaphora as to be a pretty unremarkable difference with respect to Communion issues.

Once again we agree. But then I have to ask, should GC be passing blanket resolutions on matters so clearly adiaphora and the object of respectful yet wide disagreement? It bothers me again that the church will be politically advocating for a public policy I disagree with.

But we’ve hijacked the thread on hermenutics.  Sorry everyone!

Scott Kammerer - 27 July 2009 03:32 PM

Michael Russell - 27 July 2009 03:13 PM

So the sign=up card disagreement is sooooooo adiaphora as to be a pretty unremarkable difference with respect to Communion issues.

Once again we agree. But then I have to ask, should GC be passing blanket resolutions on matters so clearly adiaphora and the object of respectful yet wide disagreement? It bothers me again that the church will be politically advocating for a public policy I disagree with.

But we’ve hijacked the thread on hermenutics.  Sorry everyone!

Hey Scott, I am not sure we hijacked the thread, wouldn’t hermeneutics include a discussion about what scripture might say about public policy?  Certainly the Hebrew Scripture folks think public policy is a matter for theological reflection and that public order should reflect theological convictions.

While the Gospel is not as explicit on public issues, it is steeped in the fulfillment of the promises for justice found in the prophets.

One could argue that a position on torture is adiaphora, and so should not be debated or pressed into GC “teaching”  but how would we look to NOT oppose torture?

Anyway, I love finding things we agree on.

We can agree on basic Gospel principles—torture is wrong; individuals and society need to help and protect the poor and powerless (the fatherless and the widow, if you will), etc. But actually applying those principles to public policy gets tricky. We can pass resolutions calling for our government to apply them, but we should not be making specific policy proposals that 1)we have significant disagreement on within ourselves, and 2) we do not have sufficient expertise to suggest specific policy.

We can all agree that our government needs to promote a just and merciful society, but except in those rare cases where we are in agreement (perhaps torture falls here), we should not have TEC ‘officially’ take a position.

One can argue (and I will if you want me to!) that sign-up cards are not in the workers’ best interest, as opposed to fair and open elections for union organization. One can argue that a single-payer health plan is not the best way to provide for universal coverage in the U.S. One can argue that the despotic actions of an elected ruler do not justify a military coup. All of these are issues on which Christians can and do legitimately disagree on - sometimes passionately—yet GC took one side over the other. 

You know what that accomplishes? First, it has little or no impact on government policy. The real impact is that it further divides us from one another - creating winners and losers, fostering hurt and resentment, and creating a feeling of alienation. We have enough of that already without bringing in these other issues.

Scott Kammerer - 28 July 2009 10:23 AM

snip

You know what that accomplishes? First, it has little or no impact on government policy. The real impact is that it further divides us from one another - creating winners and losers, fostering hurt and resentment, and creating a feeling of alienation. We have enough of that already without bringing in these other issues.

  I pretty much agree with you. On the National and International Concerns Committee, through which many of these came, I argued to express only things that we were in control of, as opposed to making statements for the US Government. Their utility is based on how well our policy folk can leverage them with the help of other religious groupings.
  I prefer “doing” at the grassroots level to making statements of having marches, etc.  And I think the best evangelism is evangelism of the deed. Our statements might have weight when we are seen as a moral force in the community. Until then they are words without juice.

Exactly. Which is why I support most resolutions that say “we encourage Episcopalians to [whatever]” instead of “we call on Congress to pass [blah blah].”

This is the same reason, by the way, I oppose our participation in the RCRC. If I remember correctly we agree on that also.