Abstract
John 2:17 quotes Ps 68:10: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” Interpreters disagree about whether consume portrays Jesus’s zeal overwhelming him during the temple incident or leading to his death. They also disagree about whether John alludes metaleptically to the whole psalm, especially the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ps 68:36–37. This article argues that consume portrays Jesus’s death. It substantiates that John alludes to the whole psalm, not only the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 68:36–37, but also the table becoming a trap and the pouring out of wrath in 68:23, 25. These echoes suggest that Jesus embodies the judgment of God in the temple incident, the suffering of the psalmist in his death, and the restoration of Jerusalem in his resurrection. The story from the Psalter is thus reconfigured in the temple incident: God rebuilds the forsaken city by identifying with Israel’s exile in the crucified body of Jesus.
1 Introduction1
Partway through the temple incident in John, the narrator pauses and notes that the disciples remember Ps 68:10: “Zeal for your house will consume me” (John 2:17 NRSV).2 Most agree that John appeals to this psalm as messianic typology. Interpreters disagree, however, about whether consume portrays Jesus’s zeal (1) overwhelming him during the temple incident or (2) leading to his death.3 They also disagree about whether John alludes metaleptically to the whole psalm, especially the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ps 68:36–37.4
This article presents a cumulative argument that consume portrays Jesus’s death. It substantiates the suggestion that John alludes to the whole psalm, not only to the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 68:36–37, but also to the table becoming a trap in 68:23 and the pouring out of wrath in 68:25. These echoes suggest that Jesus embodies the judgment of God in the temple incident, the suffering of the psalmist in his death, and the restoration of Jerusalem in his resurrection. And the article undertakes a figural reading of how the story from the Psalter is reconfigured in the temple incident: God rebuilds the forsaken city by identifying with Israel’s exile in the crucified body of Jesus.
Michal Beth Dinkler has recently encouraged biblical scholars to pursue “the quest for the literary Jesus,” building on new historicism and new formalism.5 This article does not consciously adopt those two approaches, but it shares similar concerns, such as multivalence, the situated character of all readings,6 and the merging of historical interest and the rhetorical effect of literary form. This article leverages intertextuality to contribute to Dinkler’s quest: “exploring the effects of meaning that emerge from relating at least two texts together.”7 In particular, it is an exercise in what Stefan Alkier calls “production-oriented” intertextuality: inquiring “about effects of meaning that result from the processing of identifiable texts within the text to be interpreted.”8 It argues for a particular reading of the quotation as well as for connections between the temple incident and the psalm that reflect an awareness of the broader context of the psalm in some stage of production and that ancient readers may have picked up on due to highly metaleptic reading practices.9 However, as Steve Moyise puts it, “Even the specific act of embedding one text inside another … does not result in a single resolution … but a range of interpretive possibilities … and that involves choice,”10 or in the words of Alkier, it involves “the actualization of potential relationships of the text in question to other texts.”11 This article therefore also performs a new figural reading in light of those connections – in other words, it activates the intertextual connections according to particular readings of the Gospel and the Psalter and with a view to constructing the identity of Jesus.
Many interpreters observe that the temple incident is a programmatic passage for the rest of the Gospel.12 “Reading Jesus literarily,” Dinkler explains, “not only prompts us to attend to his interactions with other characters, but also to situate those interactions within their broader narrative context – a context that, as reader-response critics remind us, unfolds sequentially. The beginning of a story is thus especially important … a narrative’s linear order influences the audience’s perceptions of its meanings.”13 Therefore, after interpreting the texts (§2) and arguing for the figural reading (§3), this article concludes by reflecting on how reading the programmatic passage of the temple incident in light of the psalm might inform readers’ expectations about the identity of Jesus (§4).
2 Text and Intertext
The quotation in John 2:17 reflects a Vorlage similar to the LXX, and several key themes from Ps 68 are repeated in John 2:13–22.
2.1 Vorlage
John 2:17 agrees with Ps 68:10 LXX almost exactly. The only difference is that
John’s agreement with the LXX is significant because of possible verbal connections between Ps 68:23, 25 LXX and John 2:15 as well as Ps 68:36 LXX and John 2:20 (see §3.2). The potential transformation of the aorist
2.2 Psalm 68 LXX
The storyline of the Psalms traces the rise (books 1–2), fall (book 3), and return (books 4–5) of God’s rule through the anointed king. Books 1–2 (Pss 1–72) are about the rise and struggles of the Davidic monarchy. But in book 3 (Pss 73–89), the temple has been destroyed, and there is no king on David’s throne (Pss 74, 79, 83, 88, 89). So, book 4 (Pss 90–106) teaches Israel to trust in YHWH’s reign even during exile (Pss 93–100) until, as book 5 (Pss 107–50) celebrates, the new Davidic king (Ps 110) leads Israel back into the land (Pss 107, 120–34).18
Psalm 68 occurs near the end of book 2.19 It is a psalm of lament about the righteous suffering king (68:1). The psalmist first recalls his suffering (68:2–13, 20–21). In response to the psalmist’s sin (68:6), the Lord has disciplined him (68:27), but though the psalmist has repented (68:11), his enemies are adding to his suffering (68:11–12, 27). They turn his ritual piety against him (68:10–13); he laments, “Zeal for your house … has consumed me” (68:10).20 Not even his family is there to comfort him (68:9, 21). So the psalmist calls out for God to rescue him (68:2, 14–19) and then calls down judgment on his enemies (68:23–29). Because the enemies feed him poison (68:22), God should turn their own table against them in judgment (68:23) and pour out his wrath (68:25).21 Finally, the psalmist expresses confidence and praises the Lord (68:31–37). The Lord delivers his needy people (68:31–34) and rebuilds his forsaken city (68:36–37; cf. 102:13–16), so all creation should praise him (68:35).
Robert L. Brawley notes an important feature in this psalm:
Psalm 69 ties the destiny of the suffering righteous one to the destiny of a community. First, the psalmist identifies with the oppressed and needy who seek God. The psalm thus moves from an individual lament toward a more universal significance (vv. 32–33). Second, vv. 35–36 connect the destiny of the suffering righteous one with the destiny of Jerusalem.22
Along with this dynamic, several key themes in the psalm – rejection, temple, and destruction and restoration – reappear in John 2:13–22.
2.3 John 2:13–22
John’s Gospel breaks roughly into two halves: the book of signs (1:19–12:50) and the book of the passion (chs. 13–20). Both sections end with two back-to-back formulaic quotations that inform the meaning of the section (12:37–40; 19:36–37).23 In the first set (12:37–40), John quotes from the rejected prophet traditions in Isaiah (Isa 6, 52–53) to explain why many reject Jesus despite his signs (John 12:36–43).24 The temple incident (2:13–22) fits this theme: it is the first of several confrontations with the authorities during a feast (chs. 5, 7–10), which culminate in his death (chs. 18–19).25
The temple incident consists of a prophetic judgment (2:13–17) followed by a prophetic prediction (2:18–22). During Passover, Jesus comes to the temple and finds various sacrificial animals, their sellers, and money-changers (2:13–14). He drives the beasts out of the temple,26 empties the money-changers’ coffers, and flips the tables (2:15). Jesus commands the dove-sellers to remove their cages, alluding to Zech 14:21 in the process: “Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” (John 2:16). At this point, the narrator notes that the disciples remember Ps 68:10 (John 2:17).
This action constitutes a symbolic judgment. Jeremiah employed symbolic prophecies (Jer 19; 27:2; 28:10–11) and warned that YHWH would destroy the temple (7:14; 26:6, 9).27 Jesus does the same here: the stones of the temple will be overturned like the tables.28 Symbolic prophetic actions are typically followed by prophetic interpretation.29 The prophet Jesus interprets his prophetic action as symbolizing the destruction of the temple (John 2:18–22).30 Jesus may be protesting a particular corruption (e.g., priestly greed, the temple tax, or commercialization of the court), as in Mal 3:1–15.31 Or he may not be: Jeremiah denounced the temple not so much for corruption in the temple practices as for taking refuge in the temple from judgment for oppression and idolatry committed elsewhere (Jer 7).32 Yet this symbolic judgment is an expression of zeal for the temple (John 2:17), not against it, and John’s Jesus pilgrimages to the temple for festivals throughout the Gospel (5:1; 7:2, 10; 10:22–23).33
The prophetic judgment is followed by a prophetic prediction. Jeremiah’s temple confrontations involved trials according to the pattern in Deut 18: 20–22 (Jer 26, 28). The authorities approach Jesus asking for a sign (John 2:18) – for a miracle or fulfilled prediction that will validate his prophetic authority (Deut 18:20–22; cf. 13:1–5; 34:11).34 He responds by prophesying that he will raise the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:19); the authorities misunderstand (2:20) that Jesus is speaking about the resurrection of his body, which will have been crucified (2:21). The narrator notes that the disciples believed this word only after Jesus was raised from the dead – that is, only after the prediction is fulfilled (2:22). This contributes to the broader theme of the disciples’ misunderstanding (cf. 12:16; 13:7; 20:9), but it also matches the matrix of Deut 18:20–22: when a prophet speaks in YHWH’s name, a fulfilled prediction verifies a true prophet, but a failed prediction reveals an imposter (see also John 13:19; 14:29; 16:4; 18:9, 32).35 Among the various potential intertexts (such as those chosen in the Synoptic accounts), why would John incorporate Ps 68 in this context?
3 Intertextual Reading
The quotation of Ps 68:10 functions as typology about Jesus’s death, and other echoes of the psalm portray Jesus as enacting the judgment of God in the temple cleansing and the rebuilding of Jerusalem in his resurrection.
3.1 The Psalmist’s Suffering
After John narrates the prophetic judgment (John 2:13–16), he parenthetically comments that the disciples remember Ps 68:10: “Zeal for your house will consume [
Interpreters understand
1. The context of the psalm. The colon John quotes (Ps 68:10a) is in parallel with another: “the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me” (68:10b). The psalmist clarifies that these insults come because of his faithfulness to God (68:8). The consuming that follows the psalmist’s zeal for God’s temple therefore likely also portrays suffering (see table 2).40 This is consistent with other lines in the psalm that depict his suffering as a result of his faithfulness (68:4, 11, 18, 27).
2. The meaning of
Michael A. Daise exemplifies how most proponents of the alternative view understand the metaphorical use of
In fact, the metaphorical occurrences of
Common denominators in the various uses of the metaphor seem to be the benefit to the eater and, especially, the expense to the eaten: ravenous eating destroys its object. Although the alternative reading is legitimate, its proponents could consider, more than they sometimes do, how Jesus’s zeal motivating his actions may relate to the righteous sufferer typology.50
3. John’s consistent use of Ps 68 and other psalms. John quotes Ps 68 in two other places. Both times, John relates the psalm to Jesus’s rejection, suffering, and death. The authorities unfairly persecute him (John 15:25; Ps 68:5), and as he hangs on the cross, he says, “I am thirsty,” thus welcoming the psalmist’s poison (John 19:28–29; Ps 68:22). This suggests that John interprets all the laments in the psalm with reference to Jesus’s death. In fact, every formulaic quotation from the Psalms in the rest of John that refers to Jesus concerns his suffering and death.51
4. The change in tense-form. John changes the tense-form of
5. The prophetic explanation. After symbolizing the destruction of the temple, Jesus identifies his own body with the temple. In other words, Jesus explains his action (2:13–16), which 2:17 interprets, in terms of his death (2:18–22).53 The following two pieces of evidence are more tentatively relevant than the first five.
6. Sacrificial connotations. Some have suggested that
7. Elijah’s rejection. Commentators have observed the presence of prophetic themes in Ps 68.59 One potential connection is between the psalmist’s
In light of the cumulative weight of those seven observations, the second option is illuminating: Jesus embodies the zeal of the psalmist in the temple incident and the suffering of the psalmist in his death. It is not that
John invites us to read Jesus’s suffering and death along the contours of the suffering of the psalmist. What other metaphorical resonances ripple from that center when one reads the rest of the temple incident in light of the rest of the psalm, or even the story of the whole Psalter?66
3.2 God’s Judgment and Israel’s Restoration
Echoes in the temple incident of the opponents’ table becoming a trap (Ps 68:23), of the pouring out of wrath (68:25), and of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (68:36–37) point to several stages of the psalm outside the line quoted in John 2:17 and thus to the overall arc of the psalm: “the whole ‘plot’ of the psalm is brought into play by the temple incident, not merely the line which is actually cited.”67 That doesn’t mean the plot is repeated verbatim in every detail. Some details may be less relevant or incompatible, and some may be transformed or subverted.68 Both the verbal echoes and any reading of them are necessarily selective. It may be suggestive, for example, that there is no echo to the confession of guilt in Ps 68:6, perhaps hinting at a difference between the basis of the suffering of the psalmist and that of the suffering of Jesus. Yet the echoes from each major stage of the psalm invite a figural reading of how the overall story of the psalmist and his people in the psalm is enacted in John’s story about Jesus.69
The specific echoes suggest that Jesus embodies not only the psalmist’s suffering but also God’s judgment and Israel’s restoration. First, the prophetic judgment (John 2:13–16) enacts the judgment of the psalm (Ps 68:23, 25). The psalmist asks YHWH to turn the enemies’ table into a trap, and Jesus flips the tables in the temple. Likewise, the psalmist asks YHWH to pour out his wrath, and Jesus pours out the money-changers’ coins.70 Second, Jesus’s resurrection (John 2:18–22) enacts the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the psalm (Ps 68:36–37).71 The psalmist expresses confidence that “God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah” (68:36). Jesus prophesies his own resurrection in terms of temple building. This judgment and restoration were part of a larger story in the Psalms.
In the Psalms, exile begins with the persecution of the righteous (books 1–2) and culminates in the dissolution of the dynasty, the destruction of the temple, deportation from the land, and slavery under foreign rule (books 3–4). Exodus responds to that situation: YHWH defeats Israel’s enemies, vindicates the righteous, and brings them back into the land, where they live in safety under the king (book 5). This story is recapitulated in John’s story about Jesus.
In John, Jesus’s death is the tearing down of the temple (John 2:19). The tearing down of the temple, in the Psalms, is the sign and seal of exile. In his death, Jesus identifies with Israel’s exile in his own body. The resurrection of Jesus is the rebuilding of the temple (2:19–21). The rebuilding of the temple, in the Psalms, is the sign and seal of a successful exodus. In his resurrection, Jesus leads the eschatological exodus, now framed as entrance into eternal life (cf. 6:35–51).72 To put all that together, Jesus leads the promised exodus by identifying with Israel’s plight in his own body at the cost of his life. This recapitulation extends the dynamic from the psalm itself, where the destiny of the righteous sufferer is closely tied to that of both the nation and the holy city (see §2.2). But even further, the echoes of the judgment (Ps 68:23, 25; John 2:15) and the rebuilding (Ps 68:36–37; John 2:19–21) make Jesus the agent in John of what YHWH does in the psalm (cf. 10:17–18). It is God himself, present in person, who identifies with Israel’s exile in order to launch their restoration. By undergoing the persecution of the righteous and enduring Rome’s nails, God fulfills his promise to rebuild his forsaken city and liberate his oppressed people.
Three observations from John 2:13–22 (reasons 1–3) and six from elsewhere in John or the NT (reasons 4–9) support that John alludes to the whole psalm and corroborate the figural reading of the overarching story from the Psalms.
1. Verbal correspondence. Two key words from the psalm appear only here in John:
2. Thematic coherence between Ps 68 and John 2:13–22. Both passages involve the righteous sufferer, the temple, and destruction and restoration (see §§2.2–3). Another theme common to both passages is the relative value of sacrifice (Ps 68:31–32; John 2:13–16, 19; cf. 4:21–24; Zech 14:20–21).74
3. Parallels in John 2:17, 22. After narrating the prophetic judgment (2:13–16), the narrator parenthetically comments that the disciples remember Ps 68:10 (John 2:17). Then after narrating the prophetic prediction (2:18–20), the narrator parenthetically comments that – after the resurrection – the disciples remember Jesus’s prediction and believe both that prediction and “the Scripture” (2:22).75 This Scripture is likely Ps 68 for three reasons.76 First, throughout John
4. Thematic coherence between Ps 68 and John. The psalmist is estranged from his brothers (Ps 68:9), he has no sympathizers (68:21), and his enemies devise his downfall (68:5, 13); Jesus’s brothers do not believe in him (John 7:5; cf. 2:12; 4:44), his disciples abandon him (16:32), and the authorities plan to kill him (5:18; 11:53).80
5. Other uses of Ps 68 in John. John quotes two other lines from Ps 68 (see (3) in §3.1). This, along with other allusions (e.g., Ps 68:24 in John 9:39; cf. (4)),81 confirms that John reads the whole psalm as “about Jesus.”82
6. Other uses of the Psalms in John. John interprets the Psalms as a whole and their theology Christologically: the righteous suffering king from books 1–2 (Pss 2, 6, 22, 34–35, 41–42, 68), the sustainer during exile from book 3 (Ps 78), and the returning king from book 5 (Ps 118) all prefigure Jesus, who is now identified as the speaker of many psalms (John 1:49; 6:31; 7:38; 12:13, 27; 13:18; 19:24, 36).83
7. Parallels in John 2:22 and 20:9. In 2:22, the narrator foretells that “after he was raised from the dead, his disciples … believed the Scripture.” In 20:9, after Peter and the Beloved Disciple encounter the empty tomb (20:3–8), the narrator comments, “as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” 20:9 is the first explicit mention in the narrator’s voice of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead since 2:22.84 Likewise, 2:22 and 20:9 are the only places in John about the disciples believing or understanding “the Scripture” (
8. Thematic coherence between the figural reading and John. The figural reading is that God accomplishes Israel’s exodus by identifying with their exile in Jesus. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus redeems God’s people after the pattern of Israel’s exodus. The signs of Moses are paradigmatic for the miracles of Jesus. Through his signs, Moses gathered Israel’s allegiance (Exod 4:1–9, 17, 28; 7–12), and through his signs, Jesus invites the disciples to believe (John 2:11; 5:36).87 For example, in Moses’s first sign, the prophet turns the water into blood, even in the vessels (Exod 4:9; 7:14–25), and in Jesus’s first sign, the prophet turns the water into wine, in the vessels (John 2:1–11).88 Key themes from Israel’s exodus become symbols for portraying Jesus and his death. He takes on a tabernacle-like role: in him, God is present to lead his people (1:14, 51; 4:13–14, 21–24; 7:38–39; 14:11). He is bread from heaven like the manna (ch. 6). He is a Passover lamb: a sacrifice of liberation who endures the plague for the benefit of the people (1:29, 36; 19:14, 33, 36).89 At Jesus’s death, the flock is scattered (16:32), but through his death, the scattered children return to the land (11:47–53; cf. ch. 10). The exodus pattern is dramatically enacted in another of Jesus’s signs.90
In John 6, Jesus feeds the multitudes like Moses (6:1–13). The crowds acclaim Jesus as the eschatological prophet (6:14). Jesus then miraculously crosses the sea like Israel (6:16–21). When the crowds find him on the other side, Jesus welcomes them to a Passover-like feast: by believing in Jesus (and participating in the Eucharist), they partake in the feast of a renewed Israel (6:22–59; cf. 6:4).91 Jesus, the prophet like Moses, leads the eschatological exodus – but he does so through his death (6:51).92
9. Early Christian interpretation of Ps 68 and the whole Psalter. John approximates the early Christian practice of applying the psalmist’s lament to Jesus’s suffering (Ps 68:10 in Rom 15:3; cf. Ps 22:1 in Matt 27:46), the psalmist’s restoration to Jesus’s resurrection (cf. Pss 16:8–11 and 110:1 in Acts 2:22–36; Ps 2:7 in Heb 1:5), and the psalmist’s judgment to the opponents of Jesus and his disciples (Ps 68:26 in Acts 1:15–20; Ps 68:23–24 in Rom 11:7–10; Ps 68:25 in Rev 16:1; Ps 68:29 in Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27).93 The allusion to the judgment from the psalm in a demonstration aimed at the temple or its leaders may have troubling implications. Every reading of the intertextual connections is necessarily selective. One way to subvert the troubling implications may be to capitalize on John 2:21: although Jesus enacts the judgment from the psalm, he immediately identifies his own body as that which will be torn down for the sake of the nation (cf. 11:50).94
4 Conclusion
John’s Jesus embodies the judgment of God in the temple incident, the suffering of the psalmist in his death, and the restoration of Jerusalem in his resurrection. God liberates his oppressed people and rebuilds his forsaken city by identifying with Israel’s exile in the crucified body of Jesus. How might this reading of the programmatic passage inform readers’ expectations about the identity of Jesus?
First, this reading sets up how Jesus relates to the divine identity in narrative form. Jesus not only embodies the psalmist’s zeal but also enacts both the judgment against the opponents (Ps 68:23, 25; John 2:15) and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Ps 68:36–37; John 2:19–21) – both make Jesus the agent in John of what YHWH does in the psalm (cf. 10:17–18). This passage is thus “a narrative embodiment of the Gospel’s christology” that “puts into story form the theological claim that has been echoing since the opening lines of the Fourth Gospel,”95 namely, that in Jesus God himself is present with his people. A reader who observes this dynamic may thus be predisposed to notice other subtle narrative clues where Jesus simultaneously enacts the role of Israel or Israel’s leader and also the role reserved for Israel’s God (e.g., 6:15–21; cf. 9:1–41, esp. 9:38).96 Second, this reading may cast a Davidic shadow over later passages that employ temple metaphors for Jesus (e.g., 4:21–24; 7:38–39; 20:22–23): Jesus is a temple builder.97 As Daly-Denton explains, “If the words of a psalm of David [Ps 68] are fulfilled on the lips of Jesus, then there is a suggestion that David as Temple builder/founder is also prophetic of Jesus.”98 Third, this reading provides a framework in which Jesus’s suffering throughout the rest of the Gospel does not reflect failure but is actually the means by which God will restore his people. Throughout the Gospel, characters are asked to reexamine their preconceptions about how God will fulfill his promises when they have no category for a Messiah who suffers or who functions as the locus of God’s presence on earth (John 2:20–21; 4:21–24; 20:24–29). This framework is one way to furnish those categories.
Bibliography
Abbott, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. 2nd ed. Cambridge Introductions to Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Ahn, Sanghee M. The Christological Witness Function of the Old Testament Characters in the Gospel of John. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2014.
Aichele, George, and Gary A. Phillips. “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis.” Semeia 69–70 (1995): 7–18.
Alexis-Baker, Andy. “Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in John 2:13–15.” BibInt 20 (2012): 73–96.
Alkier, Stefan. “Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts.” Pages 3–21 in Reading the Bible Intertextually.
Allen, Leslie C. “The Value of Rhetorical Criticism in Psalm 69.” JBL 105 (1986): 577–598.
Anderson, Paul N. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6. WUNT 2/78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
Atkins, J. D. “The Trial of the People and the Prophet: John 5:30–47 and the True and False Prophet Traditions.” CBQ 75 (2013): 279–296.
Attard, Stefan M. The Implications of Davidic Repentance: A Synchronic Analysis of Book 2 of the Psalter (Psalms 42–72). AnBib 212. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2016.
Attridge, Harold W. “The Temple and Jesus the High Priest in the New Testament.” Pages 213–238 in Jesus and Temple: Textual and Archaeological Explorations. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2014.
Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.
Bampfylde, G. “John xix 28: A Case for a Different Translation.” NovT 11 (1969): 247–260.
Baron, Lori, and B. J. Oropeza. “Midrash.” Pages 63–80 in Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts. Edited by B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
Bauckham, Richard. Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.
Bauckham, Richard. “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple.” Pages 72–89 in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity by Members of the Ehrhardt Seminar of Manchester University. Edited by Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: Clarke, 1988.
Beal, Timothy K. “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production.” Pages 27–39 in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Danna Nolan Fewell. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
Beutler, Johannes. A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Michael Tait. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.
Brawley, Robert L. “An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28–29.” JBL 112 (1993): 427–443.
Bridgeman, Teresa. “Time and Space.” Pages 52–65 in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Edited by David Herman. Cambridge Companions to Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John I–XII: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 29. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Brueggemann, Walter. “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon.” JSOT 50 (1991): 63–92.
Bryan, Steven M. “Consumed by Zeal: John’s Use of Psalm 69:9 and the Action in the Temple.” BBR 21 (2011): 479–494.
Bultmann, Rudolph. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley- Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
Calvin, John. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. Translated by William Pringle. Calvin’s Commentaries 17–18. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006.
Chanikuzhy, Jacob. Jesus, the Eschatological Temple: An Exegetical Study of Jn 2,13–22 in the Light of the Pre-70 C.E. Eschatological Temple Hopes and the Synoptic Temple Action. CBET 58. Leuven: Peeters, 2012.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Cho, Sukmin. Jesus as Prophet in the Fourth Gospel. New Testament Monographs 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.
Coloe, Mary L. God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001.
Croy, N. Clayton. “The Messianic Whippersnapper: Did Jesus Use a Whip on People in the Temple (John 2:15)?” JBL 128 (2009): 555–568.
Culpepper, R. Alan, and Paul N. Anderson, eds. John and Judaism: A Contested Relationship in Context. RBS 87. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.
Daise, Michael A. “Quotations with ‘Remembrance’ Formulae in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 75–91 in Abiding Words.
Daly-Denton, Margaret. David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine Reception of the Psalms. AGJU 47. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Davies, Margaret. Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel. JSNTSup 69. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Dennis, John A. Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11:47–52. WUNT 2/217. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Derrett, J. Duncan M. “The Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple.” DRev 95 (1977): 79–94.
Dinkler, Michal Beth. Literary Theory and the New Testament. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.
Docherty, Susan. “New Testament Scriptural Interpretation in Its Early Jewish Context: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Future Directions.” NovT 57 (2015): 1–19.
Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.
Edgar, S. L. “Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament.” NTS 9 (1962): 55–62.
Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” CBQ 51 (1989): 237–270.
Evans, Craig A. “Old Testament in the Gospels.” DJG (1st ed.), 579–590.
Freed, Edwin D. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. NovTSup 11. Leiden: Brill, 1965.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. 2nd ed. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
Glancy, Jennifer A. “Violence as Sign in the Fourth Gospel.” BibInt 17 (2009): 100–117.
Groenewald, Alphonso. “‘Indeed – the Zeal for Your House Has Consumed Me!’: Possible Historical Background to Psalm 69:10 AB.” Pages 177–185 in Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004. Edited by Hermann Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin. BEATAJ 54. New York: Lang, 2006.
Haenchen, Ernst. John 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1–6. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Hamilton, James M., Jr. God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010.
Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
Hatina, Thomas R. “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship?” BibInt 7 (1999): 28–43.
Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016.
Hays, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds. Reading the Bible Intertextually. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.
Hays, Richard B. “Reading Scripture in Light of the Resurrection.” Pages 216–238 in The Art of Reading Scripture. Edited by Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Heim, Erin M. Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and the Pauline Huiothesia Metaphors. BibInt 153. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Hengel, Martin. “The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 380–395 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. SSEJC 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.
Hooker, Morna D. The Signs of a Prophet: The Prophetic Actions of Jesus. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005.
Huys, Marc. “Turning the Tables: Jesus’ Temple Cleansing and the Story of Lycaon.” ETL 86 (2010): 137–161.
Hylen, Susan. Allusion and Meaning in John 6. BZNW 137. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Kerr, Alan R. The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John. JSNTSup 220. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002.
Koester, Craig R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. “John.” Pages 415–512 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Kristeva, Julia. “Word, Dialogue, and Novel.” Pages 34–61 in The Kristeva Reader. Edited by Toril Moi. Translated by Alice Jardine, Thomas Gora, and Léon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
Kugel, James L. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 1697–1855 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 2013.
Lappenga, Benjamin J. “Whose Zeal Is It Anyway? The Citation of Psalm 69:9 in John 2:17 as a Double Entendre.” Pages 141–159 in Abiding Words.
Lierman, John. “The Mosaic Pattern of John’s Christology.” Pages 210–234 in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John. Edited by John Lierman. WUNT 2/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Lierman, John. The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion. WUNT 2/173. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Lieu, Judith. “Narrative Analysis and Scripture in John.” Pages 144–163 in The Old Testament in the New Testament.
Lightfoot, J. B. The Gospel of St. John: A Newly Discovered Commentary. Edited by Ben Witherington III and Todd D. Still. The Lightfoot Legacy Set 2. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015.
Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1972.
Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.
McHugh, John F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2009.
Menken, Maarten J. J. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. CBET 15. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996.
Montanari, Franco. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Edited by Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Montanaro, Andrew. “The Use of Memory in the Old Testament Quotations in John’s Gospel.” NovT 59 (2017): 147–170.
Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983.
Moyise, Steve. “Intertextuality and Historical Approaches to the Use of Scripture in the New Testament.” Pages 23–32 in Reading the Bible Intertextually.
Moyise, Steve. “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” Pages 14–41 in The Old Testament in the New Testament.
Moyise, Steve, ed. The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North. JSNTSup 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000.
Myers, Alicia D., and Bruce G. Schuchard, eds. Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John. RBS 81. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015.
Myers, Alicia D. Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus. LNTS 458. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
Nereparampil, Lucius. Destroy This Temple: An Exegetico-Theological Study on the Meaning of Jesus’ Temple-Logion in Jn 2:19. Bangalore: Dharmaram, 1978.
Neusner, Jacob. “Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation.” NTS 35 (1989): 287–290.
Novakovic, Lidija. Raised from the Dead according to Scripture: The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 12. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
O’Connell, Robert H. “אָכַל.” NIDOTTE 1:388–392.
O’Day, Gail R. “John 6:15–21: Jesus Walking on Water as Narrative Embodiment of Johannine Christology.” Pages 149–159 in Critical Readings of John 6. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper. BibInt 22. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Regev, Eyal. The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.
Reinhartz, Adele, ed. The Gospel of John and Jewish-Christian Relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.
Ringgren, Helmer. “The Use of the Psalms in the Gospels.” Pages 39–43 in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders. Edited by Dennis E. Groh and Robert Jewett. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985.
Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Introduction and Commentary on Chapters 1–4. Translated by Kevin Smyth. Vol. 1 of The Gospel according to St John. HThKNT. New York: Herder, 1968.
Schneiders, Sandra M. Jesus Risen in Our Midst: Essays on the Resurrection of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013.
Schuchard, Bruce G. Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John. SBLDS 133. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
Seitz, Christopher R. Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004.
Sheridan, Ruth. Retelling Scripture: “The Jews” and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19–12:15. BibInt 110. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Silva, Moisés. “ἐσθίω.” NIDNTTE 2:289–292.
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Thompson, Marianne Meye. “‘They Bear Witness to Me’: The Psalms in the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of John.” Pages 267–283 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Edited by J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Voorwinde, Stephen. Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human or Divine? LNTS 284. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Walden, Wayne. “John 2:15, Jesus with a Whip: Translation Notes.” ResQ 57 (2015): 115–116.
Webster, Jane S. Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John. AcBib 6. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: A Key or a Puzzle?” ZNW 97 (2006): 1–22.
Westermann, Claus. The Gospel of John in the Light of the Old Testament. Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Wheaton, Gerry. The Role of Jewish Feasts in John’s Gospel. SNTSMS 162. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Williams, Catrin H. “Jesus the Prophet: Crossing the Boundaries of Prophetic Beliefs and Expectations in the Gospel of John.” Pages 91–108 in Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John: A Christological Spectrum. Edited by Craig R. Koester. LNTS 589. London: T&T Clark, 2019.
Wilson, Gerald H. “The Structure of the Psalter.” Pages 229–246 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David G. Firth and Philip S. Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Witherington, Ben, III. Psalms Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2017.
Wittenberg, David. “Time.” Pages 120–131 in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative Theory. Edited by Matthew Garrett. Cambridge Companions to Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Wolde, Ellen van. “Trendy Intertextuality?” Pages 43–49 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996.
Wright, N. T. “Pictures, Stories, and the Cross: Where Do the Echoes Lead?” JTI 11 (2017): 49–68.
Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Zumstein, Jean. “Intratextuality and Intertextuality in the Gospel of John.” Pages 121–135 in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature. Edited by Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore. Translated by Mike Gray. RBS 55. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Thanks to those who gave feedback on earlier drafts of this article, including Tyler Holley and the reviewers.
This article uses John as shorthand for the Fourth Evangelist and the Fourth Gospel. It uses the LXX numbering for this psalm throughout (68:10), rather than that of the MT (69:10) or EVV (69:9). All other Scripture references use the EVV numbering unless otherwise noted.
On (1) see Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 10.9 (NPNF1 7:72); J. B. Lightfoot, The Gospel of St. John: A Newly Discovered Commentary, ed. B. Witherington III and T. D. Still, The Lightfoot Legacy Set 2 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 122–23; E. D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, NovTSup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 8–10; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 198–99, 201. On (2) see F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 75; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 124; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1972), 140–41; R. Schnackenburg, Introduction and Commentary on Chapters 1–4, trans. K. Smyth, vol. 1 of The Gospel according to St John, HThKNT (New York: Herder, 1968), 347; E. Regev, The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred, ABRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 202.
In favor of the allusion, see R. B. Hays, “Reading Scripture in Light of the Resurrection,” in The Art of Reading Scripture, ed. E. F. Davis and R. B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 221–24. Against it, see L. Novakovic, Raised from the Dead according to Scripture: The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 12 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 192n88; cf. E. Haenchen, John 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1–6, trans. R. W. Funk, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 185. Metalepsis here means a reference to the broader context of intertexts, not the rhetorical figure of speech or the violation of world-borders in contemporary literary theory. On the latter, see H. P. Abbott, The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, 2nd ed., Cambridge Introductions to Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 169–74.
M. B. Dinkler, Literary Theory and the New Testament, ABRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 137–62.
In other words, meaning is generated out of the fusion of the reader’s horizon and the historical horizon. See H. Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans. J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall, 2nd ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 265–307.
S. Alkier, “Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts,” in Reading the Bible Intertextually, ed. R. B. Hays, S. Alkier, and L. A. Huizenga (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 9. The term intertextuality was coined (and then later abandoned) by Julia Kristeva, building on the dialogic approach of Bakhtin. See J. Kristeva, “Word, Dialogue, and Novel,” in The Kristeva Reader, ed. T. Moi, trans. A. Jardine, T. Gora, and L. S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 37; M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. M. Holquist, trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). The conception here is not identical to Kristeva’s, but there is overlap: every text belongs to varied and moving networks of intertexts that create new meaning potential, and the intertexts that a reader has in mind, consciously or unconsciously, inform the meaning they generate as they interact with the text. For largely fair criticisms of so-called intertextuality in biblical studies that takes terminology from literary theory but continues the traditional approach of only investigating diachronic influence, see E. van Wolde, “Trendy Intertextuality?,” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, ed. S. Draisma (Kampen: Kok, 1989), 43–49; G. Aichele and G. A. Phillips, “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis,” Semeia 69–70 (1995): 7–18; cf. T. R. Hatina, “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship?,” BibInt 7 (1999): 28–43.
Alkier, “Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts,” 10.
On such practices in some Greco-Roman, Jewish, and early Christian interpretive communities, see F. M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 99–103; Wolde, “Trendy Intertextuality?,” 43–44; L. Baron and B. J. Oropeza, “Midrash,” in Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts, ed. B. J. Oropeza and S. Moyise (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016), 63–80; C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952).
S. Moyise, “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, ed. S. Moyise, JSNTSup 189 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 14.
Alkier, “Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts,” 3 (emphasis added); cf. T. K. Beal, “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production,” in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. D. Nolan Fewell, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 27–39.
E.g., Regev, Temple in Early Christianity, 206; J. D. M. Derrett, “The Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple,” DRev 95 (1977): 90–91; J. Zumstein, “Intratextuality and Intertextuality in the Gospel of John,” in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature, ed. T. Thatcher and S. D. Moore, trans. M. Gray, RBS 55 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 130–31.
Dinkler, Literary Theory and the New Testament, 143; cf. T. Bridgeman, “Time and Space,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. D. Herman, Cambridge Companions to Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 52–65; Abbott, Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, 1–27; D. Wittenberg, “Time,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative Theory, ed. M. Garrett, Cambridge Companions to Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 120–31.
Some manuscripts have
In favor of Ps 68:5 as the intertext in John 15:25, a key word from the parallel colon in Ps 68:5 (
Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 39.
This is just one of many possible canonical readings of the Psalter, and there is no room to argue for it here. For similar readings, see J. M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 276–90; C. R. Seitz, Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004), 158–67; cf. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 511–23; W. Brueggemann, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” JSOT 50 (1991): 63–92. On the eschatological Davidic hope in the LXX Psalter, see G. H. Wilson, “The Structure of the Psalter,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, ed. D. G. Firth and P. S. Johnston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 241, 244.
On Ps 68’s connections within book 2, see S. M. Attard, The Implications of Davidic Repentance: A Synchronic Analysis of Book 2 of the Psalter (Psalms 42–72), AnBib 212 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2016), 315–43, 399–420, 426–35, 458–64.
The historical background and precise original sense of the zeal in Ps 68:10 are endlessly debated and do not determine the function of the quotation in John 2:17. For several interpretive options, see J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus, the Eschatological Temple: An Exegetical Study of Jn 2,13–22 in the Light of the Pre-70 C.E. Eschatological Temple Hopes and the Synoptic Temple Action, CBET 58 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 273–75; cf. A. Groenewald, “‘Indeed – the Zeal for Your House Has Consumed Me!’: Possible Historical Background to Psalm 69:10 AB,” in Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004, ed. H. M. Niemann and M. Augustin, BEATAJ 54 (New York: Lang, 2006), 177–85. Targum of Psalms specifies “your house” as the sanctuary. There may be a literary relationship between Pss 68:10 and 119:139, though 119:139 lacks
M. E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 199.
Brawley, “Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28–29,” 439 (using EVV numbering); cf. L. C. Allen, “The Value of Rhetorical Criticism in Psalm 69,” JBL 105 (1986): 592. The connection between the righteous sufferer and exile is explicit in Targum of Psalms 69 (68 LXX), esp. vv. 1–3, 15–16, 36.
R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 285.
Cf. M. M. Thompson, “‘They Bear Witness to Me’: The Psalms in the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of John,” in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, ed. J. R. Wagner, C. K. Rowe, and A. K. Grieb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 267–68.
Cf. B. J. Lappenga, “Whose Zeal Is It Anyway? The Citation of Psalm 69:9 in John 2:17 as a Double Entendre,” in Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John, ed. A. D. Myers and B. G. Schuchard, RBS 81 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 145–47.
In favor of a non-violent reading (i.e., only the sheep and oxen), see A. Alexis-Baker, “Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in John 2:13–15,” BibInt 20 (2012): 73–96; N. C. Croy, “The Messianic Whippersnapper: Did Jesus Use a Whip on People in the Temple (John 2:15)?,” JBL 128 (2009): 555–68; W. Walden, “John 2:15, Jesus with a Whip: Translation Notes,” ResQ 57 (2015): 115–16.
Cf. R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 29 (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 121.
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 2 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), 422–24; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 61–76 (though Sanders denies that this destruction is judgment); cf. C. R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003), 87–88. On other common interpretations of the symbolism, see C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 522–27; cf. Regev, Temple in Early Christianity, 22–34. For two less common interpretations, see J. Neusner, “Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation,” NTS 35 (1989): 287–90; J. A. Glancy, “Violence as Sign in the Fourth Gospel,” BibInt 17 (2009): 100–117.
Keener, Gospel of John, 527; cf. C. Westermann, The Gospel of John in the Light of the Old Testament, trans. S. S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 22–23.
So M. D. Hooker, The Signs of a Prophet: The Prophetic Actions of Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 68–69.
So R. Bauckham, “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple,” in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity by Members of the Ehrhardt Seminar of Manchester University, ed. B. Lindars (Cambridge: Clarke, 1988), 73–81, 86; C. A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?,” CBQ 51 (1989): 256–69.
See S. M. Bryan, “Consumed by Zeal: John’s Use of Psalm 69:9 and the Action in the Temple,” BBR 21 (2011): 492n38. On similar practices in the first century, see Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 420–21.
Regev, Temple in Early Christianity, 202–3; see 212–17.
J. Lierman, The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion, WUNT 2/173 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 60–61; A. D. Myers, Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus, LNTS 458 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 144.
P. N. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6, WUNT 2/78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 176, 229; J. D. Atkins, “The Trial of the People and the Prophet: John 5:30–47 and the True and False Prophet Traditions,” CBQ 75 (2013): 285n23; S. Voorwinde, Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human or Divine?, LNTS 284 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 123–24.
E.g., A. J. Köstenberger, “John,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 433–34; cf. C. A. Evans, “Old Testament in the Gospels,” DJG (1st ed.), 588; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 301. Foreshadow and express come from Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 287. The connection between the experiences of David and Jesus is minimized in S. M. Ahn, The Christological Witness Function of the Old Testament Characters in the Gospel of John, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2014), 143–48.
Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, 8–10.
Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 37–45; Moo, Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, 233–34. Proponents of both views disagree among themselves regarding whether the disciples remember during the incident, after the resurrection, or both in different ways.
In favor of both, see A. R. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup 220 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 81–86. Margaret Daly-Denton proposes three levels of meaning (“consuming commitment,” “death,” and “sacrifice”) in Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 126; followed by R. Sheridan, Retelling Scripture: “The Jews” and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19–12:15, BibInt 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 126–29.
Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 41.
BDAG, s.v. “
See E. M. Heim, Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and the Pauline Huiothesia Metaphors, BibInt 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 56–73.
M. A. Daise, “Quotations with ‘Remembrance’ Formulae in the Fourth Gospel,” in Abiding Words, 88n40 (emphasis added); cf. S. L. Edgar, “Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament,” NTS 9 (1962): 58; Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, 9. John Calvin’s explanation is similar: “The zeal for the house of God, with which Christ burned, excited him to drive out of it those profanations…. [David] burned with such zeal, that this single feeling swallowed up every other.” See J. Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, trans. W. Pringle, Calvin’s Commentaries 17–18 (repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 1:94.
So L&N, s.v. “
Noted in Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 125n36.
Translations follow J. L. Kugel, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. L. H. Feldman, J. L. Kugel, and L. H. Schiffman, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 2013), 1697–1855. Kugel’s comments also pointed me to certain key texts. The thematic incoherence between T. Sim. 4 and Ps 68 or John 2:13–22 suggests there is no direct literary relationship between them.
BDAG, s.v. “
E.g., Exod 10:5; Lev 10:2; 2 Sam 18:8; Hos 7:9; Isa 61:6; Ezek 22:25; cf. Philo, Heir 44; Jos. Asen. 25:7; 1 Clem. 8:4. The form
To say that on this view the zeal is not the subject of the consuming (cf. Lappenga, “Whose Zeal Is It Anyway?,” 150) seems to ignore what grammarians call the causative sense.
This could be analogous to a flame, which spreads and takes over but also destroys.
See Ps 41:9 in John 13:18; Pss 35:19 and 68:5 in John 15:24–25; Ps 22:18 in John 19:23–24; Ps 34:20 in John 19:33, 36. Cf. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 286.
Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 40. This does not require an outdated, simplistic conflation between future tense-form and future time.
Cf. Myers, Characterizing Jesus, 145.
E.g., Kerr, Temple of Jesus’ Body, 85–86.
M. L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), 70, 74–75.
See
Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 126–28.
Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 126. J. Duncan M. Derrett proposes another sacrificial meaning: “the zeal for the house (his own) will destroy him, inciting the authorities against him; while the zeal of his house (the believers) will consume his body as the only sacrifice.” See Derrett, “Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple,” 91.
E.g., Tate, Psalms 51–100, 195–96. Parallels include the following: obedience over sacrifice (Ps 68:31–32; Jer 7:21–26); servant (
Voorwinde, Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel, 129. Cf.
Cf.
In favor of this connection, see Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 126. This could be an example of gezerah shavah based on the link word
It may also be fruitful to compare the metaphor in John 2:17 with similar metaphors in 4 Macc 3:11; 7:4, 12; 14:10; 15:15; 18:12, 14.
For proposals roughly along these lines, see Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 119–20; Lappenga, “Whose Zeal Is It Anyway?,” 148–52; Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, 18n5; Zumstein, “Intratextuality and Intertextuality in the Gospel of John,” 128; cf. Sheridan, Retelling Scripture, 131. In favor of the disciples’ memory of Scripture as primarily post-resurrection (as in John 12:16), see Coloe, God Dwells with Us, 75; Daise, “Quotations with ‘Remembrance’ Formulae in the Fourth Gospel,” 86–88.
On the zeal of the opponents, see Bryan, “Consumed by Zeal”; Lappenga, “Whose Zeal Is It Anyway?” On the zeal of the church, who eats Jesus’s body (cf. John 6), see Derrett, “Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple,” 91; J. S. Webster, Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John, AcBib 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 45–51. On the zeal of God, see Voorwinde, Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel, 116–38.
I inherited the language of rippling resonances from the work of Richard Hays. E.g., R. B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 94.
B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 104; contra Edgar, “Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament,” 58; H. Ringgren, “The Use of the Psalms in the Gospels,” in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders, ed. D. E. Groh and R. Jewett (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 43. Some suggest that the oxen (John 2:14–15) recall Ps 68:32. See J. Beutler, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. M. Tait (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 87n114. Others suggest the sheep and oxen recall Ps 8:8 LXX (
Elements from the intertext can also subvert or transform the text. S. Moyise, “Intertextuality and Historical Approaches to the Use of Scripture in the New Testament,” in Reading the Bible Intertextually, 27.
Cf. Wolde, “Trendy Intertextuality?,” 45–46. For a different approach to such selectivity, see B. Witherington III, Psalms Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2017), 144, 153–56.
Thus, the quotation in John 2:17 supports interpreting the temple incident as a prophetic judgment. Contra A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: A Key or a Puzzle?,” ZNW 97 (2006): 3. In favor of a connection between the tables in the psalm and in John, see Derrett, “Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple,” 90n44.
So Hays, “Reading Scripture in Light of the Resurrection,” 221–24; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 67–68, 104–7; Brawley, “Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28–29,” 438–40; cf. F. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. L. M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 185; contra Novakovic, Raised from the Dead according to Scripture, 192n88.
Cf. J. A. Dennis, Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11.47–52, WUNT 2/217 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 172–76, 183–87. The Passover setting (John 2:13, 23) corroborates this reading.
This connection may suggest that the tables in John 2:15 are a means of oppression like the table in Ps 68:23. In favor of a cultic table in Ps 68:23, see Derrett, “Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple,” 90n44. On potential Greco-Roman background, see M. Huys, “Turning the Tables: Jesus’ Temple Cleansing and the Story of Lycaon,” ETL 86 (2010): 137–61. On parallels with Prov 9–10, see Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, 31n70. Early Christian reflection on the table in Ps 68:23 (Rom 11:9) supports the plausibility of an echo here.
Cf. H. W. Attridge, “The Temple and Jesus the High Priest in the New Testament,” in Jesus and Temple: Textual and Archaeological Explorations, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2014), 216.
Here and below, the capitalization of the NRSV in John 2:22 and 20:9 has been adapted.
So M. Hengel, “The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner, SSEJC 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 390; Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, 31. Some even specify “the Scripture” in John 2:22 as Ps 68:36–37 in particular. See J. F. McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 209; cf. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 105–6.
John 7:38, 42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37; 20:9. 17:12 and 20:9 may be exceptions, though cf. 17:12 with 13:18 and see (7) below on 20:9. McHugh, John 1–4, 209; Lappenga, “Whose Zeal Is It Anyway?,” 151n25.
Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 121.
Hays, “Reading Scripture in Light of the Resurrection,” 221–24; contra Novakovic, Raised from the Dead according to Scripture, 192–93.
Köstenberger, “John,” 433.
Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 206.
Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 208.
See Köstenberger, “John,” 415–20.
Cf. J. Lieu, “Narrative Analysis and Scripture in John,” in The Old Testament in the New Testament, 153.
Seemingly in favor of this point (though not of Ps 68 as the referent in either John 2:22 or 20:9), see L. Nereparampil, Destroy This Temple: An Exegetico-Theological Study on the Meaning of Jesus’ Temple-Logion in Jn 2:19 (Bangalore: Dharmaram, 1978), 81–84.
J. Lierman, “The Mosaic Pattern of John’s Christology,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. J. Lierman, WUNT 2/219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 213–14.
M. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup 69 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 88; Webster, Ingesting Jesus, 42n14.
Cf. Dennis, Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel, 168n240.
Cf. the reading of John 6 in S. Hylen, Allusion and Meaning in John 6, BZNW 137 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 119–95.
Cf. G. Wheaton, The Role of Jewish Feasts in John’s Gospel, SNTSMS 162 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 125.
Cf. Dennis, Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel, 187–200.
So Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 57–59, 96–97; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 67–68, 99–108; cf. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 40–41; Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 101–18; contra Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, 8–9.
All interpretations of the temple incident in light of the symbolism of the psalm must be sensitive to any potentially troubling implications. For helpful recent reflections on anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism in the Gospel and its interpretation, see A. Reinhartz, ed., The Gospel of John and Jewish-Christian Relations (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018); R. A. Culpepper and P. N. Anderson, eds., John and Judaism: A Contested Relationship in Context, RBS 87 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017); see also Sheridan, Retelling Scripture, 121–33.
This language describes John 6:15–21 in G. R. O’Day, “John 6:15–21: Jesus Walking on Water as Narrative Embodiment of Johannine Christology,” in Critical Readings of John 6, ed. R. A. Culpepper, BibInt 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 159, 158, respectively.
On John 6:15–21, see Hylen, Allusion and Meaning in John 6, 133–34.
Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 129; Thompson, “They Bear Witness to Me,” 275–77; cf. S. M. Schneiders, Jesus Risen in Our Midst: Essays on the Resurrection of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013), 76–81, 124–27. Cf.
Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 129.
