John 2:17

καταφάγεταί (אABP) has been altered to κατέφαγε in order to bring the quotation into harmony with the LXX.

17. ἐμνήσθ. Then and there; contrast John 2:22. Who could know this but a disciple who was present? Who would think of inventing it? See on John 2:11.

γεγραμμ. ἐστίν In quotations S. John almost always uses the perf. part. with the auxiliary (John 6:31; John 6:45; John 10:34; John 12:14, [John 19:19]), whereas the Synoptists commonly use the perf. pass.

καταφάγεται. Will devour, or consume me, i.e. wear me out (Psalms 69:9). Excepting the 22nd, no psalm is so often alluded to in N.T. as the 69th; comp. John 15:25; John 19:28; Acts 1:20; Romans 15:3; Romans 11:9-10. There is no thought of Christ’s zeal proving fatal to Him; of that the disciples as yet knew nothing. Nor are we to understand that it was as a ‘Zealot,’ one who like Phinehas (Numbers 25) took the execution of God’s law into his own hands, that Christ acted on this occasion. If this were so, why did He not do this long before? Rather, He acts as the Messiah, as the Son in His Father’s house: therefore He waits till His hour has come, till His Messianic career has commenced. Just at the time when every Jew was purifying himself for the Feast, the Lord has suddenly come to His Temple to purify the sons of Levi (Malachi 3:1-3).

It is difficult to believe that this cleansing of the Temple is identical with the one placed by the Synoptists at the last Passover in Christ’s ministry; difficult also to see what is gained by the identification. If they are the same event, either S. John or the Synoptists have made a gross blunder in chronology. Could S. John, who was with our Lord at both Passovers, make such a mistake? Could S. Matthew, who was with Him at the last Passover, transfer to it an event which took place at the first Passover, a year before his conversion? When we consider the immense differences which distinguish the last Passover from the first in Christ’s ministry, it seems incredible that anyone who had contemporary evidence could through any lapse of memory transfer a very remarkable incident indeed from one to the other. On the other hand the difficulty of believing that the Temple was twice cleansed is very slight. Was Christ’s preaching so universally successful that one cleansing would be certain to suffice? He was not present at the next Passover (John 6:4), and the evil would have a chance of returning. And if two years later He found that the evil had returned, would He not be certain to drive it out once more? Differences in the details of the narratives corroborate this view.