John 2:18

Joh_2:18-22

What sign showest Thou?

Christ and the rulers

I. THE DISPUTE WHICH FOLLOWED HIS PROCEEDING IN THE TEMPLE.

1. The remonstrance addressed to Him by the Jews. The parties were the authorities of the Temple who, by their question, espoused the cause of the traffickers. The Jews require a sign, and for the want of one to their liking, the Gospel was here as ever a stumbling block. There was nothing unreasonable in the request. The cleansing bore a Messianic stamp; but the request was made in anger at the disappointment that their gains had been interfered with, and not with desire to receive information. The very cleansing ought to have been a sufficient sign.

2. The reply of Jesus might be understood to mean the Temple itself, or what He intended: the temple of His body. They misconstrued it into speaking against the sacred fabric, which became one of the fatal accusations against Him afterwards. In the true sense Christ only is the temple of God, although in a secondary sense believers are also, and the universe. The death and resurrection of this temple was to be the sign both for them and for believers. He was delivered for our offences an d rose again for our justification, by which He was declared to be the Son of God with power.

II. THE PRESENT AND REMOTE EFFECTS OF CHRISTS REPLY ON THE MINDS OF THE DISCIPLES.

1. As to the effect at the time there seems to have been none. Of many things, including Christs death and resurrection, they were ignorant, and remained so up to those events, and even then they were slow to believe. This was owing to their secular views of the Messiah. And how often is such obtuseness the case with believers now. Theirs was removed by experience, so must ours be.

2. The remote effect was on the fulfilment of His Word, most blessed (Joh_2:22). The spirit eventually quickened the seed sown in good ground Joh_14:26). Exactly similar is the experience of the Church at all times. The truth may lay dormant for years, but when the Spirit comes it germinates. What an argument for teaching the young whether they understand or not. (A. Beith, D. D.)

Christs sign

It would have been a great one in their sense of it. Zerubbabel and Herod had raised the Temple, and other great persons buildings as great. But the temple of the body, if ever that were down, all the temple builders that ever were would never get it up more. So great, indeed, was it that he in hell could not desire a greater (Luk_16:30).

I. CHRISTS BODY IS THIS TEMPLE. The Pharisees mistook the term. Christ could not have meant Gods house, the zeal of which consumed Him, and which He had just purged. Only polluted temples are destroyed. Christ, who knew His own meaning best, has interpreted it, and perhaps then pointed to His body.

1. A body a temple? How? Because God dwelleth there. There are temples of flesh and bone as well as of lime and stone. Our bodies are called houses because tenanted by souls, temples when tenanted by and used in the service of God.

2. Christs body a temple seems only such by some gift or grace, but in Christ dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead (1Co_2:9), and always pure and employed in the Fathers service.

3. Christs body this temple.

(1) The two temples began alike at Bethlehem (Psa_132:6; Mat_2:1).

(2) Both were destroyed and reared again. The Chaldees destroyed the one and Zerubbabel raised it. The Jews destroyed the other, and Christ Himself raised it.

(3) Both were consecrated to like uses. There, the only true holocaust of His entire obedience, which burnt in Him bright and clear all His life long Lev_6:9). There the only true trespass-offering of His death, satisfactory to the full for all the transgressions of the whole world Lev_5:6). There the meat and drink offering of His blessed body and blood (Lev_2:1).

II. THE DISSOLUTION OF IT BY DEATH.

1. The saying.

(1) Death is a dissolving, a loosing the cement with which body and soul are held together.

(2) This temple drops not down from age or weakness, dissolves not of itself, but by force and violence.

(3) Violent on their part, voluntary on His. He could have avoided it, and must have said it, or they could not have done it.

2. The saying no command, which would have been an order to commit sacrilege or murder; but

(1) A prediction to warn them of what they were now casting about.

(2) A permission which is always in the imperative; permitted for a greater good the destroying of sin by destroying this temple; for a greater good still to raise it again.

3. The doing. He said dissolve; they said crucify. The roof of this temple, His head, was loosed with thorns; the foundation, His feet, with nails; the side aisles, his hands, both likewise; the sanctum sanctorum, His heart, with a spear. They did more, they violently loosed the temple. And remember it was one of flesh and bone, not of lime and scone. Yet the ruins of a temple of senseless stone will excite pity; how much more the sensible temple of His body which, even before its dissolution, was strangely dissolved in bloody sweat, nor was it alone dissolved.

(1) The veil of the material temple split from top to bottom, as it were, for company, or in sympathy with Him.

(2) The great temple of the universe in a manner dissolved: its face black, the earth quaking, the stones rending, the graves opening.

III. THE REARING IT UP AGAIN BY HIS RESURRECTION. The saying was spoken by way of triumph over all they could do to Him.

1. The act.

(1) ἔγερω is a raising from sleep, and sleep we know is not destruction. It is to show us that He would turn death into a rest in hope, both His and ours.

(2) They should therefore miss their purpose. They reckoned to destroy Him, but would only prepare Him a short rest.

(3) The ease with which He would do it--with no more difficulty than waking from sleep, or tying an unloosed knot.

2. The person rising. Not destroy you and some other shall raise, but I will do it. An argument of His Divine nature. None could do it but God.

3. The thing raised. The same and no other.

(1) In substance.

(2) But not in quality; in a far better estate than before (Hag_2:9). In the morning after sleep the body riseth more fresh and full of vigour. So His body and ours (1Co_15:42-43) and henceforth this temple, dissolved in death, should be indissoluble by reason of resurrection.

IV. THE TIME TO DO IT IN. Within three days; and He did it within the time. Our duty then is

1. To rejoice. At Easter we celebrate the feast of dedication, which was ever a feast of great joy.

(1) His dissolution means the loosing us from our sins and their consequences.

(2) His resurrection is a promise of what He will do for another temple: the temple of His body mystical, of which we are parts--living stones.

2. To templify our bodies, which in many are far from temples; houses of trade, pleasure, idolatary, which must be dissolved to be made Gods houses. Then God must come in and sanctify them. (Bp. Andrewes.)

Christs sign

I. LIFE THROUGH DEATH.

II. CONSTRUCTION THROUGH DISSOLUTION. III. THE USE OF THE NEW THROUGH THE FALL OF THE OLD. (Bp. Westcott.)

The temple of Christs body

The metaphor was not dragged into conversation, but the temple He had just purged was shown to be a figure of something greater than itself.

I. THE ENIGMA. Christ cast a shadow over truths, the full disclosure of which might have altered the conduct of the Jews and the character of His mission. His hearers were puzzled and their after thoughts excited. What good man could propose such a destruction? What sane man could promise such a restoration? Yet it made such an impression that it was misquoted against Christ in the high priests palace, and as He hung upon the cross (Mat_26:60-61; Mar_14:57-58; Mar_15:29-30).

II. THE TYPE. The tabernacle and temple were significant preparations for the time when God would become flesh and tabernacle among men. Christ knew and proclaimed Himself to be the antitype; this new temple, in which the fulness of the godhead dwelt bodily, was consecrated when Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost.

III. THE LESSONS.

1. Christ foresaw clearly that the Jews would destroy this temple. To this He was reconciled and longed for it, inasmuch as His sphere of influence was now circumscribed; but the destroyed temple would be rebuilt on a scale more glorious, and all nations called to it.

2. The words, I will raise it again, are significant

(1) Of the identity of the body in which Christ rose with that in which He suffered. No doubt the transformation was great. The conditions of an incorruptible body are not known to us. But these words prove the link of continuity, and if there was such a link in the case of Christ, so also there will be one in the case of the saints whose bodies are to be like unto His.

(2) Of the power Christ had over His own future. His authority to cleanse the temple had been called in question. He affirmed that He had power not only to do this, but to raise up one which men could destroy but could not construct (Joh_10:18).

3. As He is risen Christ is a temple for all nations. In Him God dwells accessible to all: anywhere, irrespective of sacred times and places.

(1) The place of reconciliation, the refuge for sinners.

(2) The home of communion, the resort of saints; a temple that shall never be subverted.

4. The epistles carry this view of thought further.

(1) Every Christian is a temple of the living God; a motive for holiness far higher than moralists have dreamed of in their theories of the dignity of man, and the elevating power of self-respect (1Co_6:15; 1Co_6:19).

(2) More frequently Christians are living stones which collectively form a great temple or habitation of God in the Spirit.

5. A local church, also, as representing the Church Catholic, is also a temple of God (1Co_3:16; Eph_2:21-22; 1Pe_2:5).

6. The life which animates the stones, and so pervades the temple, emanates from the living foundation stone--the risen Christ. But this cannot now be fully manifest, just as our Lord was not understood at Jerusalem. The inner life of Christians is not seen. The Lords body is not discerned in the Church. But the temple is so being built that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

7. In such a world as this the holy temple encounters risk.

(1) The traders desecrated the Temple, worldly Christians secularize and degrade the Church of God; but such, sooner or later, the Lord will drive out and disown.

(2) Greater still is the fault of those who by strife and schism tend to destroy the temple; against this Paul lifts a stern warning (1Co_3:17). (Donald Fraser, D. D.)

The mysterious sign

A word

I. ENIGMATICAL, conveying one thing to unbelief and another to faith. Under the figure of a destroyed and rebuilded temple Christ announced that His death, brought about by them and His resurrection effected by Himself, would legitimize His recent action and demonstrate who He was. The same sign was subsequently given in Galilee (Mat_12:40).

II. MISUNDERSTOOD.

1. By the Pharisees through

(1) Slavish adherence to the letter of Scripture (2Co_3:6).

(2) Spiritual blindness occasioned by hypocrisy (Mar_3:25; Rom_11:25).

(3) Positive aversion, arising from inward moral corruption (Joh_3:20; Joh_8:43-44).

2. By the disciples. They had begun to see the light, but, like men with eyes only just opened, they were unable to discern accurately the objects the light revealed (Mar_8:24).

III. MEMORABLE. Hid away, this word was never afterwards lost. It recurred after the Resurrection illuminated by the fact to which it pointed, and thus helped to seal their faith (Act_4:10; Act_26:23; Rom_1:4, 1Pe_1:3). Lessons:

1. The complete ability of Christ to justify all His ways to God and man. Christs readiness to furnish a sign.

2. The irrefragable certainty of Christs death and resurrection, attested by the knowledge and experience of His disciples.

3. The veiled secret of Holy Scripture; the testimony of Jesus.

4. The blessedness of faith, however immature. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)

The temple of His body

I. THE DIGNITY OF OUR LORDS BODY. The bodies of believers are called temples because God dwells in them by a communication of grace, but the humanity of Christ is Gods temple by a substantial inhabitation, immediately and personally--In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead. God dwells in the Church as a King among His subjects, in Christs humanity as a King in His royal palace.

1. In the Epistle to the Hebrews Christ is the mystery shadowed forth by the outward sanctuary: The similitude will appear if we consider

(1) They were alike in building; both under the immediate and special direction of God.

(2) In the ornaments by which they were beautified.

(3) In Him the import of the sacred vessels is fulfilled.

(4) Christs body was like the Temple, as it regards those religious services which were performed in it.

(a) In the Temple was a standing oracle; in Christs humanity dwelt the true and living oracle of heaven.

(b) In the Temple was the altar of sacrifice and the atonement for sin. Both derived their efficacy from Him who His own self bore our sins.

(c) The Temple was the house of prayer: in the days of His flesh what prevailing supplications Christ offered, and He now even liveth to make intercession.

2. To this temple must every acceptable worshipper approach.

(1) The Spirit of Christ must inspire their prayers.

(2) His name must authorize them.

(3) His merit must perfume them.

(4) His advocacy must recommend them.

II. THE VIOLENCE AND DISHONOUR WHICH THE TEMPLE WAS DOOMED TO SUFFER AT THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES.

1. The nature of His passion was a dissolution, a full and complete death.

2. The extent of this passion. Death severed soul and body, but this was all--the union of the Godhead with the manhood was indestructible.

3. The circumstances by which this event was accomplished and wherein their aggravation consists.

(1) Violence and wickedness on mans part.

(2) Voluntariness and love on His.

III. THE GLORY TO WHICH IT WAS TO BE RAISED BY HIS ALMIGHTY POWER.

1. The agent, I. Dead men were raised by others. Christ by Himself. He is a quickening spirit for Himself and for us.

2. The subject--the self-same temple.

3. The state.

(1) Substantial--A spirit hath not flesh and bones, etc.

(2) Entire--nothing wanting to its perfection.

(3) Glorious. (J. Styles, D. D.)

Christs human body the temple of God

I. THE DWELLING-PLACE OF GOD. As soon as the first temple at Jerusalem was built. The glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. This splendid manifestation passed away, but the Lord did not depart. To the very moment when the building was destroyed a shining cloud constantly abode over the mercy-seat as a symbol of Jehovah. The second temple was without this, but still God was there, dwelling unseen within it. And this fact was in our Lords mind, for He calls the Temple His Fathers house. He dwells indeed in His Church and in every soul which He has redeemed, because He is continually acting by His Holy Spirit. But when He speaks of dwelling in the Man Christ Jesus, He means much more than this. There is an actual passing of the Godhead into that frame of dust, a union so close and entire, that wherever that human frame is, there is God. Is this mysterious to you? It was mysterious to Paul. Great is the mystery of godliness; to angels. We cannot explain it; but Scripture, which calls on you most plainly to believe it. God was in Christ. In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, not by a figure; but really, substantially. God dwells in His Church as the light of day dwells in our houses; He dwells in Christ as the same light dwells in the sun. He dwells among His people as the ocean dwells in the rivers whither the swelling tide carries it; He dwells in the incarnate Jesus as that ocean dwells in its bed.

II. A MANIFESTATION OF GOD. And herein also the resemblance between Him and both the Jewish temples holds good. When God entered that, He entered not spiritually only, but visibly; a bright cloud was the symbol of His presence. To understand the application of all this to Christ we must bear in mind

1. Though we ourselves are spiritual beings, we can form no conception of any being that is purely spiritual. This incapacity arises from the constitution of our nature. God is a spirit. It will follow, then, that unless something is done to help us, we can never have any right idea of God. We may form some conceptions of His attributes; but as for God Himself, He can have no place in our minds. But He meets this weakness of our nature. We cannot get into that spiritual world which He inhabits; He comes, therefore, within our range, into the world of matter, and embodies Himself in the human nature of Christ, and then says to an astonished universe, Behold your God!

2. We can form no adequate idea of the character of any being, unless we see him in action, or are made acquainted with his actions. Now, had God merely embodied Himself in a human frame, and then just shown Himself to the earth and disappeared, we should not have been advanced materially in our knowledge of Him. Hence He dwelt among us, spoke and acted; and in so doing made a revelation of Himself. By the truths Christ taught, by the powers He exercised, by the dispositions He manifested, and above all, by His sufferings and death; He has unfolded to us the Divine character. Something was known of God before. The heavens had declared His glory. His law too had asserted His authority and holiness, and His providence had borne witness to His justice, His goodness and truth. But what was all this? Nothing, when compared with the person, and work, and cross of Christ.

III. A MONUMENT TO GODS PRAISE. We wonder not that lofty structures were raised to the gods of the heathen, and that the heathen thought they honoured their gods by raising them. They did honour them. Their gods were men like themselves. But as for building a temple to the living Jehovahs glory, the thought of it seems at first confounding. We think of Him who has heaven for His throne and the earth for His footstool Yet God did allow a temple to be built to Him, and that temple did show forth His praise. It was a public acknowledgment of Him. Christs human nature glorifies God while it reveals Him. He is the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, the brightness of the Fathers glory. (G. Bradley, M. A.)

The three temples of the one God

I. THEIR ONE PURPOSE (cf. Psa_68:29; 2Co_6:16)

. The essential idea of a temple is that of a place where God manifests Himself to man, and where man dedicates himself to God. The first of these is realized by the Shekinah; by the power and character of Christ; by the holiness Of Christly souls in each of the three temples respectively. The second is attained in each: by the altar of the Jewish Temple, by the cross, by consecration.

II. THEIR SIMILAR HISTORY. In their

1. Origin. There was silence and mystery in each. The temple noiselessly built, Christ obscurely born, the Christian spiritually quickened.

2. Materials: Glorious in each. In the Temple gold, precious stones, fragrant woods. In Christ a specially prepared sinless body. In Christians fearful and wonderful elements.

3. Sufferings. One besieged, the second crucified, the third hated by the world.

4. Divine desertion. The first was left desolate, the second forsaken, the third often loses God as in eclipse.

5. Destruction. The Temple was more than once destroyed; the Saviour gave up the Ghost; the Christian descends into the grave.

6. Restoration. The first was restored and may be again, Christ rose again the third day, Christians shall rise so that the temple shall be completed and the top stone laid with rejoicings. Grace, grace unto it.

Lessons:

1. For those who refuse to be identified with the Temple: What glory you lose; what a destiny you miss.

2. For those who are identified with the Temple: Be enduring; be pure; fulfil your high end. (U. R. Thomas.)

The crowning act

I. A CERTAIN DEMAND. It is shown

1. What they required--a sign, often requested in our Lords day and afterwards.

2. Why they required it--because of the extraordinary cleansing of the temple.

II. A SIGNIFICANT ANSWER. There is here

1. An exalted claim. The temple was the abode of God.

2. A striking prediction.

3. A wonderful declaration.

III. A GROSS MISREPRESENTATION.

1. How it originated; in applying literally what was only meant figuratively.

2. The feeling it produced--ridicule or contempt.

3. The explanation which the Evangelist supplies.

IV. AN IMPORTANT RESULT. When therefore, etc. From this we see

1. That the words of Christ were not forgotten.

2. The effect such remembrance produced. (Miracles of our Lord.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 2:18-22. Then answered the Jews — “A fact so public and remarkable as that just mentioned, could not but immediately come to the knowledge of the priests and rulers of the Jews, whose supreme council sat in a magnificent chamber belonging to the temple;” some of them, therefore, said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things — That is, to prove thyself authorized and commissioned to do them? This they ask because it belonged only to the magistrate, as being God’s minister and vicegerent, or to a prophet, to reform abuses in God’s worship. The authority of the magistrate they knew Christ had not, for acting as he had done; and if he alleged that he acted as a prophet, they require him to give them proof of his being such, by some miracle or prediction, to be accomplished before their eyes. But was not the thing itself a sufficient sign? His ability to drive so many from their posts, without opposition, was surely a proof of his authority to do it: he that was armed by such a divine power, must have been armed with a divine commission. The truth is, they required a miracle to confirm a miracle! This unreasonable demand Jesus did not think proper to grant them; but refers them to the miracle of his resurrection: which, however, he does in such obscure terms, as prejudiced minds could not understand, till the prediction was cleared and explained by the event. Jesus answered, Destroy this temple — Pointing probably to his body, which, with the greatest propriety, he called a temple, on account of the divinity residing in it. By a like figure of speech, the apostle calls the bodies of believers the temples of God. When Christ said, Destroy this temple, he meant, You will be permitted to destroy it, and you will destroy it: for at the very beginning of his ministry he had a clear foresight of all his sufferings, and of his death at the end of it; and yet he went on cheerfully in his work. Observe, reader, our Lord spake thus to them in parables because they were willingly ignorant, and shut their eyes against the clear light issuing from his life, his doctrine, and his miracles. For they that will not see shall not see; but shall stumble and fall, and be broken, and snared, and taken, Isa 8:14-15. Accordingly, the figurative speech here used by our Lord, proved such a stumbling-block to them, that it was produced in evidence against him at his trial, to prove him a blasphemer, Mat 26:60-61. Had they, in humility, asked him the meaning of what he said, he would have informed them, and it would have been a savour of life unto life to them; but they resolved to cavil, and it proved a savour of death unto death. They that would not be convinced were hardened, and the manner of the expression of this prediction occasioned the accomplishment of the prediction itself. In his saying, In three days I will raise it up — Our Lord not only foretold his resurrection, but that it should he effected by his own power. There were others that were raised at different times from the dead, but Christ was the only person that ever raised himself! They, supposing that he spake of the temple in which they were standing, replied, Forty and six years was this temple in building — Dr. Lightfoot computes that it was just forty-six years from the founding of Zerubbabel’s temple, in the second year of Cyrus, to the complete settlement of the temple service, in the thirty- second year of Artaxerxes. The original expression, however, ωκοδομηθη ο ναος ουτος, instead of, was this temple in building, is translated by Doddridge, Heylin, and Worsley, hath been building, “proceeding on the supposition, that those who made this reply alluded to the additional buildings which the temple had received, and which had been begun by Herod, and continued by those who succeeded him in the government of Judea, to the time then present. But let it be observed, that the Jews never did, nor do to this day, speak of more than two temples possessed by their fathers; the first built by Solomon, the second by Zerubbabel. The great additions made by Herod, were considered as intended only for decorating and repairing the edifice, not for rebuilding it; for, in fact, Zerubbabel’s temple had not then been destroyed. Nor need we, I think, puzzle ourselves to make out exactly the forty-six years spoken of. Those men were evidently in the humour of exaggerating, in order to represent to the people as absurd what they had immediately heard advanced by our Lord. In this disposition, we may believe, they would not hesitate to include the years in which the work was interrupted, among the years employed in building.” — Campbell. But he spake of the temple of his body — And therefore they were entirely mistaken as to the sense of what he said; When, therefore, he was risen from the dead — Just on the third day after his crucifixion; his disciples remembered that he had said this — Which, when they heard him utter it, they did not at all understand; and they believed the Scripture, &c. — As they believed the Scriptures, which predicted the Messiah’s death, so they believed the more firmly in their Master on account of this prophecy, which, by foretelling his resurrection so long beforehand, rendered that event, when it happened, a most illustrious proof of his mission from God. Dr. Campbell translates the clause, They understood the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; observing, that the word πιστευειν, in the sacred writers, sometimes signifies, not so much to believe, as to apprehend aright. “In this sense, it is once and again employed by this writer in particular. It is not intimated here, that the disciples did not, before this time, believe the Scriptures, or their Master’s word: but that they did not, till now, rightly apprehend the meaning of either, in relation to this subject. Another instance of this application of the verb πιστευω, we have Joh 3:12.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

Joh_2:18. The disciples saw in Christ’s action the fulfilment of the old Scripture, the Jews an excuse for a further demand for a sign.

Joh_2:19. Destroy this temple, etc.—The reference is at first sight mysterious, especially when taken in connection with the Evangelist’s explanation in Joh_2:21. But the difficulty is, in part at least, cleared up when we remember that the actual temple which Jesus had just cleansed was the visible expression of the consecration of God’s ancient people to His service and worship, and of His dwelling with and in His people (Eze_43:7). That ancient spiritual temple the Jews would destroy; but by His death and resurrection Jesus would found and raise, to be eternally enduring, His Church, which is indeed His mystical body. And it is this temple of which He speaks—His Church including that of patriarch and prophet—built now upon a foundation which cannot be moved (1Pe_2:1-10; Mat_22:2-14; Mat_23:38). I will, etc. (Joh_10:17-18, etc.).—The Jews twisted this saying of our Lord, and accused Him of declaring that He would destroy the material temple. The utterance seems to have made a deep impression. It formed the basis of Christ’s accusation before Caiaphas (Mat_26:61); and Stephen’s enemies accused him of repeating this saying (Act_6:13-14). Thus the historical accuracy of the saying is established.

Joh_2:20. The temple was not then completed; but it had taken forty-six years to bring it to the point of completion at which it then stood. “Herod the Great began to restore the temple in B.C. 20 [Jos., B. J., i. 21

(16), i: comp. Antiq., xv. 11

(14), i.], and the design was completed by Herod Agrippa A.D. 64” (Westcott).

Joh_2:21. He spake, etc.—Not understood at first, the saying afterward became clear to the disciples (comp. Joh_12:16). He—ἐκεῖνος—is emphatic. The temple of His body.—I.e. “the temple defined to be His body” (Westcott) (1Co_6:19, etc.).

Joh_2:22. When therefore He was raised from the dead, etc.—Raised by the power of God (Gal_1:1, etc.). Remembered in accordance with the promise afterward given (Joh_14:26). They believed the scripture, etc.—Usually this phrase refers to some particular passage. Doubtless here the reference is to those passages in the writings of psalmists and prophets which foretold Christ’s sufferings and death, the glory of the Church of the latter days, etc., which the disciples were “slow of heart to believe” before the Resurrection and Pentecost (Luk_24:25-27).

Joh_2:23. Now when He was in Jerusalem at the passover, etc.—The date of this passover is probably A.U.C. 781, i.e. A.D. 28. At the feast (ἐν τῷ πάσχα),—I.e. during the whole period of the feast of unleavened bread. Many believed on His name, etc.—Belief in His Messiahship is evidently intended; but the reference to “the signs which He did” shows that their “belief” was probably not of a deep abiding nature. It was a Jewish faith, and was founded on that which will strengthen true faith, but will not beget it. Their faith rested on the outer acts merely, and was thus imperfect, and perhaps in many cases evanescent. “The incidental notice of these signs (Joh_7:31; Joh_11:47, etc.) is an unquestionable proof that St. John does not aim at giving an exhaustive record of all he knew” (Westcott). See also Mar_3:10, etc.

Joh_2:24. He knew.—He is emphatic. He Himself knew, etc. He did not commit (ἐπίστευεν, believe). “As they did not give themselves morally to Him, He did not give Himself morally to them” (Luthardt). He knew all, etc. As He read the heart of Nicodemus, so He read the hearts of these people.

Joh_2:25. And because He needed not, etc.—He did not require that men should bring Him testimonials of character, as it were, from their fellows before He would commit Himself to them. He Himself knew what was in man. He is, indeed, the searcher of hearts, etc. (Jer_17:10, etc.).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Joh_2:18-25

The sign Christ gave of His authority in cleansing the temple.—The Jewish leaders could not bring any accusation against Christ for His zeal in vindicating the honour of His Father’s house. In their secret hearts they recognised the necessity for such an action, and they were no doubt well aware that the great body of the people would be in sympathy with Christ’s action. But unmoved themselves by the clear expression of divine power and activity manifested in the action of Jesus, they fell back on the device, so often resorted to by them, to demand outward signs and miracles in proof of Christ’s divine authority—signs which, when given, only made their unbelief and hatred more conspicuous. Christ gave them an answer, although not that which they asked for. He well knew that no mere outward signs could remove unbelief, that miracle would be demanded to establish miracle, and that even the signs He wrought would be twisted, as they were afterward, to His prejudice by His enemies. But He gave a sign which would not only, when it occurred, vindicate His action in the eyes of all unprejudiced men, but would tend to strengthen the faith of His disciples. “Destroy this temple,” He said, “and in three days I will raise it again.” Consider:—

I. The preparation for the sign.—“Destroy this temple.” The Evangelist adds the explanation, “He spake of the temple of His body.” As we read these words there rises before us the view of the Redeemer with thorny crown on His head, tottering beneath the weight of His cross. We see Him hanging on that cross—the nails lacerating His hands and feet, the thorny crown pressed on His lacerated brow. And as we look at the fainting, bleeding form we seem to hear Him saying, “Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto My sorrow.” And yet again, as we hear the last voice, “It is finished,” and see the Roman soldier thrust his spear into the side of the Redeemer, we realise that the words “Destroy this temple” were a prophecy of what was to come to pass.

II. The sign itself is the Resurrection.—“In three days I will raise it up.” This was the sign above all signs that testified to Christ’s divine Sonship, and His right to cleanse His Father’s house from defilement. And doubtless the Saviour signified by some gesture that He intended to refer this statement primarily to Himself. And it is noteworthy that He here claims power Himself to rise from the dead; whilst in various passages of the New Testament His rising is ascribed to the Father (Rom_4:24; Rom_6:4; 1Co_15:15; 1Pe_1:21, etc., etc.). But it must be remembered that “the receptivity of Jesus in the act of His resurrection is not mere passivity” (Godet). Jesus was “one with the Father”; and as it was by an act of His will that He submitted to the temple of His body being left in a measure to the power of the destroyer, so it was in accordance with His will and His Father’s will that His body was raised again on the third day. This is plainly shown in His own words, “I lay down My life, that I might take it again.… I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (Joh_10:17-18). This sign was the seal of His authority, and would carry conviction to all believing hearts. It is the centre of our Christian faith. And from the beginning, and in all ages since, the Church has proclaimed “Jesus and the Resurrection” (Act_17:18).

III. The reception of the proffered sign by those who heard it.—

1. The Jews replied in wonder and scorn, “Forty and six years,” etc. Utterly unspiritual, they applied our Lord’s words to the material temple alone, which Jesus had just cleansed. More than that, they wilfully misunderstood His words to mean that He Himself would destroy the temple. The saying seems to have made a deep impression on all who heard it; and it was made use of in its perverted form by the false witnesses, who brought lying accusations against our Lord and the protomartyr of His Church (Mat_26:61; Act_6:14).

2. The disciples could not understand the full import of Christ’s words at the first. But they also treasured them up in their hearts, not like the Jewish rulers, but believingly. And then after the Resurrection the saying became more clear.

IV. The deeper meaning of the sign.—

1. Not only is the body of the individual Christian likened to a temple, but the whole Church of Christ is His spiritual body (Eph_1:23). In Him “all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord” (Eph_2:19-22).

2. And in this view our Lord might well include even the material temple in this “dark” saying. For was it not simply the symbol and representative of the whole nation, which was to be holiness to the Lord?

3. This old order the Jews did destroy when they rejected Jesus. “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Mat_23:38).

4. But the ancient Church of God was not utterly destroyed (Rom_11:26). It was merged in a new and better building, founded on the man Christ Jesus (Eph_2:22), a spiritual temple in which men should worship the Father in spirit and in truth (Joh_4:20-24).

Joh_2:19. “Destroy this temple.”—Amid the intellectual strife of this age we often hear voices crying out, “Destroy this temple.” These voices sadden us, make us indignant, wound us. But it is in presence of such attacks—light, frivolous, learned, passionate, or scornful—that we must hear the voice of Jesus saying, “I will raise up this temple in three days.”

I. Consider first that voice which is the most coarse and clamorous—that of popular materialism.—

1. The dominating passion of the hour may be called enjoyment. This feverish passion menaces both social and moral order. The thirst for riches, luxury, honour, devours this generation. Enjoy quickly, without dignity, without labour, without a care of honour or duty, in a merely individual and egoistic fashion—this seems to many the unique reality. And if there is no longer any moral sphere, no heaven, no God, why speak of duty, of adoration, of sacrifice, etc.? These things are chimerical—a faded superstition. Therefore what need of that temple which is the embodiment of such ideas? “Destroy it,” etc.

2. Unhappy men, take heed! Lay not your sacrilegious hands upon this temple. Who are you? Have you never loved, suffered, wept? Have you not had fathers, mothers, children? Does no voice speak to you when you consider your misery and the infinite greatness of the Highest? Have you never felt the holy tremblings of duty, sacrifice, etc., within you? If in some fatal day through the violence of passion this temple of Christ’s gospel should be for the moment overturned, it will be found of necessity that it should be raised up. For humanity, enlightened and sanctified by Jesus, cannot forsake this temple. Humanity must love, believe, pray, hope. This temple, for a moment overturned, will rise again and issue from the needs of the spirit of religion.

II. The second voice is that of positivism.—

1. It loathes and is ashamed of the gross materialism just described. It desires that humanity should seek after truth, disinterestedly and nobly. But away with illusions! Let men seek for what is real and positive. And what is this? That which is in accordance with our immediate experience, and of which we can have direct experimental proof. Beyond this is the region of dreams; the pretended higher realities are inaccessible. Thus humanity in its infancy has passed through the religious period; in its adolescence through the philosophic; in its virile age it has accepted positivist science. What need now then of earlier dreams—a higher world, prayer, etc.? “Destroy this temple.”

2. In the name of positive science itself we protest against such desolating conclusions. Those higher instincts prove their existence within us, and obtrude themselves with authority on our consciousness. They are inherent in our nature, etc. I must love, believe, pray, raise myself nearer God, as much as I need to breathe, etc. By all means marshal your facts. Show us scientifically how the sap flows in the tree to nourish it, how the earth obeys the law of gravitation in its course round the sun, etc. These facts are real, positive. But that there is a sap which nourishes my spiritual life, that my heart gravitates toward God, that my whole being, drawn by some superior force, rises, is attracted (like the tides), toward heaven, are also facts that are positive and indisputable, as much as the realities of the material cosmos. To deny these moral facts is to mutilate and violate our humanity. And when you cry, “Leave those chimeras,” humanity will not listen. Its greatness, its true joy, its power, lies just in this spiritual, ideal world which you would deny. Humanity demands that the supreme needs of the soul should be satisfied—men will pray, etc.—and in spite of your attempts will raise again the temple you think you have destroyed.

III. The third voice is that of religious idealism and æstheticism.—

1. Those who uphold it agree in condemning this science misnamed positive, which misapprehends the ideal side of humanity. The world of the ideal is the true world, in which to live and dream with the divine Plato. And among those who exercise the highest influence here must be placed first of all the tender, divine dreamer Jesus, who has seized the imaginations of men in all ages and led them into the joy of the infinite. But we must stop here. No need to speak of conscience, duty, sin, redemption, etc. Religion is a grand dream—the supreme charm. Poesy and art will suffice to express it. Therefore this old sanctuary, with its questions of sin, sacrifice, redemption, etc., what need for it? “Destroy it.”

2. Beware of this religious æstheticism, which flatters the imagination and kills the conscience. All the tragic side of human existence in it is denied and scorned. But those great external realities, sin, repentance, sacrifice, redemption, correspond with realities within. History confirms this. What is the central fact of all ages and religions? Sacrifice. This is so because man feels himself miserable, guilty before God, and that he needs reconciliation. From all ages rises the cry, “O wretched man,” etc. (Rom_7:24). Humanity needs a religion of mercy and grace; and however often that may seem destroyed, it will rise again.—From Ariste Viguié.

Joh_2:23-25. Jesus the searcher of hearts.—Our Lord’s cold reception by the Jewish rulers led Him to confine His labours more to the city, among the general population and the many strangers gathered together during the passovertide. He did not compel men to accept him. He sought to win them to His kingdom through faith and love. Therefore, when rejected of the rulers, He taught those who listened to Him, and wrought miracles of beneficence.

I. The consequence of His activity.—

1. “Many believed in His name, when they saw the miracles which He did.” Not only had His significant action in the temple drawn upon Him the gaze of many, but also the miracles, here unrecorded, which He did among the people.

2. And it must be noticed that Jesus here did not shun publicity. He must be known for men’s salvation; and when He is made known it must be as He who is able to save to the uttermost, because the Sent of God. And in consequence of His activity many believed on Him.

II. His attitude toward those who thus believed on Him.—

1. “He did not commit Himself unto them,” or He did not believe in their belief, had no faith (ἐπίστευεν) in their faith. Their faith, such as it was, was evoked by the outward signs, the miracles Jesus did.

2. But a faith founded on such external foundation is apt to be unstable and fleeting. The sign would require to be constantly repeated if the faith were to continue. But constantly repeated miracles would cease to be wonderful. They might be explained away or misinterpreted. Such a faith cannot claim affinity with that trust and confidence which Jesus requires of His true disciples.

III. The reason why our Lord adopted this attitude.—

1. “He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man,” etc. This power had already been shown in the case of Nathanael, and startling instances of it are given in John’s Gospel. Christ knows and reads the human heart.

2. How little we know of our own hearts—how difficult even for the most skilled observer of the phenomena of the intellectual and moral being to disentangle the various twisted threads of motive, emotion, feeling, etc.

3. But Jesus knows all—every stream of influence, every inception of thought or action, every spring of feeling and emotion, even when these are unperceived by men themselves. It could not be otherwise with Him of whom it is said, “All things were made by Him” (Joh_1:3). He therefore can detect thought and motive in their most secret recesses. Thus He saw through the shallowness of those men’s faith.

IV. Let us rejoice that Jesus thus knows men.—

1. Because he is the loving, sympathising Saviour, and is therefore able and willing to winnow the false from the true in us—a nominal from a real faith. Our only security, indeed, is that He does know us.

2. He knows full well each one of us—our capacities as well as our weaknesses—and how we can be best fitted for His kingdom.

3. Therefore our highest wisdom, remembering that He knows us altogether, is touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and can send us help in time of need, is to yield ourselves to Him submissively, saying, “Lord, thou knowest all things”; therefore work in us such faith that of us Thou mayest say, They are Mine: for “I know My sheep, and am known of Mine” (Joh_10:14).

HOMILETIC NOTES

Joh_2:18. The folly of unbelief.—The same psalm which declared the moving cause of Christ’s action in the temple contains also these words: “Because for thy sake I have borne reproach,” etc. (Psa_69:7-10).

1. That which was to the disciples for edification became a stumbling-block to the degenerate Jews. They assailed Jesus with the question, “What sign?” etc. Where is Thy authority? Thou art not a priest, temple guard, member of the Sanhedrin; and wilt Thou cleanse God’s holy threshing-floors? (Luk_3:17). Dost Thou claim them as Thy Father’s possession?

2. How childish is this play of these opponents! how deceitful their actions! Their appearance of piety was simply piety in appearance! Were not they the sinners against the sanctuary?

3. Did not an action like that of the cleansing of the temple carry its authorisation within itself? Does the unfruitful fig-tree ask of the lightning-flash that lays it low, What doest thou? Does the thief who has been caught ask the officer, What right have you to seize me? Did the Gadarenes, as they saw their swine (possessed by them in opposition to the law) precipitated into the lake, ask for damages? Was not the cleansing of the temple a witness to the spirit and power of our Lord, a proof of His dignity, that He was the Son of God, the inheritor of Israel?

4. The more powerfully Jesus preached, and not as the scribes, the more angrily did those very scribes ask, “By what authority?” etc. The more their hearts were filled with envy and ambition, sins from which sprang the desecration of the temple, the carelessness of the people, the corruption of public affairs, the more jealously and with more pettiness did they lay stress on outward consideration—their authority according to the letter.—Abridged from Kögel.

Joh_2:19. The foundation of the spirtual temple of God.—

1. The temple was a house built of stone; but in the Lord was the fulness of the Godhead. The Jewish temple was a shadow; the Lord, the Spirit, substance, fulfilment. The temple was the place for typical offerings only; the Lord was sanctuary, offering, and high priest in one. On another occasion He could say of Himself: Here is One who is greater than the temple—here is One who is Lord also of the Sabbath day.

2. Jesus saw from the hate in their eyes, etc., that His enemies would proceed from the profanation, at present stayed, of the outward sanctuary to an open act of violence against the Lord and heir—the Messiah.

3. But the more they prided themselves on the beauty and glory of the sanctuary which required forty-six years to build, the more they would harden themselves against the preaching of repentance. For sin is blind; therefore they did not see the judgment drawing near. Sin is deaf; therefore they did not hear the warning voice of God’s Son. The weight of guilt hastens the fall which precipitates into the abyss. Those who scorn the reformer must face the judge. “Fill up the measure of your fathers”; “destroy this temple”: just as at the last that terrible order was given to Judas, “What thou doest, do quickly.”—Idem.

Joh_2:22. The resurrection is the sign which includes all verification and authorisation.—Jesus answered this question as to His authority for cleansing the temple, as once when the Pharisees asked Him, in spite of all His miracles, for a sign from heaven. He would point them to none but that of the prophet Jonah—to the resurrection of the Son of man from the grave.—Idem.

Joh_2:23. Superficial faith.—The original words imply that their faith was dependent upon the signs which they gazed upon, without entering into their deeper meaning. It was the impulsive response of the moment, not based upon a previous preparation, nor resulting in a present deep conviction. It came far short of the faith of the disciples, who passed from a true knowledge of Moses and the prophets to a true knowledge of Christ without a sign; but it came far above the disbelief of scribes and Pharisees, who after a sign rejected Him. It was not the prepared good ground bringing forth abundantly; but neither was it the hardened wayside, which did not receive seed at all.

Joh_2:24. The deeper faith, the fuller blessing.—But beneath this shallow surface there is the unbroken ledge of rock. They are easily moved just because they are not deeply moved. The eye which looked at, looked into, others (Joh_1:47, etc.), saw to the very depth of their hearts too, and knew all. It saw in that depth that the true inner man did not believe, did not commit itself to Him; it found not the spiritual receptivity, and there could not therefore be the spiritual revelation. He on His part did not commit Himself unto them (Joh_8:31).—Archdeacon H. W. Watkins, M.A.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 2:18. Τί σημεῖον, what sign) And yet this very act was a σημεῖον, sign, which Jesus had miraculously wrought. [Of how great a number do you imagine there would be need, if all the buyers and sellers had to be immediately driven out of any market-place!—V. g. And on that account, indeed, that act was the more marvellous, inasmuch as Jesus, having just come from His baptism, had not yet ceased to be a stranger to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.—Harm., p. 161.] They require signs, to be proved by signs. They showed the same perversity, ch. Joh 6:30, [After His miracle of feeding 5000, they said] “What sign showest Thou then, that we may see and believe Thee?” Mat 21:23, “The chief priests came unto Him, as He was teaching in the temple, and said, By what authority doest Thou these things? and who gave Thee this authority?”—ὅτι) seeing that, since.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_2:18-19. The same question as in Mat_21:23, but how totally different an answer! It cannot therefore be used to confirm the supposed identity of the two events.

ἀπεκρίθ.] As in Mat_11:25 (which see), and often, denoting what is said upon occasion of Christs act, and with reference thereto.

τί σημεῖον] If what He had done was to he recognised as appropriate to Him, it must be based upon a really prophetic ἐξουσία, and consequently upon divine authorization; in proof of this, they desired a special miraculous sign or act, accrediting Him as a divine messenger, and which was to be wrought by Him before their eyes, אוֹת, σημεῖον τῆς αὐθεντίας, Euthymius Zigabenus; comp. Joh_6:30.

δεικνύεις] dost thou bring before us, lettest us see; comp. Hom. Il. v. 244: Κρονιων

δεικνὺς σῆμα βροτοῖσιν. Od. γ. 174.

ὅτι] εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, on, Joh_9:17, Joh_11:51, Joh_16:9; Mar_16:14; 2Co_1:18; 2Co_11:10. See Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 248. Consequently in the sense of quatenus, see Ast, Lex. Plat. II. 485.

ποιεῖς] The present denotes the act just performed, but which is still regarded as present.

Joh_2:19. λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, κ.τ.λ.] refers, according to the apostles explanation in Joh_2:21, to the death and resurrection of Jesus, so that he consequently means His body as the dwelling-place of God, who was in Christ (Joh_10:38, Joh_14:10-11; Joh_14:20, Joh_17:21, Joh_1:14), i.e. as the antitype of the temple,[142] and, in conformity with this, His violent death as the pulling down, and His resurrection as the rebuilding of it. We must therefore, according to John, suppose that Jesus, with the temple buildings before Him, to which He points (this temple here), sees in them the sacred type of His body, and with that directness of expression characteristic of the old prophets (such as we often see, e.g., in Isaiah), straightway substitutes the image for that which it represented, so that these sharp, vivid strokes, dashed down without any explanation, contain, as in a pictorial riddle, a symbolic and prophetic announcement of His resurrection,[143] as in Mat_12:39; Mat_16:4, and in keeping with what we are to assume throughout, viz. that He never foretold His resurrection in so many words, but only by figures and in obscure terms. The thought accordingly, divested of this figurative envelope, is, according to John, no other than this: kill me, and within three days (ἐν, see Bernhardy, p. 209; Winer, p. 361 [E. T. p. 482]) I will rise again. The imperative in the protasis is not permissive merely, which weakens the emotion, but contains a challenge; it springs from painfully excited feeling, as He looks with heart-searching gaze upon that implacable opposition which was already beginning to show itself, and which would not be satisfied till it had put Him to death. Comp. πληρώσατε, Mat_23:32. Johns explanation is adopted by the ancients, and among modern expositors by Kuinoel, Tholuck, Hildebrand (in Hüffells Zeitschr. II. 1), Kling (in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 127), Krabbe, Klee, Olshausen (at least as to their inner meaning, while the words, he thinks, were apparently simply a repelling paradox), Maier, Hasert (Ueb. d. Vorhersagungen Jesu von seinem Tode, Berlin 1839, p. 81), Hauff in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 106 ff.; Brückner (against De Wette), Laurillard, de locis ev. Joh. in quibus ipse auctor verba J. interpretat. est, Lugd. B. 1853, p. 1 ff.; Baumgarten, Maier, Baeumlein, Godet, even Luthardt (though bringing in a double meaning; by putting Jesus to death, Israel destroyed itself as the house of God, while the resurrection was the setting up of Gods spiritual house; comp. Ebrard, Lange, Riggenbach, Hengstenberg); similarly Baur, p. 137 ff., who, however (and with him Hilgenfeld), traces the expression to synoptic elements much later in point of time. But Johns explanation is abandoned, since the time of Herder (vom Sohne Gottes) and Henke (Programm 1798, in Pott, Sylloge, I. p. 8 ff.), by Eckermann, Paulus, Lücke, Schweizer, Bleek, B. Crusius, Ammon, Strauss, Gfrörer, De Wette, Ewald, Weizsacker, Schenkel, Scholten, and many others, who, with various modifications, explain the pulling down of the temple of the decay of the old temple religion, and the setting up in three days of the new spiritual theocracy so soon to be established; thus the imperative is taken by some as a challenge (as above) (Herder, Henke, Ewald), by some again as a concession (Schenkel), and by some as an hypothesis (Lücke, B. Crusius, De Wette: Granted that ye destroy)according to De Wette, with allusion perhaps to the late partial pulling down of the temple by Herod. But (1) before we can assume that John of all men, who yet elsewhere was so deeply imbued with the mind of Jesus, wholly misunderstood Him, and that too at the time when he wrote his Gospel, when, consequently, the old degenerate religion had been long ago overthrown, and the new spiritual sanctuary long ago set up,the most decisive evidence of such a misunderstanding is requisite. If this be not forthcoming, we are bound to seek the true, interpretation of any saying of Jesus from him, and especially in this case, where he distinctly gives his own explanation in opposition to the misconception of the Jews, and gives it not only as his own, but as that of the rest of the disciples likewise. (2) The accusation in Mat_26:61, Mar_14:58 (comp. Act_6:13) is no argument in favour of the modern interpretation, for it is based only upon the Jewish misunderstanding of the saying. (3) The place and occasion alike suggested the temple as an illustration, but they determined nothing as to the subject-matter of the comparison; a σημεῖον in general was asked for, not one bearing specially upon the temple. (4) The setting up of the spiritual temple was an event not at all dependent upon a previous λύειν of the old economy; on the contrary, a beginning had already been made, the further development of which was not the effect but the cause (the fermenting element) of the dissolution of the old theocracy: hence the relation of the protasis to the apodosis of the sentence would be neither logically nor historically correct. (5) This spiritual building up was so far from being a momentary act, and was to so great a degree a gradual development, that neither the conception of a ΣΗΜΕῖΟΝ in general, nor the words ἘΝ ΤΡΙΣῚΝ ἩΜΈΡΑΙς, which belong essentially to this conception, have any corresponding relation thereto; the latter expression, even if taken in a proverbial sense (Hos_6:2, not Luk_13:32; but see Dissen ad Dem. de cor. p. 362), could only mean in a few days, and therefore would be quite unsuited to the comparison, and would even have the appearance of grandiloquence. Moreover, as the three days joined to the ἐγερῶ were always the fixed correlative of Christs resurrection, this ought itself to have excluded the modern explanation. (6) A new temple would of necessity have been spoken of as another (comp. Mar_14:58), but ἐγερῶ αὐτόν can only mean the same; and thus the Jews as well as John rightly understood it, for Jesus did not say ἐγερῶ ἄλλον or ἝΤΕΡΟΝ, or the like.[144] (7) It is only a seeming objection to Johns explanation, that according to N. T. theology Christ did not raise Himself from the dead, but was raised by the Father; comp. Joh_2:22; Act_2:24; Act_2:31 ff., Act_3:15; Act_4:10; Act_5:30, al.; Rom_4:24; Rom_8:11; 1Co_6:14; 2Co_4:14; Gal_1:1; Eph_1:21; Col_2:12; 1Th_1:10; 1Pe_1:21. Any such contradiction to the Christian mode of view, if real, must have prevented John himself above every one from referring the words to the resurrection. But the objection disappears if we simply give due weight to the figurative nature of the expression, which rests upon that visible contemplation of the resurrection, according to which the Subject that arises, whose resurrection is described as the re-erecting of the destroyed temple, must also be the Subject that erects the temple,without affecting the further doctrine, which, moreover, does not come under consideration, that the causa efficiens, i.e. the actual revivifying power, is the father. Christ receiving His life again from the Father (Joh_10:17) and rising again, Himself raises up by His very resurrection the destroyed temple. See, moreover, Brückner, p. 57, and Godet. Comp. Ignat. Smyrn. 2 : ἀληθῶς ἀνέστησεν ἑαυτόν.

For ἘΓΕΊΡΕΙΝ as used of erecting buildings, see Sir_49:11; 3 Esdras 5:44, 8:81; Ael. V. H. 12, 23; Herodianus, 3, 15. 6; Jacobs ad Anthol. XII. p. 75

[142] Considering the oft-recurring representation of the indwelling of God in Christ, it is very far-fetched to derive the temple comparison here from the Valentinian Christology concerning a higher body of the Messiah appropriate for union with the Logos (in answer to Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. 247). Seeing, further, that Christ (ver. 16) calls the literal temple His Fathers house, how can the Demiurge be conceived of as the God of the Jews? How can we reconcile with that expression even a milder Gnosticism (Hilgenfeld, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 516)? Simply to admit that a weak reference to the highest God was not wanting even in Judaism, is both incorrect in itself, and altogether unsuited to solve the palpable contradiction.

[143] It is assumed (with Bengel) still in my 4th edition, that Jesus indicated the reference to His body nutu gestuve, but that the Jews did not notice it. This is inadmissible, because thus the τοῦτον would have no reference whatever to the temple of stone, whereas the entire scene in the temple court shows that this reference is contained in it. Besides, such a gesture would be inappropriate while using an enigmatical word, for it would at once give the key to its solution. The intellectual point would be quite lost.

[144] Appeal is wrongly made to Mat_10:39, where ψυχήν denotes earthly life merely, and then αὐτήν life eternal. ψυχήν as well as αὐτήν there means nothing but the soul; and the enigma of the expression lies not in a different sense being applied to these two words, but in the different meaning as respects duration of εὑρών and ἀπολέσει.

Note.

It cannot perplex us in Johns explanation, that the answer which Jesus gave was rightly understood neither by the Jews nor by the disciples at the time. It was the manner of Jesus, as especially appears in John, to throw out seeds of thought for the future which could not take root at the time. Comp. Chrysostom: πολλὰ τοιαῦτα φθέγγεται τοῖς μὲν τότε ἀκούουσιν οὐκ ὄντα δῆλα, τοῖς δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐσόμενα. Τίνος δὲ ἕνεκεν τοῦτο ποιεῖ; ἵνα δειχθῇ προεισὼς ἄνωθεν τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα, ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ καὶ τῆς προῤῥήσεως τὸ τέλος ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς προφητείας ταύτης γέγονεν. And that from His very first public appearance He foresaw the development of the opposition of this seemingly guileless party, onwards to its goal in the destruction of the temple of His body, can be regarded as an unhistorical presupposition of the Logos doctrine only by one who, on the one hand, can by critical doubts[145] get rid of the early references of Jesus to His death which are contained in the Synoptics (e.g. Mat_10:38; Mat_12:39; Mat_10:23), and, on the other hand, does not sufficiently estimate Christs higher knowledge, and especially His acquaintance with the heart which John unfolds, by virtue of which He apprehends the full intent (Joh_6:64) of this seemingly justifiable requirement of a sign.

[145] Comp. Keim, Geschichtl. Christus, pp. 35, 36, ed. 3.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Against them which so bind God to an ordinary calling which they themselves most shamefully abuse, that they will not admit an extraordinary, which God confirmeth from heaven, (and they although in vain would have it extinguished) unless it be sealed with outward and bodily miracles.

With what miracle dost thou confirm it, that we may see that heavenly power and virtue, which giveth thee authority to speak and do thus?

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?--Though the act and the words of Christ, taken together, were sign enough, they were unconvinced: yet they were awed, and though at His very next appearance at Jerusalem they "sought to kill Him" for speaking of "His Father" just as He did now (Joh 5:18), they, at this early stage, only ask a sign.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 18. What sign showest thou] See notes on Mt 12:38; Mt 16:1. When Moses came to deliver Israel, he gave signs, or miracles, that he acted under a Divine commission. What miracle dost thou work to show us that thou art vested with similar authority?

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

18. What sign showest thou to us? When in so large an assembly no man laid hands on Christ, and none of the dealers in cattle or of the money-changers repelled him by violence, we may conclude that they were all stunned and struck with astonishment by the hand of God. And, therefore, if they had not been utterly blinded, this would have been a sufficiently evident miracle, that one man against a great multitude, an unarmed man against strong men, all unknown man against great rulers, attempted so great an achievement. For since they were far stronger, why did they not oppose him, but because their hands were loosened and — as it were — broken?

Yet they have some ground for putting the question; for it does not belong to every man to change suddenly, if any thing is faulty or displeases him in the temple of God. All are, indeed, at liberty to condemn corruptions; but if a private man put forth his hand to remove them, he will be accused of rashness. As the custom of selling in the temple had been generally received, Christ attempted what was new and uncommon; and therefore they properly call on him to prove that he was sent by God; for they found their argument on this principle, that in public administration it is not lawful to make any change without an undoubted calling and command of God. But they erred on another point, by refusing to admit the calling of Christ, unless he had performed a miracle; for it was not an invariable rule that the Prophets and other ministers of God should perform miracles; and God did not limit himself to this necessity. They do wrong, therefore, in laying down a law to God by demanding a sign. When the Evangelist says that the Jews asked him, he unquestionably means by that term the multitude who were standing there, and, as it were, the whole body of the Church; as if he had said, that it was not the speech of one or two persons, but of the people.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(18) Then answered the Jews.—Comp. for the meaning of “the Jews” Joh_1:19; and for their question, Mat_21:23. The Mosaic legislation contained a warning against the efficiency of the test by signs (Deu_13:1-3), but it was of the essence of Pharisaism to cling to it (Mat_12:38; 1Co_1:22). It supplied an easy means of rejecting the moral conviction. A sign can only be evidence to the mind open to read the underlying truth. For “an evil and adulterous generation” it has no voice, and they can, after the feeding of the thousands, still demand “What sign showest Thou?” (Joh_6:30). There are bigots of incredulity. Knowledge is dependent upon action and will (comp. Joh_7:17). There is a mental condition which no evidence can convince, for it can always demand more. “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luk_16:31).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. the Jews] See on Joh_1:19.

What sign shewest thou] We have a similar question Mat_21:23, but the widely different answer shews that the occasion is not the same. Such demands would be made often.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then answered the Jews, and said unto him,.... They did not lay hands on him, or offer any violence to him; they did not, as the inhabitants of Nazareth did, thrust him out, and lead him to a precipice, to cast him down headlong; nor did they take up stones to stone him, as they afterwards did, when he asserted his deity: and it is surprising, that they did not rise up and destroy him at once, a single man, unarmed, and without assistance, having so highly provoked them; the restraint upon them must be his almighty power: nor do they deny what he suggested, that they had made his Father's house an house of merchandise; nor do they offer to vindicate their profanation of the temple, or object to the purging of it; only demand a proof of his right to do it: and which demand was made, not by the common people, or by the sellers of oxen, sheep, and doves, and the money changers, who were drove out, and had not spirit to rally again; but by the chief priests and elders, the sanhedrim of the nation, who had the care and government of the temple, and under whose authority the above persons acted; and whose gain and worldly interest were promoted hereby, as a like demand was afterwards made by the same persons; see Mat 21:23;

what sign shewest thou unto us, seeing thou dost these things? they argued, that either he did these things of himself, by his own authority, and then they must be deemed rash and unjustifiable; or he did it by the authority of others: they knew it was not by theirs, who were the great council of the nation, from whom he should have had his instructions and orders, if he acted by human authority; and if he pretended to a divine authority, as they supposed he did, then they insisted upon a sign or miracle to be wrought, to prove that God was his Father, as he suggested; and that he was the proprietor and owner of the temple, and had a right to purge it, as he had done; see Co1 1:22.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

Ver. 18. What sign] They might have seen sign enough, in his so powerful ejecting of those money merchants. But Church reformations are commonly thus diversely entertained. The disciples call it zeal, the Jews rashness.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What sign ... - What “miracle” dost thou work? He assumed the character of a prophet. He was reforming, by his “authority,” the temple. It was natural to ask by what authority this was done; and as they had been accustomed to miracles in the life of Moses, and Elijah, and the other prophets, so they demanded evidence that he had authority thus to cleanse the house of God.

Seeing that thou doest - Rather “by what title or authority thou doest these things.” Our translation is ambiguous. They wished to know “by what miracle” he had shown, or could show, his right to do those things.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Which of the Jews, whether some of the magistrates, or the priests, (who were more specially concerned for their profit), or the common people, or all together, is not said. They undertake not to justify their fact, nor could they deny it, but they ask him

what sign he could show them to justify his Divine authority. For this seemeth to have been their principle, that let corruptions and abuses in a church be never so great, yet they were not to be reformed, but either by the ordinary authority of the magistrate, or by all extraordinary authority from God. Such an extraordinary authority they would acknowledge in prophets; but they expected that those who pretended to such an extraordinary Divine mission, should be able to confirm that mission by some miraculous operations, as Moses did, Exo 4:30. They had had no prophets now for four hundred years amongst them; the Jews required therefore a sign, 1Co 1:22. The papists were at the same point with the first reformers; but they mistook, for they brought no new doctrine, but still cried, To the law and to the testimony; and where the true doctrine and sacraments are upheld, there is a true church, which hath power to call and send out preachers.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

18. Answered the Jews—Said in response to what he had done. For though he, an unarmed man, did all this, they did not, like the Nazarenes, rush upon him to cast him out; nor take up stones, as subsequently, to cast at him; nor send their officers to apprehend him, as at his last Passover They only came to ask for a sign (as Moses gave) attesting his authority to do these things. Plainly his display of might, and their paralysis, were of themselves a sign, had they not been too blind of heart to see it.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 18, 19. The Jews therefore answered and said to him. That which the disciples thought at the very time is here recorded by one who affects at least to know their inmost minds and most confidential meditations and talk with one another. John, at least, saw the rising storm of enmity already hurtling, but says nothing. Nevertheless, as if in reply to the imperial prophetic act (which corresponded with John the Baptist"s prediction of One who would come axe in hand), the Jews approached with answer. (for this use of the word "answer," Mat_11:25 Act_3:12 Mar_11:14) The "answer" here is in the form of a question, which shows that they had not recognized the sign he had already given, that this temple was his "Father"s house," and that he had solemnly claimed the authority of "Son" over the house. What sign showest thou, because (or, seeing that) thou doest these things?. (cf. Mat_12:38, etc.; Joh_6:30) Thou art bound to give us some "sign" that thou hast a right to deal thus with established customs and to assume the position of a public reformer. Upon what does thine (exousia) authority rest? Give us some miraculous proof of these high assumptions, "seeing that (quatenus) thou art doing these things," whose consequences are now so conspicuous. It might be supposed that the extraordinary effect just produced upon the crowd of traffickers was sufficient proof of power, if not of authority. The Jews were within their right in asking for these authentications; but their continuous demand for outward signs is one of the conspicuous features of their character. (Mat_12:38 1Co_1:22) In the fundamental nature of a "sign" there is a hint of the true solution of the enigmatical saying which is the first public utterance of our Lord. He gave to the act which he was about to perform the characteristic of a "sign." It would be an outward and visible manifestation of a stupendous spiritual event. This, among other reasons, refutes the modern speculation of Herder, Ewald, Lucke, Renan, and even of Neander, Geikie, and others, that the evangelist was wrong in the explanation of this remarkable saying which he offered in the twenty-first verse. John, who, better than modern commentators can do, ought to have known what the Lord meant, declares that Jesus was speaking of "the temple of his body" when, as the context shows, he was vindicating his right to cleanse the existing temple; and by to , "this sanctuary," he was also pointing to and referring in some sense to the temple structure in the midst of which he and the Jews were standing. The commentators have said, "John was wrong, and was led astray by his own fancies. There was no reference to the death or resurrection of Christ. The Lord meant," say they, "as follows: "Persist in your lawless, irreverent, unbelieving treatment of the temple, and so destroy it. Let it cease by this handling of yours from being a temple, and I will prove my right to cleanse it, and to reform, rebuke, or condemn your immoral practices in it, by building it again, or rather erecting a spiritual temple, a temple without hands, and in three days, i.e. in a short time after you have consummated your impiety, I will complete my restorative work I will build a new temple and fill it with my glory. If John had not appended the twenty-first verse, "Howbeit he spake concerning the temple of his body," the above interpretation would deserve very close attention and perhaps acceptance. But there are sundry difficulties in it, even if the evangelist had not supplied the true key:e.g. Christ does not say, "I will raise up "another" temple or a "spiritual" temple on the ruins of the old;" but "I will raise it up," viz. the temple which I challenge you to "destroy." Though en trisiraiv , "in three days," is used in this indefinite sense, in Hosea, (Hos_6:2) yet it is the accepted term for the period of three days, which counted from the death to the resurrection of the Lord, and which in the synoptic Gospels (Mat_12:40) is distinctly foretold to be the great "sign" given to that generation. Moreover, from the Jewish misunderstanding of the words which appear in the synoptic narrative, viz. dia, triwn hmerwn , "during three days," the literal character of the time specified had laid hold, not only of the disciples, but of the multitude. Again, the erection of the spiritual temple would not be an outward and visible sign of the grace and authority of the Lord; but rather the great spiritual reality itself invisible indeed, and requiring signs to manliest and demonstrate its own occurrence and existence. We conclude, then, that the apostle knew better than his critics, and that we are to believe that, when the Lord said to the Jews, Destroy (lusate , dissolve, break up) this temple, "he was speaking of the temple of his body," and at the same time linking and identifying the two temples, relating the one to the other so closely that the destruction of his body became ipso facto the demolition of the temple character of the building where they then stood. The temple of stone and gold, of stately decoration and ceremonial, derived all its true meaning from its being the gorgeous crystallization of a Divine idea embodied in his life. The temple had no value save as a meeting place for God and man, where by sacrifice and worship man might approach the Father, who declared himself to be reconciled, long suffering, and yet just. The Lord has come to the temple, but was himself One holier and "greater than the temple." God is manifested in the glory of that holy life, and man is set forth also in Christ"s perfect high-priestly approach to and commerce with the excellent glory. The Lord knows that he is the Lamb, and the only begotten Son of God, and he knows also that his death is part of the awful method in which the vast designs of his righteous love will be secured. He has a baptism to be baptized with, and he is straitened until it be accomplished. He anticipates the end. As he said afterwards to Judas, "That thou doest do quickly;" so at this moment he said, Destroy this temple (of my body), and you will destroy therein the temple character of this historic embodiment of a grand prophetic hope; and I will raise it up, viz. the temple of my bodyin three days (not, I will raise it by quiet, unobserved, spirit processes in the souls of men, but) the very temple which you will bring down shall henceforth be the living and eternal temple of all the glory of God and all the possibilities of man. The great bulk of expositors of many types, who do not repudiate St. John"s own words, see thus (with more or less of a double reference in it) the first main significance of the enigma. Whether our Lord pointed to his own Person as he uttered these words cannot be determined. It is said by some If he had done so, all ambiguity would have been removed, and the misunderstanding which followed would have been impossible! Surely the Jews were not usually ready to receive parabolic truth of this kind so readily, and after their fashion were almost sure to misconceive and falsely to misrepresent it. Even the disciples did not see into its meaning until after the Resurrection (ver. 22). How could they? Verily, then, and not till then, was it seen that the sign of the Prophet Jonas had been given to that generation.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then answered the Jews - Either some of those whom he had just driven out, or their friends: What sign showest thou? - So they require a miracle, to confirm a miracle!

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The challenge of the Jews:

v. 18. Then answered the Jews and said unto Him, What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things

v. 19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up.

v. 20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt Thou rear it up in three days?

v. 21. But He spake of the temple of His body.

v. 22. 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.

The Jews resented the implication of authority; it meant that He claimed for Himself a supernatural origin or mission, either as a prophet or as still more. So they demanded some sign, some special manifestation, some extraordinary revelation, which would give evidence of His authority. "The blindness of the Jews is enough to put external evidence forever out of repute. They never will see the sign in the thing itself. The fact that Jesus by one blow accomplished a much-needed reform of an abuse over which devout men must often have sighed, and which perhaps ingenuous Levites had striven to keep within limits, fact that this unknown youth had done what none of the constituted authorities had been able to do, was surely itself the greatest sign. " Jesus therefore gave them an answer which fitted their foolish demand. His saying was meant to be puzzling. Jesus always spoke in parables when He wished to be understood by the spiritual and to baffle the hostile. "Those who cross-question Him and treat Him as a subject to be investigated find no satisfaction. " The sign which Jesus proposed to them was that they should destroy this temple, and in three days He would raise it up. See Joh 10:18. It was the Lord’s first reference to His death and resurrection. The Jews in their blindness did not understand the statement in its true sense, but supposed that He was referring to their sanctuary, to the wonderful Heroin Temple. They point to the fact that this great structure, with all its buildings, approaches, porticoes, and chambers, had been in course of construction for a matter of forty-six years at that time. Herod began work on the Temple in the year 20-19 B. C. "The old Temple was taken down and the new one erected in the course of eighteen months. But much remained to be done, and the work dragged along until after Herod’s death. It was finished only in 64 A. D. , six years before it was finally destroyed. " To tear down this building and erect it anew in the short space of three days was obviously beyond human conception. But Jesus had stated correctly the great sign of His authority, His death and resurrection for the atonement of the world’s sin. Although Jesus, therefore, spoke of the temple of His body, which was in truth the temple of the living God for all times, though He Himself is the great sanctuary of mankind for all times and. His body comprises the mercy-seat and all the other sacrificial appointments of the true temple for the believers of all times, the Jews did not understand Him. They attempted to use this prophecy against Him two years later, upon the occasion of His trial before the high priests. Even the disciples did not understand the saying at that time; in a way they were just as ignorant as the Jews. But they remembered it after the Lord’s resurrection, and lot that time drew their conclusions correctly. Then they understood and believed also the corresponding Scripture-passages of the Old Testament. Mark: A Christian must never grow weary in comparing type and antitype, prophecy and fulfillment; for only in that way will he gain the full and firm conviction that Jesus Christ is truly the Messiah of promise, the Savior of the world.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. How exceedingly offended the Jews were at the reformation which our Saviour had made in the house of God; they were awed indeed with the majesty of this great work, and durst not openly oppose, but secretly malign it.

Thence note, That redress of abuses in God’s worship, especially if it crosses our ease, and controls our profit, (as this did), is usually distasted.

Observe, 2. How these Jews discover their old inveterate disease of infidelity; they require a sign, and call for a miracle to justify Christ’s commission. Why! had they not a miracle before their eyes? Was not the work of purging the temple a wonderful miracle? Yet they demanded another miracle to make this good.

Learn thence, That obstinate infidelity will not be satisfied with the most sufficient means for satisfaction, but still object and oppose against the clearest, the fullest, and most convincing evidence. What sign showest thou us? says the Jews, when they had so many signs and wonders daily before their eyes.

Observe, 3. The Jews demanding a sign. our Saviour grants them one; he remits them to his death and resurrection, to prove that he was the true Messiah. Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. That is, "I know you will destroy this temple of my body, by putting me to deaeth; but I will raise myself again from the grave the third day." Christ did not command them to destroy his body, but only foretold that they would do it. Non est verbum Praecepti, sed Praedictionis: "The words are not imperative, but only predictive and permissive." Christ did not bid them destroy his body, but foretells what they would do. "Ye will destroy this temple, but after three days I will raise it up."

Where note, That Christ asserts his own power in raising his own body from the dead. True! The Father is often said to raise him, and it is necessary that it be so said, that it might appear that divine justice was fully satisfied for our sins, in that he was by him delivered from that death which he underwent for us.

But yet it is often asserted, That Christ raised himself, and that he was quickened by the Spirit, which was as well the Spirit of the Son, as of the Father, dwelling essentially in him.

Now from Christ’s foretelling his passion and resurrection, learn thence, that all our Saviour’s sufferings wee foreknown unto him, were foretold by him; he would not prevent them, but willingly permitted them, and cheerfully underwent them. Destroy this temple.

Note here, 1. The state and dignity of Christ’s holy body: ’Tis a temple. He spake of the temple of his body. The saints’ bodies are temples by special sanctification: Christ’s body was a temple by substantial inhabitation. The divinity of Christ dwelt in his humanity personally and immediately. God dwells in saints by regal authority; he dwelt in Christ’s humanity by personal residence.

Note, 2. The violence and indignity offered to this holy temple at our Saviour’s death, it was pulled down and destroyed; death dissolved the union betwixt our Saviour’s soul and body; but there was a closer union, which no violence of death could dissolve: namely, the union of his godhead with his manhood; this was incapable either of dissolution or destruction.

Note, 3. The repairing, restoring, and raising up of this temple out of the ruins of it, by our Saviour’s resurrection. In three days I will raise it up.

Observe, A full proof of our Saviour’s divinity. To raise a dead man exceeds the power of nature; but for a dead man to raise himself, requires the power of God. We read of dead men raised by others; but none but Christ ever raised himself. The Jews could not say, he raised others from the grace, himself he could not raise.

Inference, 1. Was Christ’s body a temple? so shall ours be too; temples for the Holy Ghost to dwell in. Temples by special appropriation, temples by solemn consecration, temples by actual employment: If any man defile this temple, him will God destroy.

2. Was the temple of Christ’s body pulled down by death, and destroyed; so must also the temples of our bodies ere long. The temple of his body was pulled down for our sin; the temples of our bodies ruined by our sin. Sin brought mortality into our natures, and the wages of our sin is death.

3. Was the temple of Christ’s body repaired in the morning of the resurrection? So shall the temple of our bodies also, if we be the members of Christ by a vital union. Thy dead men, O blessed redeemer! shall live; together with thy dead body shall they arise. Awake then and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for the dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead, Isa 26:19

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. What sign? The Jewish officials demand some sign that would demonstrate that he had authority over the temple.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

18. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. See on Joh 1:19. On ἀπεκρίθησαν see on Joh 10:32.

Τί σημεῖον. We have a similar question Mat 21:23, but the widely different answer shews that the occasion is different. Such demands, thoroughly characteristic of the Pharisaic spirit (1Co 1:22), would be often made. The Jews failed to see that Christ’s words and works were their own credentials. For ὅτι see Winer, p. 557.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18.] On the demand of the Jews, see Deu 13:1-3. It was not only to justify His having driven out the abomination; this any one might have done;—but to justify the mission and the whole course of action which the words τοῦ πατρός μου implied. They used the same expression at the end of His ministry, Mat 21:23.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. The Jews (see on 1:19, 5:10) did not view the action of Jesus as His disciples did. They wished to know by what authority He had taken upon Himself the rôle of a reformer (cf. Mar 11:28, Mat 21:23, Luk 20:2). If He had authority, what “sign” could He perform in proof of it? It has always been true of uneducated people that “except they see signs and wonders, they will not believe” (4:48). And even the educated Pharisees and scribes asked Jesus for “signs,” although, probably, they asked because they did not think that He could gratify their request (cf. Mar 8:11, Mat 16:1). See on v. 11 for the value of the witness of such signs.

Jesus gave no sign such as the crowds asked for. His words (see on v. 19) did not provide anything more than a fresh assertion of His power. This is quite consistent with the Synoptic reports of His refusal to work “signs” for Herod (Luk 23:8) or for the scribes and Pharisees (Mat 12:39).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Answered. Often used in reply to an objection or criticism, or to something present in another's mind, as Joh 19:7, or Joh 3:3, where Jesus answers with reference to the error in Nicodemus ' mind, rather than in direct reply to his address.

Destroy this temple [λυσατε τον ναον τουτον] . Destroy, Literally, loosen. Wyc., undo. See on Mr 13:2; Luk 9:12; Act 5:38. Notice that the word for temple is naon, sanctuary (see on ver. 14). This temple points to the literal temple, which is truly a temple only as it is the abode of God, hence sanctuary, but with a typical reference to Jesus ' own person as the holy dwelling - place of God who "was in Christ." Compare 1Co 3:16, 17. Christ 's death was therefore the pulling down of the temple, and His resurrection its rebuilding. The imperative in destroy is of the nature of a challenge. Compare fill ye up, Mt 23:32.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ver. 18. “The Jews, therefore, answered and said unto him: What sign showest thou unto us, that thou doest these things?”

The particle, therefore, connects again with Joh 2:16, after the interruption in Joh 2:17. The expression “the Jews” designates here especially the authorities charged with the care of the temple, with the shade of hostility which attaches to this term in our Gospel (see Joh 1:19). Riggenbach (“Leben des Herrn Jesu,” p. 382) observes that “it is, indeed, the method of Pharisaism to demand a σημεῖον, an external sign, to legitimate an act which commends itself to the conscience by itself alone, because, once on this path, one can cavil about the nature and value of the sign, can move on indefinitely from demand to demand, and can ask finally, after a multiplication of loaves: What sign doest thou then? ᾿Αποκρίνεσθαι does not signify here, any more than elsewhere, to take up the discourse (Ostervald, Rilliet, Arnaud). This word always contains the idea of reply; only the reply is sometimes addressed to the conduct or the feeling of the interlocutor. Here the Jews’ question is an answer to the act of Jesus; Jesus had just addressed an appeal to the religious sentiment of the people. The attitude of the people, thus called upon to declare themselves, in some sort decided fatally their future. The reply was significant. The nineteenth verse will show us that Jesus immediately penetrated its whole meaning.— ῞Οτι : “What sign showest thou (to explain) thatthou art doing...” Meyer: εἰς ἐκεῖνο ὅτι.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.