The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 230

and 118.id to him. Thnt which the disriplC'a of Christ. Tho Lord meant," sCLy they, "a.a thought nt the very time is here reoordc>d follows : • Persist in your IRwlcss, irreverent, bv one who nlfoota at least to know their unbelieving treatment of tho templo, cmd so inmost minds o.ud most oonfidentinl medite.• destroy it. Let it censo by this ho.ndling of tions and talk with one e.uother. John, Rt yours from being " temple, and I will prove loost, saw the rising storm of enmity already my right to oleanse it, and to reform, rebuke, hurtling. but BRys nothing. Nevertheless, or condemn your immoral praotioes in it, 811 if in reply to the imperial prophetic act by building it o.gain, or riLther erecting a (which oorresponded with John the Baptist's spiritual temple, a temple without hands, prediction of Ono who would oome axe in ond in three days, i.e. in o. short time after hand), the Jews approached with answer you have ocnsumme.ted your impiety, I will (of., for this use of the word '' answer," complete my restorative work-I will build Matt. xi. 25 ; Acts iii. 12; Mark xi. 14). a new temple and fill it with my glory.'" The " answer" here is in the form of a If John hnd not appended the twenty-first question, which shows that they ha.d not verse, " Howbeit he spnke oonoeming the recognized the sign he hRd e.lroody given, temple of his body," the nbove interpretation that this temple was his " Father's house," would deserve very close attention and per- and that he hat solemnly claimed the haps acoeptance. Ilut there ore sundry dif- authority of " Son " over the house. What ficulties in it, even if the evangelist had not sign aho·west thou, beoa11Se (or, seeing that) supplied the true key :-e.g. Christ does not thondoestthesethings! (cf. ll:t:att.xii. 38,etc.; say, " I will raise up •onother' temple or a eh. vi. 80). Thon art bonnd to give us some 'spiritual' temple on the ruins of the old;" " sign" thnt thon hast a right te deal thus but "I will raise it up," viz. the temple with established customs o.nd to assume the which I challenge you to ".destroy.'' Though position of a public reformer. Upon what 111 .,.p,11111 ~p.•pa.u, "in three days," is used in does thine ( ol;o11ula.) authority rest? Give us this indefinite sense, in Hosea. (vi. 2, LXX.), some mimculous proof of these high as- yet it is the accepted term for the period of sumptions," seeing that (quat.enus) thou art three days, which counted from the death doing these things," whose oow;equenoes are to the resurrection of tile Lord, and which now so conspicno11S. It might be supposed in the synoptic Gospels (Matt. xii. 40) is tho.t the extra.ordinary effect just produced distinctly foretold to be the great "sign" upon the crowd of traffickers was so.fficient given to that generation. Moreover, from proof of power, if not of authority. The the Jewish misunderstanding of the words Jews were witllin their right in asking for which appear in the synoptic narrative, these authentications; bnt their continuous viz. liic Tplr,,11 ;,p.Jpr,,11, "during three do.ys," demand for outward signs is one of the tbe literal character of the time specified conspicuous features of their cho.racter ho.d lo.id hold, not only of the disciples, but (Mo.tt. xii. 38; I Cor. i. 22). In the funda- of the multitnde. Again, the erection of menta.J. nature of e. " sign " there is a hint the spiritual temple would not be an out- of th.e true solution of the CI1.igmatice.l saying ward and 'llisible sign of the grace and which is the first publio utterance of our authority of the Lord; but rather the g:r:eat Lord. He gave to the act which he was spiritual reality itself-invisible indeed, and e.bont to perform the characteristic of a requiring signs to manifest o.nd demonstrate " sign." It won.Id be an outward e.nd visible its own occurrence and existence. We con- mauifestation of a stupendous spiritual event. clude, then, that the apostle knew better than This, among other reasons, refutes the his critics, and thot we are to believe that, modem speculation of Herder, Ewald, Liicke, when the Lord said to the Jews, Destroy (>.6- Rene.n. and even of N eander, Gei.kie, and 11a.n, dissolve, break up) this temple, "he was others, that the evangelist we.s wrong in the speaking of the temple of his body;' and at explanation of this rema.rkable sa.ying which the same time linking and identifying the he offered in the twenty-first verse. John, two temples, relating the one to the other so who, better than modern commentators can closely that tho destruction of his body be- do, ought to ha'!'e known what the Lord came ipso facto the demolition of the temple meant, declares that Jesus was speaking of ohara.cter of the building where they then "the temple of his body" when, as the stood. The temple of stone o.nd gold, of c.ontext shows, he was vill!licating his right stately decoration and ceremonial, deri vod oil l.o cleanse the existing temple; and by -ro11 its true meaning from its being the gorgeous 11a.ov .,.0.,.,.011, "this eancta.ary," he was e.lso crystallization of o Divine idea embodied pointing to and referring in some sense to in his life. The temple ha.d no value BRVe the temple structure in the midst of which as a meeting-place for God and man, where he and the Jews were Atanding. The oom- by sacrifice and worship man might 11.pproaoh mentatora have said," John was wrong, and the Father, who declared himself to be was led astray by his own fancie&. '!'here reconciled, long-suffering, and yet just. The was uo reference to the death or resurrection Lord has come to the temple, but wo.s himseU Otl, II. 1-25,] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING 'l'O ST. JOHN.