Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body.
21. spake ] Or, was speaking. Setting aside inspiration, S. John’s explanation must be admitted as the true one. What better interpreter of the mind of Jesus can be found than ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved?’ And he gives the explanation not as his only, but as that of the disciples generally. Moreover it explains the ‘three days,’ which interpretations about destroying the old Temple religion and raising up a new spiritual theocracy do not.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 21. Of the temple of his body.] Rather, the temple, his body: his body had no particular temple: but it was the temple of his Divinity-the place in which, as in the ancient temple, his Godhead dwelt; See how the Jews perverted these words, Mt 26:60, and the notes there.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But, alas, our Saviour spoke not of their material temple, but of the temple of his body; which yet was proper speaking: for if the apostle calleth our bodies the temple of God, as he doth, 1Co 3:16; 6:19; 2Co 6:16; it much more may be said so of the body of Christ: for as God dwelt in the temple, and there revealed his will, and would be there worshipped; how properly must the notion of the temple agree to Christ, in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, Col 2:9, who revealeth his Fathers nature and will to men, Mat 11:27, and in whom all must worship him? So as the temple at Jerusalem was every way a most illustrious type of Christ, and Christ might well, speaking concerning his body, say, Destroy this temple; and thus Christ (would these blind Jews have seen it) drew off the Jews from glorying in their temple, Jer 7:4; and from the temple, which was but a type, (as the tabernacle was before, Act 7:44; Heb 9:23,24), to himself, prefigured by those houses, Heb 9:11. Nor doth he think fit at this time to speak more plainly; for as he knew that the perverse Jews, in seeing would not see, nor bear any such doctrine; so he also knew, that his better disciples were as yet weak in faith; and none putteth new wine into old bottles.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. temple of his bodyinwhich was enshrined the glory of the eternal Word. (See on Joh1:14). By its resurrection the true Temple of God upon earth wasreared up, of which the stone one was but a shadow; so that theallusion is not quite exclusively to Himself, but takes inthat Temple of which He is the foundation, and all believers are the”lively stones.” (1Pe 2:4;1Pe 2:5).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But he spoke of the temple of his body. Which was the antitype of the material temple; and might well be called so, since the bodies of the saints are called temples, 1Co 3:16 2Co 6:16; and the human nature of Christ is called a tabernacle, Heb 8:2; and he himself, in prophecy, is said to be , “for a sanctuary”, or temple, Isa 8:14, and that because the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, the train of the divine perfections filled the temple of his human nature, Col 2:9. And because here, as in the temple, God grants his presence, and communes with his saints, accepts of their prayers and praises, and all their spiritual sacrifices through him; and who is the oracle, the true “Urim” and “Thummim”, by whom he delivers his whole mind and will to his people.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But he spake of the temple of his body ( ). Emphatic he () and imperfect tense (he had been speaking). This is John’s view as he looks back at it, not what he understood when Jesus spoke the words.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He [] . See on 1 18. Emphatic, and marking the contrast between the deeper meaning of Jesus and the literalism of the Jews and of His disciples (see next verse). For other illustrations of John’s pointing out the meaning of words of Jesus which were not at first understood, see Joh 7:39; Joh 12:33; Joh 21:19.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But he spake,” (ekeinos de elegen) “Yet that one spoke;- That one, (Jesus) spoke,” or gave prophetic testimony and pledge, regarding His body temple, that they repeatedly threatened to kill or destroy, as they preferred by assassination,
2) “Of the temple of his body.” (peri tou naou tou somatos autou) “Concerning the shrine of his body,” in which “body he bare our sins on the tree,” It was in the body of His flesh or “flesh body” that He obtained Reconciliation, Redemption, and Peace for believers, not in His church body, Col 1:14; Col 1:20-22. Thus reconciliation and redemption were effected for Jew and Gentile alike, in one body, His cross-body, where His blood was shed, not in, by, or through His church body, as an institution of worship-and -service, Eph 2:14-16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(21) But he spake.Literally, was speaking. This is the solution of the enigma as the disciples read it in the after history. It is remarkable that we have the interpretation of the spiritual temple in Mar. 14:58 (see Note there, and comp. Joh. 4:21; Joh. 4:23).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Temple of his body That the body is a building has been recognized by both the science and the literature of all the world. And religious thought specially recognizes that it should be a temple; the temple of the Holy Spirit. And Christ’s body was the temple; of which the Jewish material temple was the type. When, therefore, the disciples subsequently found that after three days of destruction Christ revived his bodily temple, a new inner meaning flashed upon their minds. The meaning now is, Destroy, ye Jews, this sacred frame, (as you surely will,) and in three days it shall by my divine power rise again. Before fulfilment it would indeed have taken a prophet to extract this inner meaning; yet, none the less we see, after the fulfilment, that none but a prophet could have uttered the prediction. And to us may they not bear a third still deeper meaning? Destroy this old dispensation of which this temple is the symbol, and my three days of death will build it anew. Abolish old Judaism, and in brief time I will rear young Christianity. So that there are in these words three strata of meaning: an outside, an inner, and an inmost sense; each true for its own class of searchers.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But he spoke of the temple of his body’.
Here Jesus’ meaning is explained to the readers. He was aware already that at some stage they would be ready to destroy Him, as they had the prophets before Him. But His further point here is that by destroying Him they will in effect destroy the Temple, even though the actual destruction may be delayed, but that then within three days of their destroying Him He will rise again, replacing the Temple and its sacrifices. This reply demonstrates that He is already aware that His acceptance among these bigoted men will not be positive.
Here we have another of John’s double meanings. On the one hand Jesus offered them a sign, a great sign. If they wanted one He would give them one. Only let them destroy the Temple, this Temple that was so corrupt, thus by their act revealing their agreement with His verdict on it, and He would rebuild it for them within three days. Let them show by their actions that they were ready to follow Him in every respect, and then they would have their sign. It was a subtle reply for they could now no longer claim that He had refused a sign, nor was there any likelihood that they would take Him up on it. It prevented them from constantly pestering Him for signs, for they knew that if they did they would receive the same reply.
But it held the deeper significance that when He was raised from the dead His disciples would realise what Temple He had meant. And it also contained within it the inference that the physical Temple itself was doomed once He had been crucified.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 2:21-22 . ]
[ 147] Genitive of apposition; see Winer, p. 494 [E. T. p. 666].
Joh 2:22 . ] represents the recollection as answering to the true meaning of that declaration.
] they became mindful of , Joh 2:17 ; Joh 12:16 . The saying came afresh to their remembrance when it was explained as a fact by the resurrection; previously, because not understood, it had been forgotten. With comp. , Joh 2:19 .
, . . .] As the result of this recollection, they believed the Scripture (felt convinced of the truth of its statements), observing, that is, the harmony of its prophecies concerning the resurrection of Jesus (Psa 16:10 ; Isa 53 ; cf. Luk 24:26 ; Act 13:33 ff.; 1Co 15:4 ; Mat 12:40 ) with that saying of Christ’s, and the word which Jesus had (then, Joh 2:19 ) spoken , which now, as fulfilled in the resurrection, presented itself to them in its full prophetic truth. Upon in St. John, comp. Weiss, Lehrbegr . p. 20.
Schweizer (whom Scholten follows) regards Joh 2:21-22 as spurious, quite groundlessly. The statement is the exact outcome of St. John’s inmost personal experience.
[147] John explains the saying so simply and definitely, that there is no room for the double meaning which Luthardt, Hengstenberg, and others import into it. With equal simplicity and definiteness does he represent the meaning given as that of Jesus Himself (against Weizscker, p. 266). In like manner Joh 7:38 , Joh 12:32 , Joh 21:19 . In none of these passages is any distinction drawn between the sense given and the meaning intended by Jesus Himself.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Ver. 21. The temple of his body ] Wherein the “Godhead dwelt bodily,” Col 2:9 , that is, personally, as he dwelt in the material temple sacramentally, and doth dwell in the hearts of his people spiritually. This tabernacle of Christ’s body was not made with hands, nor built by the power of nature, Heb 9:2 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
But He spake, &c. Figure of speech Epitrechon (App-6). For other examples, See Joh 7:39; Joh 12:33; Joh 21:19.
he. Greek. ekeinos. Emph. in contrast with “thou” in Joh 2:20. See note on Joh 1:18.
spake = was speaking. Greek. legoof -se concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.
of = that is to say. Genitive of Apposition. App-17.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 2:21. , concerning the temple of His body) that is, concerning the temple, which was the body of Jesus. Let the expression be compared, which is found ch. Joh 11:13, Howbeit Jesus spake of His death; but they thought that He had spoken of taking rest in sleep.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 2:21
Joh 2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body.-He called his body the temple. The misunderstanding of his meaning was the basis of the testimony borne against him in his first trial (Mat 26:51), and the taunts against him as he hung upon the cross (Mat 27:40).
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
he: Joh 1:14,*Gr: Col 1:19, Col 2:9, Heb 8:2
temple: 1Co 3:16, 1Co 6:19, 2Co 6:16, Eph 2:20-22, 1Pe 2:4, 1Pe 2:5
Reciprocal: Exo 26:1 – the tabernacle with ten curtains
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
Jesus compared his fleshly body to a temple because it was the structure in which his spirit was dwelling. Paul makes the same comparison in 1Co 6:19; 1Co 12:12-26.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
But he spake of the temple of his body.
[But he spake of the temple of his body.] If we consider how much the second Temple came behind that of the first, it will the more easily appear why our blessed Saviour should call his body the Temple.
“In the second Temple there wanted the Fire from heaven, the Ark with the Propitiatory and Cherubims, Urim and Thummim, the Divine Glory; the Holy Ghost, and the anointing Oil.”
These things were all in Solomon’s Temple, which therefore was accounted a full and plenary type of the Messiah: but so long as the second Temple had them not, it wanted what more particularly shadowed and represented him.
I. There was indeed in the second Temple a certain ark in the Holy of Holies; but this was neither Moses’ ark nor the ark of the covenant: which may not unfitly come to mind when we read that passage, Rev 11:19; “The Temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his Temple the ark of his testament.” It was not seen, nor indeed was it at all in the second Temple.
The Jews have a tradition, that Josias hid the ark before the Babylonish captivity, lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy, as once it did amongst the Philistines; but there is no mention that it was ever found and restored again.
II. In Moses’ Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple the divine presence sat visibly over the Ark in the Propitiatory, in a cloud of glory: but when the destruction of that Temple drew near, it went up from the Propitiatory, Eze 10:4; and never returned into the second Temple, where neither the Ark nor the Propitiatory was ever restored.
III. The high priest, indeed, ministered in the second Temple as in the first, in eight several garments. Amongst these was the pectoral, or breastplate, wherein the precious stones were put (out of which the jasper chanced to fall and was lost): but the oracle by Urim and Thummim was never restored: see Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:63. And if not restored in the days of Ezra or Nehemiah, much less certainly in the ages following, when the spirit of prophecy had forsaken and taken leave of that people. For that is a great truth amongst the Talmudists; “Things are not asked or inquired after now [by Urim and Thummim] by the high priest, because he doth not speak by the Holy Ghost, nor does there any divine afflatus breathe on him.”
This, to omit other things, was the state of Zorobabel’s Temple with respect to those things which were the peculiar glory of it. And these things being wanting, how much inferior must this needs be to that of Solomon’s!
But there was one thing that degraded Herod’s Temple still lower; and that was the person of Herod himself, to whom it is ascribed. It was not without scruple, even amongst the Jews themselves, that it was built and repaired by such a one: (and who knew not what Herod was?) and they dispute whether by right such a person ought to have meddled with it; and invent arguments for their own satisfaction as to the lawfulness of the thing.
They object first, It is not permitted to any one to demolish one synagogue till he hath built another; much less to demolish the Temple. But Herod demolished the Temple before he had built another. Ergo,
They answer, “Baba Ben Buta gave Herod that counsel, that he should pull it down.” Now this Baba was reckoned amongst the great wise men, and he did not rashly move Herod to such a work; for he saw such clefts and breaches in the Temple that threatened its ruin.
They object, secondly, concerning the person of Herod, that he was a servant to the Asmonean family, that he rose up against his masters and killed them, and had killed the Sanhedrim.
They answer, We were under his power, and could not resist it. And if those hands stained with blood would be building, it was not in their power to hinder it.
These and other things they apologize for their Temple; adding this invention for the greater honour of the thing — that all that space of time wherein it was a building, it never once rained by day, that the work might not be interrupted.
The Rabbins take a great deal of pains, but to no purpose, upon those words, Hag 2:9; “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former.” “R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer say; one, that it was a greater for the fabric; the other, that it was greater for the duration.” As if the glory of the Temple consisted in any mathematical reasons of space, dimension, or duration; as if it lay in walls, gilding, or ornament. The glory of the first Temple was the Ark, the divine cloud over the Ark, the Urim and the Thummim, etc. Now where or in what can consist the greater glory of the second Temple when these are gone?
Herein it is indeed that the Lord of the Temple was himself present in his Temple: he himself was present in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; Col 2:9; as the divine glory of old was over the ark typically; or by way of shadow only.
This is the glory; when he himself is present who is the great High Priest and the Prophet; who, answerably to the Urim and Thummim of old, reveals the counsels and will of God; he who is the true and living Temple, whom that Temple shadowed out. “This Temple of yours, O ye Jews, does not answer its first pattern and exemplar: there are wanting in that, what were the chief glory of the former; which very defect intimates that there is another Temple to be expected, that in all things may fall in with its first type, as it is necessary the antitype should do. And this is the Temple of my body.” No further did he think fit to reply to them at that time.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 2:21. See above on Joh 2:19.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 21. But he spoke of the temple of his body.
By , ille vero, he opposed to every other, John strongly contrasts the thought of Jesus with the interpretation of the Jews and the want of understanding of the apostles. Only He comprehends perfectly the true sense of His own saying.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
2:21 But he spake of the {i} temple of his body.
(i) That is, of his body.