Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 2:22
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.
22. was risen ] Better, was raised. Comp. Joh 21:14; Act 3:15; Act 4:10; Act 5:30.
his disciples remembered ] They recollected it when the event that explained it took place; meanwhile what had not been understood had been forgotten. Would anyone but a disciple give us these details about the disciples’ thoughts? See on Joh 2:11.
the scripture ] O.T. prophecy, viz., Psa 16:10; see on Joh 10:35.
had said ] Better, spake, on the present occasion.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
When he was risen from the dead … – This saying of our Saviour at that time seemed obscure and difficult. The disciples did not understand it, but they treasured it up in their memory, and the event showed what was its true meaning. Many prophecies are obscure when spoken which are perfectly plain when the event takes place. We learn from this, also, the importance of treasuring up the truths of the Bible now, though we may not perfectly understand them. Hereafter they may be plain to us. It is therefore important that children, should learn the truths of the sacred Scriptures. Treasured up in their memory, they may not be understood now, but hereafter they may be clear to them. Every one engaged in teaching a Sunday school, therefore, may be imparting instruction which may be understood, and may impart comfort, long after the teacher has gone to eternity.
They believed – That is, after he rose from the dead.
The scripture – The Old Testament, which predicted his resurrection. Reference here must be made to Psa 16:10; compare Act 2:27-32; Act 13:35-37; Psa 2:7; compare Act 13:33. They understood those Scriptures in a sense different from what they did before.
The word which Jesus had said – The prediction which he had made respecting his resurrection in this place and on other occasions. See Mat 20:19; Luk 18:32-33.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. Remembered that he had said this unto them] , to them, is wanting in AEHLMS, Matt. BV, upwards of one hundred others; both the Syriac; Persic, Arabic, Coptic, AEthiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, and Itala. Griesbach has left it out of the text.
They believed the scripture] The scripture which the evangelist immediately refers to may have been Ps 16:10. Compare this with Ac 2:31-32, and with Ac 13:35-37. See also Ps 2:7, and compare it with Heb 1:5, and Heb 5:5, and with Ac 13:33. They understood these scriptures in a sense in which they never before understood them.
It is the property of many prophecies never to be understood except by their accomplishment; but these are so marked that, when their fulfilment takes place, they cannot be misunderstood, or applied to any other event.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Even Christs own disciples at the first rather admired than perfectly understood their Lord. It is said of Christ, Luk 24:45, a little before his ascension into heaven, Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scripture. The disciples did not distinctly understand many things till after Christs resurrection from the dead, when they saw the things accomplished, and when Christ further opened their eyes; which was also further done when the Holy Ghost came upon them in the days of Pentecost. Thus we hear for the time to come; and the seed which lieth a long time under the clods, at last springeth up through the influence of heaven upon it.
And they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said; the disciples then more clearly and more firmly believed the Scriptures, and were able to make a clearer application and interpretation of them. By the Scripture here, are meant the Scriptures of the Old Testament; to which is added, and the word which Jesus had said. Christs words gave them a clearer insight into the Scriptures of the Old Testament; and the harmony of the writings of the Old Testament with Christs words under the New Testament, confirmed the disciples faith in both.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. believed the scriptureonthis subject; that is, what was meant, which was hid from them tillthen. Mark (1) The act by which Christ signalized His first publicappearance in the Temple. Taking “His fan in His hand, Hepurges His floor,” not thoroughly indeed, but enough toforeshadow His last act towards that faithless peopletosweep them out of God’s house. (2) The sign of His authority todo this is the announcement, at this first outset of His ministry, ofthat coming death by their hands, and resurrection by His own, whichwere to pave the way for their judicial ejection.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
When therefore he was risen from the dead,…. Which was three years after this:
his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; either to the Jews, or to them the disciples; though the phrase “to them”, is not in the Vulgate Latin, nor in any of the Oriental versions. The disciples themselves were very dull of understanding the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection; and so they continued, notwithstanding he gave them afterwards very full hints of it, until that he was actually risen; and then they called to mind these words of his, with others that dropped from him upon the same subject:
and they believed the Scripture; that spoke of his resurrection,
Ps 16:10, and on the third day, Ho 6:2.
And the word which Jesus had said; concerning his rising again the third day at this time, and at others, as in Mt 16:21; and they believed his word equally with the Scripture, it agreeing to it, and being founded on it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When therefore he was raised from the dead (H ). First aorist passive indicative of , to raise up. And not at first then, but only slowly after the disciples themselves were convinced. Then “they believed the Scripture” ( ). They “believed” again. Dative case . Probably Ps 16:10 is meant (Acts 2:31; Acts 13:35).
And the word which Jesus had said ( ). Dative case also, but (relative) is not attracted to the dative. Clearly then John interprets Jesus to have a parabolic reference to his death and resurrection by his language in 2:19. There are those who bluntly say that John was mistaken. I prefer to say that these scholars are mistaken. Even Bernard considers it “hardly possible” that John interprets Jesus rightly in 1:21. “Had he meant that, He would have spoken with less ambiguity.” But how do we know that Jesus wished to be understood clearly at this time? Certainly no one understood Christ when he spoke the words. The language of Jesus is recalled and perverted at his trial as “I will destroy” (Mr 14:58), “I can destroy” (Mt 26:61), neither of which he said.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Was risen [] . Rev., more correctly, was raised. The same verb as in vv. 19, 20.
Had said [] . Rev., more correctly, He spake. The best texts omit unto them.
Believed the Scripture [ ] . Notice that ejpioteusan, believed, is used here with the simple dative, and not with the preposition eijv, into (see on 1 12). The meaning is, therefore, they believed that the Scripture was true. On grafh, a passage or section of Scripture, see on Mr 12:10.
In John, as elsewhere, the word almost always refers to a particular passage cited in the context. The only two exceptions are Joh 17:12; Joh 20:9. For the Old Testament, as a whole, John always uses the plural aiJ grafai The passage referred to here is probably Psa 16:10. Compare Act 2:27, 31; Act 13:35.
The word. The saying just uttered concerning the destruction of the temple.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “When therefore he was risen from the dead,” (hote oun egerthe ek nekron) “When therefore he was raised out of and from among the dead corpses,” as He had repeatedly told both His disciples and Jewish enemies that He would, Mat 28:6; Mar 16:6; Luk 24:6.
2) “His disciples remembered,” emnesthes an hoi mathetai autou) “His disciples remembered or recalled to mind,” certain testimony, as surely as His Jewish enemies did, Mat 26:31-32; Mat 27:62-63.
3) “That He had said unto them:- (hoti touto elegen) “That he had said this,” on numerous occasions as recounted, Mat 16:21; Mat 17:23; Mar 8:31; Mar 9:31; Luk 9:22.
4) “And they believed the scripture,” (kai episteusan te graphe) “And they believed the scriptures;- They saw both the meaning and truth of the prediction of Jesus, upon remembering His words, Luk 24:6-8.
5) “And the word which Jesus had said.” (kai to logo hon eipon ho lesous) “And the word which Jesus said,” Joh 2:19; Joh 2:21, about His raising the shrine of His body temple after three days, on numerous occasions, Mat 12:38-40; Mat 16:1-4; Mat 27:62-63.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(22) That he had said this unto them.The better texts omit unto them. For the way in which the saying, hard to be understood, fixed itself in mens minds, comp. Mat. 26:61; Mat. 27:40; Mar. 14:58; Mar. 15:29; Act. 6:13. It becomes in the mouth of false witnesses the accusation by means of which its meaning is accomplished. The death on the cross is the destruction of the Temple, but it is not unaccompanied by the rent veil; the two meanings are linked together.
It fixed itself, too, on the disciples minds; but weeks, months, years, did not cast any light upon it until the Resurrection. These passages of those familiar Old Testament writings then came to men who had been slow of heart to see them, with the quickening power of a new life. They saw that Christ ought to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory. They saw in Moses and the Prophets the things concerning Him, and they believed in a new and higher sense the written and the spoken word. (Comp. Luk. 24:26 et seq.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Said this unto them The them of this clause must refer to the Jews.
They believed the Scripture That is, they believed this new matter and meaning now first discovered as concealed in the Scriptures. See note on Joh 2:11.
The word which Jesus had said That word unfolded its new force and true divinity to their belief. And that new force gave a conclusive corroboration to the whole body of Messianic Scripture. They had in a true sense never before believed the Scripture; for they did not know herein what Scripture contained.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
. ‘When therefore he was raised from the dead his disciple remembered that he had spoken like this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.’
Although the disciples did not understand the meaning at the time, once Jesus had risen from the dead they remembered what He had said and understood, and it confirmed their faith in both Him and the Scriptures.
‘And they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken’. Note that Jesus’ words are put on a level with ‘The Scripture’. The one especially in mind may well be Psa 16:10, ‘you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you allow your holy one to see decay’, although John may have had a number of Scriptures in mind including, among others, Isa 53:10; Isa 53:12, where resurrection is implied.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 2:22. And they believed the scripture, They yet more firmly believed the scripture in all its prophesies concerning the Messiah’s kingdom; and their faith in him was confirmed by the word which Jesus had spoken; for such a wonderful event as the resurrection of Christ, considered in its connection with this solemn prediction, justly appeared as the fullest conceivable proof of the whole plan of redemptio
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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.
Ver. 22. His disciples remembered ] In the mean time they murmured not, much less opposed. “We can do nothing against the truth,” when at worst, “but for the truth,” 2Co 13:8 . They laid up what they understood not; and as the water casts up her dead, so did their memories that which seemed dead therein, by the help of the Holy Ghost.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
22. ] , by all analogy, must mean the O.T. scriptures . That the resurrection of the Lord is the subject of O.T. prophecy, we find in several passages of the N.T., see ch. Joh 20:9 : Luk 24:26-27 ; 1Co 15:4 . At first sight it appears difficult to fix on any passage in which it is directly announced: but with the deeper understanding of the Scriptures which the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles and still gives the Christian Church, such prophecies as that in Psa 16 are recognized as belonging to Him in Whom alone they are properly fulfilled: see also Hos 6:2 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
from = out from. Greek. ek. App-104.
the dead. No Article = dead people. See note on Mat 17:9, and App-139.
remembered. Compare Joh 2:17. They remembered it after His resurrection, and believed it. Contrast His enemies. See note on Joh 2:19.
said = spake. Greek. lego, as in Joh 2:21.
believed. App-150. See note on Joh 1:7.
the scripture: i.e. that the scripture was true. Here, probably, Psa 16:10. The word graphe Occurs twelve times in John: here; Joh 5:39; Joh 7:38, Joh 7:42; Joh 10:35; Joh 13:18; Joh 17:12; Joh 19:24, Joh 19:28, Joh 19:36, Joh 19:37; Joh 20:9.
word. Greek. logos. See on Mar 9:32.
said. Greek. epo.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
22.] , by all analogy, must mean the O.T. scriptures. That the resurrection of the Lord is the subject of O.T. prophecy, we find in several passages of the N.T., see ch. Joh 20:9 : Luk 24:26-27; 1Co 15:4. At first sight it appears difficult to fix on any passage in which it is directly announced: but with the deeper understanding of the Scriptures which the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles and still gives the Christian Church, such prophecies as that in Psalms 16 are recognized as belonging to Him in Whom alone they are properly fulfilled: see also Hos 6:2.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 2:22. Was risen) His Resurrection, not His glorification, is appealed to, because the sign was fulfilled by His resurrection. Comp. , I will raise, Joh 2:19.-, they remembered) Faith and memory lend mutual help to one another in this passage; and ch. Joh 12:16, Joh 16:4, These things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them: they also work together; Mat 16:8-9, O ye of little faith-Do ye not yet-remember the five loaves, etc.; Psa 106:13, They soon forgat His works; Joh 2:12, having just before stated, Then believed they His words.- , the Scripture and the word) concerning the raising of the temple: both being alike divine.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 2:22
Joh 2:22
When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.-When it came to be understood by his disciples after his resurrection it became the ground of their believing in him more strongly.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
his: Joh 2:17, Joh 12:16, Joh 14:26, Joh 16:4, Luk 24:7, Luk 24:8, Luk 24:44, Act 11:16
and they: Joh 2:11, Joh 20:8, Joh 20:9
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
Believed the scripture refers to the prediction in the Old Testament that Jesus was to rise from the dead the third day. That prediction is recorded in Psa 16:9-10, and commented upon by Peter in his discourse in Act 2:25-27.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 2:22. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this. Again (as in Joh 2:10) we are struck by the suddenness with which the narrative breaks off. It has been related mainly to bring out the rejection of Jesus by the Jews; the Evangelist pauses upon it only for a moment to speak of the effect on the disciples, as after the former miracle he records that the disciples believed in Jesus (Joh 2:11). We do not find the same statement here, but are told (comp. chap. Joh 12:16) that the words which baffled the Jews were mysterious to the disciples likewise. Whilst, however, the Jews rejected the hard saying, the disciples kept all these things and pondered them in their heart, not understanding them until the prophecy was fulfilled. This record of words not understood at the time, even by the inner circle of the followers of Jesus, is a striking indication of the simple truthfulness of the narration (comp. Joh 2:11).
And they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.The recollection of the words after the resurrection led the disciples (we cannot doubt that John is speaking chiefly of his own experience) to a fuller and richer faith in the scripture and the word of Jesus. The word must be that of Joh 2:19; but it is not so easy to explain the scripture. It cannot mean the Old Testament as a whole, for in this sense John always uses the plural, the Scriptures. It would be easier to suppose that the Evangelist has in mind some passages of the Old Testament predictive of the resurrection from Psalms 16; Isaiah 53; Hosea 6), or the rebuilding of the true temple (Zec 6:12-15). however, we include several passages, the difficulty in the use of the singular remains as before; and if we seek for a single prediction, we cannot meet with any one that agrees so closely with our Lords saying as to be thus definitely pointed out as the scripture. We seem bound to refer the word to the only scripture that (Joh 2:17) has been quoted in the context, Psa 69:9. This verse, speaking of the consuming and of its cause, formed the groundwork of the first part of our Lords saying (Destroy this temple). Hence this passage of the psalm and the word which Jesus had said form one whole, and as such are mentioned here. The disciples, guided to deeper faith by that which was at the time wholly mysterious (and which was a stone of stumbling to those who believed not), recognised the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy and of the prediction of Jesus Himself in the death and resurrection of their Lord. Thus in the first scene of His public ministry, we have Jesus before us in the light in which the whole Gospel is to present Him, at once the crucified and the risen Lord.
The whole narrative has been subjected to keen scrutiny both by friends and foes, but its importance has hardly yet been properly acknowledged. A few words must still be said as to its relation to the other Gospels, and as to its place in this.
Each of the earlier Gospels records a cleansing of the temple, accomplished, however, not at the outset but at the close of our Lords public ministry, on the Monday (probably) preceding the crucifixion. To some it has seemed altogether improbable that there should have been two acts of precisely similar character at the extreme points of the official life of our Lord. But is the character of the two the same? We would not lay too much stress on some of the differences of detail, for apparent divergences sometimes present themselves in connection with narratives which no one would be inclined to explain as relating to different events. There are, however, not a few touches in the account before us which show the hand of an eyewitness;such as the making of the scourge of cords, the scattering of the money of exchange, the words addressed to the sellers of doves alone, the form of the rebuke, the conversation with the Jews, the incidental notice of the forty-six years (a statement which only elaborate calculation shows to be in harmony with independent statements of another Evangelist). Finally, there is the remarkable perversion before Caiaphas of the words regarding the rebuilding of the temple, on which nothing contained in the earlier Gospels throws any light, and which (especially as given in Mar 14:58) bears all the marks of having been exaggerated in the popular mind through lapse of time. Such considerations as these seem to show that, if the cleansing can have occurred once only, its place in the history is that assigned by John. But is it really at all improbable that two cleansings should have taken place, separated by such an interval of time as the Gospel narrative presupposes? No one will think that the action of our Lord, as here related, would put an end to the traffic, when this very narrative brings before us an official challenge of His authority so to act. At the last Passover Jesus would find the temple-court as much the scene of worldly trading as it was at the first. Did He then, it will be asked, condone the evil when in intervening years He went up to the same feast? This question must be met by another: Have we reason to believe that Jesus attended any other Passover than these two? The feast of chap. Joh 5:1 was in all probability not a Passover, and at the Passover mentioned in Joh 6:4. He certainly was not present. If then he attended two Passovers only, is it at all improbable that on the second occasion, as on the first, He would vindicate the purity and sanctity of the temple?
The purpose, too, of the two cleansings is different. At the close of His ministry He is hailed as King of Israel, and He indignantly expels from Gods house those who practically denied to Gentiles any share in that place of prayer. Now He acts as the Son of God, offering Himself in this character to rulers and to people, that they may acknowledge His Sonship and obey His word. He came unto His own home, His home as Son, and they that were His own received Him not. This is the turning-point of His ministry: henceforth He is the rejected of the Jews. This is the significance of the narrative before us. The cleansing and the mysterious words spoken by Jesus (Joh 2:19) are alike signs. The first was a sign of His Sonship, a sign which they refused to accept. That refused, He gives the second; just as, when the Pharisees asked of Him a sign from heaven, He refused to give any save the sign of the prophet Jonah. If they will not listen to the former, the latter alone remains. He would have renewed the life of the temple, but they would not have it so. Let them, then, go on in their ways, and destroy the temple; let them go on in their rejection of Him, and destroy His life. The result will be the raising of a spiritual temple which shall be none of theirsa temple in which God Himself shall dwell, manifested to all men in the Son.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 22. When, therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
Into docile hearts the light came, although slowly. The event explained the word, as in its turn the word contributed to disclose the deep meaning of the event. It is surprising to meet here the limiting words , the Scripture; for the Scripture had not been quoted by Jesus, unless we think, with Weiss, of Joh 2:17, which is unnatural in view of the formal opposition established by Joh 2:22 between the time of the one and that of the other reminiscence. The evangelist undoubtedly wishes to intimate that the first point on which the light fell, in the hearts of the apostles, after the resurrection, was the prophecies of the Old Testament which announced that event (Psalms 16; Isaiah 53; Hosea 6; the prophet Jonah), and that it was by the intermediate agency of the interpreted prophecies that the present word of Jesus came back to their remembrance and was also made clear to them.
This little point which belongs to the inner biography of the apostles, stamps the narrative with the seal of historical reality. Let the reader picture to himself, with Baur, a pseudo-John, in the second century, inventing this momentary want of intelligence in the disciples with regard to a saying which he had himself ascribed to Jesus! The moral impossibility of such a strange charlatanism as this is obvious. This remark applies to the similar points, Joh 4:32-33; Joh 7:39; Joh 11:12; Joh 12:16; Joh 12:33; Joh 13:28, etc.
The Synoptics relate an act of Jesus similar to this; which they place at the beginning of the week of the Passion, either on Palm-day (Matthew 21; Luke 19), or more exactly on the next day after that (Mark 11). We might naturally enough suppose that these three evangelists, having omitted all the first year of Jesus’ ministry, were led thereby to locate this event in the only visit to Jerusalem of which they relate the story. This is the opinion of Lucke, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, etc. Keim goes much further; he claims that it would have been the grossest want of tact on Jesus’ part thus at the start to advertise His Messiahship, and to break with the old Judaism as He does in John. But what gives to the corporeal act its meaning and its character is the words with which Jesus accompanies it. Now these words, which constitute the soul of the narrative, are very different in the Synoptics and in John, to such a degree that it would be impossible to unite them in one consecutive discourse. In the Synoptics, Jesus claims, on the ground of Isa 56:7 (My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples), the right of the Gentiles to the place which, from the beginning, had been conceded to them in the temple (1Ki 8:41-43). In John, there is no trace of this intention; Jesus has in view Israel itself and only Israel.
This difference, as well as the characteristic reply, Joh 2:19, argues two distinct events. If, as we may not doubt, the abuse which is in question really existed at the moment when Jesus presented Himself for the first time as Messiah, and as Son of God, it was impossible that He should tolerate it. It would have been to declare Himself Messiah and abdicate the Messianic office by one act. Thus John’s narrative is self-justified. But it is, also, wholly true that if, after having been reduced during more than two years to the simple activity of a prophet, Jesus wished to reassume on Palm-Sunday His office as Messiah-King, and thus to take up again a connection with His beginnings, He could not do so better than by repeating that act by which He had entered upon His career, and by repressing again that abuse which had not been slow in reproducing itself. By the first expulsion He had invited the people to the reformation which could save them; by the second, He protested against the profane spirit which was about to destroy them. Thus the narrative of John and the Synoptic narrative equally justify themselves.
This contrast between the two situations agrees with the difference between the words uttered. In John, seeing His appeal repelled, Jesus thinks of His death, the fatal limit of that first rejection; in the Synoptics, seeing the fall of Israel consummated, He proclaims the right of the Gentiles, who are soon going to be substituted for the Jews. As forKeim’s objection, this author forgets that, by acting in this way, Jesus made an appeal precisely to that which was deepest in the consciousness of every true member of the theocracy, respect for the temple. Beyschlag has justly called this proceeding on the part of Jesus, the most profoundly conservative Jewish act. It was precisely the wonderful character of this act, that it inaugurated the revolution which was preparing, by connecting it with that which was most vital in the Israelitish past.