At the outset of chapter two, the Evangelist had recounted the first great sign by which Christ manifested His divinity and His power over nature: the changing of water into wine at Cana (vv. 1-11). The remainder of chapter two deals with the greatest sign, the greatest miracle: His resurrection. We have already seen the occasion which prompted Christ to foretell His own rising from the dead: namely, the cleansing of the temple (vv. 12-17). Now the Evangelist recounts the prediction itself (vv. 18-25).

In driving the merchants and money-changers from the temple, Jesus demonstrated His virtue and displayed His authority. His virtue was apparent in that He acted in accord with justice and with zeal for the house of God. They could not ask Christ to justify His virtue, for everyone who acts virtuously acts lawfully. But they were not being unreasonable when they asked Him to provide a sign that would explain why He could act with authority. Therefore, “The Jews then said to him, ‘What sign have you to show us for doing this?’” (Jn 2:18) They did not dispute the righteousness of His action, for that must have been apparent. What they did want to know was by whose authority He drove out the merchants and money-changers. By all appearances, He was an ordinary man. He was not dressed as a priest or as someone else in authority. He did not seem to have the requisite office, yet He acted as if He did. Did He have some sort divine authority? Was His act a work of the devil? Or did He simply take it upon Himself to speak out? A similar confrontation occurred the week before He was crucified: “when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority? (Mt 21:23)’” It was common for Jews to ask for signs, as St. Paul noted: “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22). The reason for this is that Jews were called to the law by signs: “there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and the wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land” (Dt 34:10-11). And when they did not receive signs, they complained, saying, “We do not see our signs” (Ps 74:9). When they asked Jesus for a sign of His authority, they did not ask in order to believe in Him, to believe that the Son of God had authority to cleanse the temple of wrongdoers. Instead, they hoped to discredit Him, for they did not think He could produce a sign, a miracle to demonstrate His power to the priests.

“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’” (Jn 2:19). Because they asked with an evil intent, Christ did not give them a clear sign, but one wrapped within a symbol, a sign concerning the resurrection of his human body, which He spoke of symbolically as a temple. The erection of Solomon’s temple was a magnificent feat of engineering and architectural splendor, but the raising of a human body from the dead is far more spectacular. Because only God has the power to create life and to restore it, Christ’s resurrection would surely be the definitive sign that He acted with divine authority. Now, the prophet Elijah raised a body from the dead (Sir 48:5), and in doing so, acted with divine authority; but it was by the power of God that he restored life. However, for a man to raise himself from the dead, as Jesus Christ proposed that He would do, implies that He Himself must be divine, for only the Giver of life can restore life using His own power. Therefore, Christ, in foretelling His resurrection, claimed that He was divine.

On another occasion, Christ explained the meaning of this sign to the skeptical scribes and Pharisees: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Mt 12:39-40). Since the scribes and Pharisees were experts in Sacred Scripture, the meaning that Christ intended to convey should have been reasonably clear to them.

Before the Incarnation, God told King Ahaz of Judah (735-15 B.C.) that He would reveal a sign of Christ’s coming: “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Is 7:14), which means “God is with us.” Similarly, before the Resurrection, Christ gave us a sign, and it is this sign of which we now speak. By these two signs, the divinity of Christ was definitively revealed, for in the first, God became a man, and in the second, He raised man up to union with God.

Christ called His human body a “temple,” for a temple is a place where God dwells: “The Lord is in his holy temple” (Ps 11:4). God dwells in the soul that is pure and righteous; He makes His home in the soul that is in the state of grace, as St. Paul said, “you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you” (1 Cor 3:16). Because God dwells in Christ’s human body, His body is a temple of God. Now, God dwells in us by grace, but this indwelling is in the intellect and will, not in the body. But God dwells in the human body of Christ according to a union of person, and this union includes both His human soul and His human body. Thus, the human body of Christ is God’s temple.

Nestorius (386-451) cited this verse to support his claim that the Person of the Son of God was distinct from the Person of the Son of man, and that these two persons were brought together in five ways accidentally, not substantially: (1) by an indwelling, as the Word of God dwells in man; (2) by intention, as a moral union or agreement of divine and human wills; (3) by operation, inasmuch as the man Jesus was the instrument of the Word, (4) by honor, as honor shown to the Word is shown to the man Jesus as well; and (5) by equivocation, inasmuch as we call Jesus Christ both God and Son of God (STh III, 2, 6). Nestorius asserted that Christ consisted of two persons, one divine, the other human. But we believe that the indwelling was in His human nature, not in His person, for His person was always divine. The Word of God assumed a human nature, not a human person. God did not assume one man, but assumed human nature, that He might restore, not only one human person, but the fallen human nature of all mankind (STh III, 4, 3), since He is “the first-born of all creation” (Col 1:15). Christ is one person, a divine person, the Word of God, the Only Begotten Son of God. The Word has always been one divine person, and He has always possessed the divine nature. But ever since the Word of God assumed a human nature in the Incarnation, it has been true to say that He possesses two complete natures, one divine, the other human. If Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople erred in splitting Christ into two persons, his monk Eutyches of Nicerta erred in denying that Christ’s two natures remained distinct, asserting instead that Christ was consubstantial with the Father, but not with man. The archbishop split one person into two, while Eutyches melded two distinct natures into one. But we believe that the hypostatic union took place substantially in the divine Person of the Word of God. The theologically orthodox position is midway between two heretical positions: the monophysitism of Eutyches, which located the union in the essence, and Nestorianism, which regarded the union as accidental, and not substantial.

Christ said, “Destroy this temple,” not “this temple will be destroyed” or “I will destroy this temple,” lest anything think that He took His own life. Rather, He was immolated by others, though it was a death He humbly accepted, according to the prophecy: “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth” (Is 53:7). He willed to suffer and die for our salvation. “Destroy” is not a command, but a prediction. When He said, “Destroy this temple,” without adding an objection, He implied that they would do this thing to Him with His permission, as He said to Judas, “What you are going to do, do quickly” (Jn 13:27). Christ explained why He gave His permission: “I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” (Jn 10:17-18).

By “Destroy,” he meant the death of His human body. When a body dies it undergoes a dissolution, because the soul immediately separates from the body. After men die, their bodies sooner or later return to dust. But with Christ it was different, for although He did experience a dissolution when His human soul separated from His human body at the moment of His death, His dead body did not begin to molder or to disintegrate, but miraculously remained intact, though lifeless, until it was raised in glory on the third day. This was to fulfill what had been written: “my heart is glad, and my soul rejoices; my body also dwells secure. For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” (Ps 16:9-10)

Christ gave them the sign they asked for when He foretold the resurrection of His body, saying, “in three days I will raise it up.” Note that He did not say “It will be raised up,” nor did He say “the Father will raise it up,” but He said clearly, “I will raise it up.” By saying this, He affirmed that He has the power over life, and hence, that He is divine. But this is not to deny that the Father and the Holy Spirit have the power, for Christ said that whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise (Jn 5:19), and St. Paul credited the Father with raising His Son from the dead. There is no contradiction here, for the power is the same in each of the three divine persons. St. Augustine taught (De Trinitate i, 12) that when one divine person acts, it is three acting as one, and not severally. St. Thomas added that whatever belongs to one divine person belongs to all three acting in common (STh III, 23, 2).

“In three days” may be understood in two ways. First, in a literal sense, He said, “in three days,” not “after three days,” because He did not remain in the tomb for three whole days. “In three days” is an example of synecdoche, a figure of speech which substitutes a more inclusive term for a less inclusive one; it takes a part for the whole. Second, in a spiritual sense, according to Origen, the first day is the law of nature to which everything is subject, the second day is the written law given to Moses, and the third day is the law of grace given by Christ. As the Word of God dwells in Christ through the grace of union (the hypostatic union), the Word dwells in His Body, the Church, through the grace of adoption. In each of the three days, one aspect of the body is raised, until the spiritual resurrection of the Church is accomplished in its entirety on the third day.

Next, the Evangelist gives us the Jews’ faulty interpretation of Christ’s prediction, for they thought He was speaking of the temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. “The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’” (Jn 2:20) The first temple was completed during King Solomon’s reign (965-26 B.C.) (1 Kgs 6-8; 2 Chr 2-4) and was looted and burned in 587 by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon (605-562). The second temple was built on the site of Solomon’s temple between 520 and 515, during the restoration following the Babylonian exile. It was desecrated by the Greeks in 325 and by the Romans in 63. The third temple was actually a major renovation and embellishment of the second temple, which took place during the reign of King Herod the Great (37 B.C.-A.D. 4). It was burned by the army of the Roman general Titus in 70. The first temple is known as Solomon’s Temple; the second is sometimes called Zerubbabel’s Temple, named for Zerubbabel, the governor of the Persian province of Yehud (Judah); the third is known as Herod’s Temple. It was in Herod’s Temple that Christ taught and prayed.

According to Origen, the reference to “forty-six years” refers perhaps to Solomon’s Temple, which may have taken that many years to build, if one reckons the start of construction from the day King David (1005-965) first discussed the project with the prophet Nathan (2 Sm 7:2-3) until it was completed by King Solomon (965-26). David certainly spent a great deal of time making plans, amassing funds, and procuring materials and craftsmen for the project. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the entire project, from inception to completion, may have taken forty-six years.

Next, the Evangelist gives us the true meaning of Christ’s words: “But he spoke of the temple of his body” (Jn 2:21), that is, He spoke metaphorically.

Then St. John tells us when the apostles will fully understand this: “When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (Jn 2:22). The apostles came to learn things concerning the faith only gradually. There are two reasons why Christ’s statement was not easily understood until after His resurrection. First, because it asserted that God is contained in some real way within the human body of Jesus. This goes beyond human experience, and hence, is difficult for human wisdom to grasp. The presence of the divinity within His body is a real presence, not a figurative one, otherwise Christ could not have called His body a temple, for a temple is a structure wherein God dwells on earth. Second, Christ’s statement was not easily understood before the Resurrection because it made reference to the unthinkable: His passion, death, and resurrection. On a later occasion when our Lord predicted His passion, Peter was so shocked that he rebuked Christ, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” (Mt 16:22) But soon after the Resurrection, they began to see how recent events had been foretold by the prophets. For example, Hosea prophesied: “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up” (Hos 6:3). And the sign of Jonah that Christ made reference to (Mt 16:4) became clear: “Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights” (Jon 1:17), as Christ’s body rested in a tomb hewn from rock, then “the Lord spoke to the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land” (Jon 2:10), as Christ arose from the tomb on the third day.

In an anagogical sense, we understand that, at the resurrection of the dead, the entire body of Christ, that is, His Church, will be given a most certain knowledge of all the things we now accept on faith alone. Looking forward to that day, the Apostle said, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face” (1 Cor 13:12).

Next, the Evangelist shows the fruit of the signs Christ gave: namely, that many began to believe. “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did” (Jn 2:23). Some believed because of the signs, the miracles they witnessed, while others believed because He revealed things hidden in the prophecies. Those who believed because of what He revealed are more commendable than those who believed because they witnessed miracles, for miracles appeal more to the senses, whereas the revelation of the truth appeals to the mind. Miracles and wonders appeal to all sorts of people, but only the more spiritually advanced can appreciate and understand prophecy, as St. Paul noted: “prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers” (1 Cor 14:22).

What signs did they see? St. John recounted only two signs so far: the miracle at Cana and the cleansing of the temple. Origen responded to this question by making two points. First, it is possible that Christ worked many miracles at this stage in His public ministry, but not all of them are recorded. For it was not St. John’s intention to record every detail of Christ’s life, but only those events that were necessary in order to instruct the faithful. The Evangelist himself concluded his gospel by admitting, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (Jn 21:25). Second, Christ may very well have performed other miracles before this time, but the most significant to date was the cleansing of the temple.

The attitude of Christ toward His believers is shown when the Evangelist wrote, “but Jesus did not trust himself to them” (Jn 2:24). Some might suggest that Christ said this because the faith of some disciples was not genuine. But, this cannot be the case, for the Evangelist affirmed that they had faith when he wrote, “many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did.” We can solve this in two ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, they believed in Him imperfectly, for their minds were not yet ready to understand and their wills were not yet prepared to fully accept the mysteries of Christ, such as His Incarnation and Resurrection. Accordingly, Christ did not reveal everything to them at first. He even confessed as much to His apostles, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” (Jn 16:12). In a similar manner, the Apostle wrote to his Corinthian converts: “I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh.” (1 Cor 3:1) Thus, we come to learn the divine mysteries gradually, step by step. Now, the Evangelist, in order to indicate that the disciples believed only imperfectly, said that they believed “in his name,” rather than “in him.” To believe “in him” would imply that they believed in His divinity, but to believe “in his name” means merely that they believed what others had said about Him. Second, according to St. Augustine, those who believe imperfectly are the catechumens. They believe in Christ name, that is, in what is said about Him, but because their faith is not perfect, the Church does not allow them to receive the body of Christ in the Eucharist, until after they are baptized with water and the Spirit.

The reason why Christ knew that He should not entrust Himself completely to them is “because he knew all men” (Jn 2:25a). One normally presumes the good in a person, unless the contrary is proven, just as, in our criminal justice system, one is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. But there is nothing in a man’s heart that is unknown to Christ. In His divine intellect, He knows all things (STh III, 9 1); and in His human intellect, He has knowledge of all things that the human intellect can possibly know (STh, III, 9, 3) and all the things that God has revealed to mankind (STh III, 11, 1). Thus, Christ knew with certainty that their faith was imperfect. And so, He “did not trust himself to them” at that moment in time.

One person can come to know another person in great depth, as is the case with intimate friends. But Christ knew even what lay hidden in the hearts of total strangers, for He knew these things, not by the powers of human observation, but by the power of His divinity, as the wise man said, “the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun; they look upon all the ways of men, and perceive even the hidden places” (Sir 23:19). Because Christ as God sees perfectly into the hearts of men, He “needed no one to bear witness about men; for he himself knew what was in man” (Jn 2:25b). He has perfect knowledge, not only of exterior things, but of hidden interior things as well, as the Psalmist proclaimed in wonder, “Thou searchest out my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.” (Ps 139:3-4). Or as the proverb goes, “Sheol and Abaddon lie open before the Lord, how much more the hearts of men!” (Prv 15:11)