John 20:19-21

I-CH-TH-U-S

John 20:19-21

19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this TEMPLE, and I will raise it again in three days."

20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the TEMPLE he had spoken of was his BODY.

does this imply that jesus can raise his own body up when he is dead? how could this be possible? if how i percieve this then Jesus could well have said Destroy this BODY, (because by temple he means body) and I (meaning he has the power to and) will raise it again in three days.

any thoughts?

Narkissos

It's chapter 2, not 20.

As far as the temple is concerned, it is an interesting echo of the saying which the synoptics place on the lips of "false witnesses" (Matthew 26:61//): an old and embarrassing tradition which the Gospels explain away in different manners -- the synoptics by making it a false testimony, John by changing the person ("Destroy" instead of "I will destroy") and reinterpreting it of the resurrection.

As far as Jesus' body is concerned, the notion of self-resurrection, odd as it may seem, is quite consistent with the Gospel of John, cf. 10:17f: "I lay down my life in order to take it up 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 up again."

Leolaia

The text, btw, is John 2:19-21.

This is a saying that is interpreted in different ways by different writers. It first appears in Mark 14:58, 15:29 as something that is attributed to Jesus by his opposers before the Sanhedrin; it is not something that Jesus is represented as actually saying. In fact, Mark 14:57 states that such an utterance is a "false witness" about Jesus, and v. 59 adds that the people saying this did not agree in the details. Within the context of Mark, the saying is evidently a misunderstanding of the oracle in 13:1-2 in which Jesus announces as he is leaving the Temple that the building is going to be destroyed (clearly alluding to the destruction of the literal Temple). The other gospels handle this saying in different ways. Luke omits the saying in his version of the Sanhedrin episode (Luke 22:66-71) so that he can use it to compose the parallel story of Stephen's arrest:

"They took Stephen by surprise, and arrested him and brought him before the Sanhedrin. There they put up false witnesses to say, 'This man is always making speeches against this Holy Place and the Law. We have heard him say that Jesus the Nazarene is going to destroy this Place and alter the traditions that Moses handed down to us" (Acts 6:12-14).

Here, as in Mark, the saying is mentioned as something "false" that is used to trump up charges on Stephen. Note also that the Temple is interpreted literally, as it is in Mark. Matthew 26:61 repeats the Sanhedrin episode from Mark with the "I am able to destroy the Temple of God and build it up in three days" saying, but also attributes it to mockers at Jesus' cross in 27:40. John however puts the saying in the mouth of Jesus, in a particular setting (replacing the "you have made the house of God into a den of robbers" saying from Mark 11:17), and gives an explicit spiritualizing interpretation of the saying.

Does Jesus mean that he is going to himself raise his body from the dead, a saying that coheres well with a modalist christology? It's possible, tho it must be admitted that the author is working with a saying unit that preceded him and thus did not originate the notion of Jesus' agency in the raising. Yet there is another parallel in John 10:17-18: "I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and as it is in my power to lay it down, so it is in my power to take it up again". The saying in John 2:19-21 is also rather close to what Ignatius of Antioch says: "He suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself (anestésen heauton), not as certain unbelievers say that he suffered in appearance only" (Smyrnaeans 2:1). Elsewhere however he referred to the Father raising Jesus (cf. Trallians 9:2, Smyrnaeans 7:1), and Paul always refers to God raising Jesus, not Jesus raising himself.

Leolaia

I guess Nark and I are on the same wavelength.

sinis

Yes, but wuld this not be along the same lines as what Moses said when giving water to the Isrealites? He said "is it not I", and was thus banished for giving credit to himself instead of god. Likewise, if Jesus had a slip of the tongue would not his father been jealous and perhaps exacted the same thing upon him as he did moses, his close friend? Perhaps, there was truth in what Jesus said. Although, I don't advocate a trinity I do believe the relationship between the father, and son are a little more complex than the bible alludes to.

Justin

This is a passage which is much better understood from the standpoint of the trinitarian orthodoxy which developed in the Church rather than from the JW perspective. While it is true that such understanding is a result of theological reflection, yet the Gospel of John seems to be much closer to what finally emerged as normative Christian doctrine than some parts of the NT.

So from the orthodox perspective, the Logos (Word) which assumed flesh (and which eventually became known as the Second Person of the Trinity), could not die in his own proper nature. It was the humanity which had been assumed in the incarnation which died, and the Logos remained alive. Consequently, the Logos could raise the dead body of Jesus to life.

This is not considered to contradict the idea that the Father raised Jesus. All three Persons of the Trinity are considered to be involved in any divine activity. For example, in creation, we would not choose between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - all Three were involved. But it is said that the act of creation is attributed to the Father - not that the other two Persons were not involved. (Similarly, salvation is attributed to the Son; sanctification or holiness is attributed to the Spirit.) I would suppose that resurrection would be attributed to the Father, though the Son or Logos would be the Father's agent as he was in creation. Interestingly, the Holy Spirit also is said to be involved in resurrection. (Rom. 1:3-4; 8:11)

Hopefully these concepts will give you a way to think of Jesus raising himself, and yet being raised by the Father.

ithinkisee

Can't you guys talk in shorter sentences? Geez ...

When arguing the trinity with a JW who wishes to argue it, this verse is a killer. This - in conjunction with other Trinitarian proof-texts - helps solidify the unique union between the three natures of the Trinity.

I have an MP3 from Dr Walter Marting where he uses this argument quite successfully in mock-dialogue with a JW. PM me and I will send you a link to it.

-ithinkisee

Leolaia

Justin....I like your suggestion. It depends on some notions not found in John per se, but in forming a synthetic theology that integrates the various NT texts, I can see some attractiveness in your explanation of John 2:19-21.

peacefulpete

Like was said the charge of trying or wanting to destroy the Temple was being dealt with by the writers of the Gospels in different ways. However the question arises, why was such a charge ever made? There are a number of elements in the Gospels that connect Jesus and his band with the Zealot movement. This may mean that certain episodes later attributed to Jesus were in history performed by or intended by zealot leaders of the period. here's and article:zealots, Siccari and Rome

defd

does this imply that jesus can raise his own body up when he is dead? how could this be possible?

I believe Jesus meant that by his FAITHFUL course, by remaining faithful and keeping his integrity he put HIMSELF in line for a sure ressurrection. So he rightfully can say what he did. Just my thoughts on it. Jehovah, his Father, raised him from the dead.

D.

John 20:19-21

Share this