Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (815 page)

As however Jesus, judging from the conduct of his disciples after his death, cannot have announced his resurrection in plain words: other commentators have resigned themselves to the admission, that the Evangelists, after the issue, gave to the discourses of Jesus a

* Thus especially Herder, vom Erlöser der Menschen, s. 133 ff. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 227. Comp. Küinol, Comm. in Matth., p. 444 f.

† LXX. :
u
g
i
a
s
e
i
h
m
a
V
m
e
t
a
d
u
o
h
m
e
r
a
V
,
e
n
t
h
h
m
e
r
a
t
h
t
r
i
t
h
e
x
a
n
a
s
t
h
s
o
m
e
q
a
k
a
i
z
h
s
o
m
e
q
a
e
n
w
p
i
o
n
a
u
t
o
u
.

‡ Comp. Süskind, einige Bemerkungen über die Frage, ob Jesus seine Auferstehung bestimmt vorhergesagt habe? in Flatt’s Magazin, 7, s. 203 ff.definiteness which, as uttered by him, they did not possess; that they have not merely understood literally, what Jesus intended figuratively, of the revival of his cause after his death, but in accordance with their erroneous interpretation, have so modified his words that, as we now read them, we must certainly understand them in a literal sense;* yet that not all the discourses of Jesus are altered in this manner ; here and there his original expressions still remain.

§ 114. FIGURATIVE DISCOURSES, IN WHICH JESUS IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANNOUNCED HIS RESURRECTION.

According to the fourth gospel, Jesus, at the very commencement of his ministry, in figurative language, referred his enemies, the Jews, to his future resurrection (ii. 19 ff. ). On his first messianic visit to Jerusalem, and when, after the abuse of the market in the temple had provoked him to that exhibition of holy zeal of which we have formerly spoken, the Jews require a sign from him, by which he should legitimatize his claim to be considered a messenger of God, who had authority to adopt such violent measures, Jesus gives them this answer,
Destroy this temple, and after three days I will raise it up.
l
u
s
a
t
e
t
o
n
n
a
o
n
t
o
u
t
o
n
,
k
a
i
e
n
t
r
i
s
i
n
h
m
e
r
a
i
V
e
g
e
r
w
a
u
t
o
n
:
The Jews took these words in the sense, which, since they were spoken in the temple, was the most natural, and urged, in reply to Jesus, that as it had taken forty years to build this temple, he would scarcely be able, if it were destroyed, to rebuild it in three days; but the Evangelist informs us, that this was not the meaning of Jesus, and that he here spoke (though indeed the disciples were not aware of this until after his resurrection), of the
temple of his body,
n
a
o
V
t
o
u
s
w
m
a
t
o
V
a
u
t
o
u
: i.e. under the destruction and rebuilding of the temple, he alluded to his death and resurrection. Even if we admit, what however the most moderate expositors deny,† that Jesus could properly (as he is also represented to have done in Matthew xii. 39 ff.) when the Jews asked him for a visible and immediate sign, refer them to his resurrection as the greatest, and for his enemies the most overwhelming miracle in his history: still he must have done this in terms which it was possible for them to understand (as in the above passage of Matthew, where he expresses himself quite plainly). But the expressions of Jesus, as here given, could not possibly be understood in this sense. For when one who is in the temple, speaks of the destruction of this temple, everyone will refer his words to the building itself. Hence Jesus, when he uttered the words,
this temple,
t
o
n
n
a
o
n
t
o
u
t
o
n
,
must have pointed to his body with his finger; as, indeed, is generally presupposed by the friends of this interpretation.‡ But, in the first place, the Evangelist says nothing of such a gesture, notwithstanding that it lay in

* Paulus, ut sup. 2, s. 415 ff. ; Hase, L. J. § 109.

† E.g. Lücke, I, s. 426; comp., on the contrary, Tholuck, in loc.

‡ Vid. Tholuck, ut sup.his interest to notice this, as a support of his interpretation. In the second place, Gabler has with justice remarked, how ill-judged and ineffective it would have been, by the addition of a mere gesture to give a totally new meaning to a speech, which verbally, and therefore logically, referred to the temple. If, however, Jesus used this expedient, the motion of his finger could not have been unobserved; the Jews must rather have demanded from him how he could be so arrogant as to call his body
the temple,
n
a
o
V
; or even if not so, still, presupposing that action, the disciples could not have remained in the dark concerning the meaning of his words, until after the resurrection.*

By these difficulties modern exegetists have felt constrained to renounce John’s explanation of the words of Jesus, as erroneous and made
ex eventu,
and to attempt to penetrate, independently of the Evangelist’s explanation, into the sense of the enigmatical saying which he attributes to Jesus.† The construction put upon it by the Jews, who refer the words of Jesus to a real destruction and rebuilding of the national sanctuary, cannot be approved without imputing to Jesus an extravagant example of vain-glorious boasting, at variance with the character which he elsewhere exhibits. If on this account search be made for some figurative meaning which may possibly be assigned to the declaration, there presents itself first a passage in the same gospel (iv. 21 ff.) where Jesus announces to the woman of Samaria, that the time is immediately coming, in which the Father will no longer be worshipped exclusively in Jerusalem (
e
n
I
e
r
o
s
o
l
u
m
o
i
V
)
,
but will, as a Spirit, receive spiritual worship. Now in the present passage also, the destruction of the temple might, it is said, have signified the abolition of the temple-service at Jerusalem, supposed to be the only valid mode of worship, This interpretation is confirmed by a narrative in the Acts (vi. 14), Stephen, who, as it appears, had adopted the above expressions of Jesus, was taxed by his accusers with declaring,
that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered,
o
t
i
I
h
s
o
u
V
o
N
a
z
w
r
a
i
o
V
o
u
t
o
V
k
a
t
a
l
u
s
e
i
t
o
n
t
o
p
o
n
t
o
u
t
o
n
,
k
a
i
a
l
l
a
x
e
i
t
a
e
q
h
,
a
p
a
r
e
d
w
k
e
M
w
u
s
h
V
: In which words a change of the Mosaic religious institutions, without doubt a spiritualization of them, is described as a sequel to the destruction of the temple. To this may be added a passage in the synoptical gospels. Nearly the same words which in John are uttered by Jesus himself, appear in the two first gospels (Matt. xxvi. 60 f. ; Mark xiv. 57 f,) as the accusation of false witnesses against him; and here Mark, in addition, designates the temple which is to be destroyed, as one
made with hands,
c
e
i
r
o
p
o
i
h
t
o
V
,
and the new one which is to be