When therefore he was risen again from the dead, his disciples remembered, that he had said this, and they believed the scripture, and the word that Jesus had said.

“(Hom. xxiii. in Joan. 3) TWO. things there were in the mean time very far removed from the comprehension of the disciples: one, the resurrection of our Lord’s Body: the other, and the greater mystery, that it was God who dwelt in that Body: as our Lord declares by saying, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. And thus it follows, When therefore He had 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.”

“Having laid down the occasion for exhibiting the sign, here the Evangelist consequently makes manifest the sign to be exhibited: and first he sets down the sign which is exhibited; second he sets down the fruit of the signs done, which follows, there, "Now when he was at Jerusalem," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First is set down the demand for a sign; second, the exhibition of the sign, there, "Jesus answered, and said to them: Destroy this temple," etc.; third, the understanding, or conception, of the sign exhibited, there, "The Jews therefore said: Forty and six years was this temple in building," etc. Now a sign is demanded by the Jews; and this is what he says: "The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou show unto us, seeing thou dost these things?" Here it must be known that in the casting out of the merchants from the temple by Jesus, two things could be considered in Christ: rectitude and zeal, which pertain to virtue; and power, or authority. But concerning the virtue and zeal of Christ, by which he had done the aforesaid things, it was not fitting that a sign be sought from Christ, since it is lawful for anyone to act according to virtue. But concerning his authority, by which he expelled them from the temple, a sign could be sought from him, since this was not lawful for just anyone to do, but only for one having authority. Passing over, therefore, the zeal and virtue of Jesus, the Jews seek a sign concerning his authority; and therefore they say, "What sign dost thou show us, seeing thou dost these things?" That is: why, with such power and authority, do you expel us? This does not seem to be your office. They say something similar, Matthew 21:23: "By what power dost thou do these things?" etc. Now they seek a sign because it was familiar to the Jews to seek a sign, inasmuch as they were called to the law through such things; Deuteronomy, last chapter, 10: "There arose not a prophet again in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders." And, 1 Corinthians 1:22, "the Jews seek signs." Therefore David, in the person of the Jews, complains, saying, Psalm 73:9: "we have not seen our signs." But they were seeking a sign, not that they might believe, but as though despairing that he would be able to show a sign, and thus that they might repress and impede him. Since, therefore, they sought wickedly, he did not give them an open sign, but a hidden one in figure, namely the sign of the resurrection. Whence he says, "Jesus answered, and said to them," etc., in which is set down the exhibition of the sign demanded. Now he gives them the sign of the future resurrection for this reason, that in this above all the power of his divinity is shown. For it is not of a mere man to raise himself up from the dead; but Christ alone, who was free among the dead, did this by the power of his divinity. He also shows them a similar sign. Matthew 12:39: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; but a sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet." And although in both places he gave a hidden and figural sign, yet that one was more manifest, but this one more obscure. Now it must be noted that before the incarnation God gave a sign of the future incarnation, Isaiah 7:14: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," etc.; likewise also before the resurrection he gave a sign of the future resurrection, because by these two things above all the power of the divinity is commended in Christ. For nothing more wonderful could come to pass than that God was made man, and that the humanity in Christ, after his resurrection, was made a partaker of divine immortality; Romans 6:9: "Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more... for in that he liveth, he liveth unto God," that is, in the likeness of God. But the words of the sign given must be attended to. For Christ calls his body a temple; the reason for which is that that is called a temple in which God dwells, according to Psalm 10:5: "the Lord is in his holy temple." And hence it is that a holy soul, which God inhabits, is called the temple of God; 1 Corinthians 3:17: "the temple of God is holy, which you are." Since, therefore, the divinity dwells in the body of Christ, the body of Christ is therefore the temple of God, not only according to the soul, but also according to the body; Colossians 2:9: "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the divinity corporeally." And indeed in us God dwells according to grace, namely according to the act of intellect and will, which is not an act of the body, but of the soul alone; but in Christ he dwells according to union in person, which union indeed includes not only the soul itself, but also the body; and therefore the body itself of Christ is the temple of God. From this, however, Nestorius, taking occasion for his error, says that the Word of God was united to human nature only according to indwelling; from which it follows that there is one person of God, and another of the man, in Christ. And therefore it must be said that the indwelling of God in Christ refers to nature, because the divine nature is one thing and the human nature another in Christ, but not to the person, which is the same in Christ of God and of man, namely the person of the Word, as was said above. This, then, being supposed, concerning this sign the Lord does two things. First indeed he foretells his future death; second, his resurrection. He foretells his death indeed when he says, "Destroy this temple." For Christ died, and was killed by others, Matthew 17:22: "and they shall kill him," yet with him willing it, because, as it is said in Isaiah 53:7, "he was offered because he himself willed it." And therefore he says, "Destroy this temple," that is, my body. And he does not say "it will be destroyed," lest you understand that he killed himself; but he says "destroy," which is not the word of one commanding, but of one foretelling and permitting. Of one foretelling indeed, so that the sense is, "Destroy this temple," that is, "you will destroy it"; but of one permitting, so that the sense is, "Destroy this temple," that is, "do with my body what you will, I set it before you," as he says to Judas, below, John 13:27: "That which thou dost, do quickly" — not indeed commanding him, but leaving him to his own choice. Now he says "destroy" because the death of Christ is the dissolution of his body, yet otherwise than that of other men. For the bodies of other men are dissolved through death even to the incineration and reduction to dust of the flesh; which kind of dissolution, however, did not occur in Christ, because, as it is said in Psalm 15:10, "thou wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption." Yet there was there a dissolution through death, because the soul was separated from the body, as form from matter, and because the blood was separated from the body, and because his body was pierced with nails and a lance. Now he foretells the resurrection when he says, "and in three days I will raise it up," namely the body, that is, "I will raise it up from the dead." Now he does not say "it will be raised," nor "the Father will raise it," but "I will raise it up," so as to show that he rises from the dead by his own power. Nor, however, do we deny that the Father raised him from the dead, because, as it is said in Romans 8:11, "who raised up Jesus from the dead." And in Psalm 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up." Thus, therefore, God the Father raised Christ from the dead, and Christ rose by his own power; Psalm 3:6: "I have slept, and taken my rest, and I have risen up, because the Lord hath sustained me." Nor is there in this any contrariety, because the power of both is the same; whence, "whatsoever things the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner": below, John 5:19. For if the Father raised him up, the Son also did; 2 Corinthians 13:4: "for although he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God." Now he says "and in three days," and not "after three days," because he did not remain three full days in the tomb; but, as Augustine says, it is a synecdochical expression, in which the part is put for the whole. Origen, however, assigns a mystical reason for this expression, saying: the true body of Christ is the temple of God, and this body figures the mystical body, that is, the Church; 1 Corinthians 12:27: "you are the body of Christ, and members of member." And just as in the body of Christ the divinity dwells through the grace of union, so too in the Church through the grace of adoption. And although this body seems to be mystically dissolved by the adversities of the tribulations by which it is afflicted, yet it is raised up in three days, namely in the day of the law of nature, and in the day of the written law, and in the day of the law of grace; because, even if in these days, as regards some, the body is dissolved, yet as regards others it lives. And therefore he says "in three days," because this spiritual resurrection is accomplished in three days. But after three days we shall be perfectly raised up, not only as regards the first resurrection, but also as regards the second; Apocalypse 20:6: "Blessed is he that hath part in the second resurrection." Consequently, when he says, "The Jews therefore said," etc., is set down the understanding of the sign exhibited; and first indeed is set down the false understanding, conceived by the Jews; second, the true understanding, conceived by the apostles, there, "But he spoke of the temple of his body." Now the false understanding of the Jews was that they believed Christ was speaking of the material temple, in which he then was; and therefore, according to this understanding, they respond concerning the material temple, and say, "Forty and six years was this temple in building" — namely the material one, in which we are — "and wilt thou raise it up in three days?" But against this there is a literal objection. For the temple in Jerusalem was built by Solomon, and, as is had in 3 Kings 6:1ff., it was completed by Solomon in seven years; what, then, is this, that he here says, "forty and six years was this temple in building"? I respond. It must be said, according to some, that this is not to be understood of the first building of the temple, which was completed by Solomon in seven years; for the temple which Solomon had built was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but it is to be understood of the rebuilding done under Zerubbabel, after they had returned from the captivity, as is read in the Book of Ezra, which indeed, with many enemies attacking from every side, was so hindered and delayed that the temple could not be completed until the forty-sixth year. Or it must be said, according to Origen, that it is understood of the temple of Solomon, which indeed is said to have been built in the space of forty-six years, in such a way that the time is counted from the day on which David made mention of the building of the temple, consulting the prophet Nathan about this, as is had in 2 Kings 7:2ff., up to the perfect completion by Solomon; for from that day David began to prepare the material and the necessities for the building of the temple. And if the said span of time is diligently considered, it rises to the number of forty-six years. Now although the Jews referred their intention to the material temple, yet, according to Augustine, it can be referred to the temple of the body of Christ; because, as he himself says in the Book of Eighty-Three Questions, the conception and formation of the human body is completed in forty-five days, in this manner. For in the first six days the conception of the human body has, as it were, the likeness of milk; then in the following nine days it is converted into blood; then in the twelve days after that it is solidified into flesh; but in the remaining eighteen days it is formed up to the perfect features of all its members. Therefore, with this number — six, nine, twelve, and eighteen — joined into one, there arises the number forty-five, to which, one being added on account of the sacrament of unity, there are forty-six. But from this a question arises: because this process of formation does not seem to have a place in the body of Christ, since in the very instant of conception it was formed and animated. But it must be said that, although in the formation of the body of Christ there is something singular — because in that very instant the body of Christ was perfect as to all the features of its members, though not as to the due quantity of the body — and therefore it remained in the womb of the Virgin for as long as was needed until it reached the due quantity. Let us then take the aforesaid numbers, namely six, which was the first, and forty-six, which was the last, and multiply the one by the other; from these there arise two hundred seventy-six. Dividing, then, this number of days into months, giving each month thirty days, there are nine months and six days. Rightly, therefore, is the temple said to have been built in forty-six years, which signified the body of Christ, so as to suggest that there were as many years in the building of the temple as there were days in the perfection of the body of Christ; for from the eighth of the Kalends of April, on which Christ was conceived, and (as is believed) suffered, up to the eighth of the Kalends of January, there are that many days, namely two hundred seventy-six, which number arises from six multiplied by forty-six. From this number also Augustine (as appears through the Gloss) understands another thing mystically. For he says that from the letters of the name Adam, multiplied according to the number which, in the manner of the Greeks, these letters signify, there arises the number forty-six. For "A" in Greek, according to number, signifies one, since it is the first letter in the alphabet; but "D," according to order, signifies four. Adding, then, the one which "A" signifies, and the forty which "M" signifies, we have forty-six. In which it is signified that the body of Christ was assumed from the body of Adam. Likewise, according to the Greeks, from the first letters taken from the names of the four parts of the world, this name Adam is composed: namely, "anatole," which is east; "dysis," which is west; "arctos," which is north; "mesembria," which is south — in which it is signified that Christ assumed flesh from Adam, so that he might gather together his elect from the four parts of the world; Matthew 24:31: "he shall gather together his elect from the four winds." Consequently, when he says, "But he spoke of the temple of his body," is set down the true understanding of the sign, conceived by the disciples; and first is set down their own understanding; second, whence the apostles conceived this, there, "When therefore he was risen," etc. He says, therefore: the Jews said this in ignorance, but Christ did not so understand it; rather he understood it of the temple of his body; and this is what he says, "But he spoke of the temple of his body." Now for what reason the body of Christ is called a temple has been said above. And from this Apollinaris, taking occasion for his error, said that the flesh of Christ was inanimate matter, because a temple is an inanimate thing. But in this he is deceived, because when it is said that the body of Christ is a temple, it is a metaphorical expression, in which expression indeed the likeness is not attended to as regards all things, but as regards something, namely as regards the indwelling, which indeed refers to the nature, as was said above. Moreover, this appears manifestly through the authority of Sacred Scripture, when Christ himself says: "I have power to lay down my life." Whence, however, the apostles conceived this true understanding, the Evangelist shows consequently, when he adds, "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered," etc. For before the resurrection this was difficult to understand: first, because through this it was shown that in the body of Christ there was true divinity — otherwise it could not have been called a temple — and to understand this at that time exceeded human capacity. Second, because in this he makes mention of the passion and resurrection, when he says "I will raise it up," which none of the disciples had yet heard. Whence, when Christ expressed his resurrection and passion to the apostles, Peter, hearing this, was scandalized, saying: "Be it far from thee, Lord" (Matthew 16:22). But after the resurrection, when they now fully knew Christ to be God, through the things which he had shown concerning the passion and resurrection, and when they had learned the sacrament of his resurrection, then "his disciples remembered that he said this of his body, and they believed the Scripture," namely of the prophets; Hosea 6:3: "He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up"; Jonah 2:1: "Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights." And hence it is that on the very day of the resurrection he opened to them their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. "And the word that Jesus had said" — namely this: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Analogically, however, through this it is given us to understand, according to Origen, that in the last resurrection of nature we shall be disciples of Christ, when, in the great resurrection, the whole body of Jesus, that is, his Church, will be made certain of those things which now we know through faith in an enigma; and then we shall receive the completion of faith, seeing through vision what now we behold through a mirror. Consequently, when he says, "Now when he was at Jerusalem," he sets down the fruit that followed from the signs, namely the conversion of some who believed; and concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth those who believed, on account of the miracles; second he shows how Christ conducted himself toward them, there, "But Jesus did not trust himself to them"; third he assigns the reason for this, there, "because he himself knew all men." Now the fruit which came from the signs of Jesus is great, because many believed, and were converted to him; and this is what he says: "Now when he was at Jerusalem, at the Passover, on the festival day, many believed in his name" — that is, in him — "seeing the signs which he did." Now note that some believed in two ways: for some indeed believed on account of miracles seen, but some on account of the revelation of hidden things and prophecy. But those who believe on account of teaching are more praiseworthy, because they are more spiritual, than those who believe on account of signs, who are grosser and more given to the senses. Now these who were converted are shown to be of the sensible sort, in that they believed, not on account of teaching, as the disciples did, but "seeing the signs which he did," they "believed in his name." 1 Corinthians 14:22: "prophecies are given to believers," etc. But here it is asked what signs they saw done by Jesus, since we read of none that he did at that time in Jerusalem. To this a twofold answer can be given, according to Origen. In one way, that many signs were done by Jesus there at that time which are not contained here; for the Evangelists knowingly passed over many of the miracles of Christ, since he did so many that they could not easily be written; below, last chapter, 25: "Many other signs also did Jesus, which, if they should be written every one, I think that the world itself would not be able to contain the books that should be written." And the Evangelist shows this pointedly when he says, "seeing the signs which he did," which have already been passed over, because it was not the intention of the Evangelists to write down all the signs of Jesus, but as many as were necessary for the instruction of the Church of the faithful. In another way, because among the miracles the greatest sign can be reckoned to be this, that with a scourge made of cords, Jesus alone cast out a multitude of men from the temple. Now how he conducted himself toward those who believed, he shows, saying, "But Jesus did not trust himself to them," namely to those who had believed in him. But what is this, that men believe in God, and Jesus himself did not trust himself to them? Could they perhaps have killed him, had he been unwilling? But someone will say that he did not trust himself to them because he knew that they believed falsely. But if this were true, the Evangelist surely would not say that many had believed in his name, and yet that he did not trust himself to them. And the reason is, according to Chrysostom, that these believed in him, but imperfectly, because they could not yet attain to the perfect mysteries of Christ, and therefore "he did not trust himself to them," that is, he did not yet reveal to them his secret mysteries; for even to the apostles themselves he did not reveal many things; below, John 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now"; 1 Corinthians 3:1: "I could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal." And therefore the Evangelist pointedly, so as to show that they believed imperfectly, does not say that they believed in him, because they did not yet believe in his divinity; but he says "in his name" — that which was said of him merely by name, namely that he was just, or something of this sort. Or, according to Augustine, these bear in the Church the type of catechumens, who, although they believe in the name of Christ, yet Jesus does not trust himself to them, because the Church does not give them the body of Christ; for that body, just as no priest can confect it except one consecrated a priest, so no one ought to receive it except one baptized. Now the reason why he did not trust himself to them is shown from the perfect knowledge of Christ; whence he says, "because he himself knew all men." Now although a man in ignorance ought to presume good of anyone, yet after the truth becomes known concerning certain persons, a man ought to conduct himself toward them according to their condition. And because nothing of the things that are in man was hidden from Christ, since he knew that they believed imperfectly, he did not trust himself to them. Now the knowledge of Christ is described as universal, because he knew not only those close to him, but also other strangers, and therefore he says, "because he himself knew all men," and this through the power of his divinity; Ecclesiasticus 23:28: "the eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun." For man, even though he may know others, yet cannot have certain knowledge of them, because he sees only what appears outwardly, and therefore he has need of the testimony of others. Christ, however, knows most certainly, because he beholds the heart; and therefore "he needed not that any should give testimony of man"; rather he himself is a witness, Job 16:20: "behold, my witness is in heaven." His knowledge is perfect, because it extends not only to exterior things, but also to interior things; and therefore he says, "for he himself knew what was in man," that is, the hidden things of the heart. Proverbs 15:11: "Hell and destruction are before the Lord."”

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover,.... Whither he went, in order to keep it, that being at hand, and now come; see Joh 2:13; in the feast day; either on the day the Chagigah was eaten, which was sometimes emphatically called "the feast", as in Num 28:16, "and in the fourteenth day of the first month, is the passover of the Lord; and in the fifteenth day of this month, is the feast"; the passover lamb was eaten on the fourteenth day of the month "Nisan", and the "Chagigah" was on the fifteenth; in the former only a lamb was eaten, in the other, cattle out of the herds; hence mention is made, both of flocks and herds, for the keeping the passover, Deu 16:2. Jarchi's note upon the place is, that the herds were for the Chagigah, with which the Talmud (l) agrees; and Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the words thus, "and ye shall slay the passover before the Lord your God, between the evenings, and the sheep and oxen on the morrow, in that very day, for the joy of the feast;'' for it was observed with great joy and mirth: and the rather this is here meant, since the "Chagigah" is not only called "the feast", but this here is distinguished from the passover, as that is in the passage above cited, Num 28:16. For the passover here, seems to be the general name for the whole seven days of the festival; and the feast to be the particular feast of the first day of it, which was the fifteenth; to which may be added, that on this day all the males made their appearance in court (m); and so was a very proper time for Christ to work his miracles in, when there were so many spectators: though it may design the whole time of the feast, all the seven days of unleavened bread; during which time Christ was at Jerusalem, and wrought miracles, which had the following effect: many believed in his name; that he was some great prophet, or the prophet, or the Messiah; they gave an historical assent unto him as such, at least for that time: when they saw the miracles which he did; for as miracles, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, were to be performed by the Messiah, such as giving sight to the blind, causing the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, and the lame to walk, Isa 35:5; so they were expected by the ancient Jews, that they would be wrought by him, when he came; wherefore these Jews, seeing such like wonderful things wrought by Jesus, they concluded he must be the Messiah: though the modern ones, in order to shift off the evidence of Jesus being the Messiah, from his miracles, deny that miracles are the characteristic of the Messiah, or will be performed by him; at least, that there is no necessity of them to prove him to be the person. What miracles these were, which were now wrought by Christ, are not recorded by this, or any other evangelist; see Joh 20:30. However, being surprised at the marvellous things he did, and upon the evidence of these extraordinary works, there were many that concluded he must be come from God; among these it seems as if Nicodemus was one; see Joh 3:2; great part of these, at least some of them, were only nominal and temporary believers, who were not to be confided in as true disciples, and hearty followers of Christ; and who continued not long in the same mind and profession, as appears by what follows. (l) Pesachim, fol. 70. 2. (m) Maimon. Hilch. Chagigah, c. 1. sect. 1.”

“Remembered that he had said this unto them - Αυτοις, to them, is wanting in AEHLMS, Matt. BV, upwards of one hundred others; both the Syriac; Persic, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, 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 Psa 16:10. Compare this with Act 2:31, Act 2:32, and with Act 13:35-37. See also Psa 2:7, and compare it with Heb 1:5, and Heb 5:5, and with Act 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 fulfillment takes place, they cannot be misunderstood, or applied to any other event.”

“believed the scripture--on this subject; that is, what was meant, which was hid from them till then. Mark (1) The act by which Christ signalized His first public appearance in the Temple. Taking "His fan in His hand, He purges His floor," not thoroughly indeed, but enough to foreshadow His last act towards that faithless people--to sweep them out of God's house. (2) The sign of His authority to do this is the announcement, at this first outset of His ministry, of that coming death by their hands, and resurrection by His own, which were to pave the way for their judicial ejection.”