Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
After He drove the traders and money changers from the temple courts at Passover, the priests and rulers demanded what sign of authority He could show for interrupting their market and trade. They asked this though they had already been given convincing evidence of His divine mission in His works, the conviction of the Holy Spirit upon their hearts, the display of divine power in the cleansing itself, and the prophecies they should have recognized. Their question came from offended unbelief, pride, jealousy, and refusal to repent, to protect their own influence rather than yield to conviction that He might be God's prophet and the promised Messiah. The cleansing itself was already the strongest proof of His divine commission, so no further sign would convince them once that act had failed to do so. In answer He pointed to His own death and resurrection, speaking of destroying the temple and raising it in three days, meaning the temple of His body.
Temple Cleansing Setting
The demand for a sign belongs to the Passover cleansing of the temple, when the courts at Jerusalem were crowded and the selling of sacrificial animals and the exchanging of money had become a source of fraud and profit for the priests. The question about authority arose directly out of what Jesus did in that defiled setting.
Through that cleansing He announced His messianic mission and began His public work. The temple had been intended as God's dwelling place and as an object lesson for Israel and the world, and through the incarnation God dwells in humanity, so that saving grace makes the human heart His temple again. The dignitaries of the temple judged His actions, yet news of those actions helped open the way for Him in Galilee, where many lamented the abuse of the temple and the arrogance of the priests and hoped He might be the promised Deliverer.
The rulers' demand came after He had cleansed the temple courts, and on the following day He healed the sick, relieved the afflicted, taught the people, and silenced objections with His wisdom. Nicodemus witnessed those works and concluded that He was sent by God. His course in cleansing the temple proved Him a truer friend to the temple than the priests and rulers whose conduct had profaned it.
Demand Despite Conviction
The demand for a sign was made by the priests and rulers, the chief priests and elders, and the temple authorities, to call Jesus to justify His authority for cleansing the temple and interrupting its market and trade. They challenged Him to show by what right He drove out the traders and stopped the traffic they themselves permitted.
They made this demand though convincing evidence of His divine mission had already been given them in His works and in the light He brought to their hearts. The Holy Spirit had pressed that evidence upon them, and strong proof of His divine commission had been seen in the display of divine power in the cleansing act itself. They had the sacred scrolls and the prophecies they should have recognized, yet still asked for a sign.
The question did not arise from lack of evidence, for they had closed their hearts to conviction and were determined not to yield to Him. It came from offended unbelief, and from pride, jealousy, and refusal to repent in the face of words that convinced them and power they recognized. They suppressed the conviction that He might be God's prophet and the promised Messiah, choosing opposition rather than submission from fear of losing the authority they followed. They treated His mission as an unwarranted innovation because the temple authorities permitted the traffic, and their desire to protect their own influence and authority led them to demand a sign rather than accept the evidence.
They asked with outward fear and deference, from lingering fear left by what they had witnessed. They concluded He must be a prophet sent from God to restore the sanctity of the temple. Yet they asked from unbelieving hearts, unable to recognize who He was.
The cleansing itself was already the strongest proof of His divine commission, displaying divine power before them. Their demand overlooked that proof, and no further sign would convince or persuade them once that act had failed to do so.
Resurrection Sign Foretold
The demand for a sign was a challenge to His authority for His actions in cleansing the temple and interrupting its market and trade. In answer He spoke of destroying the temple and raising it in three days. By this He pointed to His own death and resurrection, for the temple He would raise was His own body.
The leaders took His words only as a claim about the Jerusalem building, mistaking them for a claim about Jerusalem's temple. His body was the earthly temple of the Son of God, so His words bore upon both the Jerusalem temple and His body. After His resurrection the disciples remembered His words and understood their meaning.
His words were twisted into the claim that He had said He would destroy the temple. At the cross this distorted claim was repeated as a taunt. There it was also used as evidence against Him.
After He drove the traders and money changers from the temple courts at Passover, the priests and rulers demanded what sign of authority He could show for interrupting their market and trade. They asked this though they had already been given convincing evidence of His divine mission in His works, the conviction of the Holy Spirit upon their hearts, the display of divine power in the cleansing itself, and the prophecies they should have recognized. Their question came from offended unbelief, pride, jealousy, and refusal to repent, to protect their own influence rather than yield to conviction that He might be God's prophet and the promised Messiah. The cleansing itself was already the strongest proof of His divine commission, so no further sign would convince them once that act had failed to do so. In answer He pointed to His own death and resurrection, speaking of destroying the temple and raising it in three days, meaning the temple of His body.
Temple Cleansing Setting
The demand for a sign belongs to the Passover cleansing of the temple, when the courts at Jerusalem were crowded and the selling of sacrificial animals and the exchanging of money had become a source of fraud and profit for the priests. The question about authority arose directly out of what Jesus did in that defiled setting.
Through that cleansing He announced His messianic mission and began His public work. The temple had been intended as God's dwelling place and as an object lesson for Israel and the world, and through the incarnation God dwells in humanity, so that saving grace makes the human heart His temple again. The dignitaries of the temple judged His actions, yet news of those actions helped open the way for Him in Galilee, where many lamented the abuse of the temple and the arrogance of the priests and hoped He might be the promised Deliverer.
The rulers' demand came after He had cleansed the temple courts, and on the following day He healed the sick, relieved the afflicted, taught the people, and silenced objections with His wisdom. Nicodemus witnessed those works and concluded that He was sent by God. His course in cleansing the temple proved Him a truer friend to the temple than the priests and rulers whose conduct had profaned it.
Demand Despite Conviction
The demand for a sign was made by the priests and rulers, the chief priests and elders, and the temple authorities, to call Jesus to justify His authority for cleansing the temple and interrupting its market and trade. They challenged Him to show by what right He drove out the traders and stopped the traffic they themselves permitted.
They made this demand though convincing evidence of His divine mission had already been given them in His works and in the light He brought to their hearts. The Holy Spirit had pressed that evidence upon them, and strong proof of His divine commission had been seen in the display of divine power in the cleansing act itself. They had the sacred scrolls and the prophecies they should have recognized, yet still asked for a sign.
The question did not arise from lack of evidence, for they had closed their hearts to conviction and were determined not to yield to Him. It came from offended unbelief, and from pride, jealousy, and refusal to repent in the face of words that convinced them and power they recognized. They suppressed the conviction that He might be God's prophet and the promised Messiah, choosing opposition rather than submission from fear of losing the authority they followed. They treated His mission as an unwarranted innovation because the temple authorities permitted the traffic, and their desire to protect their own influence and authority led them to demand a sign rather than accept the evidence.
They asked with outward fear and deference, from lingering fear left by what they had witnessed. They concluded He must be a prophet sent from God to restore the sanctity of the temple. Yet they asked from unbelieving hearts, unable to recognize who He was.
The cleansing itself was already the strongest proof of His divine commission, displaying divine power before them. Their demand overlooked that proof, and no further sign would convince or persuade them once that act had failed to do so.
Resurrection Sign Foretold
The demand for a sign was a challenge to His authority for His actions in cleansing the temple and interrupting its market and trade. In answer He spoke of destroying the temple and raising it in three days. By this He pointed to His own death and resurrection, for the temple He would raise was His own body.
The leaders took His words only as a claim about the Jerusalem building, mistaking them for a claim about Jerusalem's temple. His body was the earthly temple of the Son of God, so His words bore upon both the Jerusalem temple and His body. After His resurrection the disciples remembered His words and understood their meaning.
His words were twisted into the claim that He had said He would destroy the temple. At the cross this distorted claim was repeated as a taunt. There it was also used as evidence against Him.