Jhn 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Just pondering this verse...in light of recent news concerning the Temple Mount....and the possible building of a new Temple in Israel.

Any thoughts?

double meaning like a lot of what Jesus predicted:one-he was talking of his body as the temple of God and Spirit=he did raise it in 3 days....
#2-if you count the yrs in the Bible, Solomon started the first temple in the yr 3000 after adam...3 days later (day to a thousand yrs) is the creation yr 6000...Jesus comes back that yr, restores the temple...then we get one day (1000 yrs) of peace on earth in millineum reign....

Interesting observation duncdrewnoah.

To the main point and thrust of the reason for the statement the Christ had made - we find this is in the context of a TRIAL AND A COURT OF LAW.

As the Passover approaches, the Jewish authorities seek means for putting the Lord Jesus to death. Luke mentions the feast of Unleavened Bread first before the Passover, but strictly the Passover was Nisan 14, followed by Unleavened Bread for a week.

Luke says 'Unleavened Bread' was called the Passover, which obviously was an explanation for his Gentile readers. The teachers of the Law (scribes) and the Pharisees, two rival parties in the Sanhedrin, were now united in their plotting against the Lord, but they feared the people, for the triumphal entry into the city and His Temple speeches had won over a considerable number of them.

It will help to read D.M. Panton's summary of the trial of Christ, under Hebrew law we have an extract:

The Sanhedrin, a court regularly constituted of Israel's shrewdest and most judicial minds, was a tribunal not unworthy of the nation which, alone among all nations, possessed the Law of Jehovah. Yet the amazing trial of Jesus was thick with illegalities. (1) Our Lord was arrested and tried at night: which, on a capital charge, was illegal. (2) The trial was conducted, not in the Hall of Purchase, where the Sanhedrin was regularly convened, but in the private house of the High Priest. This, if not actually unlawful, was highly irregular: it obviously savoured of conspiracy (Mark 14:1,2). (3) The Prisoner was pronounced guilty on the day of the trial: whereas, according to the law of the Sanhedrin, although a prisoner might be acquitted on the same day, he could never be condemned. (4) The Sanhedrin, in appealing to Pilate, dropped the charge of blasphemy, and substituted the charge of treason (Luke 22:2): quashing their own proceedings, they carried an appeal to a higher court on a new and unsubstantiated charge. The trial was thick with illegalities.

Christ never said He would destroy the Temple, but, "Destroy THIS temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19).

Although establishing a grave presumption against the equity of the Sanhedrin, they are not fatal; it is conceivable that, in spite of technicalities violated, substantial justice might yet be done to a prisoner. We turn therefore to the Trial. Two charges were brought against Christ: the first sedition, the second blasphemy. The charge of sedition was based on an alleged statement threatening the destruction of the Temple.

Apart from the fact that it was the re-establishment of a destroyed Temple that He promised, a beneficial act that could hardly be made into a criminal charge; apart also from the fact that the sole reference was to His own body, not to the Temple at all (John 2:21) - the charge of sedition was based on an alleged statement threatening the destruction of the Temple, one crucial fact, so far as the trial is concerned, emerged. The evidence was so conflicting, so obviously suborned, that the charge was quietly dropped: that is, on a point of palpable fact the prosecution breaks down (Mark 14:56,59). Caiaphas now adjures Christ to assert His Sonship of God: which He does. On this answer of Jesus, Caiaphas formulates the charge of blasphemy. Two gross illegalities, invalidating the whole trial, are now committed. (1) Everything, on such a charge, obviously turns on who the Prisoner is: yet the Court never examines the point at all. If Jesus was the Son of God, it was no blasphemy to say so: if He was not, it was. The action of the Sanhedrin would make it impossible for the Messiah ever to come at all without being liable to immediate arrest and destruction for blasphemy. (2) The Law of Moses expressly forbad condemnation, on a capital charge, on the evidence of less than two witnesses (Deut. 17:6): Jesus was condemned to death on none. He was then spat upon and smitten (Matt. 26:67). So, hundreds of years before, Isaiah said, "by oppression and judgment He was taken away" (Isa. 53:8): Micah also, "They shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek" (Mic. 5:1).


The Roman Law has been the foundation of the soundest jurisprudence of the world: yet here again the air is thick with illegalities. Not one of the essentials of Roman law was observed in the trial of Jesus. There was no notice of the trial; no definition of the charge; no invoking of the law whose breach was alleged; no examination of witnesses; no hearing of counsel; no proof of a criminal act; no sentence formally pronounced. Still more amazing, the judge actually acquits the Prisoner whom he delivers to execution. Three times Pilate pronounces the Prisoner "not guilty" (Luke 23:4,15,22), yet each time re-tries Him: whereas under Roman law a prisoner might not be tried twice for the same offence. Three times Pilate pronounces the Prisoner "not guilty": yet over the cross, as the law required, Pilate wrote the charge. Three times Pilate pronounces the Prisoner "not guilty": yet he orders his soldiers to execute the sentence of "guilty".

Members of the Sanhedrin asked Christ, 'If you are the Christ (Messiah), tell us' (verse 67). The Lord replied that whatever He said, they would not believe Him. 'Are You the Son of God?' they asked again. He replied, 'You are right in saying I am' (verse 70). The Lord Jesus claims to be Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God. 'Ye say' is just a Greek idiom for 'yes'. (Compare Mark 14:62, 'I am', with 'thou hast said' in Matt. 26:64). Then they said, 'Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from His own lips' (verse 71). If Christ is not what He claimed to be, they were right in their rejection of Him. But they were eternally wrong, for He is in truth the Messiah, Son of Man and Son of God. They made their choice and one day must face the Lord Jesus as Judge.

Wow! Great insight guys.

A little nudge...any other thoughts?

I was waiting for you to put it in a nutshell for us...if that's even possible.

Miki, it has to do with some dreams that I have been having lately...one dream I woke up with the verse that I quoted in the opening post....Iwould like some thoughts concerning that verse in light of recent news conerning the Temple...in another dream, I woke up with the words......"watch Egypt"...

Remember the Bible tells us repeatedly, Do not put your trust in Eygpt.

If I recall even the Major of N.Y.(Juliani) wouldn't accept money from Eygpt for aid after 911.
I barely remember that...do you Tig or Miki?

Isaiah 31
Woe to Those Who Rely on Egypt
1 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help,
who rely on horses,
who trust in the multitude of their chariots
and in the great strength of their horsemen,
but do not look to the Holy One of Israel,
or seek help from the LORD.

I think you are correct - Rudy did not accept an offer of $5Million in aid from Egypt(I think). He refused to accept it.

Hope that helps!

grb2bsaved

This scripture talks about us putting our trust somewhere else but the Lord. It links with:Jer 17:5 Thus saith Jehovah: Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from Jehovah. We have to trust in the arm of God:Exo 6:6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments:
Praise God....we can trust in Him. All His promises are true, we need not go to Egypt (the world and the flesh).
love C

Jesus said this to describe His part in the raising of Himself on the third day. If you look at the other verses, you get the answer to the question of "Who raised Jesus from the Dead?" It was the Holy Trinity.

God Raised Jesus
"But God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen."
Acts 10:40 NIV

Jesus Raised Himself
"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.'"
John 2:19 NIV

The Holy Spirit Raised Jesus
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you."
Romans 8:11 NIV

Good eye Tony!

Which is greater, death or life? The longer everybody concentrates their minds on the death of Jesus, the more you are going to die. Jesus NEVER did die! Do you think that Lazarus was Jesus? Well, of course not, but Lazarus didn't die either. Neither did the daughter of the centurion who sent somebody out to tell Jesus who was on his way to wake the daughter, 'Don't worry about coming, she is already dead.' Well, let's say Jesus did die. Doesn't that mean that for three days after his death that ALL the legions of demons and devils had no block from entering the minds of human beings on this earth? All of the apostles of Jesus forsook him even before he went to the cross. That makes mankind just full to overflowing with demons and devils. In all of YOUR minds, Jesus died for three days and the longer you concentrate on the Death of Jesus, the longer He is going to be dead. You can go to the priests and evangels and whoever else has the authority to cast out the demons and devils in you, but where do they go?

what? :wacko:you lost me dude....

Really?
Hmmm...Well, if you believe the holy trinity to be "Truth" then yes. This is the perfect answer. But...who then, is sitting at the right hand of the father?