18. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, 18. The Jews therefore et dixerunt ei: Quod signum answered, and said to him: ostendis nobis, quia haec What sign dost thou show unto facis? us, seeing thou dost these things? 18. The Jews challenge (_answered_, meaning here, as frequently, _went on to speak_) Christ for a proof of that authority which He appeared to claim for Himself in driving them from the temple, and also in calling God His Father (see v. 17‐18). The incident itself, with so many men tamely submitting to His action, was, as Origen points out, one of the most wonderful signs He could have shown them. But they hoped, as St. Chryst. remarks, to put Him in a dilemma by obliging Him either to work a miracle on the spot, or else cease to interfere with them. 19. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 19. Jesus answered, and said eis: Solvite templum hoc, et to them: Destroy this temple, in tribus diebus excitabo and in three days I will raise illud. it up. 19. Instead of working a miracle He merely refers darkly to a future sign that was still some years off, as He does on a similar occasion, when dealing with other unbelievers, Matt. xii. 38‐40. “He, however,” says St. Chrys., “who even anticipated men’s wishes, and gave signs when He was not asked, would not have rejected here a positive request, had He not seen a crafty design in it.” Standing as He was beside Herod’s temple, probably in the Court of the Gentiles or immediately outside it, His words, *Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up*, were understood by the Jews (v. 20), and apparently by His disciples (v. 22), in reference to Herod’s temple. Various views have been put forward to show that His words were not necessarily misleading. (1) It is said that He may have pointed with His finger to His body while He said: Destroy this temple. But the fact that He was actually misunderstood by all seems to exclude this hypothesis. (2) It is held by many that He spoke both of Herod’s temple and of His body. So, apparently, Origen; and Cardinal Wiseman says explicitly: “Finally did our Lord speak altogether of His resurrection so as to exclude all allusion to rebuilding the temple which stood before Him? I must confess that ... I cannot read the passage without being convinced that He spoke of both” (_Lect. on the Euch._, p. 135, No. 4). We, however, cannot bring ourselves to adopt this view against what seems to be the clear sense according to the interpretation of the inspired Evangelist, who tells us, (v. 21), _But He spoke of the temple of His body_.