RB. 2012 - T. 119-3 (pp. 383-402).

FROM MAN AS LOCUS OF GOD’S

INDWELLING TO DEATH AS
TEMPLE’S DESTRUCTION:
Notes on the history of a motif
BY
Serge RUZER
Department of Comparative Religion,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Mt. Scopus 91905, ISRAEL
ruzer@mscc.huji.ac.il

SUMMARY
This study begins with discussion of the ways in which late antique Jewish
and Christian exegeses addressed the idea of a person as God’s temple/taber-
nacle of the Spirit. This general perception is further employed as backdrop for
contextualizing its particular sub-motif – attested e.g., in the Fourth Gospel and
in rabbinic sources – that establishes a link between the fate of righteous indi-
viduals and that of the Jerusalem sanctuary and, more specifically, between
their death and its destruction.

SOMMAIRE
Le travail commence par évaluer les voies par lesquelles les exégèses juive et
chrétienne de l’antiquité tardive ont considéré la notion d’une personne comme
le temple/tabernacle de l’Esprit de Dieu. L’évaluation sert d’arrière-plan à
l’étude d’un motif dérivé, attesté notamment dans le quatrième Évangile et les
sources rabbiniques. Ce motif est lien entre le sort des hommes justes et celui du
sanctuaire de Jérusalem, plus précisément, celui entre leur mort et sa destruction.

1. Introduction
The Hebrew Bible itself as well as its Septuagint version bears wit-
ness to a tension between the notion of the sanctuary/tabernacle as the

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 383 2/07/12 13:35

 384 SERGE RUZER

locus of God’s presence and of God’s “indwelling” in the community

of Israel as a whole – synonymous with the establishment of covenant
and fulfillment of its obligations.1 The duality is replayed later in rab-
binic sources, where the Shekhinah is said to have left the Temple at the
time of its destruction and followed the people of Israel into exile.2
Alternatively, the above tension expresses itself in the idea of God’s
indwelling as the gift of God’s Spirit/prophecy granted to distinguished
individuals without connection to the sanctuary (e.g., Isa 11:1-2).3
This study addresses the motif of alternative loci of God’s indwelling
in some its characteristic modifications from the Second Temple times
to late antiquity. With attention paid to the interplay between the com-
munal and the individual aspects of the “human tabernacle” idea, the
emphasis, however, will be on the latter. That will, in turn, inform an
attempt to contextualize a peculiar variant of this sub-motif – namely,
perception of the death of a righteous individual as damaging the Jeru-

1
Examples are abundant, the following two will suffice here: (a) Ez 37:26-27,
where establishing the sanctuary as God’s dwelling place is the result of establishing the
covenant: “I will make a covenant of peace (‫ברית שלום‬, LXX: diaqßkjn eîrßnjv)
with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant (‫ברית עולם‬, diaqßkj aîwnía) with them;
… 27 My dwelling place shall be with them (‫והיה משכני עליהם‬, kataskßnwsív); and I
will be their God, and they shall be my people”; and (b) Lev 26:11, where LXX inter-
pret God’s indwelling/tabernacle as a metaphor for the covenant: “And I will make my
abode/tabernacle (‫משכני‬, LXX: diaqßkjn, covenant) among you…” The tabernacle-
indwelling theme would be later elaborated in a similar vein, e.g., by Philo and in the
Epistle to the Hebrews; see discussion in Craig R. KOESTER, The Dwelling of God: The
Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testa-
ment, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 22 (Washington, DC: Catholic
Biblical Association of America, 1989), pp. 65-66, 154-157.
2
For God’s presence in the Temple, see Seder Olam Raba 6, cf. y. Hagigah 1.1
[76a]. For Shekhinah leaving the Temple and joining Israel in their exile, see Sifre
Be-Midbar 171. But cf. Exod. R. 2.2, where Shekhinah is perceived as not having left the
Temple after its destruction – the idea that seems to have underlied the post-destruction
Jewish practice of pilgrimage to the site. The usage of the word, Shekhinah, seems to
have not become common until after the year 70 and maybe even well into the second
century, though the expression “the camp of the Shekhinah” might have been coined
earlier. See Koester, Dwelling of God, pp. 71-72. For a general overview of the early
stages of development of the Shekhinah-centered tradition, see Arnold A. GOLDBERG,
Untersuchungen über die Vorstellung von der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen
Literatur, SJ 6 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969). See also recently Noah HACHAM, “Where
Does the Shekhinah Dwell? Between the Dead Sea Sect, Diaspora Judaism, Rabbinic
Literature, and Christianity,” in Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov and Matthias Weigold in
association with Bennie H. Reynolds III (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Inte-
grating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures
(Leiden: Brill, 2011), pp. 399-412.
3
For discussion of a complementary track of relativizing the centrality of the Tem-
ple – namely, prophetic switching the focus of nostalgia to the city of Jerusalem, see A.
ROFÉ, Introduction to Prophetic Literature (Sheffield, 1997), pp. 76-80.

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 384 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 385

salem sanctuary itself or even comparable to its destruction, attested in

a number of rabbinic sources and, seemingly, already in the first century
CE, in the Gospel of John (2:19-22). Since the focus is on temple/taber-
nacle imagery-centered traditions, the issue of their possible pre- or,
alternatively, post-70 provenance will clearly be of importance.
A variety of both Jewish and Christian elaborations on the theme are
to be reviewed without necessary presupposing literary dependence or
direct historical connection. The objective is rather, paraphrasing Cath-
erine Hezser, to investigate the ways in which Jewish and Christian
traditions-in-making “participated in ancient hermeneutics at large, both
where similar solutions were reached and where one tradition differed
from the other…”4 Not aspiring to exhaust the issue, the present inves-
tigation will instead limit itself to a number of preliminary notes, which
can eventually be helpful for charting the main trajectories in the history
of the motif.

2. Second Temple modifications of the biblical theme and their later

replays
In the Second Temple period, one observes some characteristic modi-
fications undergone by the biblical motif of alternative loci of God’s
indwelling. Texts from Qumran exempify what may be called a sectar-
ian adaptation of the biblical outlook: Now it is not the people of Israel,
but rather a minority community of electi that constitutes a substitute for
the Temple.5 This Qumranic tradition is distinguished by the prominent
4
Catherine HEZSER, “Diaspora and Rabbinic Judaism,” in J. W. Rogerson and
Judith M. Lieu (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2006), pp. 120-34, 129.
5
See, for example, 1QS 8:5-10; 9:3-6: “The Community council shall be founded
on truth, Blank like an everlasting plantation, a holy house for Israel (‫)בית קודש לישראל‬
and the foundation of the holy of 6 holies for Aaron (‫…)יסוד קודש קודשים לאהרון‬to atone
for the earth (‫ )לכפר בעד הארץ‬and to render 7 the wicked their retribution. Blank… 8…
It (the Community) will be the most holy dwelling 9 for Aaron (‫מעון קודש הקודשים‬
‫ )לאהרון‬with total knowledge of the covenant of justice and in order to offer a pleasant /
aroma/ (‫ ;)ולקריב ]ריח[ ניחוח‬and it will be a house of perfection and truth in Israel 10 {}
in order to establish a covenant in compliance with the everlasting decrees. And these
will be accepted in order to atone for the earth and to decide the judgment of the wicked
{} and there will be no iniquity….9:3 Blank When these exist in Israel in accordance
with these rules in order to establish the spirit of holiness in truth 4 eternal (‫ליסוד רוח‬
‫)קודש לאמת עולם‬, in order to atone for the fault of the transgression…without the flesh
of burnt offerings and without the fats of sacrifice – the offering of 5 the lips (‫תרומת‬
‫ )שפתים‬in compliance with the decree will be like the pleasant aroma of justice and the
correctness of behavior will be acceptable like a freewill offering – at this moment the
men of 6 the Community shall set themselves apart (like) a holy house for Aaron (‫בעת‬

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 385 2/07/12 13:35

 386 SERGE RUZER

position of the priestly elite (1QS 8: 5-6, 9; 9:6) and the notion of spir-
itual sacrifices.6 The priestly elite is likewise instrumental in (yearly)
re-enacting of the covenant which, as noted, represents God’s presence.7
“The spirit of holiness” (‫ )רוח קודש‬indwelling in the covenanters is fur-
ther portrayed as enabling the community to become the temple.8 Quot-
ing David Flusser:
Both the context and the insistence that the ‘House’ shall be formed by ‘sep-
aration’ [1QS 9:6] clearly show that…this passage…deals not with the
future sacrificial service, but with the present function of the sect. The pas-
sage…[presents] a[n]…elaboration of the idea that… the Sectarian life is
comparable to the Temple service.9
Elsewhere in the Rule of the Community (e.g., 1QS 5, 1QS 11), a
complementary emphasis on body-spirit dichotomy and cleansing prac-
tices is found. But again, in the final account, it is the gift of the Spirit
– and its cleansing effect that allows an individual to overcome the base
weakness of the flesh, reach perfection, and “become [part of] the tem-
ple.” One notes here a telling interplay between individual and commu-
nal aspects of “indwelling.”10 A passage from a late-first-century First
Epistle of Peter attests to a variant of the same motif – a community of

‫)ההיאה יבדילו אנשי היחד בית קודש לאהרון‬, in order to enter the holy of holies, and (like)
a house of the Community for Israel, (for) those who walk in perfection.”
6
See David FLUSSER, “The DSS and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” in Judaism and
the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), pp. 39-40, who discerned in
1QS 8:9 an interplay between aroma (‫ )ריח‬and spirit (‫)רוח‬.
7
See recently Judith H. NEWMAN, “Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai
through the Sons of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and
Loren T. Stuckenbruck (eds.), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Divine Rev-
elation in Judaism and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 29-72.
8
In this context, the Qumranites’ self-perception as “the anointed of the spirit”
should be noted. See, for example, 4Q266 ii, 2:12 (= CD-A 6) and 4Q 270 ii, 2:14,
where “the anointed/messiahs by his/the Holy Spirit” or “the messiahs of (his) Holy
Spirit” (‫משיחי רוח קודשו‬/‫ )משיחי רוח הקודש‬serve as the community’s collective self-
definition. Cf. miqdash adam of the 4QFlorilegium.
9
Flusser, “The DSS and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” p. 39.
10
Cf. 1QH 4:17-26, where the cleansing Spirit is likewise granted to an individual:
“[I give you thanks, Lord,] for the spirits you have placed in me….to confess my former
sins, to bow low and beg favour 19 for [] of my deeds and the depravity of my heart.
Because I wallowed in impurity, [I separated myself] from the foundation [of truth]…20
…[Act according to] your justice, 21 free [the soul of your servant,] the wicked should
die! However, I have understood that [you establish] the path of the one whom you
choose 22 and in the insight [of your wisdom] you prevent him from sinning against
you, you restore his humility through your punishments, and by your ord[eals streng]
then his heart. 23[You, Lord, prevent] your servant from sinning against you…. 25 [] for
your servant is a spirit of flesh. Blank 26 [I give you thanks, Lord, because] you have
spread your holy spirit upon your servant [] [] his heart….”

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 386 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 387

electi as the temple with the cornerstone/stumbling stone sub-motif also

shared with the Qumranic pattern and an addition of a peculiar Jesus-
centered rhema.11 This passage is also distinguished by the imagery of
the electi as “living stones” (1 Pet 2:4-6) – an imagery that may be
possibly seen as marking a post-destruction setting.12
There are modifications of a different kind as well, deriving directly
from a Hellenistic outlook such as Philo’s idea of the internalized spirit-
ual temple allied with the polemical relativization of the Jerusalem axis
mundi.13 In this context, a distinction between the temple and the eternal
tabernacle, with the latter not necessary involving sacrifices, sometimes
becomes instrumental.14 With or without such a distinction, however,
such a relativization constitutes a feature common to Philo’s internalized
notion of the temple and to the elect community-centered one developed
in the Dead Sea Scrolls, though the intensity of underlying polemic may
vary.15 One further learns from De Specialibus Legibus 1.287-288 that:
The true altar of God is the thankful soul of the sage, compacted of perfect
virtues unsevered and undivided, for no part of virtue is useless. On this altar
the sacred light is ever kindled and maintained unextinguished, and the light of
thought is wisdom, just as on the contrary darkness of the soul is folly. For
what sensible light is to the eyes with regard to the apprehension of bodies,
knowledge is to reasoning in respect of the contemplation of things incorporeal
and intelligible, and its light shines forever, never dimmed or extinguished.16

11
1 Pet 2:4-8: “Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s
sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual
house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through
Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture (Isa 28:16, cf. Isa 27:13): ‘Behold, I am laying
in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not
be put to shame.’ 7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do
not believe, (Ps 118:22) ‘The very stone which the builders rejected has become the
head of the corner,’ 8 and (Isa 8:14) ‘A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that
will make them fall’.” For the cornerstone/stumbling stone motif, see also Rom 9:30-33.
12
Cf. Matt 24:1-2 (and pars).
13
See Koester, Dwelling of God, pp. 65-66; Daniel R. SCHWARTZ, “The Other in 1 and
2 Maccabees,” in Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa (eds.), Tolerance and Intoler-
ance in Early Judaism and Christianity (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 30-37. The rationale behind
this was the idea that the same nomos, reflected in the temple ordinances, pertains to the
cosmos, the society and the individual. Ephraim E. URBACH (The Sages: Their Concepts and
Beliefs (Jerusalem; Magnes, 1987), p. 233) likewise discerns the view of man as a micro-
cosm already in Tannaitic teaching. See Avot de-R. Nathan A 31.46a: “R. Jose the Galilean
said: “All that the Holy One, blessed be He, created upon earth He created in man…”
14
Koester, Dwelling of God, pp. 58-66; cf. ibid., p. 185.
15
But cf. 11QTa 46:9-12, where the polemical sentiment is absent.
16
Cf. Philo, Quod Deterius Potiori Insidari Soleat 56: “It follows that, while to
masters their slaves render services that will benefit them, to God men can offer nothing
but a loving disposition toward their Lord.”

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 387 2/07/12 13:35

 388 SERGE RUZER

This tension between the body and the spiritual, ruling element is
similarly discerned elsewhere in Philo;17 it may be viewed as represent-
ing a new religious anthropology – a complexity that had been foreign
to the biblical phase of the tradition, but that would be later picked up,
mutatis mutandis, in rabbinic sources.18
Contemplation of heavenly truths preconditioned by moral perfection
is accordingly perceived as the true worship.19 What is then the function
of the body or of the “lower soul” with their inclinations toward evil and
base impressions? As indicated by Philo elsewhere, it seems that they
should be suppressed for the thought to be able to contemplate things
incorporeal and intelligible.20 A person’s post mortem fate is then that of
the nous/spirit liberated from the chains of the body.21 Yet, a complemen-
tary notion is also present in Philo’s thought (as earlier in Pseudo-Aris-
teas) – namely, the body as “perfected” by God with some of its mem-
bers, i.e., the ears, tailored to provide for the revelatory link to the Creator.22
Interestingly, the tension between the perception of body as prison
and its positive evaluation is likewise discerned in Paul’s writings,
where both perceptions seem to mainly reflect broader notions of Jewish
religious anthropology, on which additional Jesus-centered motifs are
here grafted. Thus, on the one hand, we find in 2 Cor 5:1-5 the elabora-
tion on death as a great liberator: The body, this “earthly tabernacle” is
to be eventually destroyed and, following that, one is to move into the
heavenly tabernacle.23 This line of thought has clear parallels in late

17
Philo, Leg. Alleg. 1.62: “At the present moment my ruling part is in substance in
my body, but virtually in Italy or Sicily, when it is pondering on these countries, and in
heaven, when it is contemplating heaven. Thus it frequently happens that individuals
who are bodily in profane spots are in reality in most sacred ones, while, on the other
hand, others who are in holy shrines are in thought profane, through its taking on incli-
nations toward evil and base impressions.”
18
See Urbach, Sages, pp. 214-225.
19
A distant echo of such perceptions may be discerned in later rabbinic sayings such
as the following one transmitted by the name of R. Elazar: “Every man who has [proper]
understanding (‫)שיש בו דעה‬, it is as if the Temple was rebuild in his days” (b. Ber. 33a).
The historical setting, however – with the lingering trauma of the destruction of the
Temple – is here clearly very different from that of Philo’s writings.
20
See, for example, Philo’s treatment of Adam’s predicament in On the Creation
165-169; Questions and Answers on Genesis 37, 46 (on Gen 3:6, 12-13) and Allegorical
Interpretation 2.30.
21
See Philo’s commenting on Exod 32:27 in De Ebrietate 67, De Abrahamo 9-11
and also his elaboration on Enoch post-mortem translation (Questions and Answers on
Genesis 85-86 [on Gen 5:23-24]). Cf. Plato, Phaedo 67.
22
See Arkady KOVELMAN, “Hellenistic Judaism on the Perfection of Human Body,”
Journal of Jewish Studies 61.2 (2010): pp. 207-219.
23
“For we know that if the earthly tent/tabernacle (êpígeiov oîkía toÕ skßnouv)

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 388 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 389

1st-century Fourth Ezra and in the oration by Eleazar, the leader of the
Zealots of Massadah, in Josephus’ Jewish War.24
However, an emphasis much more sympathetic to the body is found
in another Pauline passage where the theme of resurrection features
prominently. In the following quote, square brackets mark the particular
Jesus-centered rhema grafted on what seems to be a thema of broader
circulation (1 Cor 6:11-20, cf. 1 Cor 3:16-17; 12:12-13; 2 Cor 6:16):
And such (immoral sinners) were some of you. But you were washed, you
were sanctified, you were justified [in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
and] in the Spirit of God…13…[The body is not meant for immorality, but
for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will

we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God (oîkodom®n êk qeoÕ ∂xomen), a

house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 Here indeed we groan, and long to
put on our heavenly dwelling (tò oîkjtßrion ™m¬n êz oûranoÕ)…4 For while we are
still in this tent (ên t¬ç skßnei), we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed,
but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life
(ÿna katapoq±Ç tó qnjtón üpò t±v hw±v). 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing
is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.” Note addition of a Jesus-centered
motif in 2 Cor 4:14: “knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with
Jesus and bring us with you into his presence”.
24
4 Ezra 7:78-101: “Now, concerning death, the teaching is: When the decisive
decree has gone forth from the Most High that a man shall die, as the spirit leaves the
body to return again to him who gave it, first of all it adores the glory of the Most
High….[88] Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High,
when they shall be separated from their mortal body…[95] The fourth order, they under-
stand the rest which they now enjoy, being gathered into their chambers and guarded by
angels in profound quiet, and the glory which awaits them in the last days.” The Jewish
War 7.8.7: “…for the laws of our country, and of God himself, have from ancient
times…continually taught us, and our forefathers have corroborated the same doctrine
by their actions, and by their bravery of mind, that it is life that is a calamity to men, and
not death; for this last affords our souls their liberty, and sends them by a removal into
their own place of purity, where they are to be insensible of all sorts of misery; for while
souls are tied down to a mortal body, they are partakers of its miseries; and really, to
speak the truth, they are themselves dead; for the union of what is divine to what is
mortal is disagreeable. It is true, the power of the soul is great, even when it is impris-
oned in a mortal body; for by moving it after a way that is invisible, it makes the body
a sensible instrument, and causes it to advance further in its actions than mortal nature
could otherwise do. However, when it is freed from that weight which draws it down to
the earth and is connected with it, it obtains its own proper place, and does then become
a partaker of that blessed power, and those abilities, which are then every way incapable
of being hindered in their operations. It continues invisible, indeed, to the eyes of men,
as does God himself…” Cf. Rom 7:14-8:2, where the deficiency/weakness of body/
flesh is further highlighted by appealing to the traditional dilemma, also attested mutatis
mitandis in later rabbinical sources, of which “tenant” is allowed to dwell in a person:
sin or spirit? See discussion in Serge RUZER, “The Seat of Sin in Early Jewish and
Christian Sources,” in Jan Assman and Guy G. Stroumsa (eds.), Transforming the Inner
Self in Ancient Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 367-391. But cf. Urbach (Sages,
p. 234), who sees rabbinic tradition as mainly shunning the extreme concept of body as
prison.

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 389 2/07/12 13:35

 390 SERGE RUZER

also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are
members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make
them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who
joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written,
“The two shall become one flesh.” 17 But he who is united to the Lord
becomes one spirit with him.] Shun immorality. Every other sin which a
man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own
body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; 20 you were
bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Body is presented here as destined to remain holy and pure, since
impurity constitutes a sin against its calling to become a temple/ taber-
nacle of the Holy Spirit and, eventually, against resurrection.25 Central-
ity of the (un)worthiness motif should be noted, as well as the character-
istic fluctuation between the individual and communal aspects of
holiness (“your bodies are members of Christ,” cf. Eph 5:30) already
observed in a sectarian setting of the Dead Sea Scrolls.26 Among salient
features of the tradition found in 1 Corinthians 6 is also the lack of spe-
cific link to Jesus’ death (Jesus body’s death) as well as of explicit
polemical reference to the Jerusalem sanctuary – in other words, no
destruction of either a person’s body-temple or Jerusalem Temple is
deemed relevant.27
Should one see the broader Jewish perceptions on which the Jesus-
centered rhema is grafted here as derived from the Jewish Hellenistic
outlook? The dynamic concept of acquiring/receiving the Holy Spirit in
25
The track leading from the gift of the Spirit to resurrection is clearly modeled after
the path of Jesus himself as summarized Rom 1:1-4. For the rabbinic idea that it is the
same body that will be raised in resurrection – hence its importance – see, for example,
Gen. R. 78.1 (cf. Gen. R. 28.3).
26
On the closeness of Pauline temple/tabernacle-centered thinking to that attested in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Koester, Dwelling of God, pp. 129-130. Michelle V. LEE
(Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ, Society for the New Testament Studies Mono-
graph Series 137 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006]) suggested that the
Stoic doctrine could have also served as a backdrop for Paul’s idea, expressed in 1
Corinthians 12, of “bodily unity” between the community/church and Christ. Cf. discus-
sion in Moshe HALBERTAL, Interpretative Revolutions in the Making: Values as Inter-
pretative Considerations in Midrashei Halakhah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004), p. 167 (in
Hebrew), where the suggestion is raised that what underlined the Tannaitic unwilling-
ness to cause harm to the bodies of executed criminals was the perception of the body
as God’s image. See Lev. R. 34.3, t. Yevamot 8.4, Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael Ba-hodesh 8.
Cf. y. Yoma 8.1, where the body of righteous is called “holy.”
27
On Paul’s general lack of awareness and/or interest in the Temple’s destruction
motif, see Paula FREDRIKSEN, “Paul, Purity, and the Ekklesia of the Gentiles,” in Jack
Pastor and Menahem Mor (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-
Zvi Press, 2005), pp. 215-216.

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 390 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 391

the context of messianic salvation, rather than the notion of psyche or

nous as a given of religious anthropology, and especially the emphasis
on resurrection make it unlikely. While Qumranic ideas provide at best
partial parallels, the post-70 variations of the motif – attested in both
Palestinian and Babylonian sources possibly of Tannaitic origin – may
indicate a proto-rabbinic setting of at least some ideas utilized here by
Paul. Thus one reads in b. Av. Zara 20b (cf. y. Shab. 1.3 [3c], y. Sheq.
3.3 [47c] and also m. Sotah 9:15, where the parallel, not confirmed by
textual evidence, is seemingly part of a gloss):
[Absent in the Palestinian Talmud parallels: Our masters taught (relying on
Deut 23:10 “you shall keep yourself from every evil thing”) that man should
not contemplate [things arousing lust] during the day so that not to become
polluted at night (‫)שלא יהרהר אדם ביום ויבוא לידי טומאה בלילה‬. Following
this] R. Phineas b. Jair says: Torah leads to caution, caution leads to heed-
fulness, heedfulness leads to cleanliness (‫)נקיות‬, and cleanliness leads to
abstinence (‫)פרישות‬, and abstinence leads to purity (‫)טהרה‬, and purity
leads to holiness (‫)קדושה‬, and holiness leads to humility (‫)ענוה‬, and humil-
ity leads to the shunning of sin (‫)יראת חטא‬, and the shunning of sin leads to
saintliness (‫)חסידות‬, and saintliness leads to [the gift of] the Holy Spirit
(‫)רוח הקודש‬, and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead
(‫)תחיית המתים‬. [y. Shab. 1.3 [3c], y. Sheqalim 3.3 [47c] + And the resurrec-
tion of the dead leads to the coming of (or: shall come through) Elijah of
blessed memory. Amen.]
Whatever might have been the exact initial meaning of various steps
on the “ladder of perfection” presented here, the tradition is distin-
guished by strong attention to the body, cleansing of which leads to
salvation – acquiring the Holy Spirit and, eventually, participation in
resurrection. One also notes that similarly to 1 Corinthians 6 the empha-
sis on ‫( פרישות‬abstinence) as well as on ‫טהרה‬/‫( נקיות‬cleanliness/purity)
as necessary preconditions for the gift of the Spirit and resurrection
appears here in the Babylonian Talmud as elsewhere in rabbinic sources
in the context of the rearguard battle against lust/fornication (‫זנות‬,
porneía).28

28
See m. Sotah 9:13: “R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: [When] purity [ceased in Israel
it] took away the flavor and the fragrance; [when] the tithes [ceased they] took away the
fatness of the corn; and, the Sages say, fornication and sorceries have made an end of
them altogether (‫( ”)הזנות והכשפים כילו את הכל‬cf. also Kalah Rabbati 2.6). This sub-
motif also features in the variant of the tradition incorporated into a longer passage
appended to m. Sotah (m. Sotah 9:15): “Since the day that the Temple was destroyed
the Sages began to be like school-teachers….With the footprints of the Messiah pre-
sumption shall increase and dearth reach its height…The council-chamber shall be given
to fornication (‫…)בית ועד יהיה לזנות‬.On whom can we stay ourselves? – on our Father

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 391 2/07/12 13:35

 392 SERGE RUZER

Of course, Paul’s perception of the path leading to acquiring the Spirit

and resurrection via atoning death of the Messiah differs greatly from
the untiring individual attempts at gradual self-perfection prescribed by
this rabbinic tradition. However, the latter seems to address the same
basic topic – namely, turning an individual in his bodily existence into
the dwelling place of the Spirit – with which Paul dealt much earlier. It
also deserves note that the rabbinic sources in question surprisingly
retain one more trait characterizing Paul’s elaboration that belonged to a
very different historical setting: The post-destruction focus on the mes-
sianic hope notwithstanding, the notion of the individual path to salva-
tion in the Talmudic passage and its variants conspicuously does not
communicate at all with the theme of the future restoration of the Tem-
ple which is not included here in the salvific scenario. This may be seen
as an additional indication that in its basic structure the rabbinic elabora-
tion reflects a much older underlying tradition.

3. Human body as the tabernacle of Spirit in early Christian sources

A comparison with some early Christian sources roughly contempo-
raneous with the above-mentioned rabbinic traditions is instructive here.
As noted by Sebastian Brock, statements from Paul’s Corinthian corre-
spondence of the kind found in 1 Cor 6:19 (“Do you not know that your
body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from
God?” cf. 1 Cor 3:16) would serve in monastic circles as proof-texts for
the necessity of a “silent/spiritual prayer” or, to put it differently, the
prayer of the Spirit which is in us.29 From the 4th century on, these state-
ments would be also routinely related to in connection with the famous
“incarnation verse” from John 1:14, where an implicit reference to the
tabernacle (skjnß) motif would be discerned: “And the Word became
flesh and dwelt (êskßnwsen) among us.”
In the first half of the 4th century, Aphrahat was still eager to see the
passages like 1 Cor 3:16 as relating to general religious anthropology.

in heaven. R. Phineas b. Jair says: Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, and cleanliness

leads to purity…to abstinence…to holiness (‫וטהרה מביאה לידי פרישות ופרישות מביאה‬
‫)לידי קדושה‬, and holiness…to humility…to the shunning of sin…to saintliness…to [the
gift of] the Holy Spirit…to the resurrection of the dead. And the resurrection of the dead
shall come through Elijah of blessed memory. Amen.”
29
Sebastian P. BROCK, “The Prayer of the Heart in Syriac Tradition,” Sobornost/
Eastern Churches Review 4:2 (1982): 131–142, repr. Everett Ferguson (ed.), Forms of
Devotion: Conversion, Worship, Spirituality, and Asceticism (New York: Garland,
1999), pp. 133–144.

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 392 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 393

According to him, it is the silent/spiritual prayer of the heart – with the

“door of the mouth shut” – that cleanses the “inner man,” allowing for
Christ’s/Logos’ eventual indwelling in the temple of one’s person.30
Correspondingly, Aphrahat sees in John 1:14 the description of Christ’s
revelation as the living word of God (=promise of eschatological resur-
rection) which enters us in order to bring about our resurrection “from
within” (Dem. 8.15-16):31
As it is written, “In the beginning was the voice,” (‫ ) ܒܪܫܝܬ ܩ�ܠܐ ܗܘܐ‬that
is the Word (‫) ܕܗܘ ܡ�ܬܐ‬. Again he said, “The Word became a body
(‫ ) ܦܔܪܐ‬and dwelt among us (‫)ܘܐܓܢܬ ܒܢ‬.” And this is that voice of God
which shall sound from on high and raise up all the dead (‫ܙܥܩ ܡܢ ܪܘܡܠܐ‬
‫ܡܝܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫)ܘܡܩܝܡ ܠܟ�ܗܘܢ‬.

One notes how a static concept of Spirit’s indwelling in our heart as

a given of ascetic existence is collated here with the dynamic “acquiring
Christ” as our “saving tenant”.
However, with the incarnation-centered discourse becoming gradu-
ally predominant, a shift in emphasis may be observed, as exemplified,
e.g., by Theodore of Mopsuestia in early 5th century:32
And the Word became flesh (‫[…)ܘܡ�ܬܐ ܒܣܪܐ ܗܘܐ‬and] he (the evange-
list) added and dwelled/set a tabernacle among us (‫ ;)ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ‬that is in
this sense he became flesh, insofar as he dwelled in our nature (‫ܗܟܢܐ ܠܡ‬
‫…)ܗܘܐ ܒܣܪܐ ܡܛܠ ܕܥܡܪ ܒܟܝܢܢ‬and also the apostle said about us human
beings “We who are still in this tabernacle groan” (2 Cor 5:4) by calling our
body a tabernacle (‫ܒܢܝܢܫܐ ܐܡܪ ܫ�ܝܚܐ ܕܚܢܢ ܠܡ ܐܝ�ܝܢ ܒܥܘܡܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܦ ܥ�ܝܢ‬

30
Aphrahat, Demonstrations 4.10 (Patrologia Syriaca i.157-160, English translation
follows W. WRIGHT, The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage [London, 1869]):
“But why, o my beloved, did the Saviour teach us saying to pray to the Father in secret
(or: who is in secret) with the door shut (‫ ?)ܟܕ ܐܚܝܕ ܬܪܥܐ‬To pray in secret means the
prayer of the heart (‫…)ܕܨܠܠܐ ܠܡ ܒܟܣܝܐ ܒ�ܒܟ‬but what is indicated by the door that
should be shut? It is nothing else but your lips (mouth) (‫)ܐܠܠܐ ܐܢ ܦܘܡܟ‬, since he
(the person) is the temple in which Christ dwells (‫ )ܕܗܘܝܘ ܗܝܟ�ܠܐ ܕܥܡܪ ܒܗ ܡܫܝܚܐ‬as
the apostle said: ‘You are the temple of the Lord (1) ‘(‫ ܕܗܝܟ�ܠܐ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܕܡܪܝܐ‬Cor
3:16). So one should go into that house which is his inner person (‫)ܠܒܪ ܐܢܫܟ ܓܘܝܐ‬
and purify it from all impurity keeping the door of the lips shut. Otherwise his prayer
will not be heard” (cf. John 5:24, 37-38). It is such prayer that according to Aphrahat
will be answered. This exegetical tendency would be taken further by later Syriac
authors; see Brock, “Prayer of the Heart,” 136-140.
31
See Serge RUZER and Aryeh KOFSKY, Syriac Idiosyncrasies: Theology and
Hermeneutics in Early Syriac Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 10-18.
32
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Syriac: CSCO,
Scriptores Syri Series 4, vol. 3, ed. J.-M. Vosté (Paris, 1940), English translation with
and Introduction and Notes by Marco Conti, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, Ancient Christian
Texts Series (Dowers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 2010).

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 393 2/07/12 13:35

 394 SERGE RUZER

‫)ܗܢܐ ܡܬܬܚܝܢܢ ܟܕ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܩܪܐ ܠܦܓܪܐ‬. And again, “We know that if the
earthly tabernacle we live in is destroyed” (2 Cor 5:1) (‫ܕܒܝܬܐ ܕܥܘܡܪܢ‬
‫)ܐܪܥܢܝܐ ܡܫܬܪܐ‬.
Theodore already appeals to Paul’s imagery of human body as tem-
ple/tabernacle (naóv/skßnj, see 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 5:1-4) not as a stim-
ulus for our perfection but rather as an indication of the “low” suffering
aspect of human nature with which the Holy Spirit/Logos/Shekhinah is
united in Jesus the man (=in his body). The interest in general religious
anthropology is thus overshadowed by the interest in christology as is
likewise the case in John 1:14.

4. Jesus’ Death and the Fate of the Temple

There is a peculiar variant of the motif under discussion – death of
the righteous as a parallel to/representation of the destruction of the
Temple, famously epitomized with regard to Jesus by the evolving Gos-
pel tradition. The starting point is conveniently provided by the Synop-
tic Gospels, which share the episodes of Jesus predicting the future
destruction of the Temple (the “small apocalypse” of Matthew 24:1-36,
cf. Mark 13:1-37, Luke 21:5-36) and of the curtain of the sanctuary
being torn in two following Jesus’ death as an omen for future destruc-
tion (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45); both traditions are absent
from John. Quite independently from the omen motif, Matthew 27:40
(cf. Mark 15:29, absent in both Luke and John) relates to future destruc-
tion of the Temple as followed by its speedy “three-day” messianic res-
toration – with the real Jerusalem Temple to have seemingly been origi-
nally meant.33 It stands to reason that in this particular context the motif
of the three-day period leading from distress to salvation, might have
not initially corresponded with the belief in Jesus resurrection “on the
third day” (or, alternatively, “after three days”) but rather with broader
exegetical patterns, where “three days” served, following Hos 6:1-7, as
a figure for speedy deliverance.34
33
Matthew 27:40: “And saying, ‘You who would destroy the temple (ö katalúwn
tòn naòn) and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come
down from the cross’.” The passage refers back to Matt 26:59-61, where it is obvious
that the Jerusalem sanctuary is referred to: “Now the chief priests and the whole council
sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found
none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said,
‘This fellow said, —I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three
days.’”
34
Hos 6:1-7 “’Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn, that he may heal

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 394 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 395

Tradition about the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple is fur-

ther found in John. Here, however, its context and form are different and
seemingly independent from those in the Synoptic Gospels.35 Most
importantly, the connection to Jesus’ death and resurrection is here
explicitly established, albeit as an understanding granted to Jesus’ disci-
ples post factum (John 2:17-22):36
His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for thy house will con-
sume me.” 18 The Jews then said to him, “What sign have you to show us
for doing this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple (lúsate tòn
naòn toÕton), and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said,
“It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in
three days?” 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body (perì toÕ naoÕ toÕ
sÉmatov aûtoÕ). 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disci-
ples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and
the word which Jesus had spoken.
The biblical pattern of an individual as the locus of indwelling may
be viewed as providing here a general backdrop.37 There are, however,
a number of later traditions attested in rabbinic sources that may be rel-
evant for a more pointed contextualization of this key Johannine pas-
sage.38 One is found in m. Sotah 9:15, where the destruction of the Tem-
ple was compared – with regard to its dire consequences – to the death
of Israel’s righteous sages.39 Another tradition spells out the link between

us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third
day he will raise us up, that we may live before him’….” See Raymond E. BROWN, The
Gospel According to John, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966),
p. 120.
35
Brown, ibid., p. 120. On possible links between the Synoptic and Johannine usage
of the tabernacle motif, see Charles W. F. SMITH, “Tabernacles in the Fourth Gospel and
Mark,” New Testament Studies 9 (1963): 130-146.
36
The episode is placed here close to the beginning of the Gospel narrative and to
the Prologue thus suggesting a link to John 1:14. See Brown, ibid., p. 121.
37
See André-Marie DUBARLE, “Le signe du temple (Jo. ii, 19),” Revue biblique 48
(1939): 21-44. Koester (Dwelling of God, pp. 19-20, cf. ibid., pp. 100-102, 106) sug-
gests that since in Greek biblical and Bible-oriented usage skßnwma had come to des-
ignate both God’s tabernacle (as in LXX Ps 14:1; 25:8; 42:3; 60:5; 73:7; 83:2; 131:5,
7) and the human body (as in 2 Pet 1:13-14; Par. Jer. 6:6-7), “it would enable the
Fourth Evangelist to use tabernacle imagery for the incarnate logos.”
38
Cf. Koester (Dwelling of God, pp. 100-115), who in his review of the tabernacle
imagery in the Gospel of John as a whole brings to the fore John 1:14 – seemingly echo-
ing Zech 2:14-17 – as the hermeneutical key for the rest of the Gospel.
39
m. Sotah 9:15: “ When R. Joshua died goodness departed from the world (‫משמת‬
‫…)רבי יהושע פסקה טובה מן העולם‬.When R. Akiba died the glory of the Law ceased (‫בטל‬
‫…)כבוד התורה‬.When Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai died the splendor of wisdom ceased
(‫)בטל זיו החכמה‬. When Rabban Gamliel the Elder died the glory of the Law ceased and
purity and abstinence died (‫)מתה טהרה ופרישות‬. When R. Ishmael b. Piabi died the

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 395 2/07/12 13:35

 396 SERGE RUZER

the Temple and the death of Simeon the Just. While he was alive, the
temple functioned in a miraculously orderly fashion, but following his
death, there were portents indicating disruption, even if not outright
destruction (t. Sotah 13:7):40
So long as Simeon the Just was alive (‫)כל זמן שהיה שמעון הצדיק קיים‬, the
Western lamp (‫ )נר מערבי‬remained permanently lit. When he died (‫)משמת‬,
they went and found that it had gone out. From that time forward, sometimes
they find it extinguished, and sometimes lit. So long as Simeon the Just was
alive, the altar-fire was perpetual (‫)היתה מערכה תדירה‬, etc.41
Another tradition claims that even after the (first) Temple was
destroyed and the last biblical prophets died there have appeared indi-
viduals potentially worthy of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling – equaled, as
it seems, with the gift of prophecy (t. Sotah 13:3):
When the Temple was destroyed…When the latter prophets died, that is,
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, then the Holy Spirit came to an end in
Israel. But even so, they made them hear [heavenly messages] through an
echo. Sages gathered together in the upper room of the house of Guria in
Jericho, and a heavenly echo came forth and said to them, “There is a man
among you who is worthy to receive the Holy Spirit (‫שראוי לרוח הקדש‬, cf. b.
Sotah 48b where Shekhinah is introduced here instead of the Holy Spirit:‫ראוי‬
‫)שתשרה שכינה עליו‬, but his generation is unworthy of such an honor.” They
all set eyes upon Hillel the elder. And when he died, they said about him,
“Woe for the humble man, woe for the pious man, the disciple of Ezra.”
Then another time they were in session in Yabneh and heard an echo saying,
“There is among you a man who is worthy to receive the Holy Spirit (‫שראוי‬
‫לרוח הקדש‬, cf. b. Sotah 48b where again Shekhinah is introduced here
instead of the Holy Spirit), but the generation is unworthy of such an honor.”
They all set their eyes upon Samuel the Small. At the time of his death what
did they say? “Woe for the humble man, woe for the pious man, the disciple
of Hillel the Elder!”42

splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and the shunning of sin
ceased (‫…)בטלה ענוה ויראת חטא‬. R. Eliezer the Great says: Since the day that the Tem-
ple was destroyed (‫ )מיום שחרב בית המקדש‬the Sages began to be like school-teachers….
On whom can we stay ourselves? – on our Father in heaven (‫על מי יש להשען על אבינו‬
‫)שבשמים‬.”
40
English translation of t. Sotah follows Jacob NEUSNER, The Tosefta. Nashim (New
York: Ktav, 1979).
41
And it goes on: “When they arranged it in the morning, it would flame up con-
tinually during the entire day. And they would offer on it daily whole-offerings and
additional offerings and their drink-offerings….After Simeon the Just died, however, the
power of the altar-fire grew weak, etc.”
42
Further on, the prophetic nature of the gift of the Spirit is indicated: “Also he said
at the time of his death, ‘Simeon and Ishmael are destined to be put to death, and the rest

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 396 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 397

Hillel and, later on, Samuel the Small (80s-90s of the 1st century) are
presented here as worthy of the gift of the Holy Spirit – in spite of the
destruction of the (first) Temple and the cessation of prophecy.43 The
link to the Temple is further strengthened in the Talmudic variant, where
the Holy Spirit is replaced by the Shekhinah. The tension between indi-
vidual and collective aspects finds expression in the claim that the
indwelling of the Spirit/Shekhinah was prevented by the unworthiness
of the sages’ contemporaries. For the present discussion, it is particu-
larly important that the deaths of Hillel and Samuel the Small mark here
the “lost opportunities” of the Shekhinah/Spirit’s indwelling.
While the above rabbinic traditions may be seen as addressing, in
their own way, some of the themes featuring in John 2:17-22, it should
be emphasized that the link of a chosen individual’s death to the destruc-
tion of the Temple remains, at best, implicit. Moreover, the link between
the righteous one’s future resurrection and the rebuilding of the Temple
is nowhere present.

5. John 2:17-22 in later Christian exegesis

It is only some general tendencies in the Christian exegesis dealing
with John 2:17-22 and related texts that can be indicated her; an attempt
at a more comprehensive review remains beyond the scope of this
study.44 Already in mid-second century Justin Martyr characteristically
showed no interest in the restoration of the Jerusalem sanctuary. For
him, its destruction was a God-ordered event bringing to the end Jewish
particularistic offerings, which had been of importance in the pre-Mes-
sianic epoch, and replacing them with Jesus’ universal sacrifice.45 There
is further a discernable tendency of spiritualizing/allegorizing the Tem-
ple/tabernacle theme in general, which developed – being christianized
along the way – under the influence of earlier Jewish authors, most
notably Philo, for whom the Israel’s sanctuary was both a symbol of the

of the associates will die by the sword, and the remainder of the people will be up for
spoils. After this, great disaster will fall.’” Cf. m. Sotah 9:13.
43
The preference given to the first Temple is well documented in the tradition,
which at times gives vent to disparaging remarks concerning the second one. See discus-
sion in Koester, Dwelling of God, pp. 23-75.
44
For the list of early Christian authors who commented on the Pentateuch taber-
nacle, see Arthur G. HOLDER, “The Mosaic Tabernacle in Early Christian Exegesis,”
in Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 25 (Louvain-Paris: Peeters, 1993),
pp. 102-103.
45
See, for example, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 13, 14, 22, 26, 28.

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 397 2/07/12 13:35

 398 SERGE RUZER

cosmos and of the individual soul.46 Thus Tertullian in Against Marcion

(early 3rd century) presents John 2:21 as one more manifestation of the
general truth concerning God’s true sanctuary, hinted at, e.g., in Jacob’s
ladder episode (Gen 28:12-18), when Jacob “saw Christ” who is that
true temple.47 Alternatively, in the same author’s tractate On the Resur-
rection of the Flesh, the temple imagery of John 2:17-22 is presented as
an appropriate figure of speech to designate the human body destined
for destruction.48 Tertullian, therefore, both demonstrates awareness of
the destruction of the Jerusalem sanctuary and shows no interest in the
theme of its restoration – with or without link to resurrection.
Slightly later, Origen would argue that Jesus’ body – either in proper
sense (“the body which he received from the Virgin.”) or the Church (with
ref. to Eph 5:30) – is appropriately called temple “because as the temple
had the glory of God dwelling in it, so the first born of creation, being the
image and glory of God.”49 Origen’s commentary, however, highlights the
problem the Christian exegesis faces here. With the actual destruction of
the Temple presenting itself as the fulfillment of Jesus’ oracle in the Syn-
optics, it was difficult to dismiss John 2:19 as totally devoid of broader
historical meaning. Thus, according to Origen, the destruction signifies
here persecution and weakening of the Church, portrayed as the “stones”
or “bones” of the temple/body, to be eventually followed by the final res-

46
This tendency was sometimes complemented or even surpassed by the one influ-
enced by the portrait of Jesus as the eternal High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
See Holder, “Mosaic Tabernacle,” p. 101, 105. For dicussion of the tabernacle imagery
in Hebrews, especially in Heb 8:1-6, see Koester, Dwelling of God, pp. 152-183.
47
See Against Marcion 3.24.10, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 7, pp. 169-173.
According to Tertullian, it is to this true temple that the Apocalypse of John refers
speaking of the thousand-year kingdom. Tertullian sees another expression of the same
idea in the vision in Isa 2:2-3, which he understands as describing the “catholic [spiri-
tual] temple of Christ” into which the Gentiles are coming (Against Marcion 3.21.3,
ibid., pp. 162-164).
48
On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 15.2 (tr.
Peter Holmes), pp. 245-246: “Nature pronounces God’s sentence: ‘Dust you are, and
unto dust shall you return’ (Gen 3:19)….No death but the ruin of our limbs. This destiny
of the body the Lord also described, when clothed as he was in its very substance he
said, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again’ (John 2:19). For he
showed to what belongs [the incidents of] being destroyed, thrown down, and kept down
even to that to which it also appertains to be lifted and raised up again…The Scripture
informs us that ‘he spoke of his body.’ The soul, however, has no trace of a fall in its
designation…there is no mortality in its condition….’resurrection of the dead’ is predi-
cated of that which is fallen down [hence, we are talking about the resurrection of the
flesh]”.
49
Commentary on John 10.263-264. He proceeds (ibid., 10.265-297) to discuss
Solomon as a type of Christ also in what regards erecting God’s temple – that is, in
Christ’s case, the Church.

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 398 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 399

toration/ingathering of the faithful – Jews and proselytes – in the eschato-

logical future.50 This allows Origen to salvage at least something from the
historical aspect of the Johannine passage, with the “third day” interpreted
as a figure of speech for a period of final bliss, following the “day of evil”
and that of “consummation.”51 Instructive is comparison to Clement of
Alexandria, whose imagery and general spiritualizing tendency in elucidat-
ing the Johannine passage to a large extent overlap with those of Origen,
but who refrains from ascribing to it any broader historical meaning
beyond Jesus’ own death and resurrection.52
Gregory of Nyssa (second half of the 4th century) provides an exam-
ple of a later Christian elaboration, which, even when focusing on the
Messiah-as-the-tabernacle theme, characteristically does not invoke the
link between Jesus’ death/resurrection and the fate of the Jerusalem
sanctuary, or its heavenly prototype for that matter. Commenting in his
Life of Moses on Exod 25:9 (“According to all that I show you concern-
ing the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall
make it,” cf. Heb 8:5), Gregory presents the eternal Logos identified –

50
Origen, ibid., 10.228-232: “Both, however, (I mean the temple and Jesus’ body)…
appear to me to be a type of the Church…that…is built of living stones…upon the foun-
dations of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief corner stone.’ And
through the saying, ‘Now you are the body of Christ and members in part’ (1 Cor 12:27),
(we know) that even if the harmony of the stones of the temple appear to be destroyed,
[or,] as is written in Psalm 21[22:15], all the bones of Christ appear to be scattered in
persecutions and afflictions…the temple will be raised up and the body will arise on the
third day after the day of evil (cf. Eccl 7:15) which threatens it and the day of consum-
mation which follows. For the third day will dawn in the new haven and new earth (with
ref. to Rev 21:1)…”.
51
Origen (ibid. 10.292) further reflects on the question whether all events reported in
connection with the earthly temple should necessarily have analogy with regard to the
spiritual one. Origen’s suggestion seems to be that biblical prophecies, e.g. those by Isaiah,
on captivity and restoration do relate to the future end-of-days ingathering of the Church,
possibly a long and multi-staged process. Cf. Holder, “Mosaic Tabernacle,” p. 103.
52
Clement of Alexandria, Against the Judaizers (tr. W. Wilson): “Solomon the son
of David,…comprehending not only that the structure of the true temple was celestial
and spiritual, but had also a reference to the flesh, which he who was both the son and
lord of David was to build up,…he resolved to make his shrine, and for the church that
was to rise up through the union of faith, says expressly, ‘Will God in very deed dwell
with men on the earth?’ ….Thus also the blessed Peter hesitates not to say, ‘Ye also, as
living stones, are built up, a spiritual house, a holy temple, to offer up spiritual sacri-
fices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.’ And with reference to the body, which by
circumscription he consecrated as a hallowed place for himself upon earth, he said,
‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.’” See Claude MON-
DÉSERT, “À propos du signe du temple: un texte de Clément d’Alexandrie,” Recherches
de science religieuse 36 (1949): 580-584. With regard to the Pentateuch tabernacle,
Clement “mainly simply rehearsed the cosmological interpretation that he had found in
Philo and other Jewish sources” (Holder, “Mosaic Tabernacle,” p. 103).

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 399 2/07/12 13:35

 400 SERGE RUZER

following John 1:14 – with Christ, as the heavenly tabernacle shown to

Moses on Mount Sinai:53
We say that Moses was earlier instructed by a type in the mystery of the
tabernacle which enconmpasses the universe. This tabernacle would be
“Christ who is the power and the wisdom of God” [1 Cor 1:24], (ºti ên
túpwç proepaideúqj MwÓs±v tò perì t±v skjn±v t±v tò p¢n periex-
oúsjv mustßrion. AÀtj d’ ån e÷j Xristóv, ™ QeoÕ dúnamiv kaì QeoÕ
sofía) who in his own nature was not made with hands, yet capable of
being made when it became necessary for this tabernacle to be erected
among us…. This one is the Only Begotten God, who encompasses every-
thing in himself but who also pitched his own tabernacle among us (ToÕto
dè êstin ö Monogen®v Qeóv, ö ên aût¬ç mèn periéxwn tò p¢n, pjzá-
menov dè kaì ên ™m⁄n t®n îdían skjnßn) [with reference to John 1:14:
Kaì ö lógov sàrz êgéneto kaì êskßnwsen ên ™m⁄n]. … But just as all
the other names, in keeping with what is being specified, are each used
piously to express the divine power – as, for example, physician, shepherd,
protector, bread, vine, way, door…– in the same way he is given the predi-
cate “tabernacle” in accord with a signification fitting to God. For the power
which encompasses the universe…who encompasses everything within him-
self, is rightly called “tabernacle” (J¨ gàr periektik® t¬n ∫ntwn dúna-
mis ên ¯Ç katoike⁄ p¢n tò plßrwma t±v qeótjtov, ™ koin® toÕ pantòv
sképj, ö ên aût¬ç tò p¢n periéxwn, skjn® kuríwv katonomáhetai).
This tabernacle – and the distinction between the tabernacle and the
temple motifs, discerned already in much earlier Jewish sources,
becomes instrumental here54 – thus constitutes the eternal prototype of
the world in general and of its spiritual sphere in particular. According
to Gregory, the very name tabernacle perfectly convey Logos-Christ’s
divine nature (katá tina qeoprep± sjmasían) since it “encompasses
the universe…encompasses everything within itself.”55 It comes as no
surprise that in Gregory’s elaboration focusing on the heavenly proto-
type neither its destruction nor its rebulding play any role.
53
Gregory of Nyssa. The Life of Moses, par. 174-177. For the original Greek version
of the text, see J. DANIÉLOU (ed.), Grégoire de Nysse. La Vie de Moïse (Paris: Cerf,
1968); the English translation follows A. L. MALHERBE and E. FERGUSON (trans., introd.
and notes), Gregory of Nyssa. The Life of Moses, The Classics of Western Spirituality
(New York: Paulist Press, 1978).
54
See note 14 above and discussion there.
55
The same idea may be discerned in the Dedication Creed (341 CE) as reported by
Athanasius in De synodis 23. The Creed states not only that “everything came into being
through” the Logos (di’ oœ tà pánta êgéneto) but also that «all things consist in him»
(ên ˜ tà pánta sunéstjke). See St. Athanasius’ Historical Writings, with introduction
by W. Bright (Oxford, 1881), p. 268. Gregory seems to have Philo’s notion of the “first
creation” in mind (though he explicitly anchors his idea on John’s Prologue and on
Colossians 1:15-17).

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 400 2/07/12 13:35

 MAN AS TEMPLE AND DEATH AS DESTRUCTION 401

Conclusion
This study has attempted – without suggesting direct literary links – a
partial mapping of the ways in which Jewish and Christian exegeses
from the Second Temple period on addressed the idea of an individual
as a temple/tabernacle. In some cases, this reflected a new, more com-
plex, religious anthropology; correspondingly, a distinction was sug-
gested between a more static notion of the spirit/nous as a given spiritual
factor of man’s existence and a dynamic aspiration, e.g., in a messianic
context, for acquiring the Spirit as the desired “inner tenant.” The latter
pattern was found shared by Qumran covenanters, later rabbinic tradi-
tions and Paul, who seems to have reflected here a wider Jewish trend.
The fourth-century Aphrahat attests to an instructive later Christian
reworking of this idea, which combines a static notion of the Spirit as
permanently indwelling in the tabernacle of an ascetic’s body, and the
dynamic one of Christ as its acquired “ultimate tenant.”
An interdependence between the notions of the individual and the
elect community respectively as the “temple of the Spirit” was outlined.
In its positive aspect, it is characteristic of Qumran and nascent Jesus
movement settings with their emphasis on realized, albeit partly, escha-
tology. Its negative aspect is played out in some post-70 rabbinic sources
reflecting a pessimistic appraisal of the religious situation – with the
claim that in spite of the merit of some distinguished individuals both
before and after the destruction the indwelling of the Spirit/Shekhinah
was repeatedly prevented by the general unworthiness of the community
of Israel. Both these community-based aspects may be partly viewed as
eschatological – and “sectarian” – modifications of ancient biblical
notions of God’s (his Name’s) indwelling in the midst of Israel without
sanctuary in sight. One may observe a tension between transferring the
idea of indwelling unto an individual or elect community and the con-
tinuing – even after the destruction of the sanctuary – practice of pil-
grimage. This issue, which has remained beyond the scope of this study,
is clearly in need of further elaboration.
Finally, the link between the fate of outstanding individuals and that of
the Temple was discussed. Such a link finds its famous expression in the
Fourth Gospel’s reinterpretation of Jesus’ oracle about the fate of the
Jerusalem sanctuary as speaking of his own death and resurrection. It
was suggested that some rabbinic sources of post-70 provenance, por-
traying the demise of the righteous as comparable in its dire consequences
to the destruction of the Temple or, alternatively, as disrupting its harmo-

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 401 2/07/12 13:35

 402 SERGE RUZER

nious function, could be viewed as part of the general backdrop for this
sub-motif. It was observed, however, that the explicit connection between
the resurrection of a charismatic individual and the restoration of the
Temple is conspicuously lacking in the rabbinic elaborations.
Origen strives to salvage at least something from the linkage between
Jesus’ fate and that of the Jerusalem sanctuary indicated in John 2:17-
22. For that end he substitutes Church – suffering persecutions but antic-
ipating eventual triumph – for the Temple. His somewhat exceptional
strategy, however, only further highlights the conspicuous lack of inter-
est in the above linkage demonstrated by early Christian exegesis. Greg-
ory of Nyssa, characteristically, focuses on Christ as the eternal heav-
enly tabernacle, the prototype of the spiritual universe – in this context,
naturally, no destruction and/or rebuilding are related to.
So, the tension between John 2:17-22 and the Synoptic version of
Jesus’ destruction-restoration oracle retains its peculiarity and may
therefore serve as an important marker for dating the tradition incorpo-
rated in the Fourth Gospel. This tradition seems to have been tailored to
address a disappointment vis-à-vis an unfulfilled prophecy by Jesus,
which related to the Temple, It thus also reflected the utmost importance
still ascribed – as distinct from later Christian thinking – to the fate of
Jerusalem sanctuary. Was it the disappointment felt at the end of the
first century by some Jesus’ followers – for whom Jesus’ own resurrec-
tion was a fact of faith – regarding the absence of the Temple-centered
messianic restoration (cf. Acts 2:43-47)? Or, alternatively, a much ear-
lier pre-70 discomfort vis-à-vis Jesus’ still unfulfilled oracle of
destruction?56 As evidence reviewed in this study does not allow reach-
ing a clear-cut conclusion on this question, it definitely warrants further
investigation.57 The present study does indicate, however, that even if
the variant of the motif attested in John 2:17-22 represents a peculiar
“dead-end off-shoot” from the perception of a person as God’s temple,
it should be seen as derived from and relating to this more general per-
ception and its various late antique Jewish modifications.

56
Both Pauline corpus and Acts indicate that not all Jesus’ followers in the first
Christian century were eagerly anticipating the fulfillment of the destruction oracle. See
Fredriksen, “Paul, Purity, and the Ekklesia of the Gentiles” (note 27 above); Serge
RUZER, “Crucifixion: The Search for a Meaning vis-à-vis Biblical Prophecy. From Luke
to Acts,” in idem, Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness
for Jewish Biblical Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 191-199.
57
Cf. Brown, Gospel According to John, p. 120.

95661_05_Ruzer_CS5.indd 402 2/07/12 13:35