Now if Jesus really meant what the fourth gospel says he meant;--if he "spoke of _the temple of his body_;"-- how was any one to guess that?
It cannot be denied, that such a reply, _prima facie_, suggested, that he was a wilful impostor: was it not then his obvious duty, when this accusation was brought against him, to explain that his words had been mystical and had been misunderstood?
The form of the imputation in Mark xiv.

58, would make it possible to imagine,--if the _three days_ were left out, and if his words were _not_ said in reply to the demand of a sign,--that Jesus had merely avowed that though the outward Jewish temple were to be destroyed, he would erect a church of worshippers as a spiritual temple.

If so, "John" has grossly misrepresented him, and then obtruded a very far-fetched explanation.

But whatever was the meaning of Jesus, if it was honest, I think he was bound to explain it; and not leave a suspicion of imposture to rankle in men's minds.[6] Finally, if the whole were fiction, and he never uttered such words, then it was his duty to deny them, and not remain dumb like a sheep before its shearers.
After he had confirmed by his silence the belief that he had used a dishonest evasion indicative of consciousness that he was no real Messiah, he suddenly burst out with a full reply to the High Priest's question; and avowed that he _was_ the Messiah, the Son of God; and that they should hereafter see him sitting on the right-hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven,--of course to enter into judgment on them all.

I am the less surprized that this precipitated his condemnation, since he himself seems to have designed precisely that result.