Exploring a line of thinking this morning that I'm sure is sixty years old but not finding the paper trail.
1. In most of Paul's writings, he uses the word "church" (ekklesia) in regard to local assemblies, house churches. So he writes to the church, singular, at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2) and Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1). But he writes to the churches, plural, in Galatia (1:2).
One interesting variation is in Galatians 1:13. Here he talks about persecuting "the church of God" in Jerusalem. There is something "ground zero" about this reference. It doesn't seem that he is referring to just another church--the church of God in Jerusalem. He was persecuting the church of God.
Nor do I think this is an abstract reference to the Church universal like we find in Ephesians or Colossians. In fact, this is one shift in these two letters from Paul's use in his earlier letters. In Galatians 1:13 Paul is not referring to "the Church" in a universal sense like Ephesians. [Indeed, it is a source of endless frustration to me how much discussion just mows over these sorts of revealing distinctions.]
No, there is something else going on here, a glimpse into primordial Christianity. I believe the earliest community in Jerusalem saw themselves in some way as the assembly of God.
2. Paul gives us a hint of what James, Peter, John, and others were thinking when he tells us they were known as "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). Pillars of what? Pillars of a temple, I presume (cf. Rev. 3:12).
Herein is a hint, I suspect, that the earliest Christian community saw themselves as a spiritual temple of sorts. Paul of course will use this imagery in 1 Corinthians 3:16 when he calls the Corinthian church a temple of God. He uses imagery of spiritual sacrifice more than once elsewhere (e.g., Rom. 12:1-2, 15:16; Phil. 2:17, 4:18).
So the earliest "church of God" in Jerusalem was a temple of sorts, it would seem. Was it a replacement temple? I think it is at least safe to say that it was a parallel temple. Yet what do we make of the picture in Acts of an early church that participated freely in the temple? It is true that this is "Luke" giving us a picture of an orderly community, so it would fit his thematic tendencies to omit temple critique (he lets Stephen slip by).
Perhaps there is a middle ground. Perhaps, like Jesus, like Stephen, like the Essenes, the earliest church had a critique of the temple. But perhaps they did not yet connect the dots to its complete replacement by the community. Critique short of replacement.
3. I mentioned the Essenes. I'll admit I find it hard not to think that there is some influence here. Not going in the same direction as Jesus, I don't think. He was on a path of inclusion. They were on a path of separation. But the earliest church was a mixture. There were Pharisees in it, for example (Acts 15:5). James clearly insisted on keeping purity rules (Gal. 2:12).
In short, I find no compelling reason to think that the earliest church might not have taken at least the language of Qumran in thinking of themselves as the definitive yahad of God and have also taken the sense of the Essenes that they were a kind of parallel temple.
Here is a relevant passage in 1QS:
"The council of the community shall be established in truth. It shall be an everlasting plantation, a house of holiness for Israel, an assembly of supreme holiness for Aaron. They shall be eyewitnesses to the truth at the judgment, and shall be the elect of goodwill who shall atone for the Land and pay to the wicked their reward. It shall be that tried wall, that 'precious cornerstone, whose foundations shall neither rock nor sway in their place.' It shall be a most holy dwelling for Aaron with everlasting knowledge of the covenant of righteousness, and shall offer up sweet fragrance. It shall be a house of perfection and truth in Israel that they may establish a covenant according to the everlasting precepts.
"And they shall be an agreeable offering, atoning for the land and determining the judgment of wickedness, and there shall be no more iniquity. When they have been confirmed for two years in perfection of way by the authority of the community, they shall be set apart as holy within the council of the men of the community. And the interpreter shall not conceal from them, out of fear of the spirit of apostasy, any of those things hidden from Israel which have been discovered by him. And when these become members of the community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him, as it is written, 'Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a path for our God.'" (1QS 8.5-14)
It is very hard not read such passages and not eventually see a cumulative case for Essene influence on the early church, at least in language.
4. Even if we could make a plausible case for the impact of Essene language on the earliest believers in Jerusalem, we have no information to know exactly what the contours of that influence were. For example, it is easy enough to think that the earliest Christians saw themselves as an eschatological community. So here is the easiest point of contact with Qumran.
If parallel temple imagery was part of the Essenes' eschatological language, then it could be that they absorbed it along with the language of eschatological community. It would not thereby imply an end to the temple as an institution in itself, any more than the Qumran language implied the end of the temple as an institution. Those dots would not be connected until later, particularly after the temple was destroyed in AD70.
Some thoughts...
Showing posts with label temple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label temple. Show all posts
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Jesus in the temple (4)
... continued from yesterday. This series is on Jesus and Judgment.
_________
3. Judgment of Israel
So far in the chapter, I've argued that Jesus did likely teach that judgment was coming to those alive on the earth, even if it was not the focus of his preaching. Additionally, Jesus seems to have had a prophetic message of judgment against the temple leadership of Israel, at least in the final week of his ministry. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all understood Jesus' words and actions in this regard to predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
More than anything else, it was probably Jesus' action in the temple during passion week that set in motion the concrete political mechanisms that ended in the crucifixion. Jesus certainly came into conflict with various people during his ministry, as we saw back in chapter 4. But it doesn't seem likely that he tangled much with the temple leaders or chief priests until that day he walked into the temple courts and overthrew the tables of those who were changing money and selling animals for sacrifice. More than anyone else, these were the people who had the kinds of connections with the Romans that could get a person killed.
On the one hand, it was generally necessary to have such a service. [1] It simply wasn't practical for someone to bring a goat or lamb with them for sacrifice from half way around the Mediterranean. And to buy such things, money was needed (again, bringing something with you to trade from around the world wasn't practical) and it would need to be exchanged to the right currency. Clearly something about the scene angered Jesus, but it surely was not the practice of buying and selling itself. Surely it was the way they were doing it--or where--that angered him.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all link Jesus' action to two Scriptures. The first is Isaiah 56:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer." Instead, what Jesus saw was Jeremiah 7:11: "a den of robbers." Some focus primarily on the first verse to explain what angered Jesus. The context of Isaiah 56:7 is all the nations of the world coming to worship at the temple. In fact, Mark 11:17 gives the part of the quote that says the temple should be a house of prayer for all nations.
So some see Jesus angry primarily because of where they were selling things. Foreigners who might otherwise worship God in the temple courts were instead confronted by buying and selling there. At the same time, it is surely significant that neither Matthew nor Luke give the part of the quote that says, "for all nations." They were likely using Mark as a source and yet seem to have deliberately left this part of the quote out. Also, the Gentiles were arguably not the focus of Jesus' earthly ministry (cf. Matt. 10:5).
So others might focus more on the second Scripture from Jeremiah. It comes in the context of the approaching destruction of the temple in 586BC. There is of course a striking similarity here in the sense that Jesus is also remembered as predicting the destruction of the temple, which took place in AD70. Jeremiah's complaint is the the priests of his day had made the temple into a "den of robbers." Jeremiah accused the leaders of day of hiding their injustice behind the temple. They were murderers, adulterers, thieves, perjurers, idolaters, and yet somehow thought the fact that they ran the temple would protect them from coming judgment (Jer. 7:9-10).
This second focus does indeed fit the emphases of Jesus ministry very well, as we have seen. Of course the gospels are not video recorders. They are unpacking the event. One may or may not talk too much when you are angrily overturning tables and chasing people. And the kinds of things that spark anger are usually more complex and emotional than a matter of logical argument and ideas.
Accordingly, both the answers above may have some truth to them. Jesus is confronted by a scene of merchandising when the temple should be for worshiping God. And it should be for everyone, not just for those who have the coinage necessary to buy sheep and doves. The situation evokes key elements of his prophetic message for Israel, especially the way those who are rich and powerful couldn't care less about the vast majority of the people, the lost sheep of Israel...
[1] So E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism ***.
_________
3. Judgment of Israel
So far in the chapter, I've argued that Jesus did likely teach that judgment was coming to those alive on the earth, even if it was not the focus of his preaching. Additionally, Jesus seems to have had a prophetic message of judgment against the temple leadership of Israel, at least in the final week of his ministry. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all understood Jesus' words and actions in this regard to predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
More than anything else, it was probably Jesus' action in the temple during passion week that set in motion the concrete political mechanisms that ended in the crucifixion. Jesus certainly came into conflict with various people during his ministry, as we saw back in chapter 4. But it doesn't seem likely that he tangled much with the temple leaders or chief priests until that day he walked into the temple courts and overthrew the tables of those who were changing money and selling animals for sacrifice. More than anyone else, these were the people who had the kinds of connections with the Romans that could get a person killed.
On the one hand, it was generally necessary to have such a service. [1] It simply wasn't practical for someone to bring a goat or lamb with them for sacrifice from half way around the Mediterranean. And to buy such things, money was needed (again, bringing something with you to trade from around the world wasn't practical) and it would need to be exchanged to the right currency. Clearly something about the scene angered Jesus, but it surely was not the practice of buying and selling itself. Surely it was the way they were doing it--or where--that angered him.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all link Jesus' action to two Scriptures. The first is Isaiah 56:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer." Instead, what Jesus saw was Jeremiah 7:11: "a den of robbers." Some focus primarily on the first verse to explain what angered Jesus. The context of Isaiah 56:7 is all the nations of the world coming to worship at the temple. In fact, Mark 11:17 gives the part of the quote that says the temple should be a house of prayer for all nations.
So some see Jesus angry primarily because of where they were selling things. Foreigners who might otherwise worship God in the temple courts were instead confronted by buying and selling there. At the same time, it is surely significant that neither Matthew nor Luke give the part of the quote that says, "for all nations." They were likely using Mark as a source and yet seem to have deliberately left this part of the quote out. Also, the Gentiles were arguably not the focus of Jesus' earthly ministry (cf. Matt. 10:5).
So others might focus more on the second Scripture from Jeremiah. It comes in the context of the approaching destruction of the temple in 586BC. There is of course a striking similarity here in the sense that Jesus is also remembered as predicting the destruction of the temple, which took place in AD70. Jeremiah's complaint is the the priests of his day had made the temple into a "den of robbers." Jeremiah accused the leaders of day of hiding their injustice behind the temple. They were murderers, adulterers, thieves, perjurers, idolaters, and yet somehow thought the fact that they ran the temple would protect them from coming judgment (Jer. 7:9-10).
This second focus does indeed fit the emphases of Jesus ministry very well, as we have seen. Of course the gospels are not video recorders. They are unpacking the event. One may or may not talk too much when you are angrily overturning tables and chasing people. And the kinds of things that spark anger are usually more complex and emotional than a matter of logical argument and ideas.
Accordingly, both the answers above may have some truth to them. Jesus is confronted by a scene of merchandising when the temple should be for worshiping God. And it should be for everyone, not just for those who have the coinage necessary to buy sheep and doves. The situation evokes key elements of his prophetic message for Israel, especially the way those who are rich and powerful couldn't care less about the vast majority of the people, the lost sheep of Israel...
[1] So E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism ***.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Hebrews excerpt for the day...
From a chapter I am writing on "Hebrews and the Temple":
"Indeed, part of the new perspective we are proposing is a recognition that this kind of argument usually has a certain implicit circularity to it. It wonders why Hebrews does not mention the destruction of the temple when it is arguing against relying on the temple. If, however, Hebrews is not arguing against relying on the temple, the argument loses almost all of its intuitive power. True, it would make no sense to argue against relying on the temple’s sacrificial system if it were already destroyed. The audience could not rely on the temple then even if they tried. If, however, Hebrews is consoling a group of people troubled by the temple’s absence, then the question simply becomes why the author does not explicitly mention the central cause of the audience’s wavering. Interestingly, we have to ask this question anyway, no matter what we think the underlying situation was. For whatever reason, the author chose to speak in generalities rather than in specifics."
"Indeed, part of the new perspective we are proposing is a recognition that this kind of argument usually has a certain implicit circularity to it. It wonders why Hebrews does not mention the destruction of the temple when it is arguing against relying on the temple. If, however, Hebrews is not arguing against relying on the temple, the argument loses almost all of its intuitive power. True, it would make no sense to argue against relying on the temple’s sacrificial system if it were already destroyed. The audience could not rely on the temple then even if they tried. If, however, Hebrews is consoling a group of people troubled by the temple’s absence, then the question simply becomes why the author does not explicitly mention the central cause of the audience’s wavering. Interestingly, we have to ask this question anyway, no matter what we think the underlying situation was. For whatever reason, the author chose to speak in generalities rather than in specifics."
Friday, November 25, 2011
Excerpt: Hebrews 13:9-14
Here's an excerpt from my writing today. I'm discussing 13:9 and whether it might refer to participation in the temple cultus: "With various strange teachings do not be carried
away, for it is good for the heart to be confident in [God’s] grace, not in
foods that do not benefit those who walk in them."
________
... Two considerations, however, point in a different direction in this instance. The first is the way the author describes the teaching in question. Most interpreters render xenos in 13:9 as “strange.” It is of course possible that, if the temple had continued to exist, a later Gentile Christian at some point might have described the normal operations of the temple cultus as "strange." The question is whether anyone prior to 70CE would have, Jew or Gentile believer. On the face of it, it does not seem very likely that any mainstream Christian--especially a Christian Jew--would describe the idea of the sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple as a "strange teaching."
Indeed, it seems unlikely that "strange teachings" relating to the Levitical cultus would have arisen while the temple was still standing. In itself, this warning not to participate in miscellaneous and peculiar practices of a Levitical nature is one piece of an overall puzzle that we are arguing points to a post-70CE date for the sermon. We can imagine that, in the absence of a temple, any number of synagogue and other practices might emerge intending to serve in some way as a substitute for the now defunct sanctuary. [1] It is neither possible nor necessary for us to know exactly what they were, only to recognize the forces that make their existence more than plausible.
A second argument against the exhortation of 13:9 referring to temple sacrifices is the way that it arises in its literary context. It is plausible enough that the central high priestly argument of Hebrews alludes to the operations of the Jerusalem temple in one way or another, even though it only refers explicitly to the wilderness tabernacle. Although 13:9-14 alludes back to those earlier arguments, it seems to bring up a new issue, even if it is related. These verses are part of a collection of miscellaneous instructions in the final chapter, the letter closing to the sermon. This admonition about strange teachings is neither at the beginning of these final exhortations nor is it the final one.
It thus does not arise in a way that makes it seem like the central point of the whole sermon, which it would presumably be if it were about the Jerusalem temple. Indeed, how odd it would be if, after so much generality in the bulk of the sermon, the author only got to the point in the letter conclusion, after the sermon part was already for all intents and purposes over! It seems much more likely that this later instruction is related to the central argument but only in a somewhat peripheral way.
Accordingly, 13:9-14 does not affect our argument that Hebrews never argues against participation in the mainstream Levitical cultus. Rather, its argument always urges the audience to rely positively on Christ as a means of atonement. The audience can be confident in relation to what Christ has done. While the author argues that the Levitical cultus did not take away sins and was ineffective as a means of atonement, he never then proceeds to say, "So do not participate in it."
[1] Jukka Thoren, Barnabas Lindars***
________
... Two considerations, however, point in a different direction in this instance. The first is the way the author describes the teaching in question. Most interpreters render xenos in 13:9 as “strange.” It is of course possible that, if the temple had continued to exist, a later Gentile Christian at some point might have described the normal operations of the temple cultus as "strange." The question is whether anyone prior to 70CE would have, Jew or Gentile believer. On the face of it, it does not seem very likely that any mainstream Christian--especially a Christian Jew--would describe the idea of the sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple as a "strange teaching."
Indeed, it seems unlikely that "strange teachings" relating to the Levitical cultus would have arisen while the temple was still standing. In itself, this warning not to participate in miscellaneous and peculiar practices of a Levitical nature is one piece of an overall puzzle that we are arguing points to a post-70CE date for the sermon. We can imagine that, in the absence of a temple, any number of synagogue and other practices might emerge intending to serve in some way as a substitute for the now defunct sanctuary. [1] It is neither possible nor necessary for us to know exactly what they were, only to recognize the forces that make their existence more than plausible.
A second argument against the exhortation of 13:9 referring to temple sacrifices is the way that it arises in its literary context. It is plausible enough that the central high priestly argument of Hebrews alludes to the operations of the Jerusalem temple in one way or another, even though it only refers explicitly to the wilderness tabernacle. Although 13:9-14 alludes back to those earlier arguments, it seems to bring up a new issue, even if it is related. These verses are part of a collection of miscellaneous instructions in the final chapter, the letter closing to the sermon. This admonition about strange teachings is neither at the beginning of these final exhortations nor is it the final one.
It thus does not arise in a way that makes it seem like the central point of the whole sermon, which it would presumably be if it were about the Jerusalem temple. Indeed, how odd it would be if, after so much generality in the bulk of the sermon, the author only got to the point in the letter conclusion, after the sermon part was already for all intents and purposes over! It seems much more likely that this later instruction is related to the central argument but only in a somewhat peripheral way.
Accordingly, 13:9-14 does not affect our argument that Hebrews never argues against participation in the mainstream Levitical cultus. Rather, its argument always urges the audience to rely positively on Christ as a means of atonement. The audience can be confident in relation to what Christ has done. While the author argues that the Levitical cultus did not take away sins and was ineffective as a means of atonement, he never then proceeds to say, "So do not participate in it."
[1] Jukka Thoren, Barnabas Lindars***
Monday, April 18, 2011
Cleansing of Temple (Monday)
In Mark's chronology (chap. 11), Jesus enters Jerusalem on Sunday, looks around, then returns to Bethany. On Monday, then, he returns to Jerusalem, curses a barren fig tree on the way, and then overturns the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. Then in the evening they return to Bethany again.
The chronology of Matthew, Luke, and John is a little different, which is why we cannot be absolutely certain about what happened on which day. In Matthew 21, Jesus seems to overturn the tables on the same day that he entered Jerusalem, in contrast to Mark. In Mark also, Jesus curses the fig tree right before overturning the tables on Monday, and it is only on the next day, Tuesday, that they find it withered. In Matthew, Jesus curses the tree and it withers immediately, the day after the temple action.
Luke seems to follow Matthew's chronology at this point, but does not have the story of the fig tree. John seems to move the temple action to the first year of Jesus' ministry. It is of course possible that Jesus did this twice, but after you have compared the gospels even a little in detail, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that they intentionally move things around from time to time. This shouldn't be a problem for us. It has to do with our (faulty) expectations rather than any problem on their part.
There are differing interpretations of Jesus' action in the temple. Was Jesus angry because they were selling things in the temple? But they had to sell things so that travelers would have something to sacrifice. Were they selling in the wrong place? I really don't think the relevant texts will bear this weight even though this is often said. Was it a symbolic action, planned out and meant to symbolize God's coming judgment of Israel and even the destruction of the temple itself? I think it is very likely that Christians read it this way, especially after the temple was destroyed.
The key to me at this point (meaning after this round of reflection ;-) is Jesus' quotation of Jeremiah 7:11: "Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?" (NRSV). The context in Jeremiah is a prediction of the temple's destruction because Israel's leaders have oppressed "the alien, the orphan, and the widow" (7:6), which fits in with Jesus' focus on the poor and powerless in his earthly ministry.
So I find the spirit of John's presentation to fit very much with a general distaste Jesus must have had for the wealthy, profiteering atmosphere he must have seen before him. It couldn't have been disapproval of the selling per se, because that was necessary. But the spirit of what he saw must have represented to him everything that was wrong about the values of Jerusalem.
His action was thus an indictment of the spirit of Jerusalem's leadership and a foreshadowing of coming judgment. It is no surprise that Mark "sandwiches" the event inside the incident with the fig tree. Just as the fig tree did not bear fruit and withered under Jesus' curse, so the Jerusalem of that day was eventually judged for its failure to bear the kind of fruit pleasing to God.
The chronology of Matthew, Luke, and John is a little different, which is why we cannot be absolutely certain about what happened on which day. In Matthew 21, Jesus seems to overturn the tables on the same day that he entered Jerusalem, in contrast to Mark. In Mark also, Jesus curses the fig tree right before overturning the tables on Monday, and it is only on the next day, Tuesday, that they find it withered. In Matthew, Jesus curses the tree and it withers immediately, the day after the temple action.
Luke seems to follow Matthew's chronology at this point, but does not have the story of the fig tree. John seems to move the temple action to the first year of Jesus' ministry. It is of course possible that Jesus did this twice, but after you have compared the gospels even a little in detail, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that they intentionally move things around from time to time. This shouldn't be a problem for us. It has to do with our (faulty) expectations rather than any problem on their part.
There are differing interpretations of Jesus' action in the temple. Was Jesus angry because they were selling things in the temple? But they had to sell things so that travelers would have something to sacrifice. Were they selling in the wrong place? I really don't think the relevant texts will bear this weight even though this is often said. Was it a symbolic action, planned out and meant to symbolize God's coming judgment of Israel and even the destruction of the temple itself? I think it is very likely that Christians read it this way, especially after the temple was destroyed.
The key to me at this point (meaning after this round of reflection ;-) is Jesus' quotation of Jeremiah 7:11: "Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?" (NRSV). The context in Jeremiah is a prediction of the temple's destruction because Israel's leaders have oppressed "the alien, the orphan, and the widow" (7:6), which fits in with Jesus' focus on the poor and powerless in his earthly ministry.
So I find the spirit of John's presentation to fit very much with a general distaste Jesus must have had for the wealthy, profiteering atmosphere he must have seen before him. It couldn't have been disapproval of the selling per se, because that was necessary. But the spirit of what he saw must have represented to him everything that was wrong about the values of Jerusalem.
His action was thus an indictment of the spirit of Jerusalem's leadership and a foreshadowing of coming judgment. It is no surprise that Mark "sandwiches" the event inside the incident with the fig tree. Just as the fig tree did not bear fruit and withered under Jesus' curse, so the Jerusalem of that day was eventually judged for its failure to bear the kind of fruit pleasing to God.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Quotes, Allusions and Echoes in Hebrews 8
With Hebrews 8 we get to the raison d'etre of my SBL paper. The theme of the section is "Reconfiguring Houses and Family Households," and my paper is about Hebrews' reconceptualization of the sanctuary in the texts of the Pentateuch. It's ended up a bit strangely configured because of the way I ended up giving the paper, but oh well:
1. intertextuality: quotes, allusions, and echos
2. reconceptualization of the sanctuary of the Pentateuchal text
3. intertextual echoes of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction
I will probably do 10 minutes of #3 and then 15 of #2.
So on to Hebrews 8. With verse 2, we recognize that the author is going to consider the earthly tabernacle a less authentic sanctuary than the true sanctuary in the heavens. Throughout the section, it is not the temple in Jerusalem that the author is directly addressing, but the wilderness tabernacle of the Pentateuch.
If Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest (8:4). Earthly priests serve the heavenly "in a shadowy illustration" (8:5). I will argue what I have often written elsewhere, partially agreeing with Lincoln Hurst: "copy" is a completely inappropriate translation for hypodeigma. The literal "house" of the Pentateuchal text (Hebrews doesn't actually use the word house this way, I think) has become a shadowy pointer toward the true heavenly one.
8:5 quotes Exodus 25:40, spliced together in a manner attested in Philo with 25:9: Look, you will make everything according to the type that was shown you in the mountain. We are to understand that Moses was instructed to build the tabernacle according to what he saw on the mountain.
But what did he see? Was it an actual structure in heaven? Was it heaven itself? But what did he see? Was it an actual structure in heaven? Was it heaven itself? A Platonic model of the tabernacle?
What does the "all" mean? If "all" really means that every single thing in the earthly tabernacle corresponded to the equivalent in the heavenly sanctuary, then we are surely talking either about an apocalyptic temple structure in heaven or a Platonic archetype. One might argue that the splicing of the "all" from Exodus 25:9 into 25:40 implies emphasis on the word "all."
It may very well be that the author of Hebrews did think that every item in the earthly tabernacle had some allegorical significance. But, as mentioned above, the particular splicing together the author does here is also attested in Philo (as are several other "unique" Hebrews splicings), so we cannot know for sure how much significance to see in the way he makes the quote.
In general, the notion of an apocalyptic temple in heaven, especially one waiting to be revealed on earth, does not fit Hebrews tabernacle rhetoric very well. For one thing, Hebrews gives little basis for seeing an outer room to the heavenly sanctuary. Accordingly, neither a Platonic archetype nor a heavenly temple that serves as an exact prototype fits the bill very well. Further, Hebrews has no place for a sanctuary on earth in the eschaton. Indeed, Hebrews gives scant evidence for the existence of an earth in the eschaton at all.
With the throne room of heaven as the clear correspondance to the heavenly Holy of Holies, with scant basis for an outer room to the "heavenly sanctuary," with clear evidence of the author amalgamating multiple earthly OT sacrifices as a varied and "shadowy" correspondent of the singular heavenly "sacrifice," it seems more likely than not that the heavenly sanctuary is not a distinct structure in heaven at all but a metaphorical treatment of the highest heaven itself (e.g., 9:24).
The author has thus "reconfigured" the earthly house of God, the tabernacle/temple, as heaven itself. The place of God, the highest heaven, is the true tent, of which the wilderness tabernacle was only a shadowy illustration. And the sacrificial practices the earthly priests made in Levitical sanctuaries were only shadowy illustrations of the one true "sacrifice" made by Christ.
1. intertextuality: quotes, allusions, and echos
2. reconceptualization of the sanctuary of the Pentateuchal text
3. intertextual echoes of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction
I will probably do 10 minutes of #3 and then 15 of #2.
So on to Hebrews 8. With verse 2, we recognize that the author is going to consider the earthly tabernacle a less authentic sanctuary than the true sanctuary in the heavens. Throughout the section, it is not the temple in Jerusalem that the author is directly addressing, but the wilderness tabernacle of the Pentateuch.
If Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest (8:4). Earthly priests serve the heavenly "in a shadowy illustration" (8:5). I will argue what I have often written elsewhere, partially agreeing with Lincoln Hurst: "copy" is a completely inappropriate translation for hypodeigma. The literal "house" of the Pentateuchal text (Hebrews doesn't actually use the word house this way, I think) has become a shadowy pointer toward the true heavenly one.
8:5 quotes Exodus 25:40, spliced together in a manner attested in Philo with 25:9: Look, you will make everything according to the type that was shown you in the mountain. We are to understand that Moses was instructed to build the tabernacle according to what he saw on the mountain.
But what did he see? Was it an actual structure in heaven? Was it heaven itself? But what did he see? Was it an actual structure in heaven? Was it heaven itself? A Platonic model of the tabernacle?
What does the "all" mean? If "all" really means that every single thing in the earthly tabernacle corresponded to the equivalent in the heavenly sanctuary, then we are surely talking either about an apocalyptic temple structure in heaven or a Platonic archetype. One might argue that the splicing of the "all" from Exodus 25:9 into 25:40 implies emphasis on the word "all."
It may very well be that the author of Hebrews did think that every item in the earthly tabernacle had some allegorical significance. But, as mentioned above, the particular splicing together the author does here is also attested in Philo (as are several other "unique" Hebrews splicings), so we cannot know for sure how much significance to see in the way he makes the quote.
In general, the notion of an apocalyptic temple in heaven, especially one waiting to be revealed on earth, does not fit Hebrews tabernacle rhetoric very well. For one thing, Hebrews gives little basis for seeing an outer room to the heavenly sanctuary. Accordingly, neither a Platonic archetype nor a heavenly temple that serves as an exact prototype fits the bill very well. Further, Hebrews has no place for a sanctuary on earth in the eschaton. Indeed, Hebrews gives scant evidence for the existence of an earth in the eschaton at all.
With the throne room of heaven as the clear correspondance to the heavenly Holy of Holies, with scant basis for an outer room to the "heavenly sanctuary," with clear evidence of the author amalgamating multiple earthly OT sacrifices as a varied and "shadowy" correspondent of the singular heavenly "sacrifice," it seems more likely than not that the heavenly sanctuary is not a distinct structure in heaven at all but a metaphorical treatment of the highest heaven itself (e.g., 9:24).
The author has thus "reconfigured" the earthly house of God, the tabernacle/temple, as heaven itself. The place of God, the highest heaven, is the true tent, of which the wilderness tabernacle was only a shadowy illustration. And the sacrificial practices the earthly priests made in Levitical sanctuaries were only shadowy illustrations of the one true "sacrifice" made by Christ.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Jewish Views of the Temple--Some Notes
I want to jot down some thoughts today on Jewish views of the Herodian temple from a historical perspective.
First, I think it is plausible enough to think that those who lived in Judea were very loyal and perhaps even dominantly zealous toward the Jerusalem temple. Of course around 200BC there were also strong forces wanting to make Jerusalem a fully Hellenistic city. But these forces were soundly defeated in the Maccabean crisis. While the Hasmonean rulers were far from purists, elements of Jewish distinctiveness became political boundary markers, with the temple a symbol of Hasmonean power.
To be sure, there were elements in Judea that lost in this power struggle, the Teacher of Righteousness being the best known. The Essenes, particularly those that settled at Qumran, rejected the legitimacy of the tainted temple. They did not reject the notion of a temple per se, only the current temple with its administration. They ran their community as a temple substitute.
We can imagine that they had no better view of the Herodian temple, although at least it was sometimes administrated by "sons of Zadok" (Sadducees). They were apparently willing to join in with others in the battle against the Romans in AD66-73.
Secondly, I want to take a snapshot of the scene at the time of the Babylonian captivity, 586BC. The northern kingdom at this time is 150 years post Assyrian conquest. I'm assuming that means that it is pluralistic and syncretistic. Some people probably worship Yahweh among other gods. But the northern kingdom never had any sense of an exclusive temple, as even the ministries of Elijah and Elisha show. They know nothing of any need to offer sacrifice at the Samaria or Jerusalem temples.
I'm assuming that this situation continues until the Hasmonean period. The Samaritans build a temple to Zeus after the Greek conquest in 332BC. Not until Aristobulus and Alexander Janneus does Galilee seem to become attached to Judea (ca. 100BC). Richard Horsley has suggested that the forced conversion of the Galileans to circumcision and Jewish customs probably did not completely stick (Galilee).
It is tempting to see a correlation here between Jesus' less than stringent attention to the details of Jewish purity concerns and a Galilean context that was only a little more continuous with Judea than Samaria and Idumea. However, we must also take into account that Jesus was a descendent of David, a datum we can hardly question given Paul's affirmation of it in pre-Pauline material in Romans 1:2-3 (and given that the Roman church was likely related to the Jerusalem church, this implies it was their understanding as well).
As it relates to the temple, however, I can easily see some ambivalence, perhaps even resistance to the Jerusalem temple among the Galilean population. After all, it would have corresponded directly in their mind to their Hasmonean conquerers, who held the title of high priest at this time. Further, they were the descendants of the northern kingdom, that had never recognized the authority of the Jerusalem temple. We can imagine at the same time that Jesus, as a descendent of David, would have had a more favorable view of it.
In the end, the gospels seem to align Galilee more with Judea than Samaria, and this attitude seems multiply attested enough to consider historically credible. It would thus seem likely that many Galileans would have identified the Jerusalem temple as their sanctuary. Meanwhile it is understandable if those from Samaria were more resistant to it given that they had their own temple.
Finally, we have to consider the probable attitudes of Diaspora Jews toward the temple. We remember that the Jews in Egypt had a temple at Elephantine from the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. However, it apparently ceased to function long before the New Testament period.
Onias IV also founded a temple at Leontopolis after his father was removed and killed as high priest in around 170BC. Interestingly, Philo does not mention it but considers the one temple in Jerusalem to correspond to the one God.
When we think back to the Diaspora created by the Babylonian captivity, we remember than the exclusivist reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah had been relatively recent developments. In other words, we can easily imagine that many of those who went into the Diaspora at this time may or may not have seen the temple as the only location to sacrifice to YHWH. In fact, Yah apparently was given a consort at Elephantine during this period.
But it also makes sense that those Jews who remained Jews in the Diaspora--who kept their identity connection with Judea--would have "retrofitted" their identity to some extent around Torah and temple. An interesting footnote here is the fact that Philo does not consider Jeremiah to be as authoritative a Scripture as the Pentateuch, and he barely engages other parts of what we consider to be the Jewish Bible. I personally suspect this befits an Egyptian Judaism whose roots date to a time well before the other parts of the Jewish Bible became "canonical" and also given the history of the translation of the Bible into Greek.
At the same time, Philo's views of the temple as important politically and symbolically but not essential to atonement befit a Diaspora context as well.
Any thoughts?
First, I think it is plausible enough to think that those who lived in Judea were very loyal and perhaps even dominantly zealous toward the Jerusalem temple. Of course around 200BC there were also strong forces wanting to make Jerusalem a fully Hellenistic city. But these forces were soundly defeated in the Maccabean crisis. While the Hasmonean rulers were far from purists, elements of Jewish distinctiveness became political boundary markers, with the temple a symbol of Hasmonean power.
To be sure, there were elements in Judea that lost in this power struggle, the Teacher of Righteousness being the best known. The Essenes, particularly those that settled at Qumran, rejected the legitimacy of the tainted temple. They did not reject the notion of a temple per se, only the current temple with its administration. They ran their community as a temple substitute.
We can imagine that they had no better view of the Herodian temple, although at least it was sometimes administrated by "sons of Zadok" (Sadducees). They were apparently willing to join in with others in the battle against the Romans in AD66-73.
Secondly, I want to take a snapshot of the scene at the time of the Babylonian captivity, 586BC. The northern kingdom at this time is 150 years post Assyrian conquest. I'm assuming that means that it is pluralistic and syncretistic. Some people probably worship Yahweh among other gods. But the northern kingdom never had any sense of an exclusive temple, as even the ministries of Elijah and Elisha show. They know nothing of any need to offer sacrifice at the Samaria or Jerusalem temples.
I'm assuming that this situation continues until the Hasmonean period. The Samaritans build a temple to Zeus after the Greek conquest in 332BC. Not until Aristobulus and Alexander Janneus does Galilee seem to become attached to Judea (ca. 100BC). Richard Horsley has suggested that the forced conversion of the Galileans to circumcision and Jewish customs probably did not completely stick (Galilee).
It is tempting to see a correlation here between Jesus' less than stringent attention to the details of Jewish purity concerns and a Galilean context that was only a little more continuous with Judea than Samaria and Idumea. However, we must also take into account that Jesus was a descendent of David, a datum we can hardly question given Paul's affirmation of it in pre-Pauline material in Romans 1:2-3 (and given that the Roman church was likely related to the Jerusalem church, this implies it was their understanding as well).
As it relates to the temple, however, I can easily see some ambivalence, perhaps even resistance to the Jerusalem temple among the Galilean population. After all, it would have corresponded directly in their mind to their Hasmonean conquerers, who held the title of high priest at this time. Further, they were the descendants of the northern kingdom, that had never recognized the authority of the Jerusalem temple. We can imagine at the same time that Jesus, as a descendent of David, would have had a more favorable view of it.
In the end, the gospels seem to align Galilee more with Judea than Samaria, and this attitude seems multiply attested enough to consider historically credible. It would thus seem likely that many Galileans would have identified the Jerusalem temple as their sanctuary. Meanwhile it is understandable if those from Samaria were more resistant to it given that they had their own temple.
Finally, we have to consider the probable attitudes of Diaspora Jews toward the temple. We remember that the Jews in Egypt had a temple at Elephantine from the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. However, it apparently ceased to function long before the New Testament period.
Onias IV also founded a temple at Leontopolis after his father was removed and killed as high priest in around 170BC. Interestingly, Philo does not mention it but considers the one temple in Jerusalem to correspond to the one God.
When we think back to the Diaspora created by the Babylonian captivity, we remember than the exclusivist reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah had been relatively recent developments. In other words, we can easily imagine that many of those who went into the Diaspora at this time may or may not have seen the temple as the only location to sacrifice to YHWH. In fact, Yah apparently was given a consort at Elephantine during this period.
But it also makes sense that those Jews who remained Jews in the Diaspora--who kept their identity connection with Judea--would have "retrofitted" their identity to some extent around Torah and temple. An interesting footnote here is the fact that Philo does not consider Jeremiah to be as authoritative a Scripture as the Pentateuch, and he barely engages other parts of what we consider to be the Jewish Bible. I personally suspect this befits an Egyptian Judaism whose roots date to a time well before the other parts of the Jewish Bible became "canonical" and also given the history of the translation of the Bible into Greek.
At the same time, Philo's views of the temple as important politically and symbolically but not essential to atonement befit a Diaspora context as well.
Any thoughts?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Philo, Paul, and the Temple
I have wondered for some time the extent to which Paul's Diaspora roots played a significant role in his psyche and theology. For example, it is easy for me to see his Pharisee days as an attempt to overcompensate for his Diaspora origins. I can also see Hellenistic Christian Jews like Stephen and Philip as really getting under his craw because of their inattention, in fact blatant disregard for Judaismos, zeal for the Law Maccabean style.
I can also see this background building up to Paul's "conversion," so called. It is what he had resisted by going to Jerusalem to be a "Hebrew of Hebrews." He could see what Hellenistic Christian Jews were saying. God was the God of all the Jews, not just the "proper" ones in Jerusalem who spoke Aramaic and were better than everyone else. In fact, God was the God of the nations too--wasn't it all there in Isaiah 56, that God's house would be a house of prayer for all the nations?
Once he affirmed Jesus as Lord, the things that had gnawed at him snapped into place. The good news must be preached to all Jews and all the nations.
It is at this point that the relevance of Philo really kicks in. Philo valued his literal Jewish heritage. He had pride in the temple and gloats in the demise of Caligula, considering it appropriate to someone who messes with God's stuff. "It is not so easy to counterfeit the form of God" (Embassy)
Philo considers the Roman governor Petronius very wise for not following through with Caligula's order to put his statue in the temple precincts: the Jews "would willingly die not once but 10,000 times than see something done that was prohibited... Their diligence about the temple is more intense and distinctive than all of them" (Embassy 209, 212).
However, these sorts of comments are personal and political. Philo did not actually believe that the temple was necessary for atonement. The true temple of God is the universe, which the physical temple symbolizes. A human couldn't build a house to contain God (Cherubim 99). You could use the physical temple to indicate your thanks or to ask forgiveness. But it was not necessary for this (Special Laws 1.67).
What is important is the attitude of one's heart. A hundred bulls a day would not suffice for forgiveness if one's intent was wrong (Planting 108; cf. Moses 2.107-8). "But He receives those of blameless intent, even if they sacrifice nothing at all. God takes delight in altars without fire, where the virtues play the role of the choir" (Planting 108). Those whose minds are set on virtue are in a holy place even if their bodies are not (Allegorical Laws 1.62).
My suspicion is that while Diaspora Jews on the whole valued the Jerusalem temple, literal sacrifices may not have played a large role in their religious life. They sent their yearly offering, perhaps dreamed of one day making a pilgrimage to see it. The valued it and were deeply stirred by Caligula. But it is easy to see where they might not be zealous for it as a means of atonement. After all, the temple at the time was constructed by Herod the Great--not a hero of Jewish faith. And it had some associations with the Roman administration of Judea.
In short, there is nothing particularly startling about Paul's spiritualizing use of temple and cultic symbolism, and in itself it says nothing of certainty about his attitude toward the Jerusalem temple. He seems to assume the legitimacy of the temple's operation in 1 Corinthians 9:13. At least he doesn't question it. And 2 Thessalonians 2:4 seems to imply condemnation of a man of lawlessness setting himself up in the temple as God.
The greatest objection to Paul having a place for the temple in his theology is his teaching on justification by faith and the accompanying defeat of the power of Sin by the Spirit. What sins would there be for the temple to cleanse thereafter? We immediately see why the temple plays virtually no role in Paul's theology--and why one of his heirs, the author of Hebrews, could see Christ as the complete reality behind it.
We should also note that Paul probably shared Stephen's sense of the temple as off track. After all, he had apparently worked for the high priest. Then there are unintentional sins and the role of the temple in those intentional sins that one does commit, not to mention offerings of thanksgiving and praise.
So Philo's sense that the heart was what mattered, even in sacrifice, seems similar to Paul's sense that we have a spiritual worship and that the church offers its body as a living sacrifice. The temple was tangential to Paul's theology, but it did not clearly contradict it.
I can also see this background building up to Paul's "conversion," so called. It is what he had resisted by going to Jerusalem to be a "Hebrew of Hebrews." He could see what Hellenistic Christian Jews were saying. God was the God of all the Jews, not just the "proper" ones in Jerusalem who spoke Aramaic and were better than everyone else. In fact, God was the God of the nations too--wasn't it all there in Isaiah 56, that God's house would be a house of prayer for all the nations?
Once he affirmed Jesus as Lord, the things that had gnawed at him snapped into place. The good news must be preached to all Jews and all the nations.
It is at this point that the relevance of Philo really kicks in. Philo valued his literal Jewish heritage. He had pride in the temple and gloats in the demise of Caligula, considering it appropriate to someone who messes with God's stuff. "It is not so easy to counterfeit the form of God" (Embassy)
Philo considers the Roman governor Petronius very wise for not following through with Caligula's order to put his statue in the temple precincts: the Jews "would willingly die not once but 10,000 times than see something done that was prohibited... Their diligence about the temple is more intense and distinctive than all of them" (Embassy 209, 212).
However, these sorts of comments are personal and political. Philo did not actually believe that the temple was necessary for atonement. The true temple of God is the universe, which the physical temple symbolizes. A human couldn't build a house to contain God (Cherubim 99). You could use the physical temple to indicate your thanks or to ask forgiveness. But it was not necessary for this (Special Laws 1.67).
What is important is the attitude of one's heart. A hundred bulls a day would not suffice for forgiveness if one's intent was wrong (Planting 108; cf. Moses 2.107-8). "But He receives those of blameless intent, even if they sacrifice nothing at all. God takes delight in altars without fire, where the virtues play the role of the choir" (Planting 108). Those whose minds are set on virtue are in a holy place even if their bodies are not (Allegorical Laws 1.62).
My suspicion is that while Diaspora Jews on the whole valued the Jerusalem temple, literal sacrifices may not have played a large role in their religious life. They sent their yearly offering, perhaps dreamed of one day making a pilgrimage to see it. The valued it and were deeply stirred by Caligula. But it is easy to see where they might not be zealous for it as a means of atonement. After all, the temple at the time was constructed by Herod the Great--not a hero of Jewish faith. And it had some associations with the Roman administration of Judea.
In short, there is nothing particularly startling about Paul's spiritualizing use of temple and cultic symbolism, and in itself it says nothing of certainty about his attitude toward the Jerusalem temple. He seems to assume the legitimacy of the temple's operation in 1 Corinthians 9:13. At least he doesn't question it. And 2 Thessalonians 2:4 seems to imply condemnation of a man of lawlessness setting himself up in the temple as God.
The greatest objection to Paul having a place for the temple in his theology is his teaching on justification by faith and the accompanying defeat of the power of Sin by the Spirit. What sins would there be for the temple to cleanse thereafter? We immediately see why the temple plays virtually no role in Paul's theology--and why one of his heirs, the author of Hebrews, could see Christ as the complete reality behind it.
We should also note that Paul probably shared Stephen's sense of the temple as off track. After all, he had apparently worked for the high priest. Then there are unintentional sins and the role of the temple in those intentional sins that one does commit, not to mention offerings of thanksgiving and praise.
So Philo's sense that the heart was what mattered, even in sacrifice, seems similar to Paul's sense that we have a spiritual worship and that the church offers its body as a living sacrifice. The temple was tangential to Paul's theology, but it did not clearly contradict it.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
I've finally begun writing the second chapter of a book I'm working on. A lot of my book reviewing has been in preparation for writing. Usually I just write and modify as I go, but I've spent a lot more time preparing my mind this time.
This morning I was looking at 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, and with surprising results. This is the passage where Paul describes the Corinthian church as "temple of God."
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you? If someone harms the temple of God, God will harm this one. For the temple of God is holy--which you are.
Perhaps the most striking thing to me this morning is that Paul does not absolutely define the Corinthian assembly as the temple of God. He has just finished warning ministers of the gospel about how they "build" on the foundation of Jesus Christ. I think it more likely than not that Paul has a temple building in mind throughout.
But it is interesting when he gets to 3:16 that he does not use the definite article when he says "You are a temple of God." We can debate whether it is appropriate to use the word "a" or not, but clearly Paul's main point is the kind of building they are rather than to equate them with the temple in some absolute way.
It is then interesting in 3:17 that Paul does use the word the in relation to "the temple of God." It is interesting because we might easily hear him to be making statements about the Jerusalem temple in general--"If someone harms the temple of God, God will harm him. The temple of God is holy." Writing around 54, the image of Caligula trying to desecrate the temple some 15 years earlier would be a poignant example.
Then at the end of 3:17, Paul shifts back to the specific analogy to the Corinthian situation--"which you are." In other words, this is what God does to people who mess with his temple in general, and you are a temple too.
I intend to continue playing this hand out throughout Paul's writings. His rhetoric lines up very well with Hebrews on the issue of atonement. But are we reading Paul through the eyes of later Christian belief, especially when it seems clear that other Christians still had a place for the temple in their theology?
The real kicker is justification by faith to be sure. But the new perspective has also made it clear to me that the Reformation absolutized Paul's distinction between faith and works in ways Paul never intended.
We'll see if the thesis will hold up. It is at least interesting to me that my first stop not only did not soften my thesis, it strengthened it.
This morning I was looking at 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, and with surprising results. This is the passage where Paul describes the Corinthian church as "temple of God."
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you? If someone harms the temple of God, God will harm this one. For the temple of God is holy--which you are.
Perhaps the most striking thing to me this morning is that Paul does not absolutely define the Corinthian assembly as the temple of God. He has just finished warning ministers of the gospel about how they "build" on the foundation of Jesus Christ. I think it more likely than not that Paul has a temple building in mind throughout.
But it is interesting when he gets to 3:16 that he does not use the definite article when he says "You are a temple of God." We can debate whether it is appropriate to use the word "a" or not, but clearly Paul's main point is the kind of building they are rather than to equate them with the temple in some absolute way.
It is then interesting in 3:17 that Paul does use the word the in relation to "the temple of God." It is interesting because we might easily hear him to be making statements about the Jerusalem temple in general--"If someone harms the temple of God, God will harm him. The temple of God is holy." Writing around 54, the image of Caligula trying to desecrate the temple some 15 years earlier would be a poignant example.
Then at the end of 3:17, Paul shifts back to the specific analogy to the Corinthian situation--"which you are." In other words, this is what God does to people who mess with his temple in general, and you are a temple too.
I intend to continue playing this hand out throughout Paul's writings. His rhetoric lines up very well with Hebrews on the issue of atonement. But are we reading Paul through the eyes of later Christian belief, especially when it seems clear that other Christians still had a place for the temple in their theology?
The real kicker is justification by faith to be sure. But the new perspective has also made it clear to me that the Reformation absolutized Paul's distinction between faith and works in ways Paul never intended.
We'll see if the thesis will hold up. It is at least interesting to me that my first stop not only did not soften my thesis, it strengthened it.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Dunn's Partings 5: Temple without Hands
Chapter 5 of The Partings of the Ways is titled, "A Temple 'made without hands.'" This is the second half of the Jesus saying in Mark 14:58--"I will tear down this temple made with hands and after three days I will rebuild another made without hands." Dunn pointed out in the previous chapter that Matthew and Luke both omit the "hands" parts of the saying. Dunn suggested it might be because "Matthew often seems to omit Markan phrases which he knows to be Markan elaborations of the common tradition" (92).
This chapter now discusses ways in which the NT develops the temple "not made with hands" concept, that is, passages that indicate the perspective that the temple cultus is no longer necessary. This leads him to discuss Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter, Revelation, and John.
Paul
Paul only mentions the literal temple in Jerusalem once in the highly ambiguous 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. What Dunn finds is an implicit and thoroughgoing de-orientation from the temple cultus and reorientation around 1) Christ's death as (implicitly) the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, 2) the body of Christ as the temple of God, 3) believers as priests without need for priests as specially designated go betweens, 4) the obliteration of purity as a category, and 5) focus away from the earthly Jerusalem.
I want now to address Dunn's interpretation of Paul on this subject as a hostile witness. My position thus far has been that while Paul has all the elements of a replacement view of the temple, he nowhere clearly expresses that point of view. That a replacement view is a natural development of Paul but one Paul himself never makes explicit. Dunn believes that "the implication is unavoidable" that no more sacrifice would be necessary (103), although as far as I can tell he does not use the word replacement to compare Christ's death with the temple cultus in Paul.
The hidden element in this equation is what role Paul believed the cultus to have prior to Christ. Paul does not clearly have the cultus in mind when he speaks of the Law (unlike Hebrews). What I would suggest is that Paul and the Hellenists of Acts may have had a more spiritualized view of the temple to begin with (cf. Philo). Christ's death then was not so much a "replacement" of the cultus as a "sacrifice" with a higher reality with ultimate cosmic significance.
It is clear that Paul has appropriated cultic language around Christ and the assembly of believers in ways that parallel the temple cultus. The local body of Christ is the temple of God (not the universal church until Ephesians). Believers are to offer their body as a living sacrifice. Paul is a minister-priest who is presenting the Gentiles as an offering to God. Christ is a sacrifice to take away Sin and sins.
A Jew could have used most of this language without in any way denying the validity of the Jerusalem temple cultus. The Essenes used such language of their community without denying the validity of temple per se. They only opposed the current temple as defiled and corrupt. Philo could spiritualize the temple cultus while not having a problem with the literal one.
The real sticking point comes in Paul's sense of faith as the basis of justification and the Spirit as ending the power of Sin. If a person is deemed right with God on the basis of faith and the Spirit then empowers a person to put sin to death in his or her mortal body, then what further need was there for a temple cultus?
Some nuances. Faith for a Jew would have included participation in the cultus as an expression of that faith. Paul of course seems unconcerned about such things, but it is important to mention that faith was not the antithesis of action per se for Paul. This is a Reformation dichotomy.
The expression "faith of Christ" I believe at several points refers to the faithful obedience of Jesus to the point of death (e.g., Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16). This act of obedience, of offering himself as a living sacrifice, is the kind of "higher reality" that I'm suggesting Paul and the Hellenists may have seen as the real operative factor in atonement, even for those who participated in the cultus. The cultus would thus only be the surface act that represented the deeper basis for atonement (Philo says such things about literal sacrifices being unnecessary when the heart was right).
The cosmic scope of Christ's sacrifice does indeed destroy the power of Sin. In theory, therefore, no more sacrifices would be necessary. However, Paul never addresses key questions we might raise in relation to this schema. What, for example, about unintentional sins and wrongs done to others? What about the sin that, while undesirable, clearly attends to many Christians after they have received the Spirit? Did Paul understand Christ's sacrifice to cover these as well?
In short, we are forced to fill in these gaps ourselves. Certainly it would seem true that Paul had no need for a temple in his thought. But was it because he saw Christ's sacrifice as the end of all sacrifices? This Paul does not say and we can at least imagine some scenarios in which that might not have been the case.
Hebrews
Dunn wrote Partings before I studied with him from 1993-96. I was certainly more on the same page with him when I started than as I have ended up. He considers Hebrews to have decisively parted from Judaism on matters like the temple. I might just mention areas in which I have come to differ from him on Hebrews as Dunn discusses it in this chapter.
I agree with Dunn that Hebrews post-dates the destruction of the temple. I have come to disagree, however, on the audience being Jewish. I also think that Hebrews should be read in the context of an audience coping with the destruction of the temple and in that sense that it does not represent a departure so much as a coping strategy for the audience. While I think there are elements of Middle Platonic dualism in Hebrews I do not think that language of copy and pattern should be understood in that way.
However, I certainly agree that Hebrews views Christ's sacrifice as the definitive end of all sacrifices and thus, in effect, as a replacement for the temple cultus. Of course Hebrews does not believe that the temple cultus was ever truly effective in the removal of sins. Further, Hebrews does not clearly indicate that Christ's death atones for sins subsequent to one's initial cleansing.
1 Peter, Revelation, John
In each case Dunn also sees a parting as with Hebrews. 1 Peter considers all believers to be priests. Revelation sees no need for a temple in the new Jerusalem. John symbolically sees Jesus as a reality relating to sacrifice, purity, and festival that makes any literal such practices redundant. I largely agree with Dunn here, although I think it's important to note that all three of these writings date to after or around the time of the temple's destruction. As Dunn has pointed out several times, even rabbinic Judaism managed to survive without need for a temple.
Vintage Dunn
The most fun aspect of this chapter was picturing Dunn giving it at the Vatican. These are of course lectures he gave there. He apparently caused quite a stir by emphasizing how inappropriate it is to invoke Hebrews, of all books, as a support for distinct priests. With dogged Scottish honesty, Dunn unequivocally hammered in the class that the NT does not support any kind of special class of priests as go betweens to God. At one point he strongly rejects a particular Second Vatican statement to that end.
:-)
This chapter now discusses ways in which the NT develops the temple "not made with hands" concept, that is, passages that indicate the perspective that the temple cultus is no longer necessary. This leads him to discuss Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter, Revelation, and John.
Paul
Paul only mentions the literal temple in Jerusalem once in the highly ambiguous 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. What Dunn finds is an implicit and thoroughgoing de-orientation from the temple cultus and reorientation around 1) Christ's death as (implicitly) the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, 2) the body of Christ as the temple of God, 3) believers as priests without need for priests as specially designated go betweens, 4) the obliteration of purity as a category, and 5) focus away from the earthly Jerusalem.
I want now to address Dunn's interpretation of Paul on this subject as a hostile witness. My position thus far has been that while Paul has all the elements of a replacement view of the temple, he nowhere clearly expresses that point of view. That a replacement view is a natural development of Paul but one Paul himself never makes explicit. Dunn believes that "the implication is unavoidable" that no more sacrifice would be necessary (103), although as far as I can tell he does not use the word replacement to compare Christ's death with the temple cultus in Paul.
The hidden element in this equation is what role Paul believed the cultus to have prior to Christ. Paul does not clearly have the cultus in mind when he speaks of the Law (unlike Hebrews). What I would suggest is that Paul and the Hellenists of Acts may have had a more spiritualized view of the temple to begin with (cf. Philo). Christ's death then was not so much a "replacement" of the cultus as a "sacrifice" with a higher reality with ultimate cosmic significance.
It is clear that Paul has appropriated cultic language around Christ and the assembly of believers in ways that parallel the temple cultus. The local body of Christ is the temple of God (not the universal church until Ephesians). Believers are to offer their body as a living sacrifice. Paul is a minister-priest who is presenting the Gentiles as an offering to God. Christ is a sacrifice to take away Sin and sins.
A Jew could have used most of this language without in any way denying the validity of the Jerusalem temple cultus. The Essenes used such language of their community without denying the validity of temple per se. They only opposed the current temple as defiled and corrupt. Philo could spiritualize the temple cultus while not having a problem with the literal one.
The real sticking point comes in Paul's sense of faith as the basis of justification and the Spirit as ending the power of Sin. If a person is deemed right with God on the basis of faith and the Spirit then empowers a person to put sin to death in his or her mortal body, then what further need was there for a temple cultus?
Some nuances. Faith for a Jew would have included participation in the cultus as an expression of that faith. Paul of course seems unconcerned about such things, but it is important to mention that faith was not the antithesis of action per se for Paul. This is a Reformation dichotomy.
The expression "faith of Christ" I believe at several points refers to the faithful obedience of Jesus to the point of death (e.g., Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16). This act of obedience, of offering himself as a living sacrifice, is the kind of "higher reality" that I'm suggesting Paul and the Hellenists may have seen as the real operative factor in atonement, even for those who participated in the cultus. The cultus would thus only be the surface act that represented the deeper basis for atonement (Philo says such things about literal sacrifices being unnecessary when the heart was right).
The cosmic scope of Christ's sacrifice does indeed destroy the power of Sin. In theory, therefore, no more sacrifices would be necessary. However, Paul never addresses key questions we might raise in relation to this schema. What, for example, about unintentional sins and wrongs done to others? What about the sin that, while undesirable, clearly attends to many Christians after they have received the Spirit? Did Paul understand Christ's sacrifice to cover these as well?
In short, we are forced to fill in these gaps ourselves. Certainly it would seem true that Paul had no need for a temple in his thought. But was it because he saw Christ's sacrifice as the end of all sacrifices? This Paul does not say and we can at least imagine some scenarios in which that might not have been the case.
Hebrews
Dunn wrote Partings before I studied with him from 1993-96. I was certainly more on the same page with him when I started than as I have ended up. He considers Hebrews to have decisively parted from Judaism on matters like the temple. I might just mention areas in which I have come to differ from him on Hebrews as Dunn discusses it in this chapter.
I agree with Dunn that Hebrews post-dates the destruction of the temple. I have come to disagree, however, on the audience being Jewish. I also think that Hebrews should be read in the context of an audience coping with the destruction of the temple and in that sense that it does not represent a departure so much as a coping strategy for the audience. While I think there are elements of Middle Platonic dualism in Hebrews I do not think that language of copy and pattern should be understood in that way.
However, I certainly agree that Hebrews views Christ's sacrifice as the definitive end of all sacrifices and thus, in effect, as a replacement for the temple cultus. Of course Hebrews does not believe that the temple cultus was ever truly effective in the removal of sins. Further, Hebrews does not clearly indicate that Christ's death atones for sins subsequent to one's initial cleansing.
1 Peter, Revelation, John
In each case Dunn also sees a parting as with Hebrews. 1 Peter considers all believers to be priests. Revelation sees no need for a temple in the new Jerusalem. John symbolically sees Jesus as a reality relating to sacrifice, purity, and festival that makes any literal such practices redundant. I largely agree with Dunn here, although I think it's important to note that all three of these writings date to after or around the time of the temple's destruction. As Dunn has pointed out several times, even rabbinic Judaism managed to survive without need for a temple.
Vintage Dunn
The most fun aspect of this chapter was picturing Dunn giving it at the Vatican. These are of course lectures he gave there. He apparently caused quite a stir by emphasizing how inappropriate it is to invoke Hebrews, of all books, as a support for distinct priests. With dogged Scottish honesty, Dunn unequivocally hammered in the class that the NT does not support any kind of special class of priests as go betweens to God. At one point he strongly rejects a particular Second Vatican statement to that end.
:-)
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Dunn's Partings 4: A Temple Made with Hands
On to chapter 4 of J. D. G. Dunn's The Partings of the Ways. This title has to do with Stephen's apparent critique of the temple in Acts 7 and whether it constitutes a partitioning (to revise Dunn's language) of the ways.
Dunn's conclusion is that "the Stephen episode marks the beginning of a clear parting of the ways between Christian and Jew, as also probably to some extent between 'Hebrew' Christian and 'Hellenist' Christian - at all events the first rending of a major seam in a Judaism still best designated 'second Temple Judaism'" (94-95, italics his).
I think Dunn might use Boyarin's language if he were writing this chapter today--it is more a partitioning than a parting, if Dunn's interpretations are correct. I don't have the first edition here at home, but I wonder if the final paragraph of p. 99 is a new addition (I'll check): "the more we see a split opening up between 'Judaism' and 'Christianity' at this point, the more we must recognize that it was also a split within the new movement, between (the majority of?) Jewish Christians and others.
He also notes that "the Judaism which emerged from the first century was also able to reconstitute itself without the resource of the Temple and its cult" (99).
OK. So those are Dunn's conclusions from this chapter. What is the argument?
4.1 Earliest Followers
The first part of the chapter documents what in my mind must certainly have been the case. The core of Jerusalem Christianity participated fully in the life of the temple. Dunn makes a number of observations to support this conclusion:
1. They remain in Jerusalem (which in his mind creates serious historical doubts about the present form of the Great Commission in Matthew... he suggests the words of Matthew here "reflect a later perception of the missionary task," 77). They saw the temple as the focal point of the eschatological climax of God's purpose for Israel.
2. They attended the temple and participated in the cult. He mentions Matthew 5:23-24 again and James admonition to Paul to participate in a temple ritual in Acts 21:24. The historicity of these data need not be established since they certainly imply that some Christians had these views, or else they would not have been put in these texts.
3. Absence of a theology of the cross in the sermons of Acts.
4. Earliest Christianity differed from Qumran as much as it was alike, so need not have the same theology of the temple.
5. However, references to Peter, James, and John as pillars is temple like imagery. It is possible that the early community did see itself as the eschatological temple of God. Dunn does not believe that the early church, however, saw this fact to abrogate use of the temple, since they continued to use it.
4.2ff The Hellenists
Dunn sees the Greek-speaking Jewish community in Jerusalem quite differently from the core, Aramaic-speaking Jerusalem believers. In particular, he believes Stephen's attitude toward the temple to be what gets him killed and what becomes the core issue in the persecution of the Hellenistic believers of Acts 8. We should be careful of course not to assume that all Greek-speaking believers agreed with Stephen.
Dunn believes that Luke has drawn Stephen's sermon from a source of some kind, differing as it does in theological perspective from the bulk of Acts. Dunn follows others in noting an underlying sense of geographical displacement from Judea in the narrative presentation of Israel's history. Abraham receives his call in Mesopotamia. Jacob is buried in Shechem, Moses spends all his life outside the promised land. Stephen jumps straight from the idolatry of the calf to worship of the host of heaven, which Jews considered the basis of the exile. In short, the time of Israel in Judea is bracketed within two episodes of apostacy.
Crucial for Dunn is not just Stephen's jump to "God does not dwell in buildings made with hands" from the mention of Solomon's temple. Most crucial is the phrase "made with hands" itself, for this term is used of the idolatrous idols mentioned earlier in the sermon. To use this phrase of the temple would have been massively divisive!
4.5f Significance
Dunn sees Stephen's statements here as the beginning of a breach between Christianity and Judaism over the temple. He suggests that "it was with Stephen and the Hellenists that a theology of Jesus' death as a sacrifice which ends all sacrifice first emerged" (94). It's important to reiterate that this is only one stream within a movement and that Stephen would not have seen it as a breach too. "Stephen speaks still as a Jew eager to live within the terms actually laid down in the scriptures to his people" (93).
Dunn makes some observations about the rest of Acts 8-12 that he thinks implies the same. Philip goes to Samaria, which was not least divided with Judea over the validity of the temple. The Ethiopian eunuch would not be allowed in the temple. Paul's persecution came under the authority of the high priest of the temple. The Peter/Cornelius incident not least involves issues of purity.
4.6 Evaluation
There are some great observations in this chapter and well worth considering. Of course they go against one of my signature ideas, alluded to in Cosmology and Eschatology of Hebrews and the basis of a book proposal I have in play. My argument is that the idea of Christ's death as a sacrifice does not in itself imply the end of the temple cultus. This idea, I argue, was a realization that largely developed after the destruction of the temple, although the temple was already well marginalized within Pauline Christianity.
One doesn't want to hold onto an idea simply because you have already published a different position (although we suspect this happens all the time :-). My argument has been, however, that William Manson had the relationship between Hebrews and Acts 7 reversed. Hebrews may very well stand in the tradition of Hellenists like Stephen in Acts 7, no problem there. But I have suggested that the portrait of Stephen in Acts 7 has also been influenced by individuals like the author of Hebrews.
In other words, Luke likens Stephen to contemporaries of his like the author of Hebrews, making Stephen sound even more radical for his time than he was. I will, however, reflect more on the issue.
Dunn's conclusion is that "the Stephen episode marks the beginning of a clear parting of the ways between Christian and Jew, as also probably to some extent between 'Hebrew' Christian and 'Hellenist' Christian - at all events the first rending of a major seam in a Judaism still best designated 'second Temple Judaism'" (94-95, italics his).
I think Dunn might use Boyarin's language if he were writing this chapter today--it is more a partitioning than a parting, if Dunn's interpretations are correct. I don't have the first edition here at home, but I wonder if the final paragraph of p. 99 is a new addition (I'll check): "the more we see a split opening up between 'Judaism' and 'Christianity' at this point, the more we must recognize that it was also a split within the new movement, between (the majority of?) Jewish Christians and others.
He also notes that "the Judaism which emerged from the first century was also able to reconstitute itself without the resource of the Temple and its cult" (99).
OK. So those are Dunn's conclusions from this chapter. What is the argument?
4.1 Earliest Followers
The first part of the chapter documents what in my mind must certainly have been the case. The core of Jerusalem Christianity participated fully in the life of the temple. Dunn makes a number of observations to support this conclusion:
1. They remain in Jerusalem (which in his mind creates serious historical doubts about the present form of the Great Commission in Matthew... he suggests the words of Matthew here "reflect a later perception of the missionary task," 77). They saw the temple as the focal point of the eschatological climax of God's purpose for Israel.
2. They attended the temple and participated in the cult. He mentions Matthew 5:23-24 again and James admonition to Paul to participate in a temple ritual in Acts 21:24. The historicity of these data need not be established since they certainly imply that some Christians had these views, or else they would not have been put in these texts.
3. Absence of a theology of the cross in the sermons of Acts.
4. Earliest Christianity differed from Qumran as much as it was alike, so need not have the same theology of the temple.
5. However, references to Peter, James, and John as pillars is temple like imagery. It is possible that the early community did see itself as the eschatological temple of God. Dunn does not believe that the early church, however, saw this fact to abrogate use of the temple, since they continued to use it.
4.2ff The Hellenists
Dunn sees the Greek-speaking Jewish community in Jerusalem quite differently from the core, Aramaic-speaking Jerusalem believers. In particular, he believes Stephen's attitude toward the temple to be what gets him killed and what becomes the core issue in the persecution of the Hellenistic believers of Acts 8. We should be careful of course not to assume that all Greek-speaking believers agreed with Stephen.
Dunn believes that Luke has drawn Stephen's sermon from a source of some kind, differing as it does in theological perspective from the bulk of Acts. Dunn follows others in noting an underlying sense of geographical displacement from Judea in the narrative presentation of Israel's history. Abraham receives his call in Mesopotamia. Jacob is buried in Shechem, Moses spends all his life outside the promised land. Stephen jumps straight from the idolatry of the calf to worship of the host of heaven, which Jews considered the basis of the exile. In short, the time of Israel in Judea is bracketed within two episodes of apostacy.
Crucial for Dunn is not just Stephen's jump to "God does not dwell in buildings made with hands" from the mention of Solomon's temple. Most crucial is the phrase "made with hands" itself, for this term is used of the idolatrous idols mentioned earlier in the sermon. To use this phrase of the temple would have been massively divisive!
4.5f Significance
Dunn sees Stephen's statements here as the beginning of a breach between Christianity and Judaism over the temple. He suggests that "it was with Stephen and the Hellenists that a theology of Jesus' death as a sacrifice which ends all sacrifice first emerged" (94). It's important to reiterate that this is only one stream within a movement and that Stephen would not have seen it as a breach too. "Stephen speaks still as a Jew eager to live within the terms actually laid down in the scriptures to his people" (93).
Dunn makes some observations about the rest of Acts 8-12 that he thinks implies the same. Philip goes to Samaria, which was not least divided with Judea over the validity of the temple. The Ethiopian eunuch would not be allowed in the temple. Paul's persecution came under the authority of the high priest of the temple. The Peter/Cornelius incident not least involves issues of purity.
4.6 Evaluation
There are some great observations in this chapter and well worth considering. Of course they go against one of my signature ideas, alluded to in Cosmology and Eschatology of Hebrews and the basis of a book proposal I have in play. My argument is that the idea of Christ's death as a sacrifice does not in itself imply the end of the temple cultus. This idea, I argue, was a realization that largely developed after the destruction of the temple, although the temple was already well marginalized within Pauline Christianity.
One doesn't want to hold onto an idea simply because you have already published a different position (although we suspect this happens all the time :-). My argument has been, however, that William Manson had the relationship between Hebrews and Acts 7 reversed. Hebrews may very well stand in the tradition of Hellenists like Stephen in Acts 7, no problem there. But I have suggested that the portrait of Stephen in Acts 7 has also been influenced by individuals like the author of Hebrews.
In other words, Luke likens Stephen to contemporaries of his like the author of Hebrews, making Stephen sound even more radical for his time than he was. I will, however, reflect more on the issue.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Dunn's Partings 3: Jesus and the Temple
Chapter 3 of James D. G. Dunn's, The Partings of the Ways, asks whether Jesus himself shows any sign of "parting" from the limits of the Judaism of his day on the matter of the temple (Dunn's fourth pillar). Dunn rightly concludes, "Jesus appears on this subject to stand well within the diversity of second Temple Judaism" (74).
As usual, Dunn's writing is clear and logical. First, he brings together evidence of a positive attitude toward the temple in the gospels. He suggests that comments like the Q saying "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem..." in Matt. 23:37-39/Luke 13:34-35 reinforce John's sense that Jesus attended Jerusalem more regularly than the Synoptic gospels let on.
The statement in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:23-24) about leaving your gift on the altar and being reconciled to your alienated brother presupposes continued use of the temple cult. Of course Dunn does not defend the historicity of these sayings, which some might challenge.
However, in the second section Dunn discusses how Jesus' interaction with Jewish purity issues constituted an implicit challenge to the religious system centered in the temple. Dunn spends a little time arguing that "purity was a matter of wide concern within the Judaism of Jesus' time" (53), including short discussions of priests, Pharisees, and Essenes.
Then he shows how Jesus' engagement with lepers, the woman with the hemorrhage, etc. He concludes that a consistent picture emerges "of a Jesus who did not share the concerns or degree of concern regarding purity of many (most?) of the Pharisees, and who indeed sat loose to, disregarded or discounted some at least of the outworkings of the purity legislation as it governed social contact (people with skin diseases, corpse defilement, discharge of blood)" (58).
In the third section of the chapter, Dunn asks whether Jesus offering forgiveness to people challenged the Judaism of his day. He first clarifies that Judaism "was and is a religion of repentance and atonement," a "religion of forgiveness" (59). He discusses Mark 2:5-7, 10 where Jesus gets into trouble for forgiving someone's sins. Dunn points out that the priests regularly pronounced people's sins forgiven, so the simplistic reading usually given of this passage is wide of the mark.
Dunn suggests that the most logical explanation for the protest is "that he pronounced the man's sins forgiven outside the cult and without any reference (even by implication) to the cult" (61). In other words, Jesus' actions once again stood somewhat in tension with the temple cult. Jesus takes on himself the task of pronouncing priestly absolution without the authoriztaion of the temple and without reference to the cult (62).
In the fourth section of the chapter, Dunn discusses Jesus' action in the temple. Is it a) a revolutionary act, b) a symbol of the end of the sacrificial system, c) a symbol of the destruction of the temple, d) a cleansing of the temple? Dunn ends up opting for the final option. A revolutionary act would have brought swift Roman action. He thinks b and c require reading too much into the act when prophetic actions are usually fairly clear. He acknowledges that Mark seems to interpret Jesus' act according to c.
He opts for d, the cleansing of the temple. The act was "a symbolical representation of the 'cleansing' of the temple which would be necessary if it was to serve its intended eschatological function" (64). I personally lean toward it being a statement against the injustice of the leaders of Israel and the temple establishment.
Dunn next discusses Jesus word about destroying the temple and building it back up after three days (Mark 14:58). In some texts this is said to be false testimony but in John Jesus says something like it. It seems like Jesus did say something about the temple being destroyed and rebuilt. Dunn interprets the statement against the backdrop of 2 Samuel 7 and expectation that a son of David would build the temple. To him it "seems to set Jesus firmly within the expectation of Jewish apocalypticism" (67).
Lots of ifs in my mind for this section.
Next Dunn asks what killed Jesus. He notes the almost complete absence of Pharisees from the passion stories. The crucial issue, he argues was the temple and not the law (68). He argues that it was Jesus' challenge to the temple--at least as perceived by leading members of the Sanhedrin--that was the central issue (69). The principal movers were the high priestly faction (70).
Finally, Dunn asks whether Jesus saw his death as a sacrifice, as the end of all sacrifices. Dunn argues that Jesus did in fact anticipate his death, which not all scholars accept. He goes through several models that Jesus might have conceptualized his death by: a) the suffering of the righteous, b) a martyr's death, c) sufferer of end time tribulation, d) a covenant sacrifice. Whichever one of these is more correct, Dunn argues, none of them imply an end to the sacrificial system (73).
So Dunn concludes the chapter as I mentioned at the beginning. Nothing Jesus says or does would indicate that he stood outside the parameters of the diversity of Judaism in relation to the temple. It is important to realize that groups like the Essenes were highlly critical of the temple. The Essenes did not participate in the temple because they believed it was defiled. So they ran their community as if it were a temple community.
The fact that the earliest Christians seem to have participated in the temple seems to indicate that Jesus did not make clear to them that the temple was no longer needed.
As usual, Dunn's writing is clear and logical. First, he brings together evidence of a positive attitude toward the temple in the gospels. He suggests that comments like the Q saying "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem..." in Matt. 23:37-39/Luke 13:34-35 reinforce John's sense that Jesus attended Jerusalem more regularly than the Synoptic gospels let on.
The statement in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:23-24) about leaving your gift on the altar and being reconciled to your alienated brother presupposes continued use of the temple cult. Of course Dunn does not defend the historicity of these sayings, which some might challenge.
However, in the second section Dunn discusses how Jesus' interaction with Jewish purity issues constituted an implicit challenge to the religious system centered in the temple. Dunn spends a little time arguing that "purity was a matter of wide concern within the Judaism of Jesus' time" (53), including short discussions of priests, Pharisees, and Essenes.
Then he shows how Jesus' engagement with lepers, the woman with the hemorrhage, etc. He concludes that a consistent picture emerges "of a Jesus who did not share the concerns or degree of concern regarding purity of many (most?) of the Pharisees, and who indeed sat loose to, disregarded or discounted some at least of the outworkings of the purity legislation as it governed social contact (people with skin diseases, corpse defilement, discharge of blood)" (58).
In the third section of the chapter, Dunn asks whether Jesus offering forgiveness to people challenged the Judaism of his day. He first clarifies that Judaism "was and is a religion of repentance and atonement," a "religion of forgiveness" (59). He discusses Mark 2:5-7, 10 where Jesus gets into trouble for forgiving someone's sins. Dunn points out that the priests regularly pronounced people's sins forgiven, so the simplistic reading usually given of this passage is wide of the mark.
Dunn suggests that the most logical explanation for the protest is "that he pronounced the man's sins forgiven outside the cult and without any reference (even by implication) to the cult" (61). In other words, Jesus' actions once again stood somewhat in tension with the temple cult. Jesus takes on himself the task of pronouncing priestly absolution without the authoriztaion of the temple and without reference to the cult (62).
In the fourth section of the chapter, Dunn discusses Jesus' action in the temple. Is it a) a revolutionary act, b) a symbol of the end of the sacrificial system, c) a symbol of the destruction of the temple, d) a cleansing of the temple? Dunn ends up opting for the final option. A revolutionary act would have brought swift Roman action. He thinks b and c require reading too much into the act when prophetic actions are usually fairly clear. He acknowledges that Mark seems to interpret Jesus' act according to c.
He opts for d, the cleansing of the temple. The act was "a symbolical representation of the 'cleansing' of the temple which would be necessary if it was to serve its intended eschatological function" (64). I personally lean toward it being a statement against the injustice of the leaders of Israel and the temple establishment.
Dunn next discusses Jesus word about destroying the temple and building it back up after three days (Mark 14:58). In some texts this is said to be false testimony but in John Jesus says something like it. It seems like Jesus did say something about the temple being destroyed and rebuilt. Dunn interprets the statement against the backdrop of 2 Samuel 7 and expectation that a son of David would build the temple. To him it "seems to set Jesus firmly within the expectation of Jewish apocalypticism" (67).
Lots of ifs in my mind for this section.
Next Dunn asks what killed Jesus. He notes the almost complete absence of Pharisees from the passion stories. The crucial issue, he argues was the temple and not the law (68). He argues that it was Jesus' challenge to the temple--at least as perceived by leading members of the Sanhedrin--that was the central issue (69). The principal movers were the high priestly faction (70).
Finally, Dunn asks whether Jesus saw his death as a sacrifice, as the end of all sacrifices. Dunn argues that Jesus did in fact anticipate his death, which not all scholars accept. He goes through several models that Jesus might have conceptualized his death by: a) the suffering of the righteous, b) a martyr's death, c) sufferer of end time tribulation, d) a covenant sacrifice. Whichever one of these is more correct, Dunn argues, none of them imply an end to the sacrificial system (73).
So Dunn concludes the chapter as I mentioned at the beginning. Nothing Jesus says or does would indicate that he stood outside the parameters of the diversity of Judaism in relation to the temple. It is important to realize that groups like the Essenes were highlly critical of the temple. The Essenes did not participate in the temple because they believed it was defiled. So they ran their community as if it were a temple community.
The fact that the earliest Christians seem to have participated in the temple seems to indicate that Jesus did not make clear to them that the temple was no longer needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
